Ben Affleck on Real Time: Islamaphobia

[Satanisk_Slakt]

I love that there are people defending IS here. Shows character. An organisation that rapes and murder innocent people. Coming to paradise isn't enough for them, they must be allowed to rape their captives as well. But it's okay, because the western world is evil!

[magisme]

Good thing there's not one person here defending ISIS. That would be scary if there were.

[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?

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

Generalizing and completely missing the point all together. Typical.

[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.

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.

Lenny, are you saying you don't judge ISIS? Oh no, Lenny you can't be saying that! MB, I'm with you! I certainly judge them too!

Lenny, they are not from there. They are European. The one guy has a British accent. He didn't grow up there. It's not like he watched his family die around him. He's an outsider to what's happening there. They are very bad people.

MB, I really don't think Lenny is saying he doesn't judge them as bad. I think Lenny said he thinks they are bad people. He said they are bad. I'm sure I read he said that.

Edit: Okay, I just read back through everything. MB, Lenny is saying they are VERY bad. I'm not going to rehash it, everything he is saying because I simply do not have the eloquence of speech that Lenny does. He's just not saying what you think MB. He just isn't. He's completely against ISIS, trust that he is. He's speaking globally, not in a linear fashion. I can't explain it. But he's on your side about this. He's against them too.

Edited October 15, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[Ace Nova]

I'm not sure how any rational person can compare the intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians to (possible) unintentional collateral damage caused by....... trying to end the slaughtering of innocent civilians.

The comparison is absolutely asinine.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Kasanova King

[wasted]

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.

Also anti-polish feelings. I think people are afraid of change mostly. There's certain situations that get media attention but you can't base policies off it. Some people come looking for a better life and its not what they thought. It's a lot more volatile because of it.

[AdriftatSea]

I'm not sure how any rational person can compare the intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians to (possible) unintentional collateral damage caused by....... trying to end the slaughtering of innocent civilians.

The comparison is absolutely asinine.

It's all just awful. Horribly, horribly awful. For you to think anyone is making a comparison shows that you do not understand KK. And I'm really glad that you don't understand. ISIS is horrible and they should be killed on site.

But KK, on a side note, what is collateral damage if not the deaths of innocents? Now, I'm staying out of this conversation.

[Ace Nova]

I'm not sure how any rational person can compare the intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians to (possible) unintentional collateral damage caused by....... trying to end the slaughtering of innocent civilians.

The comparison is absolutely asinine.

It's all just awful. Horribly, horribly awful. For you to think anyone is making a comparison shows that you do not understand KK. And I'm really glad that you don't understand. ISIS is horrible and they should be killed on site.

But KK, on a side note, what is collateral damage if not the deaths of innocents? Now, I'm staying out of this conversation.

Don't understand?

The same people have been making these asinine comparisons on this forum for years. This is nothing new. It's pathetic and it's always been pathetic.

[downzy]

One thing that I think people need to remember is that death can result just as easily from inaction. I'm not necessarily justifying Western intervention into the ISIS/Iraq/Kurd/Syria conflict, but to suggest that drone attacks are unjustified due to collateral damage ignores the reality that many innocents will be killed if nothing is done.

It's a messy situation with very few, if any, good solutions.

[Ace Nova]

One thing that I think people need to remember is that death can result just as easily from inaction. I'm not necessarily justifying Western intervention into the ISIS/Iraq/Kurd/Syria conflict, but to suggest that drone attacks are unjustified due to collateral damage ignores the reality that many innocents will be killed if nothing is done.

It's a messy situation with very few, if any, good solutions.

I agree and I think most Americans agree. We don't want to have anything to do with (pretty much) anything over there, anymore. Iraq was a mess and most Americans are tired of using our money, our forces, our resources.

The problem is (just like what happened a year ago in Syria) as soon as we decide not to intervene, the rest of the world starts asking "Why isn't the U.S. doing anything about it?" and begging for some sort of U.S. intervention. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. It happens every time.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Kasanova King

[AxlisOld]

One thing that I think people need to remember is that death can result just as easily from inaction.

Except the inactive party can still look themselves in the mirror.

[downzy]

One thing that I think people need to remember is that death can result just as easily from inaction.

Except the inactive party can still look themselves in the mirror.

Um, noooooo..... See the Rwanda genocide, where a small humanitarian/military force could have saved up to a million people.

See also the MS St. Louis.

[SoulMonster]

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.

Only to the extent that it is less of a problem than deliberate beheadings of non-combatants (see, it's a reletive comparison of evils, not a statement aboute the absolute value of something), and absolutely not in the sense that I am a supporter of air strikes that cause collateral damage to civilians. If you want to argue with someone who supports such air strikes, or who is in general in favour of how the west have handled issues in the east (i.e the war in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq), then you have to look elsewhere, because when it comes to those issues I think we are very much on the same page.

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.

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "these things", but what I have been talking about is the kidnapping, torture and public beheadings of non-combatants, and if you are reluctant to describe such gruesome acts as morally offensive, then you ought to have your moral compass calibrated.

And your statement that I condemn the beheadings because I have a "team mentality", which implies I would not condemn such acts if it was, say, Norwegian soldiers committing the same gruesome atrocities, is just pitiable.

Edited October 15, 2014 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

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

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?

Again, I am not in favour of air strikes that kill civilians. AT ALL. What I am doing is comparing two evils. On one hand you have the deliberate, targeted murder of civilians, on the other you have deliberate, targeted murder of combatants (which is good*) followed by the indeliberate, incidental murder of civilians. The outcome of both is that civilians die, but for one of these acts you also succeed at killing a military target, which makes it slightly more acceptable from a moral perspective (under the premise that it is morally acceptable to kill ones enemies, which is really another discussion, but the objective is to stop ISIL from spreading and hence stop their barbaric treatments of people living in Iraq and Syria, especially minorities that are persecuted).

* Of course, if you are not in favour of war against ISIL then this whole argument falls to pieces. The premise is that a lawful military target is neutralized which offsets some of the negative effects of the collatoral damage. And let me be the first to say how awful this is, but that is the rationale behind the US, UK and others allowing air strikes that cause civilian casualties. If I was in charge I would of course never allow such air strikes to take place, because in my mind the life of in civilian is much more worth than the potential benefit of taking out the military target, but that doesn't mean I can't agree with the overall ethical argumentation despite siagreeing with the conclusion.

Edited October 15, 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.

Lenny, are you saying you don't judge ISIS? Oh no, Lenny you can't be saying that! MB, I'm with you! I certainly judge them too!

Lenny, they are not from there. They are European. The one guy has a British accent. He didn't grow up there. It's not like he watched his family die around him. He's an outsider to what's happening there. They are very bad people.

MB, I really don't think Lenny is saying he doesn't judge them as bad. I think Lenny said he thinks they are bad people. He said they are bad. I'm sure I read he said that.

Edit: Okay, I just read back through everything. MB, Lenny is saying they are VERY bad. I'm not going to rehash it, everything he is saying because I simply do not have the eloquence of speech that Lenny does. He's just not saying what you think MB. He just isn't. He's completely against ISIS, trust that he is. He's speaking globally, not in a linear fashion. I can't explain it. But he's on your side about this. He's against them too.

He was not defending ISIS, I did understand that. But he said he was not judging the people who joined, without knowing their stories, totally different thing. I just said, I do judge the people who joined story or not, specially the europeans.

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 could have misunderstood ofcourse Edited October 15, 2014 by MB.

[Len Cnut]

I'm not sure how any rational person can compare the intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians to (possible) unintentional collateral damage caused by....... trying to end the slaughtering of innocent civilians.

.

By looking and their respective dead bodies and how they're not breathing anymore and getting your head around the concept that they have become unwilling participants in the battle for someone elses cause.

The IMMENSE amount of arrogance and heartlessness it takes to sit there and have the nerve to say what you're saying, in the smug way that you're saying it, about a bunch of dead people, it just blows my fuckin' mind.

I'd really like to see you try and explain that concept the the families of some of those dead and explain to them how thinking you're a cunt makes them insane and irrational people.

'Oh hey there Ma'am, yknow your son there? Yeah, we cut him down like a fuckin animal in the street ma'am. Why you ask? Just tryna stop the slaughter of innocent civilians ma'am. Whats that you say, go fuck myself? We're just here to help Ma'am, dont shoot the messenger...we'll be doing that for ya in due time too!'

Human beings are not collateral anything, they are not tender, or equity, you do not buy and sell them and you do not quantify their value based on your how important it is for you to achieve a logistical goal, THAT is the very definition of inhuman.

Accidental, so when you bomb mountains in Afghanistan those guys were fucking positive that they were going for nothing but enemy combatants yeah? How about with those bunker busting bombs? Honestly man, can you fucking hear yourself, accidental?!?!

Edited October 15, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[SoulMonster]

I'm not sure how any rational person can compare the intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians to (possible) unintentional collateral damage caused by....... trying to end the slaughtering of innocent civilians.

The IMMENSE amount of arrogance and heartlessness it takes to sit there and have the nerve to say what you're saying, in the smug way that you're saying it, about a bunch of dead people, it just blows my fuckin' mind.

I don't know what is heartless about comparing two evils and coming to the conclusion that intentional murder of someone is worse than incidental murder of someone. Especially when the objective of the former is terrorism and the objective of the latter is (presumably) warfare to stop ISIL. I mean, it could be too complex a concept to arrive at a conclusion for someone, but to judge anyone as heartless for merely pointing out that these two actions are morally qualitatively different actions, is sort of weird to me. Again, saying they are different does not imply one approves of any (I should probably put that as a disclaimer in my signature now).

And comparing two evils is something we do "all the time". If you don't have a problem declaring, say, that murdering 100 people is worse then murdering 10 people, then the task of comparing deliberate to indeliberate/incidental/accidental shouldn't really be much more of a challenging task. Or am I heartless for saying that murdering 10 people is better than murdering 100? Does the concept of murder mean that we should block out all logic and render us unable to think and do simple comparisons? Isn't it better that we retain enough thinking power when confronted with these issues so that we are able to compare two evils whenever we are faced with them, lest we choose the wrong evil because we couldn't think clearly, like when we are choosing to cast our vote between two factions of politicians, one who wants to prevent further atrocities by ISIL through mediated air strikes and one who wants to keep us out of that conflict (risking that ISIL will gain further ground and continue to kill minorities and innocent bystanders)? Isn't it more heartless to choose the wrong action that results in the loss of the most innocent lives simply because we were afraid or unable to make the hard decision of comparing two evils and choosing the smallest?

[Len Cnut]

I'm not sure how any rational person can compare the intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians to (possible) unintentional collateral damage caused by....... trying to end the slaughtering of innocent civilians.

The IMMENSE amount of arrogance and heartlessness it takes to sit there and have the nerve to say what you're saying, in the smug way that you're saying it, about a bunch of dead people, it just blows my fuckin' mind.

I don't know what is heartless about comparing two evils and coming to the conclusion that intentional murder of someone is worse than incidental murder of someone. Especially when the objective of the former is terrorism and the objective of the latter is (presumably) warfare to stop ISIL. I mean, it could be too complex a concept to arrive at a conclusion for someone, but to judge anyone as heartless for merely pointing out that these two actions are morally qualitatively different actions, is sort of weird to me. Again, saying they are different does not imply one approves of any (I should probably put that as a disclaimer in my signature now).

And comparing two evils is something we do "all the time". If you don't have a problem declaring, say, that murdering 100 people is worse then murdering 10 people, then the task of comparing deliberate to indeliberate/incidental/accidental shouldn't really be much more of a challenging task. Or am I heartless for saying that murdering 10 people is better than murdering 100? Does the concept of murder mean that we should block out all logic and render us unable to think and do simple comparisons? Isn't it better that we retain enough thinking power when confronted with these issues so that we are able to compare two evils whenever we are faced with them, lest we choose the wrong evil because we couldn't think clearly, like when we are choosing to cast our vote between two factions of politicians, one who wants to prevent further atrocities by ISIL through mediated air strikes and one who wants to keep us out of that conflict (risking that ISIL will gain further ground and continue to kill minorities and innocent bystanders)? Isn't it more heartless to choose the wrong action that results in the loss of the most innocent lives simply because we were afraid or unable to make the hard decision of comparing two evils and choosing the smallest?

Nothing you've said here has anything to do with what my post was saying.

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "these things", but what I have been talking about is the kidnapping, torture and public beheadings of non-combatants, and if you are reluctant to describe such gruesome acts as morally offensive, then you ought to have your moral compass calibrated.

What I am referring to is the horrors of war, broadly speaking and more importantly the moral conflict of the choices that people are prompted to make in times of war.

And your statement that I condemn the beheadings because I have a "team mentality", which implies I would not condemn such acts if it was, say, Norwegian soldiers committing the same gruesome atrocities, is just pitiable.

Well i think your trivialising the deaths of human beings based on methods of wholesale execution for the furtherance of political objectives to be utterly pathetic not to mention morally redundant. And until a more likely motive comes to light yes, I can't honestly say it appears to be for any other reason than home team mentality.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[wasted]

Quite a lot of Europe didn't want the Iraq war. There were protests even. They didn't listen and shagged it up. Now yes Iraq is our mess to clean up. Hopefully we can get a cheap deal on oil in the end or something.

[SoulMonster]

I'm not sure how any rational person can compare the intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians to (possible) unintentional collateral damage caused by....... trying to end the slaughtering of innocent civilians.

The IMMENSE amount of arrogance and heartlessness it takes to sit there and have the nerve to say what you're saying, in the smug way that you're saying it, about a bunch of dead people, it just blows my fuckin' mind.

I don't know what is heartless about comparing two evils and coming to the conclusion that intentional murder of someone is worse than incidental murder of someone. Especially when the objective of the former is terrorism and the objective of the latter is (presumably) warfare to stop ISIL. I mean, it could be too complex a concept to arrive at a conclusion for someone, but to judge anyone as heartless for merely pointing out that these two actions are morally qualitatively different actions, is sort of weird to me. Again, saying they are different does not imply one approves of any (I should probably put that as a disclaimer in my signature now).

And comparing two evils is something we do "all the time". If you don't have a problem declaring, say, that murdering 100 people is worse then murdering 10 people, then the task of comparing deliberate to indeliberate/incidental/accidental shouldn't really be much more of a challenging task. Or am I heartless for saying that murdering 10 people is better than murdering 100? Does the concept of murder mean that we should block out all logic and render us unable to think and do simple comparisons? Isn't it better that we retain enough thinking power when confronted with these issues so that we are able to compare two evils whenever we are faced with them, lest we choose the wrong evil because we couldn't think clearly, like when we are choosing to cast our vote between two factions of politicians, one who wants to prevent further atrocities by ISIL through mediated air strikes and one who wants to keep us out of that conflict (risking that ISIL will gain further ground and continue to kill minorities and innocent bystanders)? Isn't it more heartless to choose the wrong action that results in the loss of the most innocent lives simply because we were afraid or unable to make the hard decision of comparing two evils and choosing the smallest?

Nothing you've said here has anything to do with what my post was saying.

That really is strange. You characterized Kasanova King for being smug, arrogant, heartless, etc, and I discussed why I think it doesn't have to be heartless to state what he explicitly stated. Perhaps I just don't understand what you are saying, which is odd, becaue I generally don't have a problem understanding English. Or perhaps I am not able to express myself well enough in English so you don't understand what I am saying? In either case, chances are it has got to do with my English .

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "these things", but what I have been talking about is the kidnapping, torture and public beheadings of non-combatants, and if you are reluctant to describe such gruesome acts as morally offensive, then you ought to have your moral compass calibrated.

What I am referring to is the horrors of war, broadly speaking and more importantly the moral conflict of the choices that people are prompted to make in times of war.

But then we are talking about different things, because the terrorist act of beheading civilians have little to do with warfare and its many moral challenges that arise in that context. But this is good! And surely means that you have no qualms about characterizing the kidnapping, torture and beheading of journalists as morally offensive, right?

And your statement that I condemn the beheadings because I have a "team mentality", which implies I would not condemn such acts if it was, say, Norwegian soldiers committing the same gruesome atrocities, is just pitiable.

Well i think your trivialising the deaths of human beings based on methods of wholesale execution for the furtherance of political objectives to be utterly pathetic not to mention morally redundant. And until a more likely motive comes to light yes, I can't honestly say it appears to be for any other reason than home team mentality.

Why can't you accept my explanation that I am simply against the killing of innocent human beings? I mean, most folk are. Why do you have such a low opinion of me so you won't accept what would be, if it was everyone else, considered the most plausible explanation? And keep in mind that I am ALSO against air strikes that kill civilans, so there is no apparent contradiction or hypocrisy here which would clutter the issue for you.

[magisme]

One thing that I think people need to remember is that death can result just as easily from inaction. I'm not necessarily justifying Western intervention into the ISIS/Iraq/Kurd/Syria conflict, but to suggest that drone attacks are unjustified due to collateral damage ignores the reality that many innocents will be killed if nothing is done.

It's a messy situation with very few, if any, good solutions.

Then you have to look at it the other way too. You know, the way pretty much every person who studies the issues of "terrorism" and "counterterrorism" has seen it go, namely that our efforts at "counterterrorism" have had the primary effect of destroying countries and, in fact, creating more "terrorists." No worries, though, I'm sure it will be better next the time we bomb the shit out of people.

[Ace Nova]

I'm not sure how any rational person can compare the intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians to (possible) unintentional collateral damage caused by....... trying to end the slaughtering of innocent civilians.

.

By looking and their respective dead bodies and how they're not breathing anymore and getting your head around the concept that they have become unwilling participants in the battle for someone elses cause.

The IMMENSE amount of arrogance and heartlessness it takes to sit there and have the nerve to say what you're saying, in the smug way that you're saying it, about a bunch of dead people, it just blows my fuckin' mind.

I'd really like to see you try and explain that concept the the families of some of those dead and explain to them how thinking you're a cunt makes them insane and irrational people.

'Oh hey there Ma'am, yknow your son there? Yeah, we cut him down like a fuckin animal in the street ma'am. Why you ask? Just tryna stop the slaughter of innocent civilians ma'am. Whats that you say, go fuck myself? We're just here to help Ma'am, dont shoot the messenger...we'll be doing that for ya in due time too!'

Human beings are not collateral anything, they are not tender, or equity, you do not buy and sell them and you do not quantify their value based on your how important it is for you to achieve a logistical goal, THAT is the very definition of inhuman.

Accidental, so when you bomb mountains in Afghanistan those guys were fucking positive that they were going for nothing but enemy combatants yeah? How about with those bunker busting bombs? Honestly man, can you fucking hear yourself, accidental?!?!

Nice way to try to completely change the subject. I stated that comparing the intentional killing of innocent civilians to the unintentional (possible) side consequence of people dying (yes, I'm fine with calling them innocent too), in order to try to save other innocent people is asinine.

Maybe now you understand what I wrote since I didn't call human beings "collateral damage"?

And please provide some actual proof that the West is intentionally targeting innocent civilians other than your belligerent claims.

[magisme]

Do it, Len.

[SoulMonster]

I don't know much about the current air strikes especially in regard to efficacy in taking out ISIL members and their infrastructure and the loss of innocent bystanders, but a quick google gave me this. I hope this is just not a leaked incident to calm criticism and garner support for the military action but an example of the discussions and decision making that lies behind all of the air strikes, conducted by all participating nations.

[Len Cnut]

Nice way to try to completely change the subject. I stated that comparing the intentional killing of innocent civilians to the unintentional (possible) side consequence of people dying (yes, I'm fine with calling them innocent too), in order to try to save other innocent people is asinine.

And how do you percieve that I've changed the subject? So it's OK to kill innocent people as long as you're saving some other innocent people? How do you decide which is the more innocent? I think i understand now, you write the innocents in the country you're attacking with the intention that you're protecting the innocents at home, is that it? Explain yourself. And if you're fine with calling them innocent why didn't you? What i was talking about is specifically that.

Maybe now you understand what I wrote since I didn't call human beings "collateral damage"?

'm not sure how any rational person can compare the intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians to (possible) unintentional collateral damage

What were you talking about, their pet gerbils?

And please provide some actual proof that the West is intentionally targeting innocent civilians other than your belligerent claims.

Unless you're suggesting bunker busting bombs have like, innocent-seeking-radars that make em avoid the blameless. Or that you sent evacuation squads to the Tora Bora mountains before flattening them?