Salam I have a question Im not trying to ask about Conspiracy Theories but my questio

[truthseeker63]

Salam I have a question Im not trying to ask about Conspiracy Theories but my question is I hear many people both Muslims and Non Muslims talk about certain Political Leaders in the Islamic/Muslim World/Nations/Muslim Majority Countries I hear these Political Leaders are Puppets Im speaking of a Leader like Hosni Mubarak among others. My question is if a Political Leader is a Puppet of people behind the scenes or some other nation or nations my question is should or can we or can the war crimes or oppression on the Puppet since the Political Puppet is only taking orders ? Is the Political Puppet innocent or guilty please give me a secular answer or a answer from the Islamic point of view or from any religion for that matter thank you ? It is my point that a Puppet may be being used as a tool or being manipulated or forced to do something based on orders but it is my view that the Puppet according to the Nation's laws does control the Military so he allows himself to take the blame and the Puppet does want the Power given to him by his Puppet Masters does anyone agree people say this about the Assassination of John F. Kennedy that he was just a Puppet who did not obey Orders people blame the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Clinton Bush and Blair my question is what if these Politicans are just Puppets of some other power thank you ?

Puppet


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Non-puppetry related usages of the word

The word puppet can mean a political leader installed, supported and controlled by more powerful forces, without legitimacy in the country itself. In modern times, this usually implies no democratic mandate from the country's electorate; in earlier times, it could have meant a monarch imposed from outside, who was not a member of a country's established ruling dynasty, and/or unrecognised by its nobility. "Puppet government", "puppet regime" and "puppet state" are derogatory terms for a government which is in charge of a region or country, but only through being installed, supported and controlled by a more powerful outside government (see Quisling).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet

 

[Independent]

Your question is about the moral implications of believing in a conspiracy theory, not the actual evidence for it being true, and I will answer strictly on that basis. Hopefully we can keep it that way.

Back to your question:

If we think a particular leader is a puppet, it does indeed alter our assessment of his/her actions. Their moral responsibility depends on the exact nature of their position. Are they a puppet acting in ignorance of their real master, perhaps working with false information? This might diminish their responsibility.

Or, are they a full agent or knowing co-conspirator, in which case they have total moral responsibility for their actions if not more so. (Perhaps puppet is the wrong word for a co-conspirator.)

But for me, the real shift in moral responsibility is not with the puppet leader, but for those who believe in the conspiracy theory (I will call them CT followers from here on).

For instance, let’s look at 9/11. How do CTs affect the moral responsibility of Bin Laden (the leader in the official version) and individual Muslims?

Like every major CT, everything about this incident is disputed so it’s hard to talk about. But let’s start with the main ‘official’ line: Bin Laden conducted a long campaign against western targets in which 9/11 was the outstanding incident. He claimed religious motivation for his actions, saying that Muslims individually and Islam collectively were being oppressed all over the world.

Many Muslims might sympathise with his grievances. Some (a much smaller number) might therefore view 9/11 as justified in this context. They the think the west is ‘collectively’ Islamophobic and therefore even a random attack is ok. For these people, they accept Bin Laden’s moral responsibility and they share in it with him. They openly say the violence is justified by the provocations.

To me, this is a completely logically consistent viewpoint, even if I don’t agree with it and I think the violence is not justified. But at least it’s honest.

However, when you add a CT into this, the moral position changes completely. Let’s follow the line that Bin Laden was in reality a CIA agent. Although his motivations for 9/11 are now different, he is still morally culpable. If anything he’s even worse, as he is now seen to be acting merely on behalf of financial/political interests.

As I said at the start, with or without the CT, he’s still morally responsible.

But the position of Bin Laden sympathisers is changed utterly. The moral responsibility for the violence is now shifted away from themselves, from Muslims to non Muslims – to Christians, Jews, Atheists, Illuminati, whatever. In effect, CT followers have in one go totally removed themselves from any moral responsibility.

For those Muslims who believed 9/11 was a western plot, the situation is even more bizarre. They celebrate the attack, they admire the ingenuity, they admire the courage of suicide bombers, and they believe the west deserved any level of violence - yet they also believe it was the west that secretly carried out the attacks. This doesn’t make any sense. Yet many people hold both, incompatible points of view.

In effect, this group can ‘benefit’ from the objectives of the violence (ie to create terror) while at the same time taking no moral responsibility for it. In this scenario, their enemies are both the victims of the terrorism, and at the same time the perpetrators of it. Speaking as a westerner, this is hard to get your head around. It seems as if I have carried out the attack against myself (but secretly.)

What’s more, CT followers can pick and choose which events and which leaders they want to take credit for, or to deny. So, Saddam Hussein is sometimes cast as a heroic warrior against the west, or alternatively as a tyrant and western stooge. Some individuals hold both (incompatible) points of view at different times. CT followers can also ignore absolutely anyone who argues against them by simply saying: 'Ah, they must be part of the conspiracy too.' Again, no evidence is required.

The result: CT followers have the perfect excuse to avoid all moral responsibility for any action.

There are even more advantages to a CT. The great thing about them is that they can be adapted to explain almost any circumstance and any outcome. For instance, if we look at the debate around Syria, we find CT followers arguing almost every outcome. Some CT followers say that supporting the rebels is part of the secret CIA plan. Others say the opposite, that the secret plan is to prevent support reaching the rebels. It doesn’t matter what action the west takes, or what the outcome is. The CT followers have every angle covered. They will post-rationalise whatever course of events actually occurs, and wipe away all the incorrect guesses they made.

To summarise: CTs are dangerous because they allow people to take no responsibility for their actions. CT followers simply blame their enemies (or perceived enemies) for any violence. As a result they encourage violence by creating a general environment where violence can be condoned.

There’s a wider political implication to this too. The CT ensures that we will never negotiate a peaceful settlement to differences between Muslims and non-Muslims. This because the west is being asked to take action against a secret group who do not exist. The west is blamed for the actions of leaders such as Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein and Assad. Not only are/were these men outside western control, they were often amongst their worst enemies. Where is the possibility for negotiation, if that;'s your starting point?

For this reason I regard CTs as one of the most alarming obstacles to success, prosperity and happiness in the Muslim world.