Ben Affleck on Real Time: Islamaphobia

[SoulMonster]

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.

Heh. You don't understand. Nowhere have I said anything about what I would do if I found myself in their shoes. Perhaps I would sever the heads of innocents, too? But it just doesn't matter what I would do, even if I was weak and did horrible things would those still be morally condemnable. You see, morality doesn't stand or fall on my actions, morality exists outside of me, or you. This ties in with what I wrote somewhere earlier about you apparently internalizing morality so that is becomes a flexible thing dependant upon what you would do in given situations.

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.

I haven't said anything that could be construed as a disregard for human life. The fact that I consider collateral damage LESS of a problem than non-collateral damage doesn't equate to me having a disregard for human life. This is becoming ridiculous

And you, civilian you, non-soldier you, have managed to justify it or at least make it understandable on some level.

I haven't said anything to either justify or make collateral damage understandable, the only thing I have done is compare collateral damage to behading of journalists and point out that the latter is MORE morally questionable. In other words, I have made a relative comparison of two evils, and nowhere have I said anything about the absolute size of either.

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.

Oh my.

[Len Cnut]

Heh. You don't understand. Nowhere have I said anything about what I would do if I found myself in their shoes. Perhaps I would sever the heads of innocents, too? But it just doesn't matter what I would do, even if I was weak and did horrible things would those still be morally condemnable. You see, morality doesn't stand or fall on my actions, morality exists outside of me, or you. This ties in with what I wrote somewhere earlier about you apparently internalizing morality so that is becomes a flexible thing dependant upon what you would do in given situations.

I don't internalise morality, i just see morality as a flawless concept dealing with absolutes being applied by flawed beings and as such, subject to grey area...something you have been consistently denying.

I haven't said anything that could be construed as a disregard for human life. The fact that I consider collateral damage LESS of a problem than non-collateral damage doesn't equate to me having a disregard for human life. This is becoming ridiculous

Well i disagree sir, i think that is a disregard for human life, saying one group and less culpable than the other because you find it easier to bend morality in one instance and not in the other amounts exactly to a disregard for human life to my mind.

I haven't said anything to either justify or make collateral damage understandable, the only thing I have done is compare collateral damage to behading of journalists and point out that the latter is MORE morally questionable.

Right, which conversely lessens the gravity of the other...even when the other results in the death of more innocents, that to me, is just plain crazy. Especially by someone whoose been waving his dick around going on about morality all morning.

[SoulMonster]

Heh. You don't understand. Nowhere have I said anything about what I would do if I found myself in their shoes. Perhaps I would sever the heads of innocents, too? But it just doesn't matter what I would do, even if I was weak and did horrible things would those still be morally condemnable. You see, morality doesn't stand or fall on my actions, morality exists outside of me, or you. This ties in with what I wrote somewhere earlier about you apparently internalizing morality so that is becomes a flexible thing dependant upon what you would do in given situations.

I don't internalise morality, i just see morality as a flawless concept dealing with absolutes being applied by flawed beings and as such, subject to grey area...something you have been consistently denying.

I have never said there aren't morally grey areas. Just that when it comes to beheading innocents it is well into the pitch dark.

I haven't said anything that could be construed as a disregard for human life. The fact that I consider collateral damage LESS of a problem than non-collateral damage doesn't equate to me having a disregard for human life. This is becoming ridiculous

Well i disagree sir, i think that is a disregard for human life, saying one group and less culpable than the other because you find it easier to bend morality in one instance and not in the other amounts exactly to a disregard for human life to my mind.

Let's make it clear: Because I think the targeted beheading of civilians is MORE morally condemnable than the accidental killing of civilians as a result of air strikes, I have a disregard for human life? That is fantastic. You basically don't seem to understand that crimes and bad acts come in different sizes and that it is possible to compare their relative sizes without that meaning you are in favour in any or consider any of them in any way or form okay. Now I am going to shock you, I also think that beheading, say three journalists is worse than raping one (I am playing it safe here) girl (which ISIL soldiers are also accused of doing). By your flawed logic this should mean I have a disregard for the sanctity of girls and their freedom from sexual oppression. But of course I don't. Like everyone else, more or less, I am able to compae the relative sizes of morally objectable acts.

I haven't said anything to either justify or make collateral damage understandable, the only thing I have done is compare collateral damage to behading of journalists and point out that the latter is MORE morally questionable.

Right, which conversely lessens the gravity of the other...even when the other results in the death of more innocents, that to me, is just plain crazy. Especially by someone whoose been waving his dick around going on about morality all morning.

It lessens the gravity, yes, but it doesn't make it okay. Is the concept of sins having different sizes alien to you? The fact that I range targeted murder worse than accidental murder doesn't mean I have a disregard for human life. If so, everyone else (except you), and including every judiciary system in every country on earth, have a disregard for human life because they too, rank atrocities in terms of gravity with some being worse than others.

[Len Cnut]

I have never said there aren't morally grey areas. Just that when it comes to beheading innocents it is well into the pitch dark.

Whilst edging towards the grey when it's well equipped white people doing it from high up in the sky, yes, i understand completely.

Let's make it clear: Because I think the targeted beheading of civilians is MORE morally condemnable than the accidental killing of civilians as a result of air strikes, I have a disregard for human life?

Less of a regard depending on who the people are, yes.

You basically don't seem to understand that crimes and bad acts come in different sizes and that it is possible to compare their relative sizes without that meaning you are in favour in any or consider any of them in any way or form okay.

No i understand that perfectly, it's just your selective judgement regarding what is or isn't the bigger crime and the motives behind that judgement is what I'm throwing into question.

It lessens the gravity, yes, but it doesn't make it okay. Is the concept of sins having different sizes alien to you? The fact that I range targeted murder worse than accidental murder doesn't mean I have a disregard for human life.

Oh this gets better and better, now it's 'accidental'?

[Not An FSB Agent]

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.

You're goddman liar that makes shit up!

The video that you deleted didn't mention "violence/death" towards anything; it merely was a song the brought attention to to the misogyny and child rape that is inherent in the Islamic religion by mentioning that the Muhammed was a child rapist by marrying a 9 year old child.

Your apologetic bullshit for that disgusting religion is appalling... let me guess, you're Canadian, huh?

[Len Cnut]

The video that you deleted didn't mention "violence/death" towards anything; it merely was a song the brought attention to to the misogyny and child rape that is inherent in the Islamic religion by mentioning that the Muhammed was a child rapist by marrying a 9 year old child.

A musical indictment? Well thats a novel approach, shows a deep sensitivity to the cause of child abuse and the safety of poor children, well done I wonder why Supreme Courts don't do that! Y'know, tap out a rhythm on a high hat and have the judge saunter up to the mic with his tie undone and a glass of Remy in his hand, singing out summations and sentences to the tune of 'Witchcraft'

[magisme]

Absolute pleasure reading Len doing his thing in here.

[SoulMonster]

I have never said there aren't morally grey areas. Just that when it comes to beheading innocents it is well into the pitch dark.

Whilst edging towards the grey when it's well equipped white people doing it from high up in the sky, yes, i understand completely.

Don't insinuate I am racist and that is why I consider the beheading of white journalists a worse thing than collatoral damage down towards Arabs. Think carefully about what you accuse me of.

Let's make it clear: Because I think the targeted beheading of civilians is MORE morally condemnable than the accidental killing of civilians as a result of air strikes, I have a disregard for human life?

Less of a regard depending on who the people are, yes.

But "less of a regard" does not equal "disregard"!

You basically don't seem to understand that crimes and bad acts come in different sizes and that it is possible to compare their relative sizes without that meaning you are in favour in any or consider any of them in any way or form okay.

No i understand that perfectly, it's just your selective judgement regarding what is or isn't the bigger crime and the motives behind that judgement is what I'm throwing into question.

So you are questioning my motives behind considering the targeting beheading of civilians worse than collatoral damage from air strikes directed at ISIL? Humour me, what motives do you think I have for thinking that targeting killing of civilians is worse than accidebtal killing of civilians?

It lessens the gravity, yes, but it doesn't make it okay. Is the concept of sins having different sizes alien to you? The fact that I range targeted murder worse than accidental murder doesn't mean I have a disregard for human life.

Oh this gets better and better, now it's 'accidental'?

"Now"? Yes, collatoral damage is generally understood of as accidental damage to things and people who are incidental to the actual target. But hey, if US and UK forces (and whoever else is attacking ISIL with air strikes) are DELIBERATELY targeting civilians, then that makes it much, much, much worse and would, in my opinion, make the air strikes morally worse than the beheadings (at least because of the differences in no. of casualties).

[Len Cnut]

Don't insinuate I am racist and that is why I consider the beheading of white journalists a worse thing than collatoral damage down towards Arabs. Think carefully about what you accuse me of.

You become a very sensitive boy when the type of scrutiny you point towards others is pointed towards you, whats the deal man?

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.

But "less of a regard" does not equal "disregard"!

Which is why i specified

"Now"? Yes, collatoral damage is generally understood of as accidental damage to things and people who are incidental to the actual target.

Bullshit. It's a decision. It's amoral pragmatism. It is deciding that, within a specific context, the death of x numbers of enemy combatant is essential, so essential that the resultant deaths of x number of civilians is an acceptable price for the objective, it's not accident, it's not 'whoops', it's a calculated decision.

[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.

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.

But why though? Not talking mainly about the US. But why should the whole world watch them slaughtering those people? Cause that's what is going on. They slaughter their enemies, sell or rape the young women etc. Their strategy is to bring as much fear as possible, so people will not even fight them out of fear. Why should the world allow that? The yezidi's are death if nobody does a thing for example.

And why would it be the only answer? It's certainly not best for most people living in those countries. You can say, the US should stay out of it, but why do nothing at all? And if they just sticked to Syria, it could be true, but since they want as much land as possible, they have to be stopped somewhere.

Len if it was not the US bombing IS, but Iran for instance. Would you feel differently?

[Len Cnut]

But why though? Not talking mainly about the US. But why should the whole world watch them slaughtering those people? Cause that's what is going on. They slaughter their enemies, sell or rape the young women etc. Their strategy is to bring as much fear as possible, so people will not even fight them out of fear. Why should the world allow that?

Why does the world allow America to ignore the UN? Why does the world allow for Afghanistan to be bombed to shit whilst America look for ONE MAN, who possibly weren't even there? Where is the accountability for these things? Why did the world allow what went on at Abu Ghraib? Why did American or rather Allied Forces invade Iraq looking for WMD and get away scot free, having found jack-shit and having plunged that country into the shit-stream its in now? Why does the world allow this? On the one side you have renegades, on the other side you have established governments, organisations that are supposed to be governed according to certain rules and protocol that they brazenly disregard when the instance suits them?

Don't answer, i think I know.

Len if it was not the US bombing IS, but Iran for instance. Would you feel differently?

I don't know, I'd have to be presented with the entirety of the circumstance in question, allowed the time to weigh up all the options and motives and issues that led to the decision and then base my judgements on that.

[MB.]

I can answer, you know that. We all can. But I was very much aganst those wars and those bombings. Actually you taught me they bombed Pakistan severly as well, I didn't even know. Most people in Europe critize the US a lot and many in The US has as well. And it shouldn't have been allowed and most people in Europe agree with that. But it was and nothing can change that fact.

I understand why some people got very islamic in return, it's probably a reaction which shouldn't be a suprise. I just don't understand the actions of IS and why the world should allow them slaughtering all those innocent people, getting more and more land from people who don't want to be taken over. There is a difference. Those people the IS fight currently are not the West. Those people are civilians living in that area. And they are not just taking over, they are killing all christians, yezidi's, people not agreeing in the progress. And how they are treating the women is even more concerning. Why should the world watch and do nothing?

Edited October 14, 2014 by MB.

[SoulMonster]

Don't insinuate I am racist and that is why I consider the beheading of white journalists a worse thing than collatoral damage down towards Arabs. Think carefully about what you accuse me of.

You become a very sensitive boy when the type of scrutiny you point towards others is pointed towards you, whats the deal man?

Huh? Have I accused you of racism? Don't think so.

I like you. And thus I don't like it when you imply that anyone's rationale behind considering deliberate murder worse than accidental murder is connected to color of skin and not to an objective assessment of the moral weights of the respective acts. Such accusations reflects poorly on no one but yourself. And as I said, I like you.

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.

What has my joke about the similarities between you and the assumed executioner got to do with anything?

"Now"? Yes, collatoral damage is generally understood of as accidental damage to things and people who are incidental to the actual target.

Bullshit. It's a decision. It's amoral pragmatism. It is deciding that, within a specific context, the death of x numbers of enemy combatant is essential, so essential that the resultant deaths of x number of civilians is an acceptable price for the objective, it's not accident, it's not 'whoops', it's a calculated decision.

It could be, or it could be entirely incidental depending on the amount of intelligence. In either case it is less morally objectionable than having non-combatants as primary targets.

[Len Cnut]

I just don't understand the actions of IS and why the world should allow them slaughtering all those innocent people, gaining more and more land from people who don't want to be taken over.

The answer is they shouldn't, something HAS to be done now but it's that same tired old charade isn't it? 'We've made the mess now, all that old stuff is all well and good but what do we do about now, the here and now'...and they're right, someone has to clean up the shit but honestly, if i thought thats what the thing was about, oh fuck, we fucked this right up, lets now go about fixing all this I might look at it with different eyes, if it wasn't the 50 millionth time we'd seen this movie, it's all just political posturing and a bunch of parties all acting in the pursuance of their cause and their interest, as always.

And the fact is the world isn't watching and doing nothing, they're getting right on in the mix. Until the next middle eastern country gets a massive bumming, turns into a warzone, is taken up by a bunch of extremists so we can wade on in there again and sort them out, with that tired old thing of 'nothing can change that fact now'.

The world won't sit and watch, the world'll destroy them, the world only sit and watch when it's the brown boys turn.

'What about Afghanistan?'

Oh thats done now!

'What about Iraq?'

Look, nothing can change that!

'Hey, they're being mean to women over in someplace thats name ends in 'stan'!'

'Quick, amass the troops boys, that ol' Liberty tanks are about roll in and spread a little freedom around!'

Huh? Have I accused you of racism? Don't think so.

I didn't accuse you of anything either.

What has my joke about the similarities between you and the assumed executioner got to do with anything?

Right so its a joke when you make insinuations but when i do it you stand up and stamp your foot and 'Me?!? Racist?!? How dare you!'...and there you were a couple of ticks earlier drawing parrallels between me and some fuckin' terrorist nutbag with blood on his hands, you wanna joke, fine but then allow me the same berth please.

It could be, or it could be entirely incidental depending on the amount of intelligence. In either case it is less morally objectionable than having non-combatants as primary targets.

First you try to lessen it's gravity, the next you call it 'accidental' and now it 'could be' cold and calculated as I suggested. Tell you what, take your time, pick one and when you're absolutely sure you've got the answer, then get back to me. No rush, I'm always round

[SoulMonster]

What has my joke about the similarities between you and the assumed executioner got to do with anything?

Right so its a joke when you make insinuations but when i do it you stand up and stamp your foot and 'Me?!? Racist?!? How dare you!'...and there you were a couple of ticks earlier drawing parrallels between me and some fuckin' terrorist nutbag with blood on his hands, you wanna joke, fine but then allow me the same berth please.

Of course, I just never saw any jokes in what you wrote. So then, humour me, why do you think I consider the deliberate murder of civilians worse than incidental murder of civilians?

It could be, or it could be entirely incidental depending on the amount of intelligence. In either case it is less morally objectionable than having non-combatants as primary targets.

First you try to lessen it's gravity, the next you call it 'accidental' and now it 'could be' cold and calculated as I suggested. Tell you what, take your time, pick one and when you're absolutely sure you've got the answer, then get back to me. No rush, I'm always round

Like almost everyone else I do consider deliberate murder worse than accidental or incidental murder. Hardly controversial.

[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.

You're goddman liar that makes shit up!

The video that you deleted didn't mention "violence/death" towards anything; it merely was a song the brought attention to to the misogyny and child rape that is inherent in the Islamic religion by mentioning that the Muhammed was a child rapist by marrying a 9 year old child.

Your apologetic bullshit for that disgusting religion is appalling... let me guess, you're Canadian, huh?

The first scene of the video showed a stealth bomber hovering over Mecca with the title "Nuke Islam." This followed up with a goat mounting a Muslim man trying to pray. And you don't find that offensive.

If you want to talk about the misogyny and child rape that's perpetuated by some members of the Muslim faith, that's fine. But posting such a hate filled video which are directed at an entire faith, rather than the individuals who commit heinous acts, is not allowed. In other words, let's not paint with such an offensive broad brush.

Consider this a final warning on this matter to FSB and anyone else following along this thread. Please refer to the conversation between Len and SM on how to discuss/debate a sensitive topic respectfully.

[MB.]

Len, I was replying to Wasted who said nobody should do a thing. I am very well aware that that isn't the case at the moment.

So you are basicly saying, let them go on with it and see how it turns out? Nevermind all those people getting slaughtered in the progress? And if they are asking for help, like Iraq and the kurds did, we should say, sorry can't help. Cause it's the middle east and the West should feel very guilty, lets in return let them kill the yezidi's, kurds, all people against them, let them rape and sell the women? Cause that is the least we could do for the middle east in return?

Edited October 14, 2014 by MB.

[Len Cnut]

Of course, I just never saw any jokes in what you wrote. So then, humour me, why do you think I consider the deliberate murder of civilians worse than incidental murder of civilians?

Don't assign things to me that I haven't said, I never said that i thought you think the deliberate murder of civilians is worse than the incidental.

Like almost everyone else I do consider deliberate murder worse than accidental or incidental murder. Hardly controversial.

This folks, is what you call stone-walling

So you are basicly saying, let them go on with it and see how it turns out?

No I'm saying you've (as in the folks who did it) have fucked this up royally, there is no good way out of this and even if their was I don't believe that you are looking for one or even particularly care. You want ME to give solutions now, thats kind of a joke considering I was objecting to the decade plus of shit that led up to this. You don't just keep fucking up and fucking up and fucking up, deaf to the protestations and then turn around once you've made a right proper arse of it, turn to the protestors and go 'so what do we do now?'.

And, for a further point, just to make this absolutely clear because i get the feeling some people around here live in a dream world, there is NO government, no government on earth, no government has ever existed that entered into a combat situation for any other reason than self interest, no government ever.

You think Governments are gonna spend million upon millions on a conflict out of the goodness of their heart, cuz of the poor yazidi's? Don't make me fuckin' laugh. And furthermore, morally speaking, the fact that they would use the plight of those poor people for their own political gain, to justify and enable the broader imperialism of what has been going on in the middle east, to me, is disgusting.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[wasted]

Len, I was replying to Wasted who said nobody should do a thing. I am very well aware that that isn't the case at the moment.

So you are basicly saying, let them go on with it and see how it turns out? Nevermind all those people getting slaughtered in the progress? And if they are asking for help, like Iraq and the kurds did, we should say, sorry can't help. Cause it's the middle east and the West should feel very guilty, lets in return let them kill the yezidi's, kurds, all people against them, let them rape and sell the women? Cause that is the least we could do for the middle east in return?

No, I'm much worse than that. In a way I think it has nothing to do with us in isolation. But the truth is there's a constant battle going for the upper hand all the time. And although we might not be comfortable with reasons we probably in the long term would prefer if the US has some influence in the middle. They probably have hands in Saudi. Do they want IS controlling Iraq or even Assad in Syria? No they are a threat or an obstacle to world domination.

It seems like it's American Empire or bust. We're like the dictators that killed a bunch of people we can't go back now. It's not about saving lives there though, unfortunately, that's the flip side of the pull out fantasy. They want control, so saying pull out is taunt. There's no way out.

Unless Dolph and Arnie are up for Rambo Apocalypse.

Edited October 14, 2014 by wasted

[SoulMonster]

Of course, I just never saw any jokes in what you wrote. So then, humour me, why do you think I consider the deliberate murder of civilians worse than incidental murder of civilians?

Don't assign things to me that I haven't said, I never said that i thought you think the deliberate murder of civilians is worse than the incidental.

Right, what you have said is "it's just your selective judgement regarding what is or isn't the bigger crime and the motives behind that judgement is what I'm throwing into question." Or was this the joke you was talking about? If not, why do you question my sincerity that deliberate murder is a bigger crime than incidental murder because, well, it sort of is worse to deliberately kill someone than to do it incidentally?

Like almost everyone else I do consider deliberate murder worse than accidental or incidental murder. Hardly controversial.

This folks, is what you call stone-walling

Did you not get it? Yes, I consider the gravity of incidental murder to be less than the gravity of deliberate murder. Yes, collateral damage includes both accidental killing of innocents and incidental killing of innocents. So no, I refuse to pick any one of your constructed alternatives when they are all valid.

Besides, it is amusing that you accuse me for "trying to lessen the gravity" of collateral damage when I merely point out that I consider it less of an evil than deliberate murder of non-combatants yet at the same time make an effort to repeatedly refer to the practise as an evil so as to not be misunderstood as a supporter of such air strikes, whereas it is you who started this all off by trivializing through the attempted lessening of the gravity of the beheading of journalists and aid workers by arguing that we have to "contextualize it" before condemning it, that the journalists are partly to blame for even being there in the first place, and that we cannot possibly condemn a behaviour until we have walked a mile in their shoes (which, consider your similarities to the executioner, you sort of have ) because there are moral grey zones involved and not to forget those pesky "soldiers' moral dilemmas".

So yeah, you are the one lessening the gravity of something here. You are the one fumbling about in the moral darkness with your abject refusal to condemn the beheadings of innocent while grasping for excuses. And you are the one who seems to let your moral judgment of the beheadings be affected by strong personal feelings about surrounding politics in the region. Not me.

[Roush]

Welp, the argument in the media is you have overtly, liberal pussies impotent to combat radical Islam's rise due to oversensitive, politically correct, multicultural sensitivity. Is that more or less the jist?

Edit: And this applies to the U.K./Europe culture if I'm not mistaken. I've only read briefly on what's being reported. For all I know, it could be bullshit. As I've heard the real cultural war in the U.K./Europe are the wealthy Chinese surreptitiously raising housing bubbles, and buying politicians.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Roush

[Len Cnut]

Right, what you have said is "it's just your selective judgement regarding what is or isn't the bigger crime and the motives behind that judgement is what I'm throwing into question." Or was this the joke you was talking about? If not, why do you question my sincerity that deliberate murder is a bigger crime than incidental murder because, well, it sort of is worse to deliberately kill someone than to do it incidentally?

I don't believe it's relevant because i don't think the instance is question is incidental or accidental, it's deliberate and with purpose, perhaps I'm not understanding your question?

Besides, it is amusing that you accuse me for "trying to lessen the gravity" of collateral damage

Well it's not really me accusing is it, you've admitted as much.

So yeah, you are the one lessening the gravity of something here. You are the one fumbling about in the moral darkness with your abject refusal to condemn the beheadings of innocent while grasping for excuses. And you are the one who seems to let your moral judgment of the beheadings be affected by strong personal feelings about surrounding politics in the region. Not me.

You call it fumbling around in moral darkness, i call it having the sense about me to understand that these things are not subject to absolute moral clarity and realising that the conundrums thrown up as a result of gross immorality are often a case of breaking or damaging a thing beyond repair. Perhaps when you get out of the home team mentality you'll come to realise that, regardless of what particular piece of land a human being is born on, we should all be subject to the same rights and basic humanity from our fellow human beings.

[Roush]

It's funny that Sharia Law hundreds of years ago, was among the first judicial systems to grant women property rights (one-seventh of a dead husband's estate.)

[Ketan]

Like almost everyone else I do consider deliberate murder worse than accidental or incidental murder. Hardly controversial.

As much as i am horrified by the IS beheadings, i find the rationalization of collateral damage as accidental outrageous . i mean it 's not like they dont know that innocent people are going to be dead. They know it and CHOSE to go ahead with their attacks anyway.

Why is the death of those innocent civilians who die because of US air strikes any less horrifying? Because nobody is recording a video when their bodies gets chopped into several pieces?

The video that you deleted didn't mention "violence/death" towards anything; it merely was a song the brought attention to to the misogyny and child rape that is inherent in the Islamic religion by mentioning that the Muhammed was a child rapist by marrying a 9 year old child.

A musical indictment? Well thats a novel approach, shows a deep sensitivity to the cause of child abuse and the safety of poor children, well done I wonder why Supreme Courts don't do that! Y'know, tap out a rhythm on a high hat and have the judge saunter up to the mic with his tie undone and a glass of Remy in his hand, singing out summations and sentences to the tune of 'Witchcraft'

Phil Ochs just turned in his grave

[Roush]

Like almost everyone else I do consider deliberate murder worse than accidental or incidental murder. Hardly controversial.

As much as i am horrified by the IS beheadings, i find the rationalization of collateral damage as accidental outrageous . i mean it 's not like they dont know that innocent people are going to be dead. They know it and CHOSE to go ahead with their attacks anyway.

Why is the death of those innocent civilians who die because of US air strikes any less horrifying? Because nobody is recording a video when their bodies gets chopped into several pieces?

Anti-American militaristic sentiment on the Internet. Oh, how novel.