Taliban confuses armed contractor's building for day care

[Borgholio]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world ... 00000&_r=0

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Taliban assailants apparently thought they were attacking an unprotected Christian-run day care center. But they mistakenly burst into the compound next door, where an American government contractor’s employees were heavily armed and ready, according to accounts that the contractor and the Afghan police gave on Friday of a wild four-hour shootout here.

The contractor, Roots of Peace, which runs agricultural projects financed by the United States Agency for International Development, had taken the precaution of blocking its front gate with an armored Land Cruiser, which guards used to take cover behind and shoot at the attackers, said Gary Kuhn, the group’s president, interviewed by telephone from its headquarters in San Rafael, Calif.

That slowed the attackers enough for the guards and the five foreign residents to retreat into the house and upstairs. “There’s a circular staircase which is very hard to take cover on. One tried coming up it, and the guard shot him,” Mr. Kuhn said, citing accounts from his staff members in Kabul.
Continue reading the main story Video
Play Video
Video|0:37

Credit Omar Sobhani/Reuters
Repelling a Taliban Attack

Taliban insurgents exchanged gunfire with police in Kabul near a guesthouse used by foreigners in an upscale residential area.

Two of the residents, Americans, hid in their bedroom closets. “One very big, tall man hid in a closet and piled clothes on top of himself, while the Taliban were shooting in his room, throwing flash grenades, and even opened the closet door but didn’t see him,” said Heidi Kuhn, the group’s chief executive and Mr. Kuhn’s wife, who also was interviewed by telephone in California. “It’s a miracle all of them escaped.”

Mr. Kuhn said the bedroom gunman might have been a police officer clearing the scene, since the Taliban assailants were unlikely to have used flash grenades, which are designed to stun and frighten, not kill.

While the gun battle was underway, next door, at what apparently had been the Taliban’s intended target, a Christian-run day care center that had no armed guards and normally left its front door open, police were able to rescue two dozen foreigners, according to Gen. Mohammad Ayub Salangi, the deputy interior minister, who went to the scene. Their nationalities were unclear but they appeared to be Americans or Europeans.

Journalists who saw them escorted out said at least five young Western children were among the group, highly unusual sights here.

Mr. Kuhn, who with his wife visits Kabul frequently, said the day care center was not a church, as the Taliban had asserted, but acknowledged that “they do have religious services there on certain days.”

Expatriates in Kabul dropped children off there for the day routinely, he said. Nevertheless, very few organizations employing expatriates in Afghanistan allow them to bring families and children because of the risk.

Afghan officials said all five Taliban attackers were killed, including one who committed suicide. The death toll also included two Afghan civilians, one of them a young girl. Two Roots of Peace guards were wounded.

The shootout was the latest in a series of deadly attacks on foreign journalists, aid workers and visitors since January, in the midst of heavy security for the Afghan presidential election campaign.

The attack came less than a week after suicidal gunmen invaded the luxury Serena Hotel, killing nine people, including a prominent journalist and most of his family.
Photo
Commandoes with Afghanistan’s intelligence agency arrived after the shooting began. Credit Anja Niedringhaus/Associated Press

Earlier this month, a Swedish journalist was assassinated on a street in the diplomatic quarter by insurgents who accused him of spying. In January, an attack on a restaurant killed 13 foreigners, many of them relief workers and employees of international organizations.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Friday’s attack took place in Kabul’s well-to-do Karte Seh area where many foreign aid groups have offices and homes. Afghanistan has more than 2,000 registered nongovernmental organizations, most with offices in the capital. Most live in unguarded or lightly guarded guesthouses or individual homes, but those with government contracts, like Roots of Peace, often employ guards.

The residents in the group’s house included the two Americans and an Australian, a Malaysian and a South African, who was the group’s security adviser. The group runs agricultural and demining programs in Afghanistan, as well as in Israel, Croatia and Vietnam.

A spokesman for the Taliban, Zabiullah Mujahid, reached by telephone while the attack was still underway, asserted the target had been “a church used to convert Muslims to Christianity.”

Mr. Mujahid said the Taliban had intelligence that the alleged underground church was celebrating its first anniversary in Kabul, and the insurgents timed their attack to what they thought was that celebration.

There are no known churches in Afghanistan, where the practice of Christianity is outlawed and conversion of Muslims is a crime. Aid groups supported by Christian groups abroad have in the past been accused of being missionaries, and two were expelled by Afghanistan in 2010.

The attack began with a large explosion of what authorities and the Taliban said was a suicide car bomb that blew open the gates of the day care center and was heard throughout the city.

Then, Mr. Kuhn said, came a smaller explosion that blew open the gates of the Roots of Peace house, which was used as residential quarters for its expatriate staff. But apparently acting on wrong information, the attackers, armed with assault rifles and wearing suicide bomb vests, chose to enter the contractor’s house.

Ms. Kuhn described the facility next door as “a faith-based day care center,” but said her group had little contact with the people there. It was unclear who operates it, and the police forbade journalists to approach the evacuees or their center. Mr. Kuhn said it normally had no guards and the residents often left the doors open.

Ms. Kuhn said some Roots of Peace staff members in Kabul were in their offices at the time of the attack. Until the Serena Hotel assault, some also had stayed there, where rooms typically cost $300 a night.

“There’s a message here, a really strong message,” Ms. Kuhn said. She said her husband and son had been due to go to Kabul in three days. “By the grace of God, it’s really a miracle, that’s all I can say.”

So a bunch of islamic cunts try to blow up a bunch of little kids, but end up getting turned into swiss cheese by armed men who can actually fight back. I don't normally take joy in someone's death, but this makes me smile.

I can't help but ponder what can convince someone that it's justified to attack a goddamn day care center. Do they really think that god will reward them for murdering babies? It's been debated that religion is a mental illness (I don't agree normally), but in this case is it possible that it's true? I mean were these gunmen just heavily indoctrinated / brainwashed, or could they be mentally defective so that they see little children as the enemy?

[General Zod]

There's a lot of places in the Old Testament where God commands the Hebrews to slaughter every man, woman and child of an enemy tribe. So it's not really unprecedented.

[Tribble]

Oh, God's gone further than that. He's given the command on occasion to kill everything that breathes. Slaughtering babies was just the warm up.

[madd0ct0r]

Fucking cunts.

I was mildly amused by an NGO called Roots of Peace employing so many armed guards, but looking into them they specialise in in ex-warzones and returning mine fields into agricultural use, so I guess that's almost business as usual for them.

[wautd]

There are few things more cowardly than an Afghan taliban member. Glad to hear a couple of more barbarians will be rotting under the ground

[Tribble]

What is the Taliban's spin on it? Do they believe that the children are deserving of death and will be punished for eternity? Or do they take the Christian view that they are doing the children a favour in the long run, and in death the children are being cleansed of their sins so that they can enjoy the afterlife?

[Scrib]

There are few things more cowardly than an Afghan taliban member. Glad to hear a couple of more barbarians will be rotting under the ground

Quite frankly I've never been that impressed with Americans and their constant cries of cowardice whenever something they don't like happens.

I mean, the Taliban are bad, but they're trying to kill people in the way they can. When America drones or freedoms people to death then it's all good. Or bad, but never cowardly. At the end of the day a bunch of innocent people are dead because you didn't (or did)want to put boots on the ground and deal with it but that's not the act of a coward, just military action.

However, if you're a terrorist then surely you're a coward for not grabbing your AK and challenging the brave men and women of the US Armed Forces ,or whoever the fuck, to single combat. Of course, they will probably blow you up from the skies as the beneficiaries of a large tech advantage but at least you wouldn't be a coward.

I really dislike that word, and Americans (or perhaps just Westerners I dunno) seem to love it. I suppose it makes them feel fuzzy inside but if we can get on people for idealistic takes on politics in the whole Ukraine debacle then why not just wipe this word away?

Call me a mindless relativist but it irks me.

[madd0ct0r]

the thing is, from a Taliban mentality it also made sense.
[in mindset]
They weren't attacking a day-care center, they were attacking an under-ground church that was trying to convert muslims. Belief is sacred to them, so this is an infinitely bad thing. Allah is merciful, so the dozen children who might be present will be accepted into heaven and hundreds of muslim souls will be saved into the future.[/mindset]

[madd0ct0r]

You seem to be ignoring the hypothesis I put forward for motivation re evangelist churches. Any reason?

Irrelevance. Murdering a room full of children cannot be justified by bringing religion into the mix. If anything, it makes the crime even worse.

Nope. Sadly not. By allowing those children to be converted, their souls will go to hell and burn for eternity. That's an infinitely bad thing. By killing them now, you let them got to heaven as innocents. That's infinitely better and thus justifies doing ANYTHING in this world to save their souls.

We're into the same mindset that burns witches. It's a fucked up mindset, but it's internally consistent. You can just dismiss them as murdering savages that like killing children, but that's not really going to help you avoid the next bunch logically following their beliefs to an extreme end.

[Batman]

How does the fact that they're deliberately killing children not because of 'RAR! We're evil!' but because they're religious nutbags change anything about them deliberately killing children? We already know []they[/i] think it's justified, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. I don't think that is what Borgholio's talking about.

[Batman]

Are we reading the same posts? Borgholio said religion being the reason made it worse. Full stop. No qualifiers like 'except if christians do it, then it's okay'. He said religion makes it worse, and he's right. Abominable as it remains at least killing kids for propaganda reasons so your enemies know 'yep, there's pretty much nothing we'll refrain from to make you back off/get rid of you' is rational. Not necessarily well thought out or effective but there's a reasoning you can follow from intent to anticipated effect.
'Because my sky pixie told me to' means you murdered those children essentially because a fantasy novel said so.

[Metahive]

I think what people shouldn't forget is that Afghanistan has been in a period of civil strife mixed with open warfare for the last few decades. If all people know is constant misery and death, they will have a different perspective on the worth of human life. I mean, look at the child soldiers that are thrown into battle by ruthless warlords in some of the wartorn african countries. Mix this with a religion that promises both rewards and unending punishment in the afterlife and you have a perfect combination for such atrocities becoming thinkable.

This isn't a justification of Taliban nuttery but an explanation.

[Borgholio]

Nope. Sadly not. By allowing those children to be converted, their souls will go to hell and burn for eternity. That's an infinitely bad thing. By killing them now, you let them got to heaven as innocents. That's infinitely better and thus justifies doing ANYTHING in this world to save their souls.

I highly doubt they're doing it to *save* the children. They see anything not Islamic as a threat and evil. Thus, they don't see them as children. They see them just as targets to shoot. They believe they will be rewarded for removing them from this Earth. If Allah says "I will reward you for killing those children", then these people will gladly and gleefully murder any Christian babies they can get their hands on. While it may justify it for them, it makes it objectively even more despicable because we know that they will go out of their way to commit infanticide...not avoid it. Thus, religion makes it worse because without religion, their entire justification would vanish.

We're into the same mindset that burns witches. It's a fucked up mindset, but it's internally consistent. You can just dismiss them as murdering savages that like killing children, but that's not really going to help you avoid the next bunch logically following their beliefs to an extreme end.

Witch burning has historically been used as an excuse to eliminate someone who is an annoyance to you, personally or politically. Murdering a room full of children with a machine gun or a bomb is far worse, especially if you take pleasure in doing it like, as you put it, murdering savages would.

[Metahive]

There are certain christian doctrines that propose an age of accountability, meaning that children that die before reaching that age are free of sin and enter heaven immediately. If Islam has similar doctrines and the Taliban happen to subscribe to such a doctrine then, as perverse as it sounds, killing little children might be doing the greatest favor possible because it means they'll live on in eternal bliss and be safe from eternal damnation! If someone firmly believes in Heaven, Hell, eternal bliss or damnation combined with an age of accountability, then this followed to its logical conclusion would mean that killing little children might not only be morally acceptable but even mandatory lest you allow any more people to suffer eternal punishment! Let this sink in.

You can understand why a Taliban who might believe in such things would not feel bad about doing it. You can tell him that this is wrong, that butchering children is just evil, but all he sees and hears is a kafir who either unknowingly or maliciously wants to send people to Hell.

This is why religion combined with desperation and fanaticism is such a great threat.

[Scrib]

Are we reading the same posts? Borgholio said religion being the reason made it worse. Full stop. No qualifiers like 'except if christians do it, then it's okay'. He said religion makes it worse, and he's right. Abominable as it remains at least killing kids for propaganda reasons so your enemies know 'yep, there's pretty much nothing we'll refrain from to make you back off/get rid of you' is rational. Not necessarily well thought out or effective but there's a reasoning you can follow from intent to anticipated effect.
'Because my sky pixie told me to' means you murdered those children essentially because a fantasy novel said so.

What are you talking about? I merely thought that he was using the old defense of the liberal Christians of the West: "religion is for X good thing not the bad things that people come to rationally believe have to be done and it's sad when people "twist" religion".

But what you say makes sense as a reading. However looking at intentions instead of consequences it is debatable.

I highly doubt they're doing it to *save* the children. They see anything not Islamic as a threat and evil.

Why not both? It is infinitely better for everyone -including the heathens- that the heathens die. They're right no? Well, not right but this is an internally consistent belief. You can't penetrate the madness.
.

While it may justify it for them, it makes it objectively even more despicable because we know that they will go out of their way to commit infanticide...not avoid it.

Which is perhaps the rational path once you buy into a God like theirs. I don't see how it makes them worse that they're willing to follow the logic to its logical conclusion.This is what I meant before.

Thus, religion makes it worse because without religion, their entire justification would vanish.

This seems like a subtle change from your original position which was that murdering in the name of religion was a worse crime, not that it made their actions worse from a practical standpoint.

[Borgholio]

Why not both? It is infinitely better for everyone -including the heathens- that the heathens die. They're right no? Well, not right but this is an internally consistent belief. You can't penetrate the madness.

There are better ways of saving someone's soul that murdering them. Other religions try to convert through preaching, not death.

Which is perhaps the rational path once you buy into a God like theirs. I don't see how it makes them worse that they're willing to follow the logic to its logical conclusion.This is what I meant before.

Ok I see what you're saying as far as THEIR point of view. However, objectively it DOES make it worse because regardless of your point of view, it entices them to commit murder more often because they feel they're doing Allah's will. Killing children is bad, but anything that encourages people to kill even more children is worse. There's no way to objectively justify that.

This seems like a subtle change from your original position which was that murdering in the name of religion was a worse crime, not that it made their actions worse from a practical standpoint.

No it doesn't change anything, because both statements are true. Murdering in the name of religion is worse than a "typical" murder for the reasons I explained above...and it also makes it worse from a practical standpoint because a room full of dead babies is undeniably worse than "just" one or two.

[SCRawl]

Metahive's derailment of this thread (and all posts which followed from it) have been moved to here.

[Scrib]

There are better ways of saving someone's soul that murdering them. Other religions try to convert through preaching, not death.

Other religions are also in a completely different position theologically and politically.Once you cede the principle and start to argue practicality then this becomes apparent.

But how has that worked out for them by the way? For all the talk of love and hippie acceptance organizations like the Catholic Church are being dragged into the modern world whether they want it or not, to the point that they'll have to get Stockholm Syndrome and come to a ""better understanding" of the teachings of Christ which match the thinking of the Western backers.

.
Ok I see what you're saying as far as THEIR point of view. However, objectively it DOES make it worse because regardless of your point of view, it entices them to commit murder more often because they feel they're doing Allah's will. Killing children is bad, but anything that encourages people to kill even more children is worse. There's no way to objectively justify that.

It makes it practically worse for us because there is more reason to kill children, we agree.

As for "objectively justify" I can only imagine that you mean that there is no logical (or empirical )proof for God.

No it doesn't change anything, because both statements are true. Murdering in the name of religion is worse than a "typical" murder for the reasons I explained above...and it also makes it worse from a practical standpoint because a room full of dead babies is undeniably worse than "just" one or two.

You've given one reason and it's practical. It doesn't necessary follow that because religion makes people more likely to murder then murdering in the name of religion is a worse crime.

[Borgholio]

But how has that worked out for them by the way? For all the talk of love and hippie acceptance organizations like the Catholic Church are being dragged into the modern world whether they want it or not, to the point that they'll have to get Stockholm Syndrome and come to a ""better understanding" of the teachings of Christ which match the thinking of the Western backers.

Worked out fine I'd say, since the Catholic Church isn't bombing day care centers or flying hijacked planes into skyscrapers.

As for "objectively justify" I can only imagine that you mean that there is no logical (or empirical )proof for God.

I agree with Batman...I wonder where you get your interpretation of my posts from. Objective = mathematically without regard for religious preconceptions. 100 dead babies is worse than 10 dead babies which is worse than 1 which is worse than 0. Simple mathematics...I'm not sure how else I can explain it.

You've given one reason and it's practical. It doesn't necessary follow that because religion makes people more likely to murder then murdering in the name of religion is a worse crime.

Once again, you fail to comprehend the logic. If religion makes people murder more babies, then religion makes it worse because without religion there would be fewer dead babies. And more dead babies is worse than fewer dead babies, which makes the crime worse.

[Scrib]

But how has that worked out for them by the way? For all the talk of love and hippie acceptance organizations like the Catholic Church are being dragged into the modern world whether they want it or not, to the point that they'll have to get Stockholm Syndrome and come to a ""better understanding" of the teachings of Christ which match the thinking of the Western backers.

Worked out fine I'd say, since the Catholic Church isn't bombing day care centers or flying hijacked planes into skyscrapers.

This is glib. The Catholic Church compromised -or will be forced to- on it's beliefs to fit into modern society. If there was One Right Path then they have failed. You're looking at this from your perspective and counting a win when this is clearly a loss for any fundamentalist. If you believe that god tortures people for doing the wrong thing then liberal secular morals and their emphasis on freedom and harm reduction opposed to outright dislike of certain acts is a joke. To compromise and give into them is a failure.

As for "objectively justify" I can only imagine that you mean that there is no logical (or empirical )proof for God.

I agree with Batman...I wonder where you get your interpretation of my posts from. Objective = mathematically without regard for religious preconceptions. 100 dead babies is worse than 10 dead babies which is worse than 1 which is worse than 0. Simple mathematics...I'm not sure how else I can explain it.

No?"Mathematically worse" means little. Natural facts have no normative weight or value judgements attached to them. A hundred babies is just a hundred babies, it requires a moral/value judgement to make it worse. Larger==true. Worse==conditional.That is the old Is-Ought gap for you.

For example: a hundred terminal and contagious babies dead vs. a ten healthy babies. Different answers according to different moral codes. It is the moral code that gives us the value judgement, not the maths. And religion has a moral code. So the way to strike at said moral code is to undermine it's foundation (the existence of god) because otherwise it makes a lot of sense.

You've given one reason and it's practical. It doesn't necessary follow that because religion makes people more likely to murder then murdering in the name of religion is a worse crime.

Once again, you fail to comprehend the logic. If religion makes people murder more babies, then religion makes it worse because without religion there would be fewer dead babies. And more dead babies is worse than fewer dead babies, which makes the crime worse.

If religion makes it more likely to murder babies then religion is bad by our moral codes. We're fine.

The problem is this: if religion means more babies dead in general that doesn't mean that the act of murdering babies for religion's sake is a worse crime on its own. You say that "more dead babies is worse" however not all religious people are aiming for hospitals. You're talking a case that we consider worse (more harm) and attaching religion to it when it would be worse in general. If religion lead to the deaths of just two babies would it be less of a crime?

What about politics? Is it worse to kill someone or a lot of someones for political purposes because it can lead to more death or do we judge you by the amount you kill regardless of reason?

[Borgholio]

This is glib. The Catholic Church compromised -or will be forced to- on it's beliefs to fit into modern society. If there was One Right Path then they have failed. You're looking at this from your perspective and counting a win when this is clearly a loss for any fundamentalist. If you believe that god tortures people for doing the wrong thing then liberal secular morals and their emphasis on freedom and harm reduction opposed to outright dislike of certain acts is a joke. To compromise and give into them is a failure.

What the fuck does this have to do with believing that God tells you to murder children in his name? If Islam preaches that infant murder is ok and Catholicism doesn't, then that is not a failure. That is one point in favor of the Catholic church being superior.

No?"Mathematically worse" means little. Natural facts have no normative weight or value judgements attached to them. A hundred babies is just a hundred babies, it requires a moral/value judgement to make it worse. Larger==true. Worse==conditional.That is the old Is-Ought gap for you.

Ok seriously, you're beginning to spew bullshit now. Natural facts DO have weight attached to them. One ton < Two tons. Two tons is therefore heaver than one ton. Given the near-universal ethical code stating that murder is wrong, then 10 murders is worse than one murder. If your religious belief states that murder is ok, then it goes contrary to what nearly ever other fucking moral code in human history states and is therefore wrong.

For example: a hundred terminal and contagious babies dead vs. a ten healthy babies. Different answers according to different moral codes.

We're talking murder, not disease. Morality doesn't apply here.

It is the moral code that gives us the value judgement, not the maths.

Incorrect. Moral code determines that murder is a crime. At that point, mathematics determines which crimes are worse than others. More murders is worse than less.

And religion has a moral code. So the way to strike at said moral code is to undermine it's foundation (the existence of god) because otherwise it makes a lot of sense.

Only Islam, as far as I am aware, provides rewards for murdering people of a different faith. Other religions are more tolerant. Thus the removal of God will not have as big of an impact on Christian religions as it would on Islam.

The problem is this: if religion means more babies dead in general that doesn't mean that the act of murdering babies for religion's sake is a worse crime on its own.

Yes, it does. Because not only is religion a shitty reason for killing (as opposed to open war or self defense), but religion turns potentially a single child murder into a mass murder which is according to nearly all moral and legal codes, worse.

You say that "more dead babies is worse" however not all religious people are aiming for hospitals.

More dead babies IS worse, and you're right that not all religious people are aiming for hospitals. Did I say they were? No, I did not.

If religion lead to the deaths of just two babies would it be less of a crime?

Less of a crime than 10 babies, more of a crime than none. Again, back to the math.

What about politics? Is it worse to kill someone or a lot of someones for political purposes because it can lead to more death or do we judge you by the amount you kill regardless of reason?

I know of no justifiable political reason to murder children. If you're talking war (which is an extension of politics), then it does very much depend on the circumstances. It is considered more acceptable to inadvertently kill civilians as a side-effect of attacking a legitimate military target than it is to attack civilians directly. Even the various international laws and conventions on war agree, that it is not a war crime to kill civilians accidentally if you are sincerely attempting to attack a strategic target. Genocide, however, is a hangable offense.

[Scrib]

This is glib. The Catholic Church compromised -or will be forced to- on it's beliefs to fit into modern society. If there was One Right Path then they have failed. You're looking at this from your perspective and counting a win when this is clearly a loss for any fundamentalist. If you believe that god tortures people for doing the wrong thing then liberal secular morals and their emphasis on freedom and harm reduction opposed to outright dislike of certain acts is a joke. To compromise and give into them is a failure.

What the fuck does this have to do with believing that God tells you to murder children in his name? If Islam preaches that infant murder is ok and Catholicism doesn't, then that is not a failure. That is one point in favor of the Catholic church being superior.

I'm not just talking about murder. I'm talking about things like disliking homosexuality as a sin for example. Now, The Catholic church has every reason to ban this, but they cannot, so conveniently the morals of their people change to match their secular society.Popes come out and talk about essentially surrendering. This is not a good thing if there is a god.

It's only good to be kind and mind your own business if there isn't a god out to torture you.

Ok seriously, you're beginning to spew bullshit now. Natural facts DO have weight attached to them. One ton < Two tons. Two tons is therefore heaver than one ton.

You know exactly what I meant. I meant normative weight. Don't be pedantic.

Given the near-universal ethical code stating that murder is wrong, then 10 murders is worse than one murder.If your religious belief states that murder is ok, then it goes contrary to what nearly ever other fucking moral code in human history states and is therefore wrong.

Who cares what is near-universal? That is a natural fact. It can be shown that a large percentage of people believe X then it doesn't follow that X is then right or wrong. It just shows that X IS, not that it OUGHT to be. You haven't bridged the gap. Frankly it's been around for a while for a reason.

You can see how this is problematic if we consider an alternate universe where Hitler owns the world. Is Nazism then right? Or sexism?

But we don't even need to go to freshman thought experiments. The Is-Ought gap explanation really says it all.

Also: "murder is wrong" means nothing at all. Murder is merely immoral or unlawful killling therefore to say that murder is wrong is just circular. Of course every society hates murder. That's not the issue.

You're simplifying to help yourself. What is murder is defined by the moral code. Pull different people and you can get a whole bunch of different answers for the same act, murder, self-defense,regrettable collateral damage,justified political violence,justified honor killing,some lesser violence against chattel, all different answers with different moral weight

We're talking murder, not disease. Morality doesn't apply here.

What? I want you to read that back to yourself. Morality doesn't apply to murder?

The point still stands,murder is wrong because of the moral system. Hell, murder is only murder because of said judgements.

You're trying to dismiss my point so I'll clarify again:
You have to choose between killing 100 terminal and contagious babies and 10 healthy ones: which choice is right? They are all alive, but without the value judgement morality provides there is no answer. Maths can't answer this.

It is the moral code that gives us the value judgement, not the maths.

Incorrect. Moral code determines that murder is a crime. At that point, mathematics determines which crimes are worse than others. More murders is worse than less.

You haven't said anything at all challenging. Do you realize that? You've restated what I said.

Morality gives us the value judgement "more deaths are wrong".The wrong part is the value judgement and it cannot be created by math. Then math or science proceeds from this value judgement as follows:"if more murders are wrong then X strategy is more immoral than Y strategy."

Of course, the problem is that that moral claim cannot lean on natural facts so it leans on...itself. It is axiomatic or regressive.

And religion has a moral code. So the way to strike at said moral code is to undermine it's foundation (the existence of god) because otherwise it makes a lot of sense.

Only Islam, as far as I am aware, provides rewards for murdering people of a different faith. Other religions are more tolerant. Thus the removal of God will not have as big of an impact on Christian religions as it would on Islam.

They don't need to have an explicit reward. It's quite simple: if following what god says ==heaven and disobeying him==hell then the reward is inherent to the system. If Christians believe this then secular morals are at best an evil they have to appear to tolerate while they work to subvert t them at worst something they wipe their asses with as they go around imposing their will.

The logic is quite simple. If hell is given for certain acts then you have every possible incentive to act in a manner that prevents hell. Minding your own business? That's nonsensical. Why would you want your children exposed to other filthy, clearly inferior lifestyles (they will lead to eternal damnation) the only solution is to destroy those things or guarantine yourselves.

You talk as if the Christian toothlessness is due to their religion having something different in the scripture. It is not any more so than the toothlessness of liberal Muslims in the West and elsewhere is due to some radically different version of the Qur'an. It's merely socialization. They know for a fact that they can't get away with this shit and they have been conditioned from childhood for multiculturalism and liberalism so they rationalize to fit in. They ignore what they don't like and act in a manner that makes no sense given the punishment waiting for everyone. Why would you NOT bug your atheist friend? His soul is at risk right? They're merely cowards who value social harmony more than the afterlife.

The problem is this: if religion means more babies dead in general that doesn't mean that the act of murdering babies for religion's sake is a worse crime on its own.

Yes, it does. Because not only is religion a shitty reason for killing (as opposed to open war or self defense), but religion turns potentially a single child murder into a mass murder which is according to nearly all moral and legal codes, worse.

So if we want to punish a political radical then their actions are worse because they could lead to more deaths? This seems obscene. If he killed or tried to X people he is tried for X number of deaths,not because in some hypothetical situation he could kill more. Also: apply the same logic to morality and not just law.

You say that "more dead babies is worse" however not all religious people are aiming for hospitals.

More dead babies IS worse, and you're right that not all religious people are aiming for hospitals. Did I say they were? No, I did not.

You are not just claiming that more dead babies is worse. You are claiming that religious violence is a worse crime because it could POTENTIALLY lead to more dead babies. Which is why I ask you how we should treat a religious person who killed one child. Are we to condemn him more because he was acting based on religious belief that MAY have killed more? This seems odd. That is the only point we disagree on in this field.

[Borgholio]

I'm not just talking about murder. I'm talking about things like disliking homosexuality as a sin for example.

Well this thread is about murder. Stay on topic please.

You know exactly what I meant. I meant normative weight. Don't be pedantic.

Math is about numbers, plain and simple. Quit pulling all this philosophical bullshit out of your ass to try and justify somehow that mass murder is not any worse than a single murder.

Pull different people and you can get a whole bunch of different answers for the same act

Ok let's do a poll. How many people here think mass murder is worse than a single murder. Raise your hand. o/

You haven't said anything at all challenging.

What's supposed to be challenging? Mass murder is worse than a single murder. Killing children deliberately is worse than killing accidentally. You're the one who is making a mountain out of a molehill just to make yourself sound smart.

You talk as if the Christian toothlessness is due to their religion having something different in the scripture.

Far from toothless, but also far from the kinds of heinous crimes Islam has committed in recent years. It is very much due to the scriptures. Let me introduce you to a concept that is fully alien to the Christian Bible. Jihad. Look it up.

So if we want to punish a political radical then their actions are worse because they could lead to more deaths?

A political radical who causes deaths to make his point is not called a radical, he's called a terrorist. And yes, we punish terrorists by killing them.

If he killed or tried to X people he is tried for X number of deaths,not because in some hypothetical situation he could kill more.

Another concept you should look up : Attempted Murder.

You are not just claiming that more dead babies is worse. You are claiming that religious violence is a worse crime because it could POTENTIALLY lead to more dead babies.

Not potentially, dumbass. It DOES lead to more dead babies. Have you been living in a hole in the ground since before 9/11?

Which is why I ask you how we should treat a religious person who killed one child.

As a murderer.

Are we to condemn him more because he was acting based on religious belief that MAY have killed more?

Legally? No. Morally, yes.

That is the only point we disagree on in this field.

No to be honest, I don't even know what the fuck we disagree about because you're always finding something new to argue about. My original point was that their religion is the reason for committing mass murder of children, and that it is worse than the accidental killing of children via drone strikes intended to take out these assholes. If it weren't for their religion, they would not likely have a reason for doing such a thing. But then you had to get all stuck up about morality and quantifying what is worse and all that horse-shit. You took a simple concept about what causes a group of men to storm into a day-care center with bombs and somehow tried to argue the idea that we shouldn't hold them accountable for it because it was religious based, when in fact religion is the reason they're doing it in the first place!

Seriously, what are you trying to do here? Do you enjoy always finding something to argue about? Can't you just admit that the more children die then the worse it is?

[Scrib]

I'm not just talking about murder. I'm talking about things like disliking homosexuality as a sin for example.

Well this thread is about murder. Stay on topic please.

I'm talking about general religious power you moron. Murder, repressing homosexuals, it's all about power. The religious people that have the power to do it do.All I meant.

Math is about numbers, plain and simple. Quit pulling all this philosophical bullshit out of your ass to try and justify somehow that mass murder is not any worse than a single murder.

When did I say that a single murder is the same as multiple murder? I simply find your formulation silly and overly simplistic. And you seem to know this now too, which is why you repeat something we know.

I did not start the ethical debate. You did when you started making claims about how wrong religious behavior was.And how mathematicallywrong it was. When you come with a strong position you better have a strong defense, yet you run into the Is-Ought gap (the first fucking hurdle) and immediately unload your petulance on ME as if I forced you to use a sloppy definition of "objective".

I've also not failed to notice how that line of discussion is completely missing now.

You talk as if the Christian toothlessness is due to their religion having something different in the scripture.

Far from toothless, but also far from the kinds of heinous crimes Islam has committed in recent years. It is very much due to the scriptures. Let me introduce you to a concept that is fully alien to the Christian Bible. Jihad. Look it up.

Right. Because that stopped all the bad shit that happened in between Christianity striving for dominance and secularization.

The difference is just that: secularization. When Christians or Muslims have power they are justified in acting how they please.It is built into the very nature of hell and damnation. I notice that you don't actually challenge the basis for this.

The difference is not that the Christians have a better book;they've learned otherwise after a few billion gallons of blood and some philosophy.

If he killed or tried to X people he is tried for X number of deaths,not because in some hypothetical situation he could kill more.

Another concept you should look up : Attempted Murder.

Which is exactly why I said OR TRIED TO. I'm not talking about who he tried to kill at the moment.

You are not just claiming that more dead babies is worse. You are claiming that religious violence is a worse crime because it could POTENTIALLY lead to more dead babies.

Not potentially, dumbass. It DOES lead to more dead babies. Have you been living in a hole in the ground since before 9/11?

1- Religious violence provides an unlimited justification for violence and death
2-Religious violence is thus a greater crime
3-Then if a religious man kills one person only, as he intended to, he committed a greater crime or sin than if a murderer killed that same one person.

Is that not your claim? Right, I thought so.

My original point was that their religion is the reason for committing mass murder of children, and that it is worse than the accidental killing of children via drone strikes intended to take out these assholes. If it weren't for their religion, they would not likely have a reason for doing such a thing. But then you had to get all stuck up about morality and quantifying what is worse and all that horse-shit. You took a simple concept about what causes a group of men to storm into a day-care center with bombs and somehow tried to argue the idea that we shouldn't hold them accountable for it because it was religious based, when in fact religion is the reason they're doing it in the first place!

When did I say we shouldn't hold them accountable? I specifically said that we should stop them.

What I did say is that the sort of moralizing and thinking that follows from some of your claims smelt like bullshit to me. Similarly, the attempt to engage religious people on their level is also bullshit for reasons I now realize I should not have expended time explaining.

If you dislike complexity don't make ethical arguments. Life is complex, I know that gets in the way of moral masturbation but such is life.

Seriously, what are you trying to do here? Do you enjoy always finding something to argue about? Can't you just admit that the more children die then the worse it is?

Depends.

[Borgholio]

I'm talking about general religious power you moron. Murder, repressing homosexuals, it's all about power. The religious people that have the power to do it do.All I meant.

Well guess what, asshole, I am not talking about general religious power. I am talking specifically about the religious ideology that drives people to commit mass murder and about how without that ideology, the mass murder is not as likely to happen. Get that through your thick fucking skull. All your tangents about general religious philosophy are irrelevant because Islam can NOT be compared to other contemporary religions.

I've also not failed to notice how that line of discussion is completely missing now.

That line of discussion was one of the ones that you decided to give a mental blowjob because you totally missed the fucking original point. I never said that all religious behavior was wrong, I said the mass-murdering kind was wrong. And religious or not, the numbers make all the fucking difference.

The difference is just that: secularization. When Christians or Muslims have power they are justified in acting how they please.It is built into the very nature of hell and damnation. I notice that you don't actually challenge the basis for this.

What basis? That people who have power often abuse that power? That's nothing new and nothing special. What's special is that you have never seen Christians go around blowing themselves up or flying planes into fucking buildings. Muslim fanatics have taken religious terror to a whole new fucking level, which no other religion has ever done.

1- Religious violence provides an unlimited justification for violence and death
2-Religious violence is thus a greater crime
3-Then if a religious man kills one person only, as he intended to, he committed a greater crime or sin than if a murderer killed that same one person.

Is that not your claim? Right, I thought so.

Jesus H Christ, you are fucking stupid.

1. Religious violence provides "justification" for committing more murders and acts of terror than other potential reasons.
2. If more people are killed as a result of religion, then by simple NUMBERS it becomes a greater crime.
3. Bull-fucking-shit. The crime is greater only if he kills more people than a more "typical" murderer such as a burgler or drug dealer. The religious aspect when dealing with a single murder is likely to only have an impact when he is sentenced for his crime, as an honor killing is not a legal justification for homicide.

What I did say is that the sort of moralizing and thinking that follows from some of your claims smelt like bullshit to me.

Oh I'd very much like for you to explain how claiming that mass murder in the name of God is worse than a single murder for other reasons is bullshit. Furthermore, I would like you to explain how, if the whole fucking reason for the murder is Islam, the murder will still take place if Islam was taken out of the picture?

If you dislike complexity don't make ethical arguments. Life is complex, I know that gets in the way of moral masturbation but such is life.

See? There you go with the moral asshattery again. Talking about masturbation, you probably made your desk look like a bottle of Elmer's glue exploded. I said that a mass murder is worse than a single murder. If you call that complex, then you seriously need to get the fuck out of this thread right now.

Depends.

Holy shit, see what I mean? You can't even agree to a simple statement like that! How the living fuck can it be a good thing to have more children die? What good can POSSIBLY come of a greater loss of life? Just GIVE IT UP man. You've proven that you really don't have a point to make, you just like arguing. Christ, this is getting to be right out of a Monty Python sketch.