http://news.aol.com/story/_a/mentally-r ... 3509990001
According to a girl in my college. This pair did not kill themselves, they fought for freedom and ascended to heaven.
Maybe she's right. What do you think?
Freedom Fighters Continue to Liberate Repressed
Firstly I don't think it's clear they killed themselves at all. The report I read said the bombs were detonated remotely. Did they even know what was going to happen, or were their lives exploited by people who think their cause justifies killing innocent people? It's hard to imagine that it was just coincidence that they were both mentally retarded and that they both were completely aware of what was going on and the consequences of their actions.
They obviously didn't ascend to an imaginary place like heaven, but for people who truely believe that, we can see just how dangerous religion is, not just for us, but for the people infected with it as well. Religion puts the survival of itself ahead of the survival of its host.
Finally, obviously you can fight for "freedom" in any way you want, and killing scores of innocent people does not lessen a claim to be fighting for freedom. Some people obviously react against claiming that these people are freedom fighters, because of the obvious serious morally disagreement with actions such as this one, and the romantic connotations that being a freedom fighter is good.
Nevertheless, I think it's important to ask what kind of freedom they are fighting for? Are they fighting to live in a democratic and equal society where men and women all have a say in our their lives are run and are free to pursue happiness in whatever they want (obviously within the constraints of societies values)? Or, and given the idea that they didn't die, but ascended to heaven for killing over 60 people, and the fact that they're both mentally retarded and had bombs strapped to them and remotely detonated, are they fighting to bring about a theocratic state where people are ruled by the interpretations of 2 books that are 1000 years old which dictate what people eat, when they pray, what they where, who they can be seen with, and indeed every aspect of their life?
If they are fighting for the latter, are they really fighting for "freedom" or are they fighting for the right to oppress all the people in Iraq, regardless of what their views on religion, or indeed morality are?
They obviously didn't ascend to an imaginary place like heaven, but for people who truely believe that, we can see just how dangerous religion is, not just for us, but for the people infected with it as well. Religion puts the survival of itself ahead of the survival of its host.
Finally, obviously you can fight for "freedom" in any way you want, and killing scores of innocent people does not lessen a claim to be fighting for freedom. Some people obviously react against claiming that these people are freedom fighters, because of the obvious serious morally disagreement with actions such as this one, and the romantic connotations that being a freedom fighter is good.
Nevertheless, I think it's important to ask what kind of freedom they are fighting for? Are they fighting to live in a democratic and equal society where men and women all have a say in our their lives are run and are free to pursue happiness in whatever they want (obviously within the constraints of societies values)? Or, and given the idea that they didn't die, but ascended to heaven for killing over 60 people, and the fact that they're both mentally retarded and had bombs strapped to them and remotely detonated, are they fighting to bring about a theocratic state where people are ruled by the interpretations of 2 books that are 1000 years old which dictate what people eat, when they pray, what they where, who they can be seen with, and indeed every aspect of their life?
If they are fighting for the latter, are they really fighting for "freedom" or are they fighting for the right to oppress all the people in Iraq, regardless of what their views on religion, or indeed morality are?
-
Zac Miley
- Post Master General
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: 04 Jun 2006 12:11
- Location: Kansas City, MO
- Contact:
Jeremy said what I was thinking but a lot more eloquently. As usual.
He spelled "wear" wrong, though so I completey disagree now.
(yes I saw your second post)
He spelled "wear" wrong, though so I completey disagree now.
(yes I saw your second post)
Jay (8:06:01 PM): Bu-bu-buu-buug--Looks up, and the feeling goes away like a sneeze-bu-buuuh-BULLLSHITTT
Jay (8:06:14 PM): *wipes bellybutton*
Jay (8:06:14 PM): *wipes bellybutton*
Because they are occupied they don't know any better. If they hadn't been repressed and forced into military occupation-they wouldn't have to resort to this. It's not their fault they don't know any better and they are practically forced into doing these acts fighting for freedom. America needs to pull out just like Obama wants to!Jeremy wrote:Nevertheless, I think it's important to ask what kind of freedom they are fighting for? Are they fighting to live in a democratic and equal society where men and women all have a say in our their lives are run and are free to pursue happiness in whatever they want (obviously within the constraints of societies values)? Or, and given the idea that they didn't die, but ascended to heaven for killing over 60 people, and the fact that they're both mentally retarded and had bombs strapped to them and remotely detonated, are they fighting to bring about a theocratic state where people are ruled by the interpretations of 2 books that are 1000 years old which dictate what people eat, when they pray, what they where, who they can be seen with, and indeed every aspect of their life?
If they are fighting for the latter, are they really fighting for "freedom" or are they fighting for the right to oppress all the people in Iraq, regardless of what their views on religion, or indeed morality are?
I'm not sure what your statement is in response to.
There are oppressed people all around the world. Many of them are just as oppressed as the Iraqi people, and yet don't choose to strap explosives to mentally retarded women and then blow them, along with more than 90 people.
Yes, we can understand why they followed through with those actions, and the main reason is that they want to see a fully Islamic state, ruled by Islamic law, and they can't have that while other countries are trying to create a peaceful democracy that abides by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I'm sure you're aware that I was a strong and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq. I think we can all see that it was a badly organised mistake. However what would be the consequences of the US pulling out of Iraq? The Shia, Sunni and Kurds would all just get along fine?
There's a very old saying about Islam (as in hundreds of years old). It's interesting when you look at the world today. The saying is; "Islam has bloody borders."
There are oppressed people all around the world. Many of them are just as oppressed as the Iraqi people, and yet don't choose to strap explosives to mentally retarded women and then blow them, along with more than 90 people.
Yes, we can understand why they followed through with those actions, and the main reason is that they want to see a fully Islamic state, ruled by Islamic law, and they can't have that while other countries are trying to create a peaceful democracy that abides by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I'm sure you're aware that I was a strong and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq. I think we can all see that it was a badly organised mistake. However what would be the consequences of the US pulling out of Iraq? The Shia, Sunni and Kurds would all just get along fine?
There's a very old saying about Islam (as in hundreds of years old). It's interesting when you look at the world today. The saying is; "Islam has bloody borders."
Yeah exactly. If they were "practically forced into doing these acts" then we'd see other oppressed groups around the world committing similar atrocities. Yet we do not. Suicide bombings specifically targeting civilians is an action where we can guess the religion of the people involved very easily and with an exceptionally high accuracy. To blame the "oppressors" is to miss one side of the story. It's not just oppression, but the beliefs of the people being oppressed that equally lead to such actions.