Are members responsible for their group's actions? (E.g., Muslims and Islam)

[Infohawk]

It seems like a frequent fight on this board centers around collective punishment or lack thereof. For example, a Muslim atrocity takes place and many protest that all Muslims should not be blamed.

I think people are responsible for groups they choose to be part of. That includes members of religions and countries for the most part. Let's take the examples of the Germans during World War II. I don't have a problem with the bombing of Dresden. Germans were collectively punished and frankly they deserved it. They could have actively resisted the Third Reich and most did not. You may disagree, but how far would you take it? Would you only have shot at Germans that shot at you first? After all, they might be non-Nazis drafted into the Werhmacht...

At what point do you have to take responsibility for the group you're part of? There has to be some threshold. There are extremists on both ends. On one end you have people advocating a total war / extermination against Muslims. On the other hand you have people that don't want any action against Muslims.

 

[jpeyton]

How is a Catholic father working 8 hour shifts in Ecuador responsible for a Catholic priest in Boston fondling pre-pubescent boys?

 

[Carmen813]

It would depend on what you mean by punishment, but I do not see how you can punish individuals not directly involved with a groups activities and still maintain a free society.

This is the same type of "logic" that allowed the minds of terrorists to justify the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Infohawk]

How is a Catholic father working 8 hour shifts in Ecuador responsible for a Catholic priest in Boston fondling pre-pubescent boys?

He is choosing to be part of an organization that tolerates child molesters.

 

[Infohawk]

It would depend on what you mean by punishment, but I do not see how you can punish individuals not directly involved with a groups activities and still maintain a free society.

This is the same type of "logic" that allowed the minds of terrorists to justify the 9/11 attacks.

If they are not involved with the groups' activities why do they need to be part of the group?

 

[Carmen813]

If they are not involved with the groups' activities why do they need to be part of the group?

I think the problem is that you are trying to equate being Islamic with being an extremist. Following that, no one should be Catholic because of the IRA. It simply doesn't work, which is why the idea of group punishment is foolish. Individual actions are what matter.

For example, I don't agree with all the decisions my government makes, yet I am still an American. Am I required to denounce my citizenship because I disagree with some of the government's decisions?

 

[Infohawk]

I think the problem is that you are trying to equate being Islamic with being an extremist. Following that, no one should be Catholic because of the IRA.

It simply doesn't work, which is why the idea of group punishment is foolish. Individual actions are what matter.

Catholics and the IRA are quite different. IRISH Catholics were the ones that had issues with Northern Ireland and Britain. And the "punishment" has to be reasonable. It would not have been reasonable for the UK to invade Ireland. But profiling of Irish in the UK would have been reasonable.

So how would you have prosecuted the war against Germany? No urban bombings? Only attack tank drivers and not tank fabricators?

 

[ShawnD1]

This is the same type of "logic" that allowed the minds of terrorists to justify the 9/11 attacks.

That's a very good point. A group of terrorists were upset with the actions of America's richest bastards who run the government, so they killed thousands of people who mostly had nothing to do with the government.

In response, the same basic thing happened. A legitimate conflict in Afghanistan somehow turned into a conflict with Iraq even though Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This happens quite often. I was watching a documentary about WW1 and part of it said that Germans who had moved to Britain were endlessly harassed for the duration of the war. It doesn't matter if this German is a British citizen and has nothing to do with WW1, he's German so that's reason enough to be a dick to him.

 

[Infohawk]

This is the same type of "logic" that allowed the minds of terrorists to justify the 9/11 attacks.

Did American support of Israel and intervention in the middle-east warrant reprisals? Possibly. Did it warrant attacks on civilians? No.

It's a matter of degree. If you treat it as black or white then you are led to absurd consequences in either direction. Right-wing fascist responses are as silly as liberal bleeding hart responses.

 

[Carmen813]

Catholics and the IRA are quite different. IRISH Catholics were the ones that had issues with Northern Ireland and Britain. And the "punishment" has to be reasonable. It would not have been reasonable for the UK to invade Ireland. But profiling of Irish in the UK would have been reasonable.

So how would you have prosecuted the war against Germany? No urban bombings? Only attack tank drivers and not tank fabricators?

You've basically just stated that it's possible for different sects of Catholicism to exist. Why would extending that to other groups be a stretch?

I'm not sure I would have done anything different against Germany. Given the technology at the time, urban bombings were commonplace. That said, the idea of collectively punishing the German people (after WWI) is one of the main causes of World War II.

Frankly, using broad strokes to punish groups is simply a cognitive way of dehumanizing your enemy. I also think it is a very slippery slope.

 

[Infohawk]

You've basically just stated that it's possible for different sects of Catholicism to exist. Why would extending that to other groups be a stretch?

I'm not sure I would have done anything different against Germany. Given the technology at the time, urban bombings were commonplace. That said, the idea of collectively punishing the German people (after WWI) is one of the main causes of World War II.

Frankly, using broad strokes to punish groups is simply a cognitive way of dehumanizing your enemy. I also think it is a very slippery slope.

Your Irish Catholic analogy is bad. The IRA was primarily a nationalist organization. And I think you're glossing over the WW2 bombings. It was a conscious choice. It was just, "oh we can't help but bomb cities." If you think that was the case you need to look at the history more. There was a strategy of destroying cities along with the "innocent" civilians that lived inside. And your support of that strategy is at odds with your black and white view of collective punishment.

 

[Carmen813]

Did American support of Israel and intervention in the middle-east warrant reprisals? Possibly. Did it warrant attacks on civilians? No.

It's a matter of degree. If you treat it as black or white then you are led to absurd consequences in either direction. Right-wing fascist responses are as silly as liberal bleeding hart responses.

Then using the example of Dresden in your OP, how do you hold these conflicting beliefs? Dresden's military value was not substantial, and the bombing did not specifically target it's industrial centers. We basically flattened the entire city.

Based on these statements, it would seem that you would support the logic terrorists used on 9/11. After all, what evidence do you have that those American civilians were actively resisting their governments support of Israel or military bases in Saudi Arabia? I'm trying to draw a parallel for you between Dresden civilians and American civilians.

By the way, I'm not trying to play a game of gotcha. I'm just trying to show you why the idea of collective punishment is very dangerous.

 

[Carmen813]

Your Irish Catholic analogy is bad. The IRA was primarily a nationalist organization. And I think you're glossing over the WW2 bombings. It was a conscious choice. It was just, "oh we can't help but bomb cities." If you think that was the case you need to look at the history more. There was a strategy of destroying cities along with the "innocent" civilians that lived inside. And your support of that strategy is at odds with your black and white view of collective punishment.

It's not bad, it just simply doesn't jive well with your point of view. Every group you can find will have it's demons. Does that mean you can justify punishing the entire group? I have no problem with targeting a group like Al-Qaeda, who's intentions are obviously demented. I have a serious problem with targeting all Muslims because Al-Qaeda claims to be an Islamic group.

*Edit* In terms of World War II, technology at the time did not allow the separation of bombing civilians and military targets, at least not with great precision. If someone like Dresden were to happen today, I would consider it a war crime.

 

[Infohawk]

Then using the example of Dresden in your OP, how do you hold these conflicting beliefs? Dresden's military value was not substantial, and the bombing did not specifically target it's industrial centers. We basically flattened the entire city.

Based on these statements, it would seem that you would support the logic terrorists used on 9/11. After all, what evidence do you have that those civilians were actively resisting their governments support of Israel or military bases in Saudi Arabia?

By the way, I'm not trying to play a game of gotcha. I'm just trying to show you why the idea of collective punishment is very dangerous.

Collective punishment IS dangerous. And we have to think very carefully about it.

I think I already mentioned that the 9/11 attacks were not proportional. Again, it's a matter of degree. But depending on what you mean by logic, I don't really have an issue with the strategic "logic" of the 9/11 attackers just like I don't have an issue of the military strategy employed by the Germans during WW2. (Both sides attacked civilians as part of total war. [9/11 attackers were even dirtier in that they primarily attacked civilians].)

 

[Infohawk]

It's not bad, it just simply doesn't jive well with your point of view. Every group you can find will have it's demons. Does that mean you can justify punishing the entire group?

I have no problem with targeting a group like Al-Qaeda, who's intentions are obviously demented. I have a serious problem with targeting all Muslims because Al-Qaeda claims to be an Islamic group.

I tried to name this thread "at what point is a member of a group responsible for its actions" but I had a hard time fitting it in. That's really my question, and I don't pretend to know the exact boundary. I agree every group has its outliers that it cannot be held responsible for. But at some point you can't just ignore patterns and let ourselves be run over.

 

[dahunan]

This is the same type of "logic" that allowed the minds of terrorists to justify the 9/11 attacks.

Why do people like you always have to spoil the fun... bringing sanity into a discussion.. next you will ask them to go talk to a mirror ()

 

[dahunan]

How many dead Iraqis are enough?

 

[Carmen813]

Collective punishment IS dangerous. And we have to think very carefully about it.

I think I already mentioned that the 9/11 attacks were not proportional. Again, it's a matter of degree. But depending on what you mean by logic, I don't really have an issue with the strategic "logic" of the 9/11 attackers just like I don't have an issue of the military strategy employed by the Germans during WW2. (Both sides attacked civilians as part of total war. [9/11 attackers were even dirtier in that they primarily attacked civilians].)

I may be mistaken, but from what I remember the primary civilian attacks that occurred during WW2 by Germany were the V2 rocket attacks on London. These attacks had little potential for actually doing significant harm, they were mostly an instrument of terror.

In my view, the goal in the minds of the 9/11 attackers was to incite terror in the American population. To that end, I think they've succeeded very well. That fear/anger has led our government to make some very rash decisions. I'm not immune to it, I supported the Iraq War at first, but now I've come to see that not much long term good can come from it. In fact I believe all we have done is created more enemies...which means 9/11 was even more of a success for extremists.

Again, it depends on what "group" you are punishing. I do not support punishing all Muslims because of the actions of Al-Qaeda. As I said, this logic is a very slippery slope and much more dangerous to a free society than anything the 9/11 attackers could ever hope to accomplish.

 

[Infohawk]

Why do people like you always have to spoil the fun... bringing sanity into a discussion.. next you will ask them to go talk to a mirror ()

Carmen's not spoiling any fun. He's make reasonable arguments in defense of his position. And so far he hasn't stooped to quips or characterizing an opposing viewpoint as insane.

 

[Infohawk]

I may be mistaken, but from what I remember the primary civilian attacks that occurred during WW2 by Germany were the V2 rocket attacks on London. These attacks had little potential for actually doing significant harm, they were mostly an instrument of terror.

In my view, the goal in the minds of the 9/11 attackers was to incite terror in the American population. To that end, I think they've succeeded very well. That fear/anger has led our government to make some very rash decisions. I'm not immune to it, I supported the Iraq War at first, but now I've come to see that not much long term good can come from it. In fact I believe all we have done is created more enemies...which means 9/11 was even more of a success for extremists.

Again, it depends on what "group" you are punishing. I do not support punishing all Muslims because of the actions of Al-Qaeda. As I said, this logic is a very slippery slope and much more dangerous to a free society than anything the 9/11 attackers could ever hope to accomplish.

I agree it's a dangerous game. And for the record I was against the 2003 Iraq War since I didn't think Iraq was related to 9/11. But I do not feel that bad that foreign or recently-immigrated Muslims from certain middle-eastern countries get profiled at airports or even in sensitive areas.

 

[Carmen813]

I tried to name this thread "at what point is a member of a group responsible for its actions" but I had a hard time fitting it in. That's really my question, and I don't pretend to know the exact boundary. I agree every group has its outliers that it cannot be held responsible for. But at some point you can't just ignore patterns and let ourselves be run over.

Really, I would draw the boundary when that group starts to violate the rights of others. Al-Qaeda, as a group, has done that. Have American Muslims? I don't think so.

If the group isn't breaking our laws, than it must be tolerated. Freedom of religion and expression is a core of what our country is about. Once you start to take that away, the terrorists win. Ultimately, I think that is their objective.

Going back to Germany, I don't really hold all Germans responsible for the concentration camps. Most of them didn't know about them, or at worst practiced benign neglect. I think it's important to consider context. Hitler killed all dissidents. If you were in that situation, would you really want to risk your life, and that of your entire family when you basically had no chance of stopping him? I'd like to think we'd all like to say we would, but I doubt that would happen in reality.

 

[Carmen813]

I agree it's a dangerous game. And for the record I was against the 2003 Iraq War since I didn't think Iraq was related to 9/11. But I do not feel that bad that foreign or recently-immigrated Muslims from certain middle-eastern countries get profiled at airports or even in sensitive areas.

Honestly, the main reason I supported invading Iraq was because Hussein was a genocidal prick. The world is better off without him. However, that wasn't the reason we were told we were going to war.

I think it's unfortunate that Middle-Easterners are profiled against. After all, they had no choice to be born looking the way they do. I'd argue that many Muslims probably had no real choice about becoming Muslims. In the end, I would prefer everyone underwent the same amount of scrutiny, but I know that's unrealistic. The price you pay in a free society is that you never have guaranteed safety. In reality, "guaranteed safety" doesn't exist anyway, so I'm not sure how much it's worth sacrificing freedoms for.

Take a look at this article. I won't pretend that this article isn't biased, but I thought it was interesting. Try reading it as if, instead of focusing on blacks, it focused on any minority.

 

[Infohawk]

American Muslims have been caught trying to murder their fellow citizens in plots during the past several years. I don't support outlawing Islam our deporting Muslim citizens but I'm not against profiling either.

As for the Germans, again I think it's a matter of degree. To a certain degree they were all responsible if they were adults at the time and were fair game for collateral damage. I don't hold it against modern to the extent they learn about their history and take the time to think about it. (And for the most part, all the Germans I've met seem to get what happened was very wrong.)

 

[Infohawk]

I'm against profiling based on race. But I'm open to profiling based on religion or country of origin with regard to "war on terror."

 

[Carmen813]

American Muslims have been caught trying to murder their fellow citizens in plots during the past several years. I don't support outlawing Islam our deporting Muslim citizens but I'm not against profiling either.

As for the Germans, again I think it's a matter of degree. To a certain degree they were all responsible if they were adults at the time and were fair game for collateral damage. I don't hold it against modern to the extent they learn about their history and take the time to think about it. (And for the most part, all the Germans I've met seem to get what happened was very wrong.)

I think profiling is a necessary evil, if such a thing exists. That said, it draws resources that could be utilized in other ways. How many murders have been committed in the past few years by non-Muslims? Last time I checked it was around 15,000 a year. I know fighting terrorism and fighting crime aren't the same thing, but it's just something to chew on.

I think I am okay with our law enforcement agencies using profiling to find terrorists. However, I dislike that normal, everyday Americans, discriminate against normal, everyday, American Muslims. I'm not immune to it, I'm occasionally uncomfortable to. And that is what bothers me. I think a lot of it is fear of the unknown.

I think Colin Powell made a good point when he endorsed Obama. He mentioned how many accuse Obama of being a Muslim. What no one asks is, so what if he is?

Anyway I'm off to play Bad Company 2. I'll check in later.