NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone here see the inheriant flaw in calling any kind of suicide mayterdom? Basicly being willing to die for your beliefs means (to me at least, if this doesnt make sense to other people please explain) if the occation arrises then you are prepared to take that step and die to somehow defend your beliefs or die because of them. It doesnt mean you intentionally go and kill yourself for your beliefs. To put it another way, if you say you are prepared to die to save your family, this doesnt mean you then hire hitmen to attack them and then set up the situation where you can take the bullet/grenade/RPG etc for them. Thats just very wrong. In the Lion King when Simba goes to the place where all the Hyeanas are and his dad comes and rescues him, Simba defends himself by saying that he was trying to be brave like his dad. His dad then explains that being brave does not mean looking for trouble, but being prepared to deal with it when it arrises. Can people understand what I am getting at or am I wildly off the mark?

Does anyone here see the inheriant flaw in calling any kind of suicide mayterdom? Basicly being willing to die for your beliefs means (to me at least, if this doesnt make sense to other people please explain) if the occation arrises then you are prepared to take that step and die to somehow defend your beliefs or die because of them. It doesnt mean you intentionally go and kill yourself for your beliefs. To put it another way, if you say you are prepared to die to save your family, this doesnt mean you then hire hitmen to attack them and then set up the situation where you can take the bullet/grenade/RPG etc for them. Thats just very wrong. In the Lion King when Simba goes to the place where all the Hyeanas are and his dad comes and rescues him, Simba defends himself by saying that he was trying to be brave like his dad. His dad then explains that being brave does not mean looking for trouble, but being prepared to deal with it when it arrises. Can people understand what I am getting at or am I wildly off the mark?

Oh no, you're right on the mark on this one. It is noble to die for one's beliefs, but to willingly go out and look to die for them is called fanaticism. It's strange too, becuase most high religions condemn wasting a life that was granted to you by God, and therefore, is sacred and to waste it is blasphemy.... it's all in the interpretation of the religion.

Dying for your believes is one thing, quite an admirable thing in fact, but this new trend of suicide bombing is quite base really, i think its mainly reserved to lost or minor causes, that cant mount any other effective resistance. (reading che's book and he says its a no-no)

But would we be criticizing it if it was the story of a western solider taking out an Iraqi tank or something, I think not. These days sadly its all about perception.

I like the lion kingism as well, class!

While I don't endorse suicide bombings by any stretch of the imagination (I prefer to refer to them as homicide bombings), I do sort of understand where they're coming from. They believe that giving their life promotes their cause, and thus is a noble sacrifice. Instead of Simba in the Lion King, think of the Greeks at Thermopylae. They fought a suicidal battle to hold the Turks until a larger army could be assembled. The time they bought allowed the Greeks to repel the Turks at a later date.

One problem: I think that most suicide bombers think of what they're doing as necessary to protect the future. It's sort of a pre-emptive martyrdom. In cases where that's not even the case and its just suicide in a show of devotion (kool aid), however, that is definitely not martyrdom by any stretch.

Instead of Simba in the Lion King, think of the Greeks at Thermopylae. They fought a suicidal battle to hold the Turks until a larger army could be assembled. The time they bought allowed the Greeks to repel the Turks at a later date.

Thats still a battle against an opponent, not a battle agianst themselves. The Greeks didnt say "right there's only 300 or so of us so lets go looking for a massively supirior force to be beaten by". They were holding a position from an enemy. They didnt all kill themselves when they first got the chance. The Greeks did not intentionally create this hopeless situation.

Does anyone here see the inheriant flaw in calling any kind of suicide mayterdom? Basicly being willing to die for your beliefs means (to me at least, if this doesnt make sense to other people please explain) if the occation arrises then you are prepared to take that step and die to somehow defend your beliefs or die because of them. It doesnt mean you intentionally go and kill yourself for your beliefs. To put it another way, if you say you are prepared to die to save your family, this doesnt mean you then hire hitmen to attack them and then set up the situation where you can take the bullet/grenade/RPG etc for them. Thats just very wrong. In the Lion King when Simba goes to the place where all the Hyeanas are and his dad comes and rescues him, Simba defends himself by saying that he was trying to be brave like his dad. His dad then explains that being brave does not mean looking for trouble, but being prepared to deal with it when it arrises. Can people understand what I am getting at or am I wildly off the mark?
You're using a friggin' animated movie to justify a risky course of action??? OMFG!!! Talk about "wrong!" You need to read a lil more, my friend. :(

But would we be criticizing it if it was the story of a western solider taking out an Iraqi tank or something, I think not. These days sadly its all about perception.


I would see the story of a British tank that had run out of shells ramming an Iraqi one to protect a convoy as herroic

I would not see the story of a British tank loaded with C4 being driven into a insurgent hold out and then blowing itself up with the driver still inside as being heroic. Just stupid.

You're using a friggin' animated movie to justify a risky course of action??? OMFG!!! Talk about "wrong!" You need to read a lil more, my friend. :(

Its called an analogy friend. Go do GCSE English for a year and you will understand.

You're using a friggin' animated movie to justify a risky course of action??? OMFG!!! Talk about "wrong!" You need to read a lil more, my friend. :(

Not everyone is as well versed in literature as you, friend. No need to get hostile.

Not everyone is as well versed in literature as you, friend. No need to get hostile.

Besides, no doubt lion king reflects timeless truths of morality and wisdom. The sequel, on the other hand, reflects shit.

Thats still a battle against an opponent, not a battle agianst themselves. The Greeks didnt say "right there's only 300 or so of us so lets go looking for a massively supirior force to be beaten by". They were holding a position from an enemy. They didnt all kill themselves when they first got the chance. The Greeks did not intentionally create this hopeless situation.

You'd be entirely correct if the perception of suicide bombers wasn't that their actions were necessary to prevent future <insert whatever they're fighting for here>. They view their actions as being as important as the ones undertaken at Thermopylae - the proactive/reactive distinction you're attempting to draw here doesn't really exist as they say their actions as moving to a good defensive position in Thermopylae. You're essentially categorizing all action as necessarily "looking for a fight."

Besides, no doubt lion king reflects timeless truths of morality and wisdom. The sequel, on the other hand, reflects shit.
lol.

You'd be entirely correct if the perception of suicide bombers wasn't that their actions were necessary to prevent future <insert whatever they're fighting for here>. They view their actions as being as important as the ones undertaken at Thermopylae - the proactive/reactive distinction you're attempting to draw here doesn't really exist as they say their actions as moving to a good defensive position in Thermopylae. You're essentially categorizing all action as necessarily "looking for a fight."

It's the doctrine of pre-emption. Both sides do it.

You'd be entirely correct if the perception of suicide bombers wasn't that their actions were necessary to prevent future <insert whatever they're fighting for here>. They view their actions as being as important as the ones undertaken at Thermopylae - the proactive/reactive distinction you're attempting to draw here doesn't really exist as they say their actions as moving to a good defensive position in Thermopylae. You're essentially categorizing all action as necessarily "looking for a fight"

Let me just see if I am understanding you correctly. Your saying that the suicide bombers consider what they are doing as an attempt to stop something that will happen and thus are reacting to prevent it pre-emtively. Is that it?

Im not sure I see the relevence of wether its pre-emtive or responsive. What I am saying is that dying for your cause is not mayterdom because thats like calling it brave to go looking for a fight. It is like, as I said, claiming you are prepared to die for your family and then arranging their lives to be threatend so you can save them but die in the process. Thats not mayterdom, nor is it somehow noble. Is it noble to seek out conflict?

Let me just see if I am understanding you correctly. Your saying that the suicide bombers consider what they are doing as an attempt to stop something that will happen and thus are reacting to prevent it pre-emtively. Is that it?

Im not sure I see the relevence of wether its pre-emtive or responsive. What I am saying is that dying for your cause is not mayterdom because thats like calling it brave to go looking for a fight. It is like, as I said, claiming you are prepared to die for your family and then arranging their lives to be threatend so you can save them but die in the process. Thats not mayterdom, nor is it somehow noble. Is it noble to seek out conflict?

I may have explained my argument poorly earlier. They view their actions as being necessary to stopping some form of current things they find to be threatening to themselves/their people (like the US being in Iraq, Israel, etc). Therefore, they see their actions as necessary to saving their families. In their minds, they aren't arranging anyone to be threatened - they already are. As for the reactive/proactive distinction, it was something your earlier arguments implied that I don't think existed in the context of this discussion.

Does anyone here see the inheriant flaw in calling any kind of suicide mayterdom? Basicly being willing to die for your beliefs means (to me at least, if this doesnt make sense to other people please explain) if the occation arrises then you are prepared to take that step and die to somehow defend your beliefs or die because of them. It doesnt mean you intentionally go and kill yourself for your beliefs. To put it another way, if you say you are prepared to die to save your family, this doesnt mean you then hire hitmen to attack them and then set up the situation where you can take the bullet/grenade/RPG etc for them. Thats just very wrong. In the Lion King when Simba goes to the place where all the Hyeanas are and his dad comes and rescues him, Simba defends himself by saying that he was trying to be brave like his dad. His dad then explains that being brave does not mean looking for trouble, but being prepared to deal with it when it arrises. Can people understand what I am getting at or am I wildly off the mark?

you mean like jesus being willingly crucified by the romans?

i dont get your point. you think there is nothing worth dying for and no circumstance that would justify it for you?

I just have one question.

WTF is "mayterdom"???

Does it have anything to do with "martyrdom"???

Does anyone here see the inheriant flaw in calling any kind of suicide mayterdom? <snip>

Almost all free thinking, intelligent people would see any flaw with deliberately seeking trouble in order to become a hero. However, almost all free thinking, intelligent religious people know that there may come a day when they have to defend their beliefs, possibly to the death, and are willing to be prepared for it.

You believe Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind, yet you must also know that Jesus went willingly to the cross and, thus, by your post, can only be considered the foolish Simba. Calling Jesus a fool won't get you very far.

i dont get your point. you think there is nothing worth dying for and no circumstance that would justify it for you?

No, I do think there are things worth dying for but intentionaly arranging to die for them is a little stupid. There certianly are things worth dying for in some cases but that does not mean you go out and kill yourself. To put it the way I did in my post, if I was prepared to die for my family, that doesnt mean I then arrange a drive by attempted assination of them and take the bullet for them.

The diffrence with Jesus in this case is that

1) He didn't kill himself. The Romans/Jewish Pharaseies killed him

2) There was an actual good goal achieved. Unlike sucide bombers who useally intend to kill lots of people to attempt to get a point across. He saved the entire of humanity by his death

3) He rose again. Defeating death and saving us all.

I could say that people who blow themselves up for the good of their people are clearly mentally deranged.
On the other hand, I could say that letting yourself be nailed to a cross in the hot sun while a group of Roman soldiers laugh at you and take bets on who'll score your clothes when you die is also a clear indication of mental instability.
It's all a case of perspective. Maybe you wouldn't arrange a drive-by shooting, but if you felt it were the only way to help your family deal with a serious problem you might start to think it sounded like a good idea...

On the other hand, I could say that letting yourself be nailed to a cross in the hot sun while a group of Roman soldiers laugh at you and take bets on who'll score your clothes when you die is also a clear indication of mental instability.

Only if nothing is acomplished by it. The salvation of all humanity from hell seems like an acomplishment to me.

No, I do think there are things worth dying for but intentionaly arranging to die for them is a little stupid. There certianly are things worth dying for in some cases but that does not mean you go out and kill yourself. To put it the way I did in my post, if I was prepared to die for my family, that doesnt mean I then arrange a drive by attempted assination of them and take the bullet for them.

The diffrence with Jesus in this case is that

1) He didn't kill himself. The Romans/Jewish Pharaseies killed him

2) There was an actual good goal achieved. Unlike sucide bombers who useally intend to kill lots of people to attempt to get a point across. He saved the entire of humanity by his death

3) He rose again. Defeating death and saving us all.
#2. To these Muslims, they feel they are doing a good deed as well, no different than the Catholics who tortured people, or the Puritans who mutilated themselves and others for sinning.

#3. This is religious belief, not fact. It's opinion, something you can't use for the basis of your argument. Yes, in your belief system, Christ's death was a good thing and the blood of Christ made God forgive us for sinning. In Muslims' belief system, however, they don't believe that. Instead, they believe that the original message of God was corrupted and the prophet, Mohammed, came to tell the pure truth, untainted by humanity.

Who's wrong?

Neither. It's religious beliefs. You can't prove it one way or the other.

Only if nothing is acomplished by it. The salvation of all humanity from hell seems like an acomplishment to me.
Muslims feel that through their actions they are saving humanity. You're judging them base from your own subjective, point-of-view.

So far, your argument is:

1. Martyrs are evil, if they don't accomplish anything.
2. Christ accomplished something.
3. Terrorists don't accomplish anything.
4. Therefore, Muslim terrorists are evil and Christ is good.

Half of your argument is assumptions based on your religious beliefs. It's arguments like these that a college professor would grade poorly on, only to have an ignorant student complain about discrimination.

Actually, when you have God on your side. Your supposed to kill your enemies without needing to die. Then enemies would Know GOD IS ON YOUR SIDE. :D

MOst warriors in the bible that asked God for strength in battle. Very few die amidst battle. The only one I can think of is Samson. But he himself wanted to die in the process, if not I bet he can wallop every Phalestine (?) arse in the temple even though he's blind as a bat.

Think about it. What kinda lame God would let you die in battle alone?