Syria

[Rayvin 4964]

 

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.

 

I understand - and you're right. This is something of a rotating debate given that everyone is saying similar things, and I'm well aware that everything I've said has been put across by other people over the last few days. Maybe it's all just cathartic.

[RedfernMag 0]

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.

 

post auschwitz?

[aimaad22 3472]

Oh boy. So the only people that actually have used nuclear weapons, and on civilians, can take the higher moral ground over those that 'might' have 'if' they had one. Like Renton says, "fascinating". :lol:

 

Anyway, my question was not really about higher ground or who's got the better justification (if any) or whatever. My question was that is there any difference from the point of view of the civilians who inevitable get caught up in the shite storm? If you're going to your nearby grocery store one fine day to find a bomb dropping on your head or some psycho shooting in your face, does it really matter whether its US or the Russians or the French or ISIS?

Edited November 21, 2015 by aimaad22

[ChezGiven 0]

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?

Yes,100%. It would be awful but morally acceptable.

 

If a terrorist blows up a military vehicle and a civilian dies it is a completely different prospect to having a terrorist walk up to a restaurant and start executing people. I think people are underestimating the impact this has. We can't go shopping this weekend as a plan of a shopping centre was found in Saint Denis. That's terrifying. Plans for a military target are still scary as you could be collateral but morally and socially very different prospects. I'm not planning on going to an army barracks this weekend.

 

I was not morally outraged when the soldier was killed in east London and if the targets are military then whatever happens, we are at war with these people. Targeting innocent people and executing them is in a different moral sphere.

[ChezGiven 0]

Just don't hang about with jihadi cunts aimaad, you should be fine. The people in Saint Denis knew the people who were involved, saw them on the Sunday as were too scared to say anything. If those cunts were shot by accident on weds I'd be morally ambivalent. All depends on the circumstances, innocent people blown up in a hospital is morally unacceptable and is an outrage. Family of jihadists who knew what he was up to all getting blown up? Fuck them.

[Happy Face 29]

It goes without saying that ISIS are not rational actors who wouldn't think twice about launching a nuke.

 

Obama would think twice.

 

Bush, just launched a bombing campaign to replicate the impact of a nuclear bomb but without the stigma.

[aimaad22 3472]

 

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.

 

https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/595303030611208/

 

Just another example. I remember from last years destruction in Gaza an incident where 4 boys on the beach were taken out by Israeli artillery. A plain wide beach with absolutely nothing going on except a bunch of boys playing football, in the middle of the day. And they were slaughtered.

 

Similarly, the MSF incident which has already been referred to. Do you think it was terrorism? Would it have been had the Taliban carried it out and not USAF?

 

Just don't hang about with jihadi cunts aimaad, you should be fine.

 

Thanks for the pointer, was planning on attending tonight's corner meeting. They were going to show us 3D models of them virgins waiting in paradise. And the winter stock of the suicide vest was going to be on display. Guess I'll pass now

Edited November 21, 2015 by aimaad22

[ChezGiven 0]

Good, at least you can do something to decrease the probability of being involved. Not an option open to Parisiens last week.

[toonotl 2431]

Oh boy. So the only people that actually have used nuclear weapons, and on civilians, can take the higher moral ground over those that 'might' have 'if' they had one. Like Renton says, "fascinating".

 

Don't lose sight of the fact that no one in here categorically supports the U.S. or supports war without question. However, sometimes war is a necessary response to a threat.

Anyway, my question was not really about higher ground or who's got the better justification (if any) or whatever. My question was that is there any difference from the point of view of the civilians who inevitable get caught up in the shite storm? If you're going to your nearby grocery store one fine day to find a bomb dropping on your head or some psycho shooting in your face, does it really matter whether its US or the Russians or the French or ISIS?

 

There is obviously no practical difference to the person who is dead. Unless you believe in some forms of martyrdom. But if you are assuming a rational person. Then yeah. No difference. The actual question is the cause of the behaviour that results in death. This is relevant for the people who are lucky enough to still be alive, because causes of behaviour in an individual predict that individual's future behaviour.

[Dr Gloom 19841]

 

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?

There is a moral distinction between civilian casualties in war and suicide bombing civilians, yes.

 

The issue is whether a war is worth fighting, or not. I think that sometimes war is justified. Millions of innocent people lost their lives in the World War II, but wasn't that a war worth winning? Ridding the world of nazi Germany? Defeating a facist ideology intent on global expansion?

[Rayvin 4964]

Good, at least you can do something to decrease the probability of being involved. Not an option open to Parisiens last week.

 

Or those poor souls in that Red Cross hospital that the US blew up.

[Dr Gloom 19841]

Yes,100%. It would be awful but morally acceptable.

 

If a terrorist blows up a military vehicle and a civilian dies it is a completely different prospect to having a terrorist walk up to a restaurant and start executing people. I think people are underestimating the impact this has. We can't go shopping this weekend as a plan of a shopping centre was found in Saint Denis. That's terrifying. Plans for a military target are still scary as you could be collateral but morally and socially very different prospects. I'm not planning on going to an army barracks this weekend.

 

I was not morally outraged when the soldier was killed in east London and if the targets are military then whatever happens, we are at war with these people. Targeting innocent people and executing them is in a different moral sphere.

Spot on. It's frankly staggering that so many on here are disputing this.

[Rayvin 4964]

There is a moral distinction between civilian casualties in war and suicide bombing civilians, yes.

 

The issue is whether a war is worth fighting, or not. I think that sometimes war is justified. Millions of innocent people lost their lives in the World War II, but wasn't that a war worth winning? Ridding the world of nazi Germany? Defeating a facist ideology intent on global expansion?

 

But the point is, these drone pilots were targeting civilians without any serious consideration of whether or not they were legitimate targets - and were being encouraged to do this. How is that different?

 

Also, Nazi Germany had the power to effect a global reich. ISIS are a group of 30,000 farmers who we are only involved with because there are resources we want in that region.

[ChezGiven 0]

Are you suggesting that working in a hospital in a war zone in a lawless and morally corrupt third world middle eastern country should be considered a riskless exercise? Maybe it should be but it isn't.

 

Morally unacceptable, as I already said but not all collateral damage is. All execution of innocent people is.

[toonotl 2431]

 

https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/595303030611208/

 

Just another example. I remember from last years destruction in Gaza an incident where 4 boys on the beach were taken out by Israeli artillery. A plain wide beach with absolutely nothing going on except a bunch of boys playing football, in the middle of the day. And they were slaughtered.

 

Similarly, the MSF incident which has already been referred to. Do you think it was terrorism? Would it have been had the Taliban carried it out and not USAF?

 

I believe there is a moral difference between the atrocities of war and IS terrorism.

[Rayvin 4964]

Spot on. It's frankly staggering that so many on here are disputing this.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot-creech-air-force-base-nevada

 

FFS - there's a story in there about a drone pilot following a couple of guys with a camel. He follows them for ages and, in his mind, he doesn't think they're a threat, they've done nothing suspicious, but he's told to blow them up anyway. He waits until they settle down for the night and wipes them out. Surely that is the very definition of 'Targeting innocent people and executing them'. The only possible thing you could argue is that the US clearly thought that these guys were terrorists, without any actual proof of this - but the US has been so consistently (see some of Parky's vids) wrong about who is and is not a terrorist, that it is now wholly fair to argue that their sheer incompetance means that allowing them to continue with this is tantamount to 'targeting innocent people and executing them'. And that's a kind way of looking at it. The other view is that they're hitting people indiscriminately because they now consider everyone over there to be a viable target.

[ChezGiven 0]

Intending to kill people who intend to kill you and killing other people by mistake who weren't intending to kill you = executing innocent people.

 

Every single one of you who thinks that needs to be taken out and shot for being morally retarded.

[Dr Gloom 19841]

 

But the point is, these drone pilots were targeting civilians without any serious consideration of whether or not they were legitimate targets - and were being encouraged to do this. How is that different?

 

Also, Nazi Germany had the power to effect a global reich. ISIS are a group of 30,000 farmers who we are only involved with because there are resources we want in that region.

I already said that video was shocking. It's indefensible and that there have always been people in the military that have abused their position. But I don't think this sort of thing is entrenched in all areas of military activity. We all find that footage shocking. Isis supporters would cheer footage of civilian deaths in the west. Imagine if the suicide bombs had gone off in the football stadium as planned? It would have been cheered by jihadis watching on TV around the world.

 

Sometimes war is justified and that means innocent people will die. It's a horrible reality and it's why waging war should always be the last resort.

 

Walking into a densely populated civilian area and blowing yourself up, or indiscriminately opening fire is never justified. That's the moral distinction.

[Renton 17829]

Intending to kill people who intend to kill you and killing other people by mistake who weren't intending to kill you = executing innocent people.

 

Every single one of you who thinks that needs to be taken out and shot for being morally retarded.

Nicely summarised, end of conversation.

[Happy Face 29]

Intending to kill people who don't intend to kill you and killing other people by mistake who weren't intending to kill you = executing innocent people.

 

Is that right though, given the ample examples?

[ChezGiven 0]

That Guardian link is to interviews with people who don't know the intelligence behind what they're doing. Not exactly clear that because the 'targets weren't hiding like professional soldiers' that they didn't deserve to be dismembered painfully.

[toonotl 2431]

Intending to kill people who intend to kill you and killing other people by mistake who weren't intending to kill you = executing innocent people.

 

Every single one of you who thinks that needs to be taken out and shot for being morally retarded.

 

Finally, we're on the same side of an argument. I'm not sure how to feel.

[Rayvin 4964]

Intending to kill people who intend to kill you and killing other people by mistake who weren't intending to kill you = executing innocent people.

 

Every single one of you who thinks that needs to be taken out and shot for being morally retarded.

 

I give up. That comment has done for me. I just give up. Some of you guys are in absolute denial about what we're doing because you're so focused on hatred for ISIS. I get the latter but it's the former that's fueling more death on both sides.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

Is that right though, given the ample examples?

Glad you asked the question - the US are involved in a military exercise deploying expensive military machinery. Your edit suggests you think they deliberately target innocent people. When you think about it, that's obviously a very stupid thing to think.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Intending to kill people who intend to kill you and killing other people by mistake who weren't intending to kill you = executing innocent people.

 

Every single one of you who thinks that needs to be taken out and shot for being morally retarded.

As in the hundreds of thousands we killed in Iraq because Saddam was coming to get us with his weapons of mass destruction?