Thoughts about revenge killing

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 6:00pm

I'm trying to formulate my thoughts about killing in the name of revenge.  The Catholic theology I was raised in, particularly the liberation theology parts, really stressed Jesus's clear cut instructions to love your enemy, no matter how horribly your enemy treats you.

 

Of course, this could just be yet another example of religion being used for social control, asking the downtrodden to forgive their abusers rather than doing something to change the conditions of their own existence.  Or, not...?  I don't know.

 

Another writer I like even better than Jesus, Shakespeare, spent a lot of his time working on plays with messages that killing for revenge just leads to more killing for revenge and even more killing for revenge and so on.  

 

I mean, were Jesus and Shakespeare crazy?  The question I keep coming back to is:  Do people who kill for revenge not value human life like terrorists?  Or, do they value it even less?


Help me out here, smart people.  

 

Thanking you in advance,  I remain yours with affection,

FN

Updated On: 11/15/15 at 06:00 PM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 7:13pm

FindingNamo said: "I'm trying to formulate my thoughts about killing in the name of revenge.  The Catholic theology I was raised in, particularly the liberation theology parts, really stressed Jesus's clear cut instructions to love your enemy, no matter how horribly your enemy treats you.

 

 

 

Of course, this could just be yet another example of religion being used for social control, asking the downtrodden to forgive their abusers rather than doing something to change the conditions of their own existence.  Or, not...?  I don't know.

 

 

 

Another writer I like even better than Jesus, Shakespeare, spent a lot of his time working on plays with messages that killing for revenge just leads to more killing for revenge and even more killing for revenge and so on.  

 

 

 

I mean, were Jesus and Shakespeare crazy?  The question I keep coming back to is:  Do people who kill for revenge not value human life like terrorists?  Or, do they value it even less?


Help me out here, smart people.  

 

 

 

Thanking you in advance,  I remain yours with affection,

 

FN

 

 

Oh sh!t, just when I thought I've read it all on broadwayworld.com someone comes along and takes the bat-sh!t craziness of this forum to another level I thought it could not possibly reach.

 

I must say it doesn't fail to entertain and amuse, for lack of better words....

 

Carry on.

Updated On: 11/15/15 at 07:13 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 7:26pm

Namo, my response is that I don't base my life's values on what someone else has supposedly said. Even if I were to follow a religion, I'm not sure if Jesus said that, or if there was a Jesus. Living one's life by the word of a book doesn't work for me.

 

I myself, would probably not be able to kill anyone due to chickening out.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 7:27pm

I was being serious.

 

And I realize my frustration at so many people here being unable to post anything but catchphrases and political side taking when tragedy happens led me to want to see if it might actually be possible to have a kind of philosophical look at some of the issues of the day.  So I will take that as a "no" from you and wonder what anybody else thinks, if anything at all.

 

ETA  Thanks for your contribution, Jane.  Obviously, France bombing the eff outta Syria this evening brought this to mind.  I'm not suggesting anybody live by any book, I am thinking about some of the philosophical musings that have informed me a I grew up.  And if they apply at all to the world of today.

Updated On: 11/15/15 at 07:27 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 7:33pm

Namo, my problem is that I'm  utterly literal. I read what is written and take it as it reads in black and white. So, I did take your post seriously and answered seriously.

 

As for France's bombing of Syria today, I think that killing was based on the fact that France took the attack Sat. as a declaration of war.

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 7:39pm

Right.

 

I'm wondering about the success rate of meeting killing with more killing?

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 7:41pm

well, as per wars are concerned, if one side did not retaliate the killing, would the originator of the war just completely eradicate the passive side and win by default? (partly joking)

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 7:41pm

 

I am kind of glad they did it, although I don't hold out much hope for the success of this kind of mission. I believe it rarely if ever is "all it takes to get the job done."

 

At any rate, I hope they did it better than we have been doing.

 

I hope they killed only ISIS masterminds and no civilians.

 

I hope they don't go on doing it.

 

 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 7:44pm

"I hope they killed only ISIS masterminds and no civilians."

Is that even possible, I wonder?  In a world where the US blows up Doctors Without Borders and not much comes of it, I don't have high hopes.

[dented146]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 7:51pm

I think it is a great question. On a personal level I feel it is not justified so long as laws are in place to protect society from needing revenge. When laws are not in place it simply becomes self defense. The Civil War shows us a wonderful example. When enemy soldiers were captured in the field and there were no facilities to hold them out of battle, Their capture was registered and recorded. They were given papers and were ordered to return home. If they returned to battle and were captured again they were quickly shot.

Things were far more civilized then.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 8:19pm

Ce soir à 19H50 et 20H25 (heure française), une dizaine d’aéronefs français de la force Chammal ont frappé et détruit, lors d’un raid, un centre de commandement et un camp d’entraînement de Daech situés à Raqqah en Syrie.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 8:24pm

That's all Greek to me.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 8:31pm

An interesting question. My knee jerk reaction is, bomb the F*ck out them! Then when you sit back and actually think about it, many more than 150 innocents were killed today in Syria. The whole is paying the price of the crimes committed by the few. Something does need to be done, but what?

[Kad]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 8:48pm

But the Paris attacks were retaliation for France's involvement in raids against the Islamic State.

Trump- and many others- say "bomb the **** out of them." But isn't that what's gotten us to this position now in the first place? And how can you bomb an ideology that has done nothing but grow more and more intense and extreme with every year it is bombed?

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 9:05pm

This is indeed confusing to me. Let's take it where we are now, and not who started it. We know that ISIS wants to kill everyone who doesn't share their beliefs and thus far is unstoppable. So if we do not retaliate with bombs, which might kill innocents, and do nothing, what will happen?

 

!. They would simply take over the world, which is their purpose....or....

2. ?

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 9:22pm

This is a tricky question. I too grew up with the Catholic/Christian idea of "loving thy enemy" and "turning the other cheek," but it certainly becomes complicated when a lack of retaliation will result in more violence from the opposing side.

If only there was a non-violent way to put a stop to ISIS's atrocities, but of course things aren't always possible.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 9:23pm

Use espionage to surgically remove those controlling ISIS? Or will that take to long?

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 9:26pm

hmmm, SNAFU. ISIS is pretty smart. They probably have leaders in training, should the current ones get killed. This leads me to ask - how did France know ISIS' exact locations?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 9:58pm

 

British writer Graeme Wood published this seminal article about ISIS's endgame in the Atlantic in February. I posted it then but it's worth re-reading or reading for the first time:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 9:59pm

jane - as has been reported earlier, France used "raw intelligence" from America to execute the targeted bombings today. That "raw intelligence" is extremely detailed and is rarely shared with other countries. Only by special request. BY THE WAY.... A lot more information on the strikes can be found via cnn.com. For what it's worth, these bombings usually do not result in any killings -- Jordan's retiliation in February only resulted in 10 militant deaths and 0 civilian deaths -- so basing this thread on today's strikes, in which reportedly no one (militant or civilian) were killed, is disingenuous and unfair. This was clearly a symbolic move. See below. 

 

Since ISIS took over, the city of Raqqa has become increasingly isolated. On Sunday, the activist collective said that the city appeared to be bracing for an attack even before the French airstrikes began.

 

ISIS fighters in Raqqa had expected retaliatory airstrikes and evacuated key facilities, including their headquarters, operation and security buildings, a member of Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently said.

 

Streets were empty, the activists said, markets were less crowded than usual and sheikhs in mosques said they expected the city to be struck.

 

The airstrikes hit several key ISIS facilities, including the city's stadium, activists said, used by ISIS as both its headquarters and a jail. It was not immediately clear what the damage was. So far, according to Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, there have been no reports of civilian casualties.

 

The ISIS media wing Amaaq also said the sites hit by airstrikes had been abandoned and that no one had been killed in the airstrikes. CNN has not independently confirmed the groups' reports.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/middleeast/france-announces-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/index.html

[Kad]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 10:06pm

SNAFU said: "Use espionage to surgically remove those controlling ISIS? Or will that take to long?"

There is cause to doubt where those in charge of ISISt have as much control over the actions of their adherents. And it's not like Nazi Germany, they're not heiling anyone. It's ideology. If its current leaders are gone, ISIS continues.

 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 10:09pm

There is one potentially non-violent way: target the financials/funding. Without it, the terrorism cannot be as easily carried out. It's time we focus on state-sponsored terrorism and take out their oil fields. 

[javero]

Posted: 11/15/15 at 10:43pm

"On a personal level I feel it is not justified so long as laws are in place to protect society from needing revenge. When laws are not in place it simply becomes self defense."

 

The presumption I take it is that everyone acknowledge and uphold the rule of law.  I personally don't believe that to be the case and for the most part adhere to my dad's pearl of wisdom...that is, look after your own azz and protect the ones you love.   

Updated On: 11/15/15 at 10:43 PM

[dented146]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 2:12am

In this case I couldn't agree with you more. ISIS believes it has the right and is just in taking over the world. In that pursuit it is also reasonable to slaughter, rape, and take away all the land which is in the possession of people who do not agree with them. They are not being cruel; they are just following the rules of their God.

To that end they have now murdered about 200000. Kad, there will be retaliation against anyone who doesn't see it their way and pushes back against them. There is no middle ground here. One of our military leaders said today: " You can deny reality forever. But you can not deny the consequences of reality."

[tazber]

Posted: 11/16/15 at 6:12am

Turning the other cheek is of course the best way to handle something where you can personally control the outcome, that is to say no one else gets hurts because you live and forgive. But on a scale such as this turning the other cheek will result in more mass murders and terror.

 

Now, let me say this: my above comment is simplistic in the extreme. To discuss retaliation in this real world situation is more complex. There are so many factions, sub-factions, and sub-sub factions that it becomes a exercise in futility. Ideologically and politically the Middle East is a quagmire of conflicting sides. And within each individual conflict there are more factions, sub-factions, and sub-sub factions.

 

Whenever I think about your question Namo, I inevitably end up in a downward spiral of contradictions that challenges my values and my beliefs with one part wishing for peace and another wishing for security.

 

Are those two things mutually exclusive? I don't know. I just come out the other side thankful that my loved ones are safe.

 

I'm sorry I can't offer a more resonant response.

 

 

Updated On: 11/16/15 at 06:12 AM