There is indeed no moral equivalence, but where does it come from?
This culture of extreme jihadist violence is not something that suddenly came to being.
He talks as if both sides are equal, except in the way they commit warcrimes, but that is not true. One is a massive state that has money and military power that eclipses that of the other. The other is a country that has been losing land, homes and dignity with every passing year.
Being disgusted by warcrimes is the privilege of an army that is able to still do war without commiting them. With the massive power imbalance comes a genuine desensitization of the underdog to violence, as they feel no other way to fight and have a chance at winning or making a difference.
I feel like the author is choosing exactly what part to compare in both groups (the morality of their war tactics) while silently hoping that the reader forgets any other differences between the two parties.
This culture of extreme jihadist violence is not something that suddenly came to being.
A Shia Islam sect called Hashshashins were carrying out terroristic assassinations in late 11th century. But in contrast to current islamistic terrorists, they were quite a lot more civilized, as their targets weren’t so much civilians. But they did carry out asymmetric strikes from a position of weakness, which sounds similar to how current radical islamists fight.
Whether this has anything to do with the current strikes is questionable, but I thought it’s an interesting history which might hint at some underlying meme.
Being disgusted by warcrimes is the privilege of an army that is able to still do war without commiting them. With the massive power imbalance comes a genuine desensitization of the underdog to violence, as they feel no other way to fight and have a chance at winning or making a difference.
I’m obviously not a military tactician, but I cannot see how a war like this could be waged without causing civilian casualties – when the enemy is deliberately using civilians and civilian structures as shields like Hamas.
There is indeed no moral equivalence, but where does it come from?
This culture of extreme jihadist violence is not something that suddenly came to being.
He talks as if both sides are equal, except in the way they commit warcrimes, but that is not true. One is a massive state that has money and military power that eclipses that of the other. The other is a country that has been losing land, homes and dignity with every passing year.
Being disgusted by warcrimes is the privilege of an army that is able to still do war without commiting them. With the massive power imbalance comes a genuine desensitization of the underdog to violence, as they feel no other way to fight and have a chance at winning or making a difference.
I feel like the author is choosing exactly what part to compare in both groups (the morality of their war tactics) while silently hoping that the reader forgets any other differences between the two parties.
That’s because Sam Harris is a virulent Islamophobe. As much as he may dislike Israel and Judaism, he dislikes Muslims more.
He is a neo-con who uses the jargon of liberal politics to mask his Imperialist and often racist views.
deleted by creator
A Shia Islam sect called Hashshashins were carrying out terroristic assassinations in late 11th century. But in contrast to current islamistic terrorists, they were quite a lot more civilized, as their targets weren’t so much civilians. But they did carry out asymmetric strikes from a position of weakness, which sounds similar to how current radical islamists fight.
Whether this has anything to do with the current strikes is questionable, but I thought it’s an interesting history which might hint at some underlying meme.
I’m obviously not a military tactician, but I cannot see how a war like this could be waged without causing civilian casualties – when the enemy is deliberately using civilians and civilian structures as shields like Hamas.