Ben Affleck on Real Time: Islamaphobia

[Dazey]

This is why I gave up arguing with SoulMonster. It's a war of attrition for the last word and the fucker just will not stop until he gets it.

Love you both by the way.

Carry on.

[Len Cnut]

Im up for it myself although he is about 40 times cleverer than me

[SoulMonster]

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?

Why do you keep reverting to what took place in Afghanistan? Did you lose some relatives at Tora Bora?

But seriously. the intelligence behind air strikes rely a lot on on-ground informants and air survelliance, meaning that -- at least in theory -- the loss of innocents can be reduced. Unfortunately, like we all know, this doesn't always work in practise and there's been horrible mishaps, like bombing hospitals and similar, which is why I am opposed to such warfare, unless the expected positive effect is overwhelming. Which I can't remember it ever having been. So again, we are on the same page here. But of course, as you have pointed out, this is just me faking humanity for the lives of innocent Arabs which I secretely hate.

[Len Cnut]

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?

Why do you keep reverting to what took place in Afghanistan? Did you lose some relatives at Tora Bora?

.

Because it was pertinent to the question asked. As far as any relative of mine yknow its quite telling that you, great humanitarian you, who is so steadfast in his condemnation of the beheadings and how it is NEVER exusable should be so flippant when refering to potential deaths of little brown folk, funny how your sense of humour was nowhere to be found when discussing the aid workers and such. Always the way I suppose.

[SoulMonster]

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?

Why do you keep reverting to what took place in Afghanistan? Did you lose some relatives at Tora Bora?

.

Because it was pertinent to the question asked. As far as any relative of mine yknow its quite telling that you, great humanitarian you, who is so steadfast in his condemnation of the beheadings and how it is NEVER exusable should be so flippant when refering to potential deaths of little brown folk, funny how your sense of humour was nowhere to be found when discussing the aid workers and such. Always the way I suppose.

I always pictured you as a sort of long and lanky fellow but perhaps you just have a better diet then your little brown folks back home. Which is scary considering what you have told us you eat.

This is why I gave up arguing with SoulMonster. It's a war of attrition for the last word and the fucker just will not stop until he gets it.

Love you both by the way.

Carry on.

Len doesn't show any sigñs of stopping, either, and I am sure his post tally in this thread exceeds mine by far, but yeah, just pick on the white guy

Edited October 15, 2014 by SoulMonster

[Len Cnut]

I always pictured you as a sort of long and lanky fellow but perhaps you just have a better diet then your little brown folks back home. Which is scary considering what you have told us you eat.

Leave it out Soulie, it won't end well

Unfortunately, like we all know, this doesn't always work in practise and there's been horrible mishaps, like bombing hospitals and similar, which is why I am opposed to such warfare, unless the expected positive effect is overwhelming. Which I can't remember it ever having been. So again, we are on the same page here. But of course, as you have pointed out, this is just me faking humanity for the lives of innocent Arabs which I secretely hate.

Try not to sulk too young man, it reflects poorly on your powers of reasoning.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[wasted]

This is war, they is no moral.

[Ketan]

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.

Except it's not for the west to take up responsibility of cleaning up the world. i mean this is preposterous Going about killing people without any accountability and then having the nerves to say "look we are doing them a favor, if it weren't for us many more people will die"

Any uprising has to come from within. imagine you are living in one those god forsaken countries which the west has taken upon itself to clean up. You are sitting in your home with your loved ones and all of you are terrified that the jets blazing above are gonna kill all of you any minute. WHY should you have to go through that? Because a smug, audacious foreign nation thought it's okay if you are killed for the greater good? You will feel violated.

And just so everyone is clear: pointing out flaws in the way in which the west has conducted itself in the past doesn't automatically mean that the person doing so is defending ISIS. Quite frankly, who would?

Especially if you are from a country which the ISIS has declared as an enemy.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Ketan

[Dazey]

Len doesn't show any sigñs of stopping, either, and I am sure his post tally in this thread exceeds mine by far, but yeah, just pick on the white guy

Maybe Len's up to the job then. All I know is that I'm fucking not!

[Len Cnut]

This is war, they is no moral.

Funnily enough a healthy knowledge of what Apocalypse Now was saying about war is kinda relevant to some of the things i was highlighting in this discussion, dare i weaken my own argument here

[Len Cnut]

Len doesn't show any sigñs of stopping, either, and I am sure his post tally in this thread exceeds mine by far, but yeah, just pick on the white guy

Maybe Len's up to the job then. All I know is that I'm fucking not!

Always on the job!

[SoulMonster]

that you, great humanitarian you, who

I can't tell how bothered I am to hear that my astute ability in comparative atrocitology means I am no longer a shining beacon of humanity in the dark corners of your life. But I think there might be a way to redeem myself in your eyes, because there is one superpower of mine which I haven't told you about before. Becauee, you see, in addition to being able to morally compare different evil acts, I am also -- and hold on to your joint lest it fall from your shaken fingers -- able to judge the different moral values of good acts! For instance, I have an uncanny ability to know that it is better to give kittens to children than to give them pennies, I also know that holdiing the door for the elderly, although definitely a "good act", is not as good as devoting your life to orphans in the Philipines. But the most important example, the crux of my argument, is my fantastic ability to know that the intentional saving of someone's life is morally more valuable than the unintentional saving of someone's life. That statement deserved both bold and italics. Now I just hope and pray -- and you know the depth of my sincerity when I use the P word in a plea -- that this post will if not raise to my former heights of humanitarian status, at least offset and negate my horrible and inhuman ability to relatively compare the immorality of two wicked acts.

[Ace Nova]

@ Len

I need never stated it was OK to kill anyone, I stated comparing the two scenarios as if they were one and the same is assenine... which it is.

[Len Cnut]

@ Len

I need never stated it was OK to kill anyone, I stated comparing the two scenarios as if they were one and the same is assenine... which it is.

Then why is it?

that you, great humanitarian you, who

I can't tell how bothered I am to hear that my astute ability in comparative atrocitology means I am no longer a shining beacon of humanity in the dark corners of your life. But I think there might be a way to redeem myself in your eyes, because there is one superpower of mine which I haven't told you about before. Becauee, you see, in addition to being able to morally compare different evil acts, I am also -- and hold on to your joint lest it fall from your shaken fingers -- able to judge the different moral values of good acts! For instance, I have an uncanny ability to know that it is better to give kittens to children than to give them pennies, I also know that holdiing the door for the elderly, although definitely a "good act", is not as good as devoting your life to orphans in the Philipines. But the most important example, the crux of my argument, is my fantastic ability to know that the intentional saving of someone's life is morally more valuable than the unintentional saving of someone's life. That statement deserved both bold and italics. Now I just hope and pray -- and you know the depth of my sincerity when I use the P word in a plea -- that this post will if not raise to my former heights of humanitarian status, at least offset and negate my horrible and inhuman ability to relatively compare the immorality of two wicked acts.

Its the meaning behind the judgements of moral acts that i was highlighting, not the act of judgement itself. I guess you weren't holding onto your intellect tight enough there. Edited October 15, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[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.

Except it's not for the west to take up responsibility of cleaning up the world. i mean this is preposterous Going about killing people without any accountability and then having the nerves to say "look we are doing them a favor, if it weren't for us many more people will die"

Any uprising has to come from within. imagine you are living in one those god forsaken countries which the west has taken upon itself to clean up. You are sitting in your home with your loved ones and all of you are terrified that the jets blazing above are gonna kill all of you any minute. WHY should you have to go through that? Because a smug, audacious foreign nation thought it's okay if you are killed for the greater good? You will feel violated.

And just so everyone is clear: pointing out flaws in the way in which the west has conducted itself in the past doesn't automatically mean that the person doing so is defending ISIS. Quite frankly, who would?

Especially if you are from a country which the ISIS has declared as an enemy.

I disagree with what I see as a one-sided assessment. Undoubtedly military action should be used as a last resort, and not as a viable option in the form that it was taken in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I do agree that sending in an 800 pound gorilla to fight a couple mosquitos likely will do more harm than good, but not all situations are created equal.

Since ISIS desires to be more than just a terrorist organization and instead opts for full state status, the old rules of international law seem a little more relevant. We're not talking about an organization that seeks to sow the seeds of anarchy and destruction, but one that wishes autonomy and sovereignty. The problem becomes when it's designs include mass-murder and potential genocide. You may not see the moral imperative of preventing these ills, but the people being butchered might argue differently. You paint one scenario of being bombed, I'll paint another: you belong to a non-Muslim family/town in Northern Iraq and the capture of your town by ISIS forces means imminent death. You would surely appreciate outside help to save yourself and family members from being butchered, but some smug, audacious foreign nation feels like it's not their problem and the death of your family/town is of no consequence.

Now, should U.S./Nato/Western forces act whenever one person/family are at risk of being killed by extremist forces? Of course not. But me personally would not oppose military action when such deeds reach the level whereby the term genocide can be justifiably used. Ketan, the attitude you express in your post was the very same held by Western leaders when 500k to a million people were butchered in Rwanda. There do exist times when doing nothing is worse than doing something. It's not an absolute science so I don't necessarily fault politicians/military experts for not getting it right every time. But sorry, I wholeheartedly disagree that Western intervention is always wrong.

As Edmund Burke once said, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[Ace Nova]

@ Len...its like comparing 1st degree murder with involuntary manslaughter and stating that they are the same thing. Yes, asinine.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Len Cnut]

@ Len...its like comparing 1st degree murder with involuntary manslaughter and stating that they are the same thing. Yes, assenine.

@ Len...its like comparing 1st degree murder with involuntary manslaughter and stating that they are the same thing. Yes, assenine.

And how do you come to the conclusion of what is or isn't involuntary? How do you reconcile that with a concept like 'carpet-bombing'? Or bunker busting bombs?

Edited October 15, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Ace Nova]

@ Len...its like comparing 1st degree murder with involuntary manslaughter and stating that they are the same thing. Yes, assenine.

@ Len...its like comparing 1st degree murder with involuntary manslaughter and stating that they are the same thing. Yes, assenine.

And how do you come to the conclusion of what is or isn't involuntary? How do you reconcile that with a concept like 'carpet-bombing'? Or bunker busting bombs?

Lol

Intentionally targeting innocent civilians vs not. Its simple.

[Len Cnut]

Hows that not intentional?

[Ace Nova]

Show me proof the US intentionally targeted innocent civilians.

[Len Cnut]

So you want me to answer your question after ignoring 3 of mine? What proof would you like, what, taped conversations in the white house, my personal conversations with US Miltary brass? you are aware that a campaign of carpet bombing was conducted in Afghanistan right? I mean this isn't denied even by the US government. Are you telling me they sent in ground troops to evacuate miles upon miles of the Afghan plains and mountains before conducting those attacks?

[Ace Nova]

So you want me to answer your question after ignoring 3 of mine? What proof would you like, what, taped conversations in the white house, my personal conversations with US Miltary brass? you are aware that a campaign of carpet bombing was conducted in Afghanistan right? I mean this isn't denied even by the US government. Are you telling me they sent in ground troops to evacuate miles upon miles of the Afghan plains and mountains before conducting those attacks?

Lol

There is no reasoning with you. You absolutely have zero proof the US ever targeted civilians. The funny thing is it would take about a 10 second Google search for me to find absolute proof that ISIS intentionally targets (and is proud of it) innocent civilians

If you can't differentiate between the two, your mindset is no different than theirs. I might as well be debating one of them, lol.

[Len Cnut]

So basically you refuse to address any of the points i raise whatsoever, well thank you Kass, this was certainly a fruitful exercise, try not and let your nationalism walk you into a discussion you can't handle in future, save wasting both of our time? Thank you, appreciated.

[Ace Nova]

So basically you refuse to address any of the points i raise whatsoever, well thank you Kass, this was certainly a fruitful exercise, try not and let your nationalism walk you into a discussion you can't handle in future, save wasting both of our time? Thank you, appreciated.

You want me to address what? The fact that you cannot show one instance where the US intentionally targeted an innocent civilian. Not one.

You lost this debate 5 pages ago with Soul Monster.

[Len Cnut]

Lost? Thats a novel way of viewing a discussion. Address the very very specific point i made regarding the carpet bombing campaign in Afghanistan and the ramifications of such a campaign, pretty simple really.