ChezGiven

He talks quite a bit of shite too but i find all the pre-history stuff interesting.

condom split?

:lol:

When did you become involved in gang related drug crime? Seriously, sounds traumatic, hope all is well.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.8397.pdf Crazy to think we had it all wrong eh? Precessional astronomy and mathematics in 10,000 BC. Also worrying to think that this is on the Turkish / Syrian border, where it all started and where it all ends?

Is that you wanting to re-visit the discussion on advanced astronomy in ancient buildings? I'm going to get Hancock's new book for his overview of the astronomical alignments of Gobekli Tepe https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929303-400-worlds-oldest-temple-built-to-worship-the-dog-star/ Are you coming round to the more open minded way of looking at things now or just taking the piss?

Love Killer Mike, he is cool as fuck.

Those are good prices, is that East Coast or something? We've got Uber Eats now - tap the app, tap the menu, press order, there in 15 minutes. Also now they have terminal and door numbers for pick ups at airports. When you land you order one from the plane and when you put in pick up it know which airport you are at and puts in options for terminal number and door inside the app. Literally waiting for you as you step out of arrivals.

I was reflecting on the fact i didnt have enough Beatles in my vinyl collection recently so i got this (alongside some John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Gil Scott Heron and Joy Division) http://www.discogs.com/Beatles-1962-1966/release/936664 Have recently dusted down my Technics 1210 and managed to fix an audio issue (i needed to clean the contacts in the tone arm with alcohol!). So i've been buying quite a few classic albums on vinyl. The reaction of the kids is fascinating to watching it spin and play music.

Sure and i agree that just bombing the fuck out of Syria is not the response. However, the UN Security Council and the diplomatic consensus route (rather than any diplomatic outreach to ISIS) can be best leveraged if we have a clear moral judgement on the actions of the terrorists. If the Chinese see the response as legitimate in the face of immoral US oppression then the diplomatic consensus will be undermined. We also need the 10 non permanent members to align with this view. Then we need other actors in the region.... Thats why its important to shout down the apologists and those wanting to equate execution of innocent people with unintended consequences of war (and make jumps across borders blaming all western actors equally for the actions of others). As a 'consequentialist' in my moral outlook, an unintended death weighs as heavily as an intended death but international law and the response to the greatest threat to world peace and order on the planet requires additional thought, a broader perspective on the longer term consequences to order if we dont address this problem.

Tim Krul?

Don't need to as i am not concerned about their motivations, i am concerned by those who want to mitigate the reaction to the events by drawing upon the acts of western governments (whilst being very clear about the relevance of the US, UK, France within that). As i said yesterday, the world needs to decide on how to respond. If the world thinks there is mitigation for the terrorist behaviour then the response will be modified accordingly. Just like a murder case would be. If we dont agree that the proclaimed mitigation is relevant (as we see the perpetrator of the crime revealing other motivations - like Charlie Hebdo) then we can play down the case for the defence trumpeted by the propagandists who support the terrorists. We can then arrive at a better judgement: do we round them all up in a field and bomb the bastards (no mitigation, moral behaviour of utter filth) or diplomatically pursue resolution of interests and needs of the parties involved (full mitigation). This is why i think its important to focus on the moral judgement as that will define the response, in the same way (analogously) it defines a sentence for a criminal.

I'm enjoying Jessica Jones as its a bit different and i've got a thing about slightly skanky dark haired girls who are a bit demented looking. (first loves and all that)

You didnt what? Adapt your theory of motivation based on the information that was not consistent with the theory? No you didnt.

I'm alright for people to say that and for that to be the reason. Lets just be very clear about it, the motivations and the beliefs that an action on one side is being used to justify the response on the other. I'm ok for people to say what motivates them as then we can analyse them. The propaganda that RT and other media have been churning out for the last decade against the west (prediction: no youtube videos of contrary RT reports will be found post November 2015 for a long time) is that the terrorists are just militarily fighting their corner and ignoring the fact that the terrorists claim to want to destroy Israel and the west and have been doing so loudly for decades.

You take away all the wars and involvement in the middle east and still 11 people are executed in the offices of Charlie Hebdo. So yes. I see everyone in the Paris thread tried to ignore this.

So why have I been reading for a week that the actions of the US are the equivalent to the actions of the terrorists in France? So now we agree that they aren't the same? That there are moral differences which set the actions apart? The distinction is important as the world's response will be guided by the moral disgust.

Diplomatically backing Assad's departure = executing innocent people then? Thanks.

By claiming the UN Security Council is bought and paid for you demonstrate no real interest in reality. Prove the date for air strikes wrong rather than posturing like a imam in a tutu.

Drivel.

"IS represents an unprecedented threat to global peace and security"!! So for all of you struggling here, why no resolution being proposed that the French do too?

We are debating the morality of the attacks because you and many others on here have sought to lay blame for those attacks on the behaviour of the previous actions of other governments!! Not the French government either. Your propaganda riddled media (and let's face it, it's just less sophisticated elsewhere in the world) has done an equally effective job on you. The response by many on here has been disgusting and can only be explained by exposure so certain media. The French have been attacked by radical Islam 4 times this year and it has nothing to do with its minimal and recent involvement in Syria. I am not writing off the actions of America or war crimes, I am telling you that morally you can't justify the attacks on the French people or government due to the mistakes or actions of the Americans. You are saying you can. It's a propaganda driven load of shite and a line you wouldn't dare utter to any Frenchman who was in Paris last week. I am further saying that the acts of the terrorists in Paris are morally repugnant because of their intent, their consequences and their nature (drawing upon all schools of ethics there). You can only use the actions of the French in Syria to draw comparison to the acts of the terrorists. Drawing upon war crimes of other countries from the past is irrelevant to how we should view these acts. Unless of course you've swallowed the idea of the 'west' and 'Rome' all being part of one big evil empire? The security council at the UN agrees with my moral assessment - this is not about superiority, it's about assessment of how to respond. If there was some human justification, then perhaps we'd be using more diplomatic language. "The UN security council has backed a French-sponsored resolution designed to combat by all means this unprecedented threat, saying IS constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security

You'll have to post this story again as if there is a high value military target involved then it's not the same as executing innocent people. What justification are you talking about? I was making an important point about the moral sphere of the actions of those people who executed 130 people in Paris and the French government's actions. Whether the question is here or in another thread is irrelevant. As I have a fair western and rational mind, i will do you the courtesy of extending the framing of this debate to the 'west' when in actual fact that is not required. it does give your scope to bring in a drone attack out of many going a bit wrong (whilst ignoring why the drones are there in the first place). It's an important framing of the question though because they need to lend justification for these actions from the behaviour of another government in another country in another time. These things need calling out and it to be made very clear because then the moral gap is clear. It's all very well discussing how awful it is that someone working in a hospital in a war zone died but it's not alright to imply that the actions of the terrorists in France are in any way connected. However, even if they are in the minds of those who committed the acts, that just highlights their moral retardedness, their complete inability to connect cause and effect - their violence is random and deliberately so. That's the point - their morality is corrupt to create the outrage, they would all agree with me.

The MSF hospital was targeted knowing it was a soft target? Why? And link showing that the intention was to kill innocent people? It's an important thought about the blame. Terrorism does beget non traditional responses with unintended consequences. The consequences are bad but who is to blame? I hope the 4 attacks in France this year and the mere 6 weeks since France joined the Syrian air strikes means you wouldnt dare blame the Paris attacks on anything but ideology?

Morally equivalent to ...