Keith Devens .com

Lets be real for just one second. Nobody wants to say it, so I will. These aren't "people" like you and I. These creatures are one chromosome away from being camels....point blank. Thery're animals...and they will always act accordingly. So go ahead and delete this post and keep acting like it's not true.....but you "know" different.

No... they're not animals. They're evil people. There's a big difference. Animals are not really responsible for their actions, while people are.

It's like when people want to say about an evil person that he's "insane" (like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc.). I always correct people because it's important to realize that the cause behind their actions was not "insanity", but evil.

To dismiss these people as "animals" or to dismiss evil people as "insane" diminishes the reality of the evil behind their actions.

I mostly agree with you Keith. Saying that they are "one chromosome away from being camels" is ludicrous. These people chose to act in this way out of their own free will.

However, I can't agree with you attributing it to "evil". Lots of people don't believe in the concepts of "good" vs "evil", but are still nontheless outraged by this behaviour. Murderous? Yes. Callous? Yes. Unacceptable? Yes. Evil? No.

Without wanting to condone their actions, I think that it's important to put the picture in perspective.

Firstly, this is a country where extreme violence of this nature isn't uncommon. It's a lot better than some other countries in the same region due to less religious fundamentalism (stoning women to death etc), but it's still quite bad.

Secondly, this country has just been bombed to hell and back. A lot of lives have been torn apart.

Thirdly, some of these people were against their country being invaded. They see the coalition come in, bomb their cities, invade their country, kill their friends and family, and then send in businessfolk to make money rebuilding everything. That's going to be more than some people can take.

Yes, committing horrible violence against civilians that are trying to rebuild Iraq is a terrible thing to do, and it should not be tolerated. But it shouldn't be demonised and we should take great care to understand why this happened to try and build upon it as experience, to try and get something positive out of it.

I think that these people who are full of hate for the coalition are that way because of a background of violence, and we pushed them too far.

This sounds like I am a moral relativist, which isn't the case. I still think that what these people have done is an atrocity. But I don't think it's sensible to write them of by saying "oh, they're just evil" and accept it as an inevitable consequence of free will.

However, I can't agree with you attributing it to "evil". Lots of people don't believe in the concepts of "good" vs "evil", but are still nontheless outraged by this behaviour.

It doesn't matter if someone claims he doesn't believe in good and evil. If he is angry at atrocities like what occurred in Fallujah, deep down he believes in evil even if intellectually he refuses to admit it.

we pushed them too far.

You seem to be saying it's our fault that they mutilated our countrymen in a satanic orgy of hate and fire. I don't buy it, and I don't like "root causes" reasoning. The individuals involved may have had many different reasons for this - they hate Americans, they're former Baathists, or they're just criminals who delight in murder. The causes doesn't matter, the perpetrators must be punished, and the fierceness with which we will punish people who do such a thing in the future must be made known.

I can possibly understand wanting to understand their motivations if that might help us either stop similar events in the future or simply find those that participated in this event, but if your reason for understanding their "root causes" is so you can try to "address their grievances", then I'm not with you.

Bully to Jim.

BTW, the post's still up there. What's the big deal?

Sorry Keith, I feel stupid... I don't understand a thing you just said. What's "Bully to Jim" mean? Also, what post are you referring to that's still up there... oh, the Kos post. Yes, I just looked and it seems that he's put the original post back after all the crap he (deservedly) got for trying to hide what he said originally.

The root cause is that they see the US as invaders, and so are fair game for this sort of thing. It might not excuse it, but that's why it happened.

One country invades and occupies another, you'll get this. It's hate, plain and simple.

It doesn't matter if someone claims he doesn't believe in good and evil. If he is angry at atrocities like what occurred in Fallujah, deep down he believes in evil even if intellectually he refuses to admit it.

Morality and ethics are not dependent upon a belief in underlying forces of good and evil. The abstract concepts of good and bad, sure, I can agree with that. Not actual forces of good and evil. The former is a moral judgement, the latter is a spiritual belief.

By all means, believe away, but using more neutral terms would mean people could unconditionally agree with what you are saying about Fallujah without endorsing your spirituality.

You seem to be saying it's our fault that they mutilated our countrymen in a satanic orgy of hate and fire.

Once more, you are alienating non-believers with your choice of language. I don't believe in Satan, so characterising them as "satanic" is merely counter-productive.

I'm not saying that it's all our fault. If you read what I wrote more carefully, one of the points I was trying to make is that a background of violence was pre-existing and naturally has to be taken into consideration when judging the crime.

Let me try and clarify with an example. Gun crime is virtually unheard of where I live. Somebody was shot dead about 18 months ago, it made all the local news and the community was outraged.

When somebody is shot dead in a place like, say, New York, where gun crime is more prevalent, sure, people still think it is a terrible thing to happen, but they aren't be as outraged as the people over here. It seems more of a crime than an atrocity.

Is the act itself just as bad? Sure! But this works both ways. Against a backdrop of more barbaric acts in the region, against a background of war, chucking a few grenades at people, shooting up a car, and hanging up some bodies isn't as much of an exceptional circumstance as it would be if it happened in either of our countries.

And like the gun example, the act is just as bad, it's just percieved differently, both by the people who committed the crime, and the people who will have to deal with it.

The individuals involved may have had many different reasons for this - they hate Americans, they're former Baathists, or they're just criminals who delight in murder. The causes doesn't matter, the perpetrators must be punished...

I never said that they shouldn't be punished, and I agree with you here. But I disagree that the causes don't matter.

I can possibly understand wanting to understand their motivations if that might help us either stop similar events in the future or simply find those that participated in this event, but if your reason for understanding their "root causes" is so you can try to "address their grievances", then I'm not with you.

Understanding their grievances is the first step in stopping similar events in the future. And before you take that the wrong way, I don't mean that we should capitulate to any possible-future-terrorists, I just think that instances like this should at least be taken into consideration in matters of foreign policy. If this attack was prompted by coalition invasion (is anyone claiming this would have happened pre-war?) then it's not the kind of problem that will simply go away by jailing a few people.

Not actual forces of good and evil.

I don't believe in good and evil as forces. An act can be good or evil. To be called "good" or "evil" you do need some objective standard by which to judge the act.

I don't believe in Satan, so characterising them as "satanic" is merely counter-productive.

Here's a definition of satanic:

1. Relating to or suggestive of Satan or evil.
2. Profoundly cruel or evil; fiendish.

Either definition applies accurately.

...isn't as much of an exceptional circumstance...

I see your point. You may be interested to read this.

Re-reading your initial comment in light of what you said in the second gave me a different perspective on what you said in the first. Good points. Though, I would just like to say that A. it doesn't in any way legitimate their actions, and B. it doesn't weaken the force with which we should act against them.

'Bully to Jim', is a way of saying I agree with the broad sweep of his argument.