Super Senior Member
Cyp, standard warfare rules in the Enlightenment - well, there weren't any. Consequently soldiers would frequently burn villages and rape women. It's bloody hard to find hard evidence of the horrors of a war that's been thought of as justified and noble for the past 300 years (I agree that it was, but still, war), so no, I don't have hard evidence, but the precedents exist to show that war was significantly more horrible back then than it is now, and I don't think the Founding Fathers should be exempt from the logical assumption.
How exactly do you think terrorist groups find their recruits? Bin Laden wasn't circle-jerking in a cave with a couple of stoned friends and making preparatory sketches for 9/11 as part of his latest zany weed-fuelled scheme. The history of Western injustices against the Middle East is long, illustrious, and at times reads like the Nuremberg Trials in terms of suspicious war activities. Attacking your supposed oppressors is hardly the most illogical thing to do given the circumstances.
Originally Posted by CypressDahlia
Like I've said numerous times, I don't agree with Bin Laden's actions either. I just believe that demonising the man for those actions is ridiculous, when if you shared the same ideals as him you'd recognise his motives as both deeply human and completely logical. Bin Laden was not a psychopath; he was an idealist. Most people are not willing to go that far to try and (as they see it) improve the world and pursue justice. I may not be a Christian, but there's a nice quote. "Hate the sin, not the sinner." Perhaps you've heard of it.
Originally Posted by Fenn