cheesypeas Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Let's hope this ends peacefully !!! http://www.9news.com.au/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee Cee Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 It is good to see that Australia's leading moslem cleric, Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, has already condemned hostage taking. This is in stark contrast to the UK, where there tends to be a deafening silence from the moslem community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 ISIS? Looks like a lone nutcase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malebrain Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Wait for the slimmest of Manx connections. Someone's sister is married to the uncle of the brother of a girl who once watched the TT on itv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee Cee Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 If that is so malebrain, then I blame the TT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 More proof those attracted to ISIS and its ilk are big time Global Losers; who else would think it is ok to kidnap, behead, bomb & murder just because they can distort its justification from the promises of virgins in the Quran. Losers, that's who! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 More proof those attracted to ISIS and its ilk are big time Global Losers; who else would think it is ok to kidnap, behead, bomb & murder just because they can distort its justification from the promises of virgins in the Quran. Losers, that's who! If you've been following the CIA report, you'd know that both the USA and the UK have been kidnapping, murdering, and bombing people for their own reasons for years. The only thing we haven't been doing (as far as I know) is beheading people and suicide bombing. Maybe we just haven't got the cojones. Anyway, shout all you like at the Islamists. I think we have some serious shit in our own back yard to sort out first. Glass houses.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I totally condemn torture, and hope those responsible for it are prosecuted, but will challenge the view that there is some moral equivalency going on here when someone uses it as justification to walk into a cafe, shopping mall, hotel, or railway station with the express intent of killing as many people as possible in the name of their religiously inspired delusion that they are furthering Allah's will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 There's a huge difference between waterboarding, abhorrent though it is; and beheadings, the blowing up, or massacre of thousands of innocent people in genocidal slaughter by medieval religious fanatics. There seems to be an equivalence being argued in the media in the last week, since the 'revelation' of CIA torture. Some are even arguing that the West is no better than the fanatics of Islamic State. It takes some mindbending propaganda and ideology to believe that, but it's a theory that's doing the rounds once again. It's worth reminding ourselves that the British and Americans did some pretty nasty things in WW2 as well; but compared to what the Nazis and the Soviet Union were doing, it was relatively restrained; and if it saved thousands of Allied soldiers and civilians lives, then it was a price worth paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I'm not saying they are morally equivalent. On the other hand, they are not on totally different moral planets, either. Different continents perhaps. But still - they both involve the kidnap, torture and murder of innocent people. On one side, suicide bombings and the like. On the other, drone strikes on people rushing to rescue survivors from the drone strike you dropped 10 minutes earlier.. on a wedding. Or a funeral... burying the people you killed in the drone strike before that. I don't really care what your reasons are, that is deeply immoral. End of. If your reasons are understandable, I suppose I might concede that you are a tragically misguided murderer, rather than an outright barbarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flubbergump Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 There's a huge difference between waterboarding, abhorrent though it is; and beheadings, the blowing up, or massacre of thousands of innocent people in genocidal slaughter by medieval religious fanatics. There seems to be an equivalence being argued in the media in the last week, since the 'revelation' of CIA torture. Some are even arguing that the West is no better than the fanatics of Islamic State. It takes some mindbending propaganda and ideology to believe that, but it's a theory that's doing the rounds once again. It's worth reminding ourselves that the British and Americans did some pretty nasty things in WW2 as well; but compared to what the Nazis and the Soviet Union were doing, it was relatively restrained; and if it saved thousands of Allied soldiers and civilians lives, then it was a price worth paying. 9 posts before the Invocation of Godwins law. Thats pretty close to a record here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 but compared to what the Nazis and the Soviet Union were doing, it was relatively restrained; and if it saved thousands of Allied soldiers and civilians lives, then it was a price worth paying. So much wrong with this. First: A blatant attempt at "it's ok because it's not as bad as some other bad things other people did." That has never worked as a moral argument and never will. Second: The argument that the ends justifies the means - again a thoroughly disreputable argument, fundamentally flawed. On a case by case basis only, and then proceed with caution. Utterly subjective - in YOUR OPINION in this case it was justified. But the people on the receiving end of it are unlikely to agree. Very problematic and no way to try to make a moral argument in my opinion. Third: It all hinges on that big IF. IF... it saved more lives than it cost. Or at least enough of "our" lives to justify taking all of "their" lives. I deny this premise. How can you claim this, where is your evidence? It's impossible. You don't have a crystal ball. This is the same nonsense argument that people use to justify invading Iraq - it would have been worse to not invade. Would it? How can we ever know? What is your arithmetic - what is the ratio of "their" lives to "our" lives that makes it acceptable or not acceptable - and how is this not an absolutely grotesque question to actually try to answer with any sincerity? Fourth: The tribalism inherent in your preference for saving "allied" lives rather than just, you know, ALL lives. An ugly way to see the world in my view. It is at the heart of how we can say with a straight face that it's awful that "so many" British and US soldiers died in Iraq, when that number is, literally, about one thousandth of the number of Iraqis that have died - but that gets far less angst and emotional reflection and regret. It's warped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samster Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 If Torture was used on terrorists with a view to obtaining information that would save lives including our own then I have no qualms with it at all. Can you imagine what would happen to you or your partner if you were taken prisoner by ISIS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 You quote me Ceaseless Change, but you don't actually say what's wrong with the point I'm making. Tell me in a political, historical and military argument; in the world of real decisions and choices taken in difficult circumstances. Step out of your moral classroom and leave the comfort of your righteous self-flattery behind. Anyone can play your game of theoretical purity and student politics. It's getting boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 You quote me Ceaseless Change, but you don't actually say what's wrong with the point I'm making. Tell me in a political, historical and military argument; in the world of real decisions and choices taken in difficult circumstances. Step out of your moral classroom and leave the comfort of your righteous self-flattery behind. Anyone can play your game of theoretical purity and student politics. It's getting boring. I apologise for your short attention span. In case you missed the four things I said were wrong with the point you were making, perhaps you should re-read it. I'll add a fifth though. You are drawing an analogy between the justified (in your view) atrocities of the second world war by the allies, and those atrocities currently being carried out in our name. You are claiming that the old ones being "worth it" (in your view) justifies the current ones somehow. This is also a nonsense argument - two wrongs don't make a right. And one historic right (in your view) doesn't correct a present wrong. It makes no sense whatsoever. This is very basic stuff. However, I suspect even those five points will not strike you as worth responding to, so I'll gamely try a sixth. Look at the consequences. The real world, political, historical and military CONSEQUENCES of our response to 9/11 et al. It has protected the US homeland from further big attacks (so far).... failed to protect the UK, failed to protect Spain, failed to protect Australia.... and totally, utterly destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Nigeria..... How on earth can you look at this clusterfuck and decide that the ends are even desirable, let alone justified by the means? The ONLY way that can you decide this, I suggest, is from a world view that divides lives in to "ours" and "theirs", where "ours" can and should be saved at the expense of almost any number of "theirs". This is a moral sickness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.