eclectica
2004-01-15, 22:23
When I hear of news of a suicide bomber, I am especially sad when the suicide bomber is a woman. To me a spirited and courageous woman is an ideal type of woman. Seeing such a person kill herself is a waste of a good woman. That's the type of woman that I would go for.
It's ironic when a woman is a suicide bomber because the macho Islamic jihadists believe mostly in putting women in a subservient role. I think the best way to combat macho Islamic militism would be to promote the role of women as worthy individuals through feminism, rather than as created by God to keep man company or to bear children. That approach would have more impact than any "war on terrorism", but you know Bush wouldn't do such a thing because that goes against his mindset.
All suicide bombers are heroic because they are killing themselves for an idealistic cause. I think of suicide as a courageous act rather than a cowardly act.
Perhaps suicide bombers could be thought of best as "misguided heroes" because they are dying for their cause, but the results are not good due to the collateral damage. If there were no collateral damage then their strikes would be worthy and they would be labeled as "freedom fighters". The definition of a terrorist could be: one who is willing to accept collateral damage in order to further one's goals. Either terrorists believe that they are waging war against a broad group of people and they have no concept of collateral damage; or they are willing to accept collateral damage from a pragmatic perspective, as a means to an end, or as deserved by the victims due to guilt by association.
Just about everybody expects collateral damage in a war or a struggle, and in weighing the good and the bad considers such a thing to be acceptable.
It's unfortunate that Darwinian "survival of the fittest" has the heroes all dying. The heroes and suicide bombers are the first people to die in this world, when in fact such self-sacrificing people ought to be the ones who are prevalent in the world. Rather than us standing idly by and letting nature decide, perhaps we ought to embrace eugenics and actively promote such people. It would be foolish to allow nature to decide who lives and dies without taking an active role in such a thing. The government has a role in making the world a better place. We can't just let nature decide how the world will turn out.
It's ironic when a woman is a suicide bomber because the macho Islamic jihadists believe mostly in putting women in a subservient role. I think the best way to combat macho Islamic militism would be to promote the role of women as worthy individuals through feminism, rather than as created by God to keep man company or to bear children. That approach would have more impact than any "war on terrorism", but you know Bush wouldn't do such a thing because that goes against his mindset.
All suicide bombers are heroic because they are killing themselves for an idealistic cause. I think of suicide as a courageous act rather than a cowardly act.
Perhaps suicide bombers could be thought of best as "misguided heroes" because they are dying for their cause, but the results are not good due to the collateral damage. If there were no collateral damage then their strikes would be worthy and they would be labeled as "freedom fighters". The definition of a terrorist could be: one who is willing to accept collateral damage in order to further one's goals. Either terrorists believe that they are waging war against a broad group of people and they have no concept of collateral damage; or they are willing to accept collateral damage from a pragmatic perspective, as a means to an end, or as deserved by the victims due to guilt by association.
Just about everybody expects collateral damage in a war or a struggle, and in weighing the good and the bad considers such a thing to be acceptable.
It's unfortunate that Darwinian "survival of the fittest" has the heroes all dying. The heroes and suicide bombers are the first people to die in this world, when in fact such self-sacrificing people ought to be the ones who are prevalent in the world. Rather than us standing idly by and letting nature decide, perhaps we ought to embrace eugenics and actively promote such people. It would be foolish to allow nature to decide who lives and dies without taking an active role in such a thing. The government has a role in making the world a better place. We can't just let nature decide how the world will turn out.