Terrorist Killers vs. U.S./Good Guy Killers
WhyTheyHateUs.net///OK2Kill.com
Obviously, the U.S. has a belief system which says its own killing of Arabs was done in a legitimate manner (e.g., in accordance with proper rules of warfare), while the killing inflicted upon it and Israel by Arabs/Muslims has been an illegitimate form of killing ("terrorism").
According to the West, it's OK to kill civilians in warfare, provided that the target is military and reasonable effort is made to avoid killing civilians. By this logic, even if it is known in advance by the killers that so many civilians will be killed, it is OK, provided that it is necessary in order to win the battle.
Nevertheless, "terrorist" killing is unethical and criminal and murder. What is the essential difference between the two? Why is the one form of killing permissible, but the other is murder?
Is it that the victims of the terrorist attack are caught totally off guard? that they have no expectation of an attack?
But what if the victims are warned by the attacker years in advance? Osama bin Laden declared war on U.S. civilians many years ago. He declared them all guilty and deserving to die in his Holy War.
Obviously he did not warn of the exact location and date and time. He himself did not know whether this particular attack would succeed. Many other of his attacks were foiled. He kept trying until he finally scored a hit.
America's current enemy could not possibly win a war against it by fighting "fair." If the militant Muslims would gather all their weapons and meet the U.S. military on a conventional battlefield, guess what would happen. The militant Muslims would all be slaughtered in a short space of time.
How are they supposed to fight us? by a method which ensures their quick defeat?
"Unlike the terrorists, we hold life sacred."
But again, "we" have killed far more than the terrorists have killed. If the number killed in Viet Nam and other places is factored in, the ratio of those killed by the U.S. to those killed by terrorists is probably several hundred to one.
By most accounts, the sanctions against Iraq have cost more than a million Iraqi lives. Even if you assume that Sadam Hussein is to blame for most of this loss, still the sanctions per se have killed easily 100,000, probably much more.
Is a Muslim/Arab life worth only a tenth of an American life? a hundredth?
Perhaps it could be argued that Iraqis must be punished because of their leader. If that is so, then let President Bush or some other American leader declare that this is the goal of the sanctions. I.e., the Iraqis are guilty because they don't get rid of this guy and so they must be punished.
But if they are not "guilty" and deserving to be killed, then how is a policy which kills them essentially different than a terrorist attack aimed at innocent civilians?
The claim that one form of killing is OK because it conforms to certain rules of etiquette, while another form is not OK, becomes less and less credible as the numbers killed grow higher and higher.
Perhaps it could be argued that an Iraqi life is clearly inferior to that of a Westerner, because obviously Sadam Hussein, their chosen leader, kills them at whim, and so they must be of much less value than American lives.
But if that is the logic, then let us say so: An Arab/Muslim life is inferior and therefore expendable, and a thousand killed here, or ten thousand there, is of no consequence. Let the policy-makers be honest and say this forthrightly.
And, of course, let us not be surprised at reports of Arabs celebrating in the streets when they heard of a mere 6,000 Americans dying in New York. Why should they value our lives if we don't value theirs?
Or do we expect them to agree with us that their lives are inferior to ours?
Another difference might be that the terrorists are outlaws or vigilantes, and that killing is unethical if it is done outside the law or if it is done by private groups.
In this sense, law should include the notion of international law, so that killing sanctioned by the U.N. or the World Court would be acceptable, while that which is condemned by such bodies is terrorist and criminal.
Without the inclusion of international law, it is much more difficult to define what is "law" and what is not. What is a legitimate "nation" which can enact laws and perform military actions lawfully?
With an international body like the U.N., we can define a legitimate "state" or "nation" as any which is officially recognized by the U.N.
Probably there is some definition of "terrorism" here which would be satisfactory. And which identifies which form of killing is permissible and which is not. But at the gut level, most Americans do not believe this is the essential difference between legitimate killing and the terrorist form of killing.
Most Americans imagine that the killing their government does is approved by God, because America is God's favorite country on the planet, while the killing done by the "terrorists" is "cowardly" and is of the Devil.
The U.S./Israel can logically justify their killing of Muslims/Iraqis/ Palestinians. But part of the logic must include the premise that American/ Israeli lives have more value than Mideast Muslim lives.
Do you have a response to the above? Click here.
Return to: OK2Kill.com
Return to: WhyTheyHateUs.net