Syria

[ChezGiven 0]

If you want I can give you a taxonomy of moral thought and show you where e.g. religious beliefs fit in within the broad overview of alternative moral schools. What usually pisses off the religious is when you break down the structure of religious morality (in contrast to consequentialist structures) and show them how unrefined they are. It's because the structure is so unrefined that you get zealots and extremists. It's a by product of under developed moral thought structure which defines 'the good in terms of the right' which is clearly (to any student of the topic) stupid.

[Renton 21626]

 

Yeah, Im trying to say that hell that was unleashed in Paris is a daily reality for a lot of people in many countries. And we're responsible for a lot of it. It scares me. How barbaric of me.

 

 

Iraq? Syria? Palestine? Doesnt matter. Take your pick of any of the conflicts since WWII basically. Or are they irrelevant here because they're in the past?

 

 

Trying to make sense of everything you've said. How far off am I?

I'm not sure Iraq was levelled, and a lot of the deaths have come following "liberation" because of sectarian violence. Always said it was a shameful war and predicted it would lead to increased terrorism.

 

Syria. You're blaming the west for that, seriously?

 

Palestine. You've got a point there, hugely complex situation, but really Israel is your culprit, not the French anyway.

 

You're right, there's a host of other conflicts which are shameful. The relevance of this escapes me though.

[RedfernMag 0]

I think i get it now.

 

Paid to sit in a room playing last star fighter with the latest tech, killing people that may or may not be terrorists = morally ok

 

Driven by some wacky end of times religious belief and hatred for humanity, killing people indiscriminately = morally bad

 

Now leaving aside any notions that the former could have an effect on helping to create the latter, does this moral justification for one over the other not lead us, eventually, to a very similar place?

[aimaad22 4156]

If you want I can give you a taxonomy of moral thought and show you where e.g. religious beliefs fit in within the broad overview of alternative moral schools. What usually pisses off the religious is when you break down the structure of religious morality (in contrast to consequentialist structures) and show them how unrefined they are. It's because the structure is so unrefined that you get zealots and extremists. It's a by product of under developed moral thought structure which defines 'the good in terms of the right' which is clearly (to any student of the topic) stupid.

 

I think you've already given me a goodly glimpse of the refinement of these moral schools thanks.

 

My whole argument has been based on trying to get into the head of the other side ,the people of Gaza or Syria for instance, because some people including the mainstream media will never bother since they're not Americans or Europeans. Or will write them off as inconvenient collateral damage much as you have. Its not about right or wrong, good or bad. Its about thinking of everyone in the same way. I dont know where that fits in in your alternative moral schools and I dont care really if this is what is called refined morality.

[Park Life 71]

Good lively debate this. It was needed and perhaps a positive side effect of Isis's real intentions. To divide us. The gentle allusions to historicity (is that a made up word) and the cannon of Western Philosophy are at the deeper levels of the debate and worth exploring.

 

I suspect it's going to get worse over the coming months.

 

Power only starts modulating itself when met with an equal or superior force.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Park Life

[toonotl 2979]

 

Yeah, Im trying to say that hell that was unleashed in Paris is a daily reality for a lot of people in many countries. And we're responsible for a lot of it. It scares me. How barbaric of me.

 

I was referring to HF, but, to kill two birds with one stone, the unfortunate reality for HF is that he is depressingly religious in his adherence to his political views.

[ChezGiven 0]

Intent is an important element of morality. We have manslaughter and murder to distinguish it in law. You can't justify the execution of innocent people on the basis of the unintended consequences of war. Let's be clear about afghani drone strikes too, the Tailban and everyone who supported them brought that on themselves.

 

I would argue this: the people of the Middle East who are plotting to kill and do damage to the west are driven by ideology. By using the tactics they use, they offer no other potential response from their intended victims. The people to blame for collateral damage are therefore the perpetrators of the threats.

[aimaad22 4156]

The relevance of this escapes me though.

 

Chez doesnt consider them indiscriminate killing. I do.

[Park Life 71]

 

I think you've already given me a goodly glimpse of the refinement of these moral schools thanks.

 

My whole argument has been based on trying to get into the head of the other side ,the people of Gaza or Syria for instance, because some people including the mainstream media will never bother since they're not Americans or Europeans. Or will write them off as inconvenient collateral damage much as you have. Its not about right or wrong, good or bad. Its about thinking of everyone in the same way. I dont know where that fits in in your alternative moral schools and I dont care really if this is what is called refined morality.

The whole imperialist project of the last hundred years was built on ideas of moral and cultural superiority.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

Chez doesnt consider them indiscriminate killing. I do.

Morally equivalent to ...

[aimaad22 4156]

Intent is an important element of morality. We have manslaughter and murder to distinguish it in law. You can't justify the execution of innocent people on the basis of the unintended consequences of war.

 

Let's be clear about afghani drone strikes too, the Tailban and everyone who supported them brought that on themselves. I would argue this: the people of the Middle East who are plotting to kill and do damage to the west are driven by ideology. By using the tactics they use, they offer no other potential response from their intended victims. The people to blame for collateral damage are therefore the perpetrators of the threats.

 

Agree with the first para. Which is why the MSF and UN hospital strikes were mentioned as examples.

 

The second is very scary, and in my opinion, just as bad as the justification you referred to in the first line.

[toonotl 2979]

 

Its about thinking of everyone in the same way. I dont know where that fits in in your alternative moral schools.

 

Alternative? Until secular morality there was no such thing as 'thinking of people in the same way'.

[ChezGiven 0]

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?

[Park Life 71]

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?

Please stop this 6 weeks thing. French screeching for the overthrow of Assad and more intervention goes back to Sarkozy along with French screeching for the destruction of Libya.

 

This 6 weeks thing is nonsense in your head.

 

*Football has started.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

I presume through being inept and cunts? Are you saying they set up drone attacks by choosing ransom innocent people and attack them knowing full well that they are innocent?

 

Link?

 

They aren't random, but they are innocent. Obama knew Al Awaki's son had done nowt. Just killed him in case.

[aimaad22 4156]

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?

 

The fact US forces already had coordinates of the hospital, and that they continued the attack after being reminded of exactly what they were bombing does not evidence intent?

 

Paris and Syria have already been debated to death in the other thread, I dont want to go over all that again.

 

I'll just have to disagree with your justification of the sort of responses we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its the same reasoning the likes of Al Qaeda and Taliban present to recruits. You're responsible for who you kill, simple as that.

[Park Life 71]

If the French populace knew the truth about what their leaders have been upto they would be hanging from trees.

[Park Life 71]

This is a good article and mirrors some of our debate in here. It also emphasizes that one of Isis's goals is to divide the Muslim community in Europe and bring anger against it in general so as to radicalize it.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/why-islamic-state-jihadis-are-enraged-by-france/

 

 

Why France in particular? Salafi jihadists are enraged by France: According to the Summer 2015 issue of al-Qaida’s English-language magazine “Inspire,” “It is France that has committed crimes in Mali and the Islamic Maghreb. It is France that supports the annihilation of Muslims in Central Africa in the name of race cleansing. They are the party of Satan, the enemies of Allah the Almighty and the enemies of His Prophets – peace be upon them.” France was a colonial power. There are 4.7 million Muslims living in France, many of them in poverty. An estimated 1,550 French citizens have left for Syria or Iraq; and some 11,400 citizens have been identified as radical Islamists by French surveillance data. Salafi jihadists also consider France to be especially corrupt."

 

France did its second biggest arms deal to the Gulf states in 2012 some 8 billion worth. Some of which is now in the hands of various Jihadis.

 

http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/france-saudi-arabias-new-arms-dealer-13533

 

http://www.politico.eu/article/france-us-arms-jet-gulf-paris-un/

 

https://news.vice.com/article/if-the-us-wont-sell-you-weapons-france-might-still-hook-you-up

 

France IS NOT a neutral actor.

Edited November 21, 2015 by Park Life

[toonotl 2979]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2013/04/23/obama-anwar-al-awlaki-son_n_3141688.html?ir=Australia

 

Link that Chez requested from HF. Not seeing 'killed him just in case'. Oh well. No need to start with your strongest example. Shall we try again?

[Happy Face 29]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2013/04/23/obama-anwar-al-awlaki-son_n_3141688.html?ir=Australia

 

Link that Chez requested from HF. Not seeing 'killed him just in case'. Oh well. No need to start with your strongest example. Shall we try again?

What are you seeing?

 

"John Brennan, at the time President Obamas senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, "suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally"

 

Brennan alsi said the kid shouldn't have had the dad he had.

[toonotl 2979]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-airstrike-that-killed-american-teen-in-yemen-raises-legal-ethical-questions/2011/10/20/gIQAdvUY7L_story.html

 

Another one. 'Wrong place, wrong time'. Maybe. What is for sure is there is still no US President ordering an innocent civilian murdered 'just in case'.

 

What are you seeing? You're telling one story and even your best attempts at quote mining are showing it's something else all together.

 

Where's the article quoting Obama saying he knew about it? Where's the article showing he had him killed just in case?

 

You look desperate trying to argument these articles prove your point.

[Dr Gloom 21924]

The west has launched many pointless wars where it has committed atrocites. We can all accept that but can we please stop comparing ourselves with Isis ffs.

[toonotl 2979]

A former senior official in the Obama administration told me that after Abdulrahman’s killing, the president was "surprised and upset and wanted an explanation." The former official, who worked on the targeted killing program, said that according to intelligence and Special Operations officials, the target of the strike was al-Banna, the AQAP propagandist. "We had no idea the kid was there. We were told al-Banna was alone," the former official told me. Once it became clear that the teenager had been killed, he added, military and intelligence officials asserted, "It was a mistake, a bad mistake." However, John Brennan, at the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, "suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review."

 

Full context of the quote HF is trying to misrepresent as 'proof' a civilian was murdered with the knowledge and approval of the US President. Fucking shameful.

[Park Life 71]

The west has launched many pointless wars where it has committed atrocites. We can all accept that but can we please stop comparing ourselves with Isis ffs.

Good point.

[Park Life 71]

Thinking about it to any guests popping in we must look like a pack of left wing loonies.