Ben Affleck on Real Time: Islamaphobia

[Len Cnut]

I don't deny that a very small large proportion of humans would act out the way those monsters do under those particular conditions, but that doesn't make it any more okay or acceptable or condonable or justifiable. We agree on why they do it (more or less), we agree on the fact that it is a reflection of the many facets of human nature given extraordinary circumstances -- but I can never let this in any way or form be an excuse for barbaric actions.

A very small portion, y'think? You might wanna read a little about the history of wars in this world and some of the shit that goes on in them and how many folks are at it in these situations. As far as justifying or condoning, no, i would never justify or condone something like that but then i wouldn't condemn someone based on what the BBC tells me, without knowing their story and knowing why they do what they do.

I don't feel I have the right to condemn or pass judgement on the actions of people that have been put through a kind of nightmare that I just couldn't fathom if I tried. I think it's a tragic thing on both sides, i think it's insane, i think it's a situation where there is no just thing to do but thats war for ya and these are the insane propositions that war throws up. So much is said about 'the average person' and 'common sense dictates', war is not an average state of the human experience, it is literally insane, it is people being sent out to kill people, it is the theatre of insanity, moralising about it is ridiculous.

Does this mean that the actions within that context are then justified or excused possibly? Fuck no, the message is...don't fuckin' kill each other and you wouldn't be faced with this shit.

And even if they seriously believe the journalists and help workers are spies and that they are legit targets in war, it is still inhumane to torture and behead them publicly on the Internet.

Why, cuz they killed em? Do you know how many hours and hours and hours of footage exists of towns in the middle east literally getting blown to bits? Of women and children one minute walking around a building and the next second it's getting blown to all fuck? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not inhuman and fucked up but why is it that it's only inhuman and fucked up when they do it? And why so incredulous about the possibility that those guys might think they are spies? As far as they're concerned it's a distinct possibility, no?

Besides, it's not like the worst barbarians in ISIL are all poor victims who suffer from having lost their families in the warfare in Syria and Iraq and are so simple that they don't know that journalists and help workes are sacred and blah blah blah and buh buh buh - many of them are born and raised in UK, Spain, Scandinavia and other western countries. They are confused kids who travel there for adventure, for lashing out for their own semi-miserable existsnce as neglected minorities without much prospects and for being torn between cultures and generations, and because they have been brainwashed by a barbaric ideology.

And you know this based on what? Seems very detailed insight so I'm curious, how'd you know all that?

Again, yes, they have a reson for what they do, and it is a reflection of human nature, but there is still no excuse, the reasons don't hold up and humans are supposed to be able to raise above our petty natures.

Perhaps something of the truth of exactly what we are is in those 'petty natures' and a true understanding of ourselves, with the intent of bettering ourselves, lies somewhere in those natures? Maybe? As opposed to repressing them and getting the morality tick-list out, instead of concerning yourself with what should be, how about looking at what is and then trying to understand why it is that way...cuz thats the way you fix shit, should you care to.

If you accept war as a necessary function of the human race (as we all do, to generalise somewhat cuz if we all didn't then it wouldn't happen) then you have to understand that you are entering the theatre of insanity and all the morality and all the 'should be's' go right out of the window and you are faced with propositions that one only has instinct with which to respond to it's a totally different proposition and, with all respect, its kinda arrogant of you to sit there going 'oh well, thats just people and their petty natures and big ol' enlightened moralistic me would just rise above it', really arrogant and kinda stupid sounding, if i may say.

And y'know what, it's usually the boys with a strong sense of morality that lose their fuckin' shit first when they go to war, weird that eh? When you see a fuckin' baby with one leg over there and half his face blown off I imagine one would find himself reassessing his ideas on morality and what your average reasonable person is capable of.

There is no time for moralising during war, morality is ideas, propositions, someones idea of how the world should be...and it changes as we grow and change...but immediate realitys, like the immediate reality of having to shoot a kids head off cuz you're shit scared he might have a bomb strapped to him don't allow you the berth for moralising, you act or you die and a good bunch of your friends die. So you blow the kids head off and check him and what do you know, no bomb there at all.

If only those people had a special little phone line hooked up to your house so you could get your little book of morals out and explain to their unenlightened arses what the correct emotional response is, y'know, help them rise above their petty little natures that, at that point in time makes them wanna scratch their own eyes out.

Not an iota of the responsibility of what is happening should be levered on the journalists or help workers. Not an iota.

What you do or don't wanna blame them for is your affair, I'm not talking about blaming or holding anyone accountable, my point is directly about the reality of how situations like that work, now there's two ways you can play here, you can either take the realities into account and save your life or you can not and risk it. Do you not think aid workers and journalists are aware that going into these kinda warzones that their life is at risk? But they do it anyway cuz they're good folk and I'm not being sarcy here, i really mean that, they're really good decent folk, they go out to help and they just end up getting dead. But thats war and thats craziness of war.

I guess it boils down to this...would I, as a person, having been confronted with 'x' horror, respond in that way? Think of the worst thing that could possibly happen to you, or all the possibilities of all the most awful shit you think of, and you've been subjected to it, how do you think you would react? Do you think you'd be calm and pragmatic? The worlds a fuckin' nasty place and there are a lot of possibilities to all it's various horrors, i honestly can't sit here and say I wouldn't wanna kill someone if certain things were done to me, thinking about the most worse unspeakable horrors here, shit, i listen to transcripts of Ian Brady torturing Leslie Ann Downey and I feel like I could chop his fuckin' head off. I'd like to think I wouldn't but...who knows.

[MB.]

It's not at all about those journalist or aid workers. But about how they treat the yezidi's, kurds, sjiitic muslims, anyone not agreeing and most of all females. That's what we should be concerned about. Not about a few journalist or aid workers.

And most jihadists are still from Syria itself. Not exactly the most west friendly country there was either. They didn't stop with Syria, instead they are trying to take over more and more. The Europeans jihadist are not really common with those horrible things either. They are also not fighting the west specificly, but they are fighting against Assad (certainly not West orientated) and Iraq (ok, that's a different story). But they are also fighting everybody not an jihadist.

Did you read about the situation outside the BBC Len? I had contact with an help organisation, who makes two weekly visits to refugee camps in Iraq. I can tell you, nothing pretty about ISIS, the stories mainly from women are pretty disgusting. So yes, I do judge them.

I am not saying the west doesn't have guilt in all of this. I am just saying ISIS is an horrible organisation and should be stopped asap. Do we as Western countries have to do it? That's another question.

Edited October 13, 2014 by MB.

[AdriftatSea]

I don't think Lenny is taking up for ISIS. He's saying that journalist's going into the war zones are putting themselves out there. It's just like people of Islamic faith after 911 here in the states. Many were attacked. ISIS think's all westerners are evil. Many in the states still believe all people of Islamic faith are bad. That's a very, rudimentary explanation. Lenny covered more ground about other areas of course. He isn't taking up for ISIS though.

Lenny, I have a question for you. Do you think everything would be better if Saddam Hussein had stayed in power? And what about Muammar Gaddafi? Do you think things would be better if he were alive and still ruled over Libya? Just one, both, or neither? And why?

[Georgy Zhukov]

VICE sent their own correspondents to Islamic State but they got permission first. It also helped the guy they sent was Sunni Muslim. But anyone that goes in, not affiliated with Islam or Islamic State can be killed as a spy, even if Islamic State is not recognized.

[downzy]

A healthy debate on religion is fine, but posts that advocate violence/death towards those who choose to follow a religion will not be tolerated.

[DieselDaisy]

Henning was not even a journalist. He was an aid worker. He was in Syria to help the very people who are being bombed out - all Muslims! Why is this being ignored and why is the fact that Jihadi John is from the United Kingdom also being ignored. Jokes about curry houses aside, he is probably from the working class second or third generation Pakistani community of one of our crapier industrial cities; he probably got indoctrinated in a Mosque with seditious literature. This is not a freedom fighter who has witnessed his family's death in the Iraq war or Afghanistan at the hands of Uncle Sam in other words. Attempts to legitimize this, disgusting fanaticism, because of some perceived, prior injury, is widely off the mark.

[SoulMonster]

A very small portion, y'think? You might wanna read a little about the history of wars in this world and some of the shit that goes on in them and how many folks are at it in these situations.

Yes, a very small proportion. Because most people in Syria and Iraq DON'T behead journalists, and because many of those that perpetrate these crimes aren't even the victoms of the war in that region, they are born and raised in western countries. Most people who have suffered greatly simply don't lash out against innocents.

I don't feel I have the right to condemn or pass judgement on the actions of people that have been put through a kind of nightmare that I just couldn't fathom if I tried.

In my opinion, beheading innocents journalists is ALWAYS wrong regardless of what personal suffering you have been through. And again, many of the worst barbarians in ISIL aren't the victims of that crime directly, they have become radicalized in other countries.

it is the theatre of insanity, moralising about it is ridiculous.

It's JUST another warzone and like other people who commit war crimes these guys should be moralized against and should be held responsible for theoir actions. There is nothing worse about the situation in Syria/Iraq than, say, the war in Bosnia (and the war crimes there that is now being tested in court), Rwanda (again, courts taking place now), or WWII. The international communities/laws expects people to not behead journalists and aid workers REGARDLESS of what you have gone through. You might disagree with this, I don't.

Does this mean that the actions within that context are then justified or excused possibly? Fuck no, the message is...don't fuckin' kill each other and you wouldn't be faced with this shit.

The journalists and the help workers HAVEN'T killed anyone.

Besides, it's not like the worst barbarians in ISIL are all poor victims who suffer from having lost their families in the warfare in Syria and Iraq and are so simple that they don't know that journalists and help workes are sacred and blah blah blah and buh buh buh - many of them are born and raised in UK, Spain, Scandinavia and other western countries. They are confused kids who travel there for adventure, for lashing out for their own semi-miserable existsnce as neglected minorities without much prospects and for being torn between cultures and generations, and because they have been brainwashed by a barbaric ideology.

And you know this based on what? Seems very detailed insight so I'm curious, how'd you know all that?

How I know that many of the worst guys in ISIL are from Western world? Because it has been documented and presented in the news.

Perhaps something of the truth of exactly what we are is in those 'petty natures' and a true understanding of ourselves, with the intent of bettering ourselves, lies somewhere in those natures? Maybe? As opposed to repressing them and getting the morality tick-list out, instead of concerning yourself with what should be, how about looking at what is and then trying to understand why it is that way...cuz thats the way you fix shit, should you care to.

Uhm, of course but that doesn't mean we can't all agree that the atrocities done by ISIL are...atrocities.

If you accept war as a necessary function of the human race (as we all do, to generalise somewhat cuz if we all didn't then it wouldn't happen) then you have to understand that you are entering the theatre of insanity and all the morality and all the 'should be's' go right out of the window and you are faced with propositions that one only has instinct with which to respond to it's a totally different proposition and, with all respect, its kinda arrogant of you to sit there going 'oh well, thats just people and their petty natures and big ol' enlightened moralistic me would just rise above it', really arrogant and kinda stupid sounding, if i may say.

So everybody who thinks that killing innocents in war is gruesome is "arrogant and kinda stupid sounding"? Wow. Is it just the situation in Syria and Iraq where condemning the beahding of innocent journalists is "arrogant and stupid sounding"? Should we start listing all the suffering done against civilians in war times and you could tell me when it is okay to express disgust and when we should instead pass it off as reflections of human natures and something we should absolutely not be as arrogant as to condemn?

There is no time for moralising during war

By following that logic no one should be tried for war crimes... Luckily most people disagree with you and hence war crimes is being punished whihc is good for the vitims, good for society, and might prevent future war crimes.

I guess it boils down to this...would I, as a person, having been confronted with 'x' horror, respond in that way? Think of the worst thing that could possibly happen to you, or all the possibilities of all the most awful shit you think of, and you've been subjected to it, how do you think you would react? Do you think you'd be calm and pragmatic? The worlds a fuckin' nasty place and there are a lot of possibilities to all it's various horrors, i honestly can't sit here and say I wouldn't wanna kill someone if certain things were done to me, thinking about the most worse unspeakable horrors here, shit, i listen to transcripts of Ian Brady torturing Leslie Ann Downey and I feel like I could chop his fuckin' head off. I'd like to think I wouldn't but...who knows.

What you and I would do is completely irrelevant in regards to whether behading journalists and help workers is morally wrong or not.

It seems to me you think moality is flexible and that the flexing point is right where you don't know what you would do in a given situation. Meaning that if you would do anything it can't be really that wrong or at least not so wrong that anyone could critize it on an Internet forum. That is a funny thought. I have never thought about people internalizing morality before but I guess it is very common, especially among those that commit crimes.

[Lio]

Henning was not even a journalist. He was an aid worker. He was in Syria to help the very people who are being bombed out - all Muslims! Why is this being ignored and why is the fact that Jihadi John is from the United Kingdom also being ignored. Jokes about curry houses aside, he is probably from the working class second or third generation Pakistani community of one of our crapier industrial cities; he probably got indoctrinated in a Mosque with seditious literature. This is not a freedom fighter who has witnessed his family's death in the Iraq war or Afghanistan at the hands of Uncle Sam in other words. Attempts to legitimize this, disgusting fanaticism, because of some perceived, prior injury, is widely off the mark.

This. Many Belgian ISIS fighters too. Not only second and third generation immigrants that were born here, but also Belgians that converted to islam.

[SoulMonster]

This got me thinking about radicalization. There's a lot of research about that around the world now, and in Norway, too. We've had Norwegians travel to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIL and other terrorist organization, we had a fellow travel to Nigeria and shoot down civilians at that shopping mall, and of course we have Anders Behring Breivik. So what makes people who grow up in Norway do such horrific crimes? One route to radicalization is when you have second or third-generation immigrants who are torn between cultures and get one viewpoint about a conflict from home and another from the overall society they live in. Often they have more knowledge about the situation, is more keen to the suffering "their" people have gone through, and may harbour strong sympathy and sentiments. Then they are met with scorn and opposition whenever they try to moderate and balance the black/white thinking of people around them, causing them to leave and seek groups with like-minded. Echo chambers. They might still be far away from becoming radicalized, and most will never end up there, but the seeking out of closed environments where there is little to no opposition and where opinions will be exaggerrated as they bounce back and forth against the walls, is a very common denominator for Norwegians who become terrorists.

Of course, by driving away those that think differently, society at large might be considered one huge echo chamber. Except, of course, that the larger a group is, the harder it is to prevent dissent/disagreement/differing opinions taking place, and the harder it is for that group to be a functional echo chamber.

A lot of anti-terrorist work now is preventing radicalization by monitoring what takes place in these echo chambers, so as to identify potential terrorists in-making.

[SoulMonster]

Besides, it's not like the worst barbarians in ISIL are all poor victims who suffer from having lost their families in the warfare in Syria and Iraq and are so simple that they don't know that journalists and help workes are sacred and blah blah blah and buh buh buh - many of them are born and raised in UK, Spain, Scandinavia and other western countries. They are confused kids who travel there for adventure, for lashing out for their own semi-miserable existsnce as neglected minorities without much prospects and for being torn between cultures and generations, and because they have been brainwashed by a barbaric ideology.

And you know this based on what? Seems very detailed insight so I'm curious, how'd you know all that?

How I know that many of the worst guys in ISIL are from Western world? Because it has been documented and presented in the news.

Just to add some flesh to this:

In June this year The Ecomonist reported that the army of ISIL consists of about 8-9000 soldiers, of which 3000 may be foreigners. That's a pretty large amout of foreigners. The New York Times in September this year said the number of Europeans fighting in ISIL may be 2000 (!).

[Lio]

Just to add some flesh to this:

In June this year The Ecomonist reported that the army of ISIL consists of about 8-9000 soldiers, of which 3000 may be foreigners. That's a pretty large amout of foreigners. The New York Times in September this year said the number of Europeans fighting in ISIL may be 2000 (!).

There are an estimated 300 to 350 IS fighters from Belgium alone, so 2000 doesn't seem farfetched.

[SoulMonster]

Quite many from Norway, too. Wierd shit. And the executioner who have murdered at least some of the journalists/aid workers is thought to be British based on dialects, with one of three British young men being suspected. All these three are known to be foreign fighters in ISIL. One of them, Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, posted a picture on Twitter with the caption, "Chillin' with my homie or what's left of him", while holding a severed head. And what's their rationale for killing journalists? Here's what they say in one of the videos: "So just as your [Obama's] missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people." In other words, this is primitive "an eye for an eye" thinking. Their twisted morality thinks it is okay to let civilians suffer as revenge for grievances done -- not to them direcly, because these British men aren't (probably) the victims of US bombs and warfare -- but because of (perceived) grievances done to a group they are associated with (either ethnicitity or religion; so-called "group grievance").

I don't see how this can be defended, not by pointing out that is it natural for humans to act like animals in certain situations, or by pointing out that they are doing their crimes in war zone. Most people who are actual direct victims of the atrocties of war STILL refrain from torturing and killing innocent non-combatants.

It is also somewhat scary meeting people who don't immediately reject such behaviour but chooses to focus on whether the journalists should have been there in the first place or whether we should just accept that humans do horrible things in war. I would think such deflections are normal with anyone starting on a pathway of radicalization. It all starts with questioning the consensus opinion, trying to humanize and marginalize the atrocities. I am not saying Lenny is AT ALL like Abdel Bary, the 23 year old Londoner who is a son of immigrants from a war-torn, Islamic country, who was very much into rap music and who glorified drugs, violence and the hard life. I think Lenny is more into punk music.

Edited October 14, 2014 by SoulMonster

[MB.]

I don't think Lenny is taking up for ISIS. He's saying that journalist's going into the war zones are putting themselves out there. It's just like people of Islamic faith after 911 here in the states. Many were attacked. ISIS think's all westerners are evil. Many in the states still believe all people of Islamic faith are bad. That's a very, rudimentary explanation. Lenny covered more ground about other areas of course. He isn't taking up for ISIS though.

He is not just saying that. He was defending or at least saying he wasn't judging ISIS jihadists, why they chose to join that organisation and fight for them. And I was saying consedering the horrible things they are doing in Syria and Iraq, I do judge those people, specially the european ones. Edited October 14, 2014 by MB.

[Len Cnut]

Yes, a very small proportion. Because most people in Syria and Iraq DON'T behead journalists, and because many of those that perpetrate these crimes aren't even the victoms of the war in that region, they are born and raised in western countries. Most people who have suffered greatly simply don't lash out against innocents.

Right see now what you've done here is taken a broader point that you were making, refering to what 'most people would do in that situation', led me into making a broader point about 'most people' and then switched into speaking about what most people in Iraq and Syria would or wouldn't do. You were making a broader point there about human beings in general and i responded making a broader point about human beings in general and the atrocious things they are capable of, referring you back through human history at the things that have gone on in war.

In my opinion, beheading innocents journalists is ALWAYS wrong regardless of what personal suffering you have been through.

I agree...but i do not agree that we should wilfulling try to not understand explanation because all we are looking for is a direction to point our fingers and an enemy to kill so we can sleep better at night knowing the monsters we create remain only in our nightmares.

It's JUST another warzone and like other people who commit war crimes these guys should be moralized against and should be held responsible for theoir actions. There is nothing worse about the situation in Syria/Iraq than, say, the war in Bosnia (and the war crimes there that is now being tested in court), Rwanda (again, courts taking place now), or WWII. The international communities/laws expects people to not behead journalists and aid workers REGARDLESS of what you have gone through. You might disagree with this, I don't.

If the purpose of this discussion was solely to ascertain liability for those murders then i apologise because i appear to be engaged in a different conversation to you, I've agreed with that a couple of times now but, once again, furthering ones understanding by understanding specific circumstances has it's value too, no? Apparently not, once you know whoose to blame who gives a fuck, as long as we know where to point the barrels Its really shocking to see you trivialise it as 'just another warzone', dismissing context and the relevance to the pertinent realities surrounding a given instance.

How I know that many of the worst guys in ISIL are from Western world? Because it has been documented and presented in the news.

No sir, thats not what i asked you, thats you asking yourself a question, what i asked you was to do with that broad profile of disenfranchised ethnic youth you were speaking of, how do you know those things?

So everybody who thinks that killing innocents in war is gruesome is "arrogant and kinda stupid sounding"? Wow. Is it just the situation in Syria and Iraq where condemning the beahding of innocent journalists is "arrogant and stupid sounding"? Should we start listing all the suffering done against civilians in war times and you could tell me when it is okay to express disgust and when we should instead pass it off as reflections of human natures and something we should absolutely not be as arrogant as to condemn?

What i actually said was referring to human nature and the instincts upon which people engage in warfare is 'petty' is arrogant and stupid sounding.

By following that logic no one should be tried for war crimes... Luckily most people disagree with you and hence war crimes is being punished whihc is good for the vitims, good for society, and might prevent future war crimes.

I was speaking then about the specific dilemmas soldiers face, not lobbying for change in international law.

What you and I would do is completely irrelevant in regards to whether behading journalists and help workers is morally wrong or not.

I was attempting to clarify MY moral position, which is why i thought it relevant.

Quite many from Norway, too. Wierd shit. And the executioner who have murdered at least some of the journalists/aid workers is thought to be British based on dialects, with one of three British young men being suspected. All these three are known to be foreign fighters in ISIL. One of them, Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, posted a picture on Twitter with the caption, "Chillin' with my homie or what's left of him", while holding a severed head. And what's their rationale for killing journalists? Here's what they say in one of the videos: "So just as your [Obama's] missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people." In other words, this is primitive "an eye for an eye" thinking. Their twisted morality thinks it is okay to let civilians suffer as revenge for grievances done -- not to them direcly, because these British men aren't (probably) the victims of US bombs and warfare -- but because of (perceived) grievances done to a group they are associated with (either ethnicitity or religion; so-called "group grievance").

I don't see how this can be defended, not by pointing out that is it natural for humans to act like animals in certain situations, or by pointing out that they are doing their crimes in war zone. Most people who are actual direct victims of the atrocties of war STILL refrain from torturing and killing innocent non-combatants.

It is also somewhat scary meeting people who don't immediately reject such behaviour but chooses to focus on whether the journalists should have been there in the first place or whether we should just accept that humans do horrible things in war. I would think such deflections are normal with anyone starting on a pathway of radicalization. It all starts with questioning the consensus opinion, trying to humanize and marginalize the atrocities. I am not saying Lenny is AT ALL like Abdel Bary, the 23 year old Londoner who is a son of immigrants from a war-torn, Islamic country, who was very much into rap music and who glorified drugs, violence and the hard life. I think Lenny is more into punk music.

Some of that casual objectification i was pointing to, thank you, well illustrated

A healthy debate on religion is fine, but posts that advocate violence/death towards those who choose to follow a religion will not be tolerated.

Where'd that come from man?

[SoulMonster]

Not only are we at liberty to pass judgment on people who kill non-combatants in war (it's not like you need a masters degree in ethics to understand why that is wrong). We also have codified laws aimed at protecting civilians in war and International courts aimed at passing justice at those who break those laws. It might be "arrogant and stupid sounding" to pass judgment on people we don't know simply from seeing them saw off the heads of journalists or from killing truck drivers because they failed to answer theological questions, but I would say it is inhumane not to react and condemn such gruesome acts.

[Len Cnut]

I dont dispute that, its just i find they come into play with such fervour and such a ridgid inflexible manner only when judging the other side. Once again, the arrogant and stupid comment was in specific reference to your trivialising the responses of human nature under duress, now you can continue to ignore that all day long but it doesnt change the fact that i said what i said and it means what it means.

[SoulMonster]

In my opinion, beheading innocents journalists is ALWAYS wrong regardless of what personal suffering you have been through.

I agree...but i do not agree that we should wilfulling try to not understand explanation because all we are looking for is a direction to point our fingers and an enemy to kill so we can sleep better at night knowing the monsters we create remain only in our nightmares.

I have never said we should "willfully try to not underatand explanations", nor even come near to imply that. But the reasons why they kill innocents is really a different discussion, unless you actually think there could be a potential explanation that would somehow make it okay. In my opinion, it is NEVER okay to kill innocents. So hence we can discuss the morality of the action without cluttering up the issue by looking for motives and explanations. This doesn't mean I don't think that is important -- in fact it is MORE important to underastand why it happens than passing judgment -- just that that is another discussion altogether.

It's JUST another warzone and like other people who commit war crimes these guys should be moralized against and should be held responsible for theoir actions. There is nothing worse about the situation in Syria/Iraq than, say, the war in Bosnia (and the war crimes there that is now being tested in court), Rwanda (again, courts taking place now), or WWII. The international communities/laws expects people to not behead journalists and aid workers REGARDLESS of what you have gone through. You might disagree with this, I don't.

If the purpose of this discussion was solely to ascertain liability for those murders then i apologise because i appear to be engaged in a different conversation to you, I've agreed with that a couple of times now but, once again, furthering ones understanding by understanding specific circumstances has it's value too, no? Apparently not, once you know whoose to blame who gives a fuck, as long as we know where to point the barrels Its really shocking to see you trivialise it as 'just another warzone', dismissing context and the relevance to the pertinent realities surrounding a given instance.

Again, killing innocents is wrong. Period. Context will never change that. SO in that regards, it is JUST another example of people breaking the laws of war.

If we were to discuss WHY it happens and HOW to prevtn it form happening again, THEN it would be fruitful to look at the explanation. But again, that is a separate discussion (which I have actually already sort of started by my posts on radicalization).

How I know that many of the worst guys in ISIL are from Western world? Because it has been documented and presented in the news.

No sir, thats not what i asked you, thats you asking yourself a question, what i asked you was to do with that broad profile of disenfranchised ethnic youth you were speaking of, how do you know those things?

From results from recent research into radicaization in West-European countries, specifically in regards to foreign fighthers in Syria and Iraq.

What i actually said was referring to human nature and the instincts upon which people engage in warfare is 'petty' is arrogant and stupid sounding.

Ah, then a revent post of mine won't make much sense But yeah, when you decide to kill innocents you are reverting to a pretty petty, low and base parts of human nature. There is nothing decent about it. It is ugly, petty, brutal and primitive. I don't see how I am arrogant or "stupid sounding" from saying that. I think most people agree that we shouldn't resort to violence against bystanders, and if we do, then we succumb to the beast within and those actions should be condemned.

I was speaking then about the specific dilemmas soldiers face, not lobbying for change in international law.

What dilemma that soldiers face would that be? Are you thinking about, "Should be behead this journalist or not"? Or, "Should these truck drivers face us while we shoot them for not remembering the name of the mother of Mohammed, or face way from us?" These are really hard soldiers' dilemmas, right! How to kill innocents really isn't touched upon well enough at soldier school, I am sure.

I dont dispute that, its just i find they come into play with such fervour and such a ridgid inflexible manner only when judging the other side. Once again, the arrogant and stupid comment was in specific reference to your trivialising the responses of human nature under duress, now you can continue to ignore that all day long but it doesnt change the fact that i said what i said and it means what it means.

No, sorry, I asn't ignoring it, I just read it AFTER posting that above.

And I am not trivializing it, it is a real thing that some people struggle with, and lose to, I am just saying that even if it is hard to resist beheading innocents it doesn't make it less of a crime or less of a misdeed.

[Len Cnut]

I have never said we should "willfully try to not underatand explanations", nor even come near to imply that. But the reasons why they kill innocents is really a different discussion, unless you actually think there could be a potential explanation that would somehow make it okay. In my opinion, it is NEVER okay to kill innocents. So hence we can discuss the morality of the action without cluttering up the issue by looking for motives and explanations. This doesn't mean I don't think that is important -- in fact it is MORE important to underastand why it happens than passing judgment -- just that that is another discussion altogether.

I dunno, i could see how its a relevant tangent I mean look at the thread title here, it's not 'ARE ISIS GUILTY NOT?'

Again, killing innocents is wrong. Period. Context will never change that. SO in that regards, it is JUST another example of people breaking the laws of war.

If we were to discuss WHY it happens and HOW to prevtn it form happening again, THEN it would be fruitful to look at the explanation. But again, that is a separate discussion (which I have actually already sort of started by my posts on radicalization).

So we're not allowed to talk about why and how? OK, thanks for letting me know!

From results from recent research into radicaization in West-European countries, specifically in regards to foreign fighthers in Syria and Iraq.

So off the telly basically?

But yeah, when you decide to kill innocents you are reverting to a pretty petty, low and base parts of human nature. There is nothing decent about it. It is ugly, petty, brutal and primitive. I don't see how I am arrogant or "stupid sounding" from saying that. I think most people agree that we shouldn't resort to violence against bystanders, and if we do, then we succumb to the beast within and those actions should be condemned.

You're just repeating yourself now.

What dilemma that soldiers face would that be? Are you thinking about, "Should be behead this journalist or not"? Or, "Should these truck drivers face us while we shoot them for not remembering the name of the mother of Mohammed, or face way from us?" These are really hard soldiers' dilemmas, right! How to kill innocents really isn't touched upon well enough at soldier school, I am sure.

Would you like to continue having a discussion or would you just like to take the piss cuz I can do that too if those are the terms we're playing with here Does it really need explaining to you why war is hell, war is crazy and how it drives people insane, why there are hospitals stuffed full of brave young boys and girls missing limbs, or that can't sleep for nightmares or come back home unable to communicate and function in the world around them.

You just basically sit there going 'nah, fuck that, it's just a warzone like any other, it's all the same, morality is totally and utterly clear cut, there is nothing that these people crumble under that can't just be put down to their succumbing to their petty human nature, it's all completely and utterly morally simplistic and clearly defined, with no grey area whatsoever, they should think with the exact same clarity as someone going down the road to get their shopping', well sadly it doesn't work like that and honestly, i think you'd be more qualified to make such judgements had you walked a mile in some of theirs shoes, speaking again broadly about soldiers or combatants that engage in war.

The dilemma becomes even more messy when you are talking about people that are drawn into combat based on something direct thats happened to them as opposed to just enlisting in the forces out of high school, when someone is led by a cause or their passion is fuelled by a sense of injustice. I find it amusing how, out of 8,000 it's consistently the 2,000 cited western members that you're focusing on. Why could that be i wonder.

And I am not trivializing it

But you were.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[SoulMonster]

And my inflexible opinion regarding the morality of killing innocents isn't one-sided. It is just that I don't see similar acts being perpetrated by the other side. I am not saying that innocents aren't killed by the opponents of ISIL, and particularly the air strikes targeted against them, just that I don't see willful targeting of innocents, "only" collatoral damage. I believe there is a principal difference between capturing, torturing, and then publicly beheading non-combatants and killing civilans as collayoral damage in targeted airstrikes against ISIL personell. I am NOT saying the latter is okay, just that these things aren't the same and AS BAD as eachother.

[Len Cnut]

And my inflexible opinion regarding the morality of killing innocents isn't one-sided. It is just that I don't see similar acts being perpetrated by the other side. I am not saying that innocents aren't killed by the opponents of ISIL, and particularly the air strikes targeted against them, just that I don't see willful targeting of innocents, "only" collatoral damage.

SO...one side can kill thousands but as long as it's something to do with the broad convenience of hitting a large enough group of guilty it's OK to sweep a few scores or maybe even hundreds of innocents along with you? Is that supposed to be a joke? This, this is you excusing it, this specifically is you saying one side are wrong for doing something but the other ain't...even so far as to say the ones taking more innocent civilian lives are kinda less culpable. Collateral damage, God i love that phrase Thank you, I'm glad we've got to what its really all about.

They're as bad as each other *whispers* shhhh, we all know the brown ones are wronger!

Edited October 14, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[SoulMonster]

I have never said we should "willfully try to not underatand explanations", nor even come near to imply that. But the reasons why they kill innocents is really a different discussion, unless you actually think there could be a potential explanation that would somehow make it okay. In my opinion, it is NEVER okay to kill innocents. So hence we can discuss the morality of the action without cluttering up the issue by looking for motives and explanations. This doesn't mean I don't think that is important -- in fact it is MORE important to underastand why it happens than passing judgment -- just that that is another discussion altogether.

I dunno, i could see how its a relevant tangent I mean look at the thread title here, it's not 'ARE ISIS GUILTY NOT?'

I was responding to things you said, not the title of the thread. Threads tend to deviate from their original intent, which is fine with me.

Again, killing innocents is wrong. Period. Context will never change that. SO in that regards, it is JUST another example of people breaking the laws of war.

If we were to discuss WHY it happens and HOW to prevtn it form happening again, THEN it would be fruitful to look at the explanation. But again, that is a separate discussion (which I have actually already sort of started by my posts on radicalization).

So we're not allowed to talk about why and how? OK, thanks for letting me know!

I nevers said we are not allowed to discuss anything. I explained why the motives behind the beheadings are irrelevant for my condemnation and hence why that is, in my opinion, a SEPARATE discussion. But by all means, if you think there are contexual grounds for not condemning the beheadings, then by all means give it a shot. I have no problems taking that discussion, too, like I have already sort of started in my previous posts on radicalization.

What dilemma that soldiers face would that be? Are you thinking about, "Should be behead this journalist or not"? Or, "Should these truck drivers face us while we shoot them for not remembering the name of the mother of Mohammed, or face way from us?" These are really hard soldiers' dilemmas, right! How to kill innocents really isn't touched upon well enough at soldier school, I am sure.

Would you like to continue having a discussion or would you just like to take the piss cuz I can do that too if those are the terms we're playing with here

So what "specific dilemmas" are the soldies faced with in the context of killing innocents, then? I am not denying there are REAL dilemmas in the conduct of war, and that soldiers make honest mistakes once in a while, just that the topic of this discussion, the repeated beheadings of journalists and air workers, really isn't a "soldier's dilemma".

You just basically sit there going 'nah, fuck that, it's just a warzone like any other, it's all the same, morality is totally and utterly clear cut, there is nothing that these people crumble under that can't just be put down to their succumbing to their petty human nature, it's all completely and utterly morally simplistic and clearly defined, with no grey area whatsoever, they should think with the exact same clarity as someone going down the road to get their shopping', well sadly it doesn't work like that and honestly, i think you'd be more qualified to make such judgements had you walked a mile in some of theirs shoes, speaking again broadly about soldiers or combatants that engage in war.

I am not speaking broadly about soldiers and combatants. I am speaking narrowly about ISIL's beheadings of noncombatants. And yes, such killings of innocents are wrong. And it's not me, everybody can just sit wherever we sit and unconditionally condemn the killings of innocents. We don't need to have been in that situation ourselves, we don't need to have had our families blown up, we don't need to have been radicalized and marginalized, we only need to have a working moral compass to realize that it is utterly wrong. I am not saying that moral issues are ALWAYS clear cut, only that this specific moral issue really is. But if you honestly think there is a possibility that the torture and beheadings of non-combatants is somehow morally justifiable, then I am very much looking forward to hearing about it. Edited October 14, 2014 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

And my inflexible opinion regarding the morality of killing innocents isn't one-sided. It is just that I don't see similar acts being perpetrated by the other side. I am not saying that innocents aren't killed by the opponents of ISIL, and particularly the air strikes targeted against them, just that I don't see willful targeting of innocents, "only" collatoral damage.

SO...one side can kill thousands but as long as it's something to do with the broad convenience of hitting a large enough group of guilty it's OK to sweep a few scores or maybe even hundreds of innocents along with you?

No, I never said it is okay. In fact, I took care to make it clear I do not find it okay, in the sentence you cut away (and now in bold):

I believe there is a principal difference between capturing, torturing, and then publicly beheading non-combatants and killing civilans as collayoral damage in targeted airstrikes against ISIL personell. I am NOT saying the latter is okay, just that these things aren't the same and AS BAD as eachother.

My point, since it seemed to have gone you by, is that there is a fundamental difference between explicitly targeting noncombatants, like what the ISIL is doing, and inadvertantly killing noncombatants through collatoral damage, like what happens in air strikes. Don't mistake me making this point as me not being opposed to both.

In addition, even IF US troops put forces on ground in Iraq and started to behead noncombatants, so that there would not be a fundamental difference in action and reaction, it would still be morally wrong for ISIL to do the same. You simply can't punish someone for what someone else is doing, regardless of how reciprocal it might seem or how victimized one might feel. "Eye for an eye" is a barbaric principle, especially when it is someone else's eye.

[MB.]

The ones who are dealing with ISIL now, are the Syrian and Iraq civilians. How are they to blame for this whole situation?

I admit the West has a huge part in this, specially talking about Iraq. But they are not the ones suffering currently. When people join IS now, they are mainly fighting Kurds, Yezidi's, Iraq troups, Syrian troups loyal to Assad and everybody not agreeing with them. They are the ones, IS is killing as well.

So who is that other side? Seriously, I am confused. There are many other sides over there.

Edited October 14, 2014 by MB.

[Len Cnut]

I was responding to things you said, not the title of the thread. Threads tend to deviate from their original intent, which is fine with me.

Right well no need for the 'seperate discussion' then.

So what "specific dilemmas" are the soldies faced with in the context of killing innocents, then? I am not denying there are REAL dilemmas in the conduct of war, and that soldiers make honest mistakes once in a while, just that the topic of this discussion, the repeated beheadings of journalists and air workers, really isn't a "soldier's dilemma".

So basically, by virtue of who they are, they are not subject to any of the pressures and duresses that soldiers face? I am not talking about honest mistakes, I am talking about moral dilemmas that people face in these situations in which there is no right answer. The whole point of my continually banging on about those dilemmas is to illustrate that rational behaviour is kinda eschewed in situations of war, this is not to justify beheadings but rather to contextualise the broader insanity of what go on during war and to draw a parrallel between insane and irrational behaviour on both sides.

I am not speaking broadly about soldiers and combatants. I am speaking narrowly about ISIL's beheadings of noncombatants. And yes, such killings of innocents are wrong. And it's not me, everybody can just sit wherever we sit and unconditionally condemn the killings of innocents. We don't need to have been in that situation ourselves, we don't need to have had our families blown up,

Lets hope none of us ever have to although, once again, it's kinda arrogant for you to sit and say what you would or wouldn't do faced with such an atrocity. Real arrogant.

My point, since it seemed to have gone you by, is that there is a fundamental difference between explicitly targeting noncombatants, like what the ISIL is doing, and inadvertantly killing noncombatants through collatoral damage, like what happens in air strikes. Don't mistake me making this point as me not being opposed to both.

With this whole collateral damage thing you have actually directly hit upon exactly the kind of moral dilemmas that I am talking about. You have basically lessened the gravity of wholesale murder and rationalised it when contrasting it to ISIS killing innocents, exactly the same thing, exactly the same amount of calculation and exactly the same kind of disregard for human life. And you, civilian you, non-soldier you, have managed to justify it or at least make it understandable on some level. Now were i of the Soulmonster position I would just bark you down with no no no no no no no no no no its never justifiable etc etc but I'm not gonna do that. Why? Because war is insane, it is insane as a concept and the ways in which we assess and rationalise what goes on during it is also insane.

Whether it's a guy having some poor chappie in an orange boiler suit kneeled down and lopping his head off or it's a bloke in a helicopter waiting for directives from his governor of whether or not he should bomb some town he's flying over, bearing in mind that it has civilians in it, killing them is exactly the same kind of fucked up...except in the minds of those whoose primary objective is sucking one side off over the other. It is literally crazy. But see, you were assessing an insane situation and you find yourself making judgements, by necessity, that lean towards that kind of insanity.

THAT is how a soldier has to act...with clarity and in pursuance of their objective, thats how war works and thats how the people who win wars win them, by making those sorts of rationalisations, writing off scores of innocent civilians that are gonna get killed because a particular compound or settlement contains enemy combatants and to take them out you have to take out a bunch of civilians, this is something that you yourself, on some minute level, without ever having to hold a rifle or wear combat fatigues, have managed to rationalise on some level. I wonder how shot and shell would further alter your rationalisations. THAT is what I been talking about war and the surrounding moral dilemmas.

You've managed to sit around here with me, moralising about the lives of innocent civilians, innocent civilians whoose deaths i have not even attempted to claim are justified...and then just basically ended up saying 'oh, it's alright if you're block-booking and getting a handful of bad guys while you're at it', why, cuz it's practical, it's pragmatic...and morality just didn't come into it, it immediately became less worse than what the other side are doing. But they gotta be wrong right, cuz they're against us. Hypocrisy.

[wasted]

The ones who are dealing with ISIL now, are the Syrian and Iraq civilians. How are they to blame for this whole situation?

I admit the West has a huge part in this, specially talking about Iraq. But they are not the ones suffering currently. When people join IS now, they are mainly fighting Kurds, Yezidi's, Iraq troups, Syrian troups loyal to Assad and everybody not agreeing with them. They are the ones, IS is killing as well.

So who is that other side? Seriously, I am confused. There are many other sides over there.

I think only Dave Mustaine knows the answer.

You can say they all have different beliefs and can't really tolerate the other, but that sounds like the jocks to me too and we wouldn't want the US coming in and deciding stuff for us. So i think only answer is to leave them to it. If ISIS come to power and it's another N Korea then that's just tough. But it won't happen because it's about American Empire they aren't going to stop trying to control the whole world.