fox newsI woke up this morning flipping through the channels and came across FOX news talking about these air strikes conducted Friday. There are apparently quite a few Pakistani protesters very upset with the USA because of these air strikes.
From what I have heard, Ayman al-zawahiri was invited to dinner at a village. This man is considered to be Osma's top lieutenant, and therefore an important military target. So the CIA is said to have conducted an air strike on this village in hopes of killing Ayman al-zawahiri, but in the process (Obviously) killed innocent civilians. This includes women and children so I here (Which should not be surprising. They bombed a VILLAGE!). Even worse, it is now believed that Ayman al-zawahiri was actually never there, regardless of the invitation, and rather passed it up.
The death toll I last saw was 17 people, which may or may not change. So basically someone (The CIA has been accused so far, which entails the accusing of the USA by Pakistanis) decided that it would be a good idea/OK to bomb the living day lights out of a VILLAGE, because a top official of Osma's was INVITED to dinner there. Did they have confirmation he was there? Doesn't seem they cared. Just bomb it, they aren't Americans anyways. Right? Who cares! They aren't Americans! Heck, they are only Pakistani humans!
What in the heck are the people in charge of these air strikes thinking? What do you think 9/11 was? The terrorists poking fun at us? The terrorists laughing because they killed Americans? It was an ECONOMIC TARGET. Why the world trade center? To harm the USA economy! Did the terrorists realize innocent people would be in the building? Surely, in the same regard that the American officials knew innocent people would be in that VILLAGE! So I ask again, what the heck were they thinking???
They have stooped down to the level of the terrorists, who they have condemned. They have made themselves no better than the terrorists. Is this the way they really want to fight the "War on Terror." Because I guarantee you this sort of strategy will only hurt the USA's efforts. First of all, it will eventually tick off our allies in the region. Without their support, the USA loses a great deal of hope in defeating their relentless enemy. Not only this, but if the USA continues to bomb civilian targets they will continue to earn the outrage and anger of the people they are bombing. You know what this means? These people WILL HELP THE TERRORISTS! SIDE WITH THE TERRORISTS! The terrorists will say "See. I told you they are evil. Now help us defeat them."
The USA can not win a war like this without the support of the people, unless they flat out kill the entire population.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181742,00.html)
So have at it. Any question. I will try my best to answer your question, and if I find myself unable I will try to locate a more knowledgable source on the internet.
Foreword:
It seems ever since the attacks of September 11th the topic of terrorism has been more widely discussed and acknowledged. Honestly, up until this event took place terrorism was not a topic I had thought about critically. Even after the event, I remained unsure whether terrorism could ever be justifiable or if all forms of terrorism were morally wrong. Specifically, the single factor that caused me to stay undecided for such a great length of time was the ambiguity of the concept of terrorism. It seemed as if terrorism was just the label given to any violent event that was not viewed as righteous. For instance, under this impression of terrorism any group of individuals could condemn an act as terrorism simply because they didn’t agree with the use of violence in a specific manner and for a specific purpose. The way terrorism was presented to me seemed ultimately too vague, and it could be applied to nearly anything.
Position on the Morality of Terrorism
My Position:
Simple terrorism, terrorism not intended to cause death or injury to human life, is only morally permissible under circumstances when it is induced by an injustice. In contrast, I have come to the position that complex terrorism, terrorism intended to cause death or injury to human life, is never morally permissible. Therefore not all forms of terrorism are immoral, which is the position that seems to be held by many. In essence much of the morality on the subject of terrorism has to do with the intent, not the action itself, which seems to be a common misconception.
Concepts Used:
Terrorism - An act must intentionally use or threaten to use force or violence to bring about a change to a society or organization that is politically oriented. Secondly, the act must intentionally cause uneasiness or terror to the member’s of the targeted society or organization, which again is motivated by politically oriented goals. Finally the target must be a non-military, also known as a non-combatant target. If an act does not meet all of these conditions it is not terrorism, but rather something else.
Non-Combatant - A non-combatant is defined as a person that is not direct in support of a military body.
Simple Terrorism - Terrorism that is intended to result in no loss of life or injury to human life, whether it is a Non-combatant or otherwise.
Complex Terrorism - Terrorism that is intended to result in the loss of human life, whether it is Non-combatant or otherwise.
Support:
First let’s discuss simple terrorism and discover whether it is ever morally permissible. Simple terrorism is defined as terrorism that is intended to result in no loss of life or injury to human life, whether it is a Non-combatant or otherwise. First it is noted that autonomy is violated, because the people being put at uneasy or in a state of terror definitely do not wish to be in such a state. Secondly, simple terrorism possibly violates nonmaleficence by psychologically harming the targeted population, but this violation is not guaranteed. So far simple terrorism is already looking somewhat grim in terms of being morally permissible. Moving along, there is beneficence which turns out to be both a justification and a violation of simple terrorism. The people performing the simple terrorism do so to seek a gain from their actions, but on the other hand the people being terrorized are not gaining anything and might even be damaged in some nonphysical manner. Moving along, justice really has no universal application to simple terrorism, although in certain instances simple terrorism is induced by injustices, which would make the moral principle of justice another justification of simple terrorism in certain cases. If no injustice is present and yet a group of individuals or a single individual continue or start to commit simple terrorism then they do so without the support of the moral principle of justice. After all this analysis I came to two conclusions. If simple terrorism is induced by an injustice then it is morally permissible, because the moral principles of justice and beneficence outweigh the violations. They outweigh the violations not by number, but by the significance each holds to the morality of the situation. On the other hand, if simple terrorism is performed without any injustice inducing it, then the moral violations outweigh the justifications. The justification of justice holds quite a major role, and without it beneficence alone is not enough to conclude simple terrorism as morally permissible. Therefore this case of simple terrorism is not morally permissible.
Continuing on, the other type of terrorism that will be analyzed is complex terrorism. Complex terrorism is defined as terrorism that is intended to result in the loss of human life, whether it is a Non-combatant or otherwise. Once again an analysis of complex terrorism using the four basic moral principles will yield a relatively good idea whether it is ever morally permissible. Let’s begin with the moral principle of autonomy. Autonomy is a violated by complex terrorism, just like it is violated by simple terrorism. In addition to the violation of autonomy, nonmaleficence is definitely violated. Since by definition complex terrorism involves the intention to harm or kill someone, nonmaleficence is not just a possible violation like it was with simple terrorism. Moving on, the moral principle of beneficence is similarly applied in the manner simple terrorism was. It can be both a justification and a violation. Some people may benefit while others will not benefit at all and possibly damaged, and the damage caused may be physical or nonphysical in nature. Finally the moral principle of justice can also be a justification in some instances when complex terrorism is induced by injustice, but justice is also violated unless you hold that the people being harmed did in fact deserved what they got. In order to hold such a position it would have to be true that no one is innocent and that death or injury is an acceptable form of reconciliation for their offenses. Personally I agree that no one is innocent, but I do not agree that death or injury is a justifiable reconciliation even if they are not completely innocent. Therefore I have come to one ultimate conclusion in the case of complex terrorism. Complex terrorism is not justifiable under any circumstances, even if it is induced by injustice. The moral violations are quite frankly too overwhelming to the few justifications. Since complex terrorism is not justifiable, it is thereby not morally permissible under any circumstance.
In conclusion, I have come to the position that simple terrorism, terrorism not intended to cause death or injury to human life, is only morally permissible under circumstances when it is induced by an injustice. In contrast, I have come to the position that complex terrorism, terrorism intended to cause death or injury to human life, is never morally permissible. Therefore not all forms of terrorism are immoral, which is the position that seems to be held by many. In essence much of the morality on the subject of terrorism has to do with the intent, not the action itself, which seems to be a common misconception.
Peace
Foreword:
If you are too busy to read the article’s full length, then I highly recommend reading at least the position and concepts sections. The article is not intended to be considered as the absolute truth, but a series of thoughts which have lead up to a position which may be true. Any and all constructive comments are welcome, but include reasoning and thought with a response if at all possible. If all the response consists of is an opinion, meaning a position without any support, then I’ll just have to respond in an equally boring manner amounting to no intellectual gain. So please give support.
Position on Ethics and Principles of Beliefs
My Position:
Beliefs based upon facts of the mind are to be accepted when sufficient evidence is available or when the belief is useful and no currently better known alternative is available. Beliefs based upon facts of the mind can be accepted unless the beliefs contradict one or more facts of the mind. Both types of beliefs should be restraint by moral objections when in application.
Concepts Used:
Facts of the Mind - Facts based upon evidence and reasoning
Facts of the Heart - Facts based upon personal inclincations
Wrong – A concept occurring at the existence of two or more distinct and separate beings that hold desires. An act which breaks the customs or rules set by the majority of these beings. Justified by the common good.
THE GOOD – The highest universal and unchanging form of goodness
Moral – An act which is in accord with THE GOOD
Immoral – An act which opposes THE GOOD
Belief – Personal conviction in a statement or thought
Argument – A series of statements leading to a position
Dispute – Two opposing arguments
Support:
Beliefs are everywhere and held by everyone. They range from small to large, good to bad, evil to righteous, sound to unsound, and so forth. Beliefs are also the fundamental level at which an argument begins and where disputes arise. So it is important to have some guiding principles by which one acquires and changes one’s beliefs.
First let’s consider a position held by William Clifford, a philosopher from the middle to late 1800’s, from his work, “The Ethics of Belief.” Clifford starts off with a situation where a ship-owner must make a decision. The decision is to either allow his ship to sail across the sea with many immigrant passengers or prevent this from happening based on the condition of his ship. The ship-owner realizes that the evidence available shows that the ship is not sea-worthy, however the ship-owner convinces himself that the ship is sea-worthy by simply reasoning that the ship has made many a journey beforehand and can make another now. Sound in mind with his choice of belief, the ship-owner collected his insurance money after the ship went down at sea, killing all the passengers.
This man was certainly responsible for the deaths of all the passengers. For although the ship-owner held the belief that his ship was sea-worthy, he “Had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him,” as Clifford states it. In other words, the ship-owner based his decision on insufficient evidence. Clifford even goes on to affirm the ship-owner would have still been in the wrong even if the ship had made its journey safely, only the ship-owner’s wrong-doing would not be found out. If this doesn’t make sense, then consider the following more clear-cut case. If someone steals from a local store and is caught, then surely this act is wrong. Well, it would still be wrong even if the thief was not captured. The same principle applies here, except with regard to the method by which one acquires and changes one’s beliefs. In fact Clifford is unsatisfied by simply labeling beliefs based on insufficient evidence as wrong. Clifford feels such beliefs are immoral. Therefore, such an act would be considered a violation of the highest unchanging good, which Plato called THE GOOD.
So is Clifford right? Are all beliefs based on insufficient evidence truly immoral? Well, I certainly feel Clifford is on the right track; however his position needs some adjustments. First of all, even the sciences which society generally holds as the factual truth regarding the state and function of the universe is not based on sufficient evidence. Yet, science has allowed humanity to produce many useful gadgets. Shall humanity now abandon the sciences simply on the grounds that we do not have the sufficient evidence to rightfully conclude for certain that the truth has been discovered? I think not. Even though we may not have the entire truth, humanity is most certainly in the right direction of the truth or else our gadgets would not function at all or extremely poorly. So it would seem a step of wrongfulness to simply throw away all the progress in science. Therefore, in order to allow the belief and application of science as moral, Clifford’s view must allow beliefs which are based upon insufficient evidence when they are useful and when such beliefs have no better currently known alternative. There is of course one other adjustment to be made even to this adjustment, which is the next idea to be discussed.
It is important to know beliefs find their origins in two separate kinds of facts. The first being facts of the mind and the other being facts of the heart, which is sometimes called faith. Facts of the mind are facts which are based upon evidence, whereas facts of the heart are based upon one’s internal inclinations. Yet, that doesn’t mean facts of the heart may contradict facts of the mind. In fact, any fact of the heart which contradicts one or more facts of mind is in fact an immoral belief, because facts of the heart are based on insufficient evidence in the first place; so if one was to go as far as to reject the available evidence this would violate Clifford’s basic principle.
Knowing the two kinds of facts, we can now prescription two different treatments to the two origins of beliefs. If a belief originates from facts of the mind, then they must be based on sufficient evidence, this is unless of course the belief based on insufficient evidence is useful to humanity and has no currently known better alternative. When it comes to beliefs which originate from facts of the heart another approach must be prescribed. Since such an origin in its very essence has no evidence, then only a conflicting fact of the mind could make such a belief immoral. Otherwise any beliefs based on facts of the heart are perfectly fine.
This of course doesn’t warrant acting upon such beliefs based upon insufficient evidence. Any belief based upon sufficient evidence to the highest extent can always be acted upon. However, no such useful beliefs exist. To my current knowledge, all such beliefs are individual oriented. For example, if someone said, “I believe I am hungry,” then they have the absolute right to act upon this belief, since they have the sufficient evidence to conclude it. This idea can be extended to many other sorts of sensory input.
So what about beliefs based on facts of the mind which have insufficient evidence? Shall they be acted upon? Certainly they should, but not without bounds. Science in its essence is the very practice of doing so. So long as no moral objection contends otherwise, beliefs based on facts of the mind which have insufficient evidence are permissible to be acted upon. Yet, such beliefs should be always be held as temporary, and the belief holder should invest effort, if reasonably possible, towards discovering a belief closer to the truth of the situation or towards gaining sufficient evidence.
Finally when it comes to beliefs based upon facts of the heart which have insufficient evidence, one is again allowed to act, but again with the restraint of moral objections.
Peace
I finished the reformatting portion last night around 11:00 PM - 12:00 AM, but didn't get around to installing all my software, aside from windows which was installed immediately after reformatting, until this morning.
I'm glad to see all the useless files are gone 
Peace
I'll be offline for awhile because I am reformating my computer. Hopefully I'll have my computer online tonight sometime.
(Start Time)
10:00PM
Peace
It will no doubt be religion related. Or possibly to start off I should post a position paper on a principle that should be followed with regard to beleifs. Still pondering. I'll decide soon enough.
Peace
