Syria

[Park Life 70]

[Rayvin 4964]

Sorry, I have to laugh. You seriously are suggesting that if Obama could get away with it, he would? That the West is as morally bankrupt as IS jihadists? This is too much.

 

I'm suggesting that the circumstances are different. I know you believe that we have them as deterrant rather than anything else, but keep in mind that the US have used them on in the past, with high levels of civilian collateral damage. I'm not sure why they get such a free pass for that, but I guess it's about history favouring the victors.

 

That said, if desperate enough - i.e. as desperate as ISIS probably are, yes I think we'd use them. That said, have ISIS shown any inclination towards using nukes? It's a moot point since they're out of their reach anyway. We therefore have no idea what they'd do. If they did though, you can bet your bottom dollar that we'd be using them back.

[Park Life 70]

[NJS 3986]

[emoji38] Sorry, I have to laugh. You seriously are suggesting that if Obama could get away with it, he would? That the West is as morally bankrupt as IS jihadists? This is too much.

I think the main thing that's stopped them using nukes since WWII is fear of proliferation rather than morality given the numbers killed by conventional bombing in SE Asia especially.

 

I'd also be worried about the possible election of Trump or Carson. I know its very unlikely but you'd have to rely on a lot of sensible buffers to protect the world from their morality.

[Park Life 70]

[Rayvin 4964]

 

That piece/interview i linked to earlier is worth a look to also see the effects these actions also have on the operator of those devices, looks like they're taken from this documentary.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNdxhnjAvug

 

Thanks for this - really interesting that, like the terrorists, we seem to recruit from a young age. Video games can quite easily be seen as a means of indoctrination - one day you're killing pixels, the next you're killing people. All looks the same though. Looks like a few of these guys come out the other side of this realising what they've done...

[Rayvin 4964]

 

That is disgraceful. There's so many similar cases of this sort of thing as well that it's really, really difficult to actually consider us to be in any way morally superior to ISIS.

[Park Life 70]

Think there is like 8,000 vids on civilian casualties in the ME.

 

Psychopathic killing machine.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Park Life

[toonotl 2431]

I think the question by Renton about nuclear weapons is a good one, and it highlights the moral distinction between the two sides very clearly.

 

Would the U.S. use nuclear weapons on IS if they could? Well they can, and they don't.

 

Would IS use them if they could? Of course they fucking would.

 

That even this question is tap danced around shows me very clearly that this conversation is being driven by ideology, not reality.

[Park Life 70]

[Rayvin 4964]

I think the question by Renton about nuclear weapons is a good one, and it highlights the moral distinction between the two sides very clearly.

 

Would the U.S. use nuclear weapons on IS if they could? Well they can, and they don't.

 

Would IS use them if they could? Of course they fucking would.

 

That even this question is tap danced around shows me very clearly that this conversation is being driven by ideology, not reality.

 

The US physically can, but in reality can't. There's a difference. But with that said, if they needed to, do you honestly think they'd hesitate? These are the people who ignored the Japanese surrender so that they could get a second nuke in. They don't need to nuke ISIS, and the shitstorm they'd get for doing so isn't worth it when they can just continue what they're doing. It's not as is we're on the brink of annihilation here, the nuke is very much a weapon of last resort.

 

The whole nuke strand of this conversation is meaningless as neither side is able to use one. If the world gave the US a free pass to use one, and ISIS had the capability, that's when you'd be comparing apples with apples. And the only one of those two that has form there, is the US.

 

EDIT - although for the sake of balancing the debate, I don't think ISIS would think twice.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Rayvin

[Renton 17829]

 

The US physically can, but in reality can't. There's a difference. But with that said, if they needed to, do you honestly think they'd hesitate? These are the people who ignored the Japanese surrender so that they could get a second nuke in. They don't need to nuke ISIS, and the shitstorm they'd get for doing so isn't worth it when they can just continue what they're doing. It's not as is we're on the brink of annihilation here, the nuke is very much a weapon of last resort.

 

The whole nuke strand of this conversation is meaningless as neither side is able to use one. If the world gave the US a free pass to use one, and ISIS had the capability, that's when you'd be comparing apples with apples. And the only one of those two that has form there, is the US.

 

EDIT - although for the sake of balancing the debate, I don't think ISIS would think twice.

Nagasaki happened after the Japanese surrendered? I've read and watched loads on this subject and that's the first time I've heard that claim. Fascinating.

[toonotl 2431]

If IS had nuclear weapons. Do you believe they would use them?

 

It is a valid question. If we take the pacifist approach forever, as some seem to be advocating for, then their expansion will eventually lead to them having the capacity to obtain and use nuclear weapons.

 

IS simply want Jihadic-lebensraum you guys, chill.

[Dr Gloom 19841]

Routine acceptance of collateral damage is still the indiscriminate killing of civilians. The fact that you might land one high value target in the mix doesn't make it ok. I'm really confused as to how anyone could disagree with this. Would you accept collateral damage in this country if our opponents were targeting military targets?

Are you a pacifist? Is there ever a case for war, and the inevitable death of innocent civilians that comes with it?

 

My personal view is that war should always be the last resort, which is why the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts were so futile. But the war against nazi Germany was one worth fighting and Isis are just a different brand of fascism.

[Rayvin 4964]

Nagasaki happened after the Japanese surrendered? I've read and watched loads on this subject and that's the first time I've heard that claim. Fascinating.

 

Oh, perhaps I'm wrong with that one then. I think at best there's debate about it but I hadn't realised that it wasn't fact. Fine, I retract that. It doesn't really change the colour of my point though, and this discussion about nukes is taking us away from the actual issue which is about things that are happening, not things that potentially could but actually never will happen.

[Rayvin 4964]

If IS had nuclear weapons. Do you believe they would use them?

 

It is a valid question. If we take the pacifist approach forever, as some seem to be advocating for, then their expansion will eventually lead to them having the capacity to obtain and use nuclear weapons.

 

IS simply want Jihadic-lebensraum you guys, chill.

 

Yes well, we don't seem to have much choice now. But if the core points here to my mind are a) we're killing more civilians than they are, and have drone pilots blowing up children they deem to be suspicious and getting career death tallies in excess of 1500 people - I'm not saying we shouldn't be (although I think we shouldn't be) but I can't accept that this is morally different to what ISIS are doing, I think you're just burying your head in the sand; and b )our continued intervention is making this worse.

 

That said, given the way the deck is stacked, I see no option but to just keep bombing until there's no one left to destroy. That's the only way to win this overall fight against jihadism. Had we addressed it with tolerance and education, we wouldn't be here IMO, but it's probably too late for that now.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Rayvin

[Gemmill 34640]

Are you a pacifist? Is there ever a case for war, and the inevitable death of innocent civilians that comes with it?

 

My personal view is that war should always be the last resort, which is why the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts were so futile. But the war against nazi Germany was one worth fighting and Isis are just a different brand of fascism.

I'm a sexologist.

[Dr Gloom 19841]

 

That is disgraceful. There's so many similar cases of this sort of thing as well that it's really, really difficult to actually consider us to be in any way morally superior to ISIS.

It's shocking, and there are clearly some sadistic fucks in the military who abuse their position.

 

I'm still going to have to take the moral high ground against Isis though.

[Happy Face 29]

What should also be remembered is that the drone program is now a direct replacement for Guantanamo. Previously the US wanted to get whatever information they could from Jihadis. This led to torture and all that and now the policy is to kill rather than capture as it's too difficult politically to capture. Much easier to kill them. Guantanamo numbers give a pretty good indication of how many of these "legitimate" targets are actually as innocent as the other citizens killed along with them.

 

https://www.aclu.org/infographic/guantanamo-numbers

 

92% of those imprisoned were ultimately found not to be Al Qaeda.

 

662 of 779 have been released without charge, before you look at those still imprisoned without charge, cleared for release with nowhere to go.

 

The drone operators call it bug swatting. No due process, no investigation, just kill them all, in case.

[Dr Gloom 19841]

Totally agree about Isis using nukes on the west if they could. That's exactly why we can take the moral high ground.

[Renton 17829]

 

Oh, perhaps I'm wrong with that one then. I think at best there's debate about it but I hadn't realised that it wasn't fact. Fine, I retract that. It doesn't really change the colour of my point though, and this discussion about nukes is taking us away from the actual issue which is about things that are happening, not things that potentially could but actually never will happen.

Well I'm actually engaged in a philosophical debate here, as I've already stated that I don't suppose western foreign policy in the Middle East. I think the west is great, as close to heaven as mankind has ever come to. I believe that this has come about post reformation and post enlightenment, and our morality is simply superior to those of islamic countries.

 

I'm sure some people will take offence to that, but that's fine, as being able to take offence is mandatory in western secularised nations. The terrorists in France though hate this concept and want to destroy it. However, it might be worth the people on this thread who think the west, US in particular, is so lacking in morality. Why then is that country actually quite a nice place to live, whatever your religion or beliefs? Why does HF holiday there? What do you people actually want? Me, I want a fairer, socialist society. Do I Fuck want to live in a theocracy though.

[toonotl 2431]

 

I can't accept that this is morally different to what ISIS are doing.

 

I think both sides are morally reprehensible, because I think war is morally reprehensible, however, I think that terrorism is worse. I can accept that you don't agree. I think we can leave it there.

[Rayvin 4964]

Totally agree about Isis using nukes on the west if they could. That's exactly why we can take the moral high ground.

 

You don't think the slaughter of children voids the moral highground for us? You'd rather look at something absolutely hypothetical rather than something that has actually happened?

[Rayvin 4964]

Well I'm actually engaged in a philosophical debate here, as I've already stated that I don't suppose western foreign policy in the Middle East. I think the west is great, as close to heaven as mankind has ever come to. I believe that this has come about post reformation and post enlightenment, and our morality is simply superior to those of islamic countries.

 

I'm sure some people will take offence to that, but that's fine, as being able to take offence is mandatory in western secularised nations. The terrorists in France though hate this concept and want to destroy it. However, it might be worth the people on this thread who think the west, US in particular, is so lacking in morality. Why then is that country actually quite a nice place to live, whatever your religion or beliefs? Why does HF holiday there? What do you people actually want? Me, I want a fairer, socialist society. Do I Fuck want to live in a theocracy though.

 

Actually, to be totally fair to you, I would agree with the point about general moral superiority in a sense; obviously we would think our society is more moral, as we live in it, but by our standards ISIS and many civilisations in the ME are morally inferior. And I'm not saying really that ISIS wouldn't be here in some form without our intervention anyway - but we have absolutely made this matter worse, and our governments are resorting to many of the same tactics as they are.

 

I think what I'm keen to be is a 'moderate Westerner' publicly decrying our military action as not being acceptable - much as we expect moderate Muslims to do on behalf of ISIS.

[RedfernMag 0]

this nuclear bomb question is a bit daft. what exactly would be the US target, Raqqa? good luck getting access to the oil after that.

 

and you can be pretty sure Daesh would use a nuclear weapon given the chance, they are a suicidal, end of times, death cult, after all.