|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Killing Jihadi John
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We're not talking Revelation here. This is just wars and rumours of wars. And I've all but totally abandoned any fundamentalist eschatology.
This won't be like Britain after 7/7. France, for s start, is on the threshold, past the cusp, of Israeli level security. And what will Hollande have to do to look tough enough to keep the National Front out of power? Can he survive Hebdo now this?
And there will be a NATO+ response. The + being Russia.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Making this plea as a Shipmate and not a host since I'm involved in the discussion, can we keep the Paris events and matters arising on the Paris thread?
Thanks.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry Shipmate, of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't consider that the death penalty is ever justified - for this man, Hitler, or anyone else. It's not a principle that you can fudge around.
For sadistic serial killers where there is no doubt that they committed these crimes and enjoyed them, I believe it is. I don't think it's justified otherwise. "Jihadi John" deserved what he got. There would have been no point in a trial and I for one wouldn't have wanted to see him locked up in prison for years at the taxpayers' expense.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So would you kill the killers?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
I read Jihadi John's background story earlier today. Born stateless, Kuwait wouldn't grant the family citizenship, they moved to the UK, where Emwazi was severely bullied as a child, even by teachers and was an outcast. Doesn't excuse in any way his brutality, but it does give insight into his actions. He gained a sense of belonging and status and fame as a part of ISIL.
As to whether killing him was the right thing to do, I think it was the only way to stop him. Unfortunately, this has made him a martyr and an even more powerful symbol for recruiting.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So would you kill the killers?
No more than I would any member of the armed forces.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl
As to whether killing him was the right thing to do, I think it was the only way to stop him.
I see this as the only justification for the death penalty, but it is a justification.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Either we are at war in Syria or we are not. If we are not, we should not be killing people in Syria.
If you think assassination is a legitimate tactic against vicious people who break international law, with whom we are not at war, I question why we have not targetted, for example, Bashir Al-Assad, or the military leaders of Eritrea.
On a pragmatic level killing an executioner in a area controlled by a regime that supports capital punishment is strategically futile. Whilst Bashir Al-Assad's continuing presidency is a recognised block to the process of political settlement.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Either we are at war in Syria or we are
If you think assassination is a legitimate tactic against vicious people who break international law, with whom we are not at war, I question why we have not targetted, for example, Bashir Al-Assad, or the military leaders of Eritrea.
Unlike "Jihadi John", Assad is the leader of a country. Remove him at this point and there is no clear, obvious successor who might be suitable to put in place. It's currently a three-way fight between Assad's forces, Daesh and the rebels and their backers (complicated, admittedly, by Russia's recent ambiguous actions). If Assad goes, the government forces lose their backing, the few remaining bits of Syria that are relatively stable will also blow up and the lid will come completely off the chaos with all groups fighting all out for control. It will be another Libya.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why would you kill a member of the armed forces as much as you would kill a sadistic serial killer?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
I wouldn't. Try reading for comprehension.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Try reading for irony.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I read somewhere that those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yesssssss. And?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
And we are not punished for our sins but by our sins
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ahh. Doesn't work for me. The vast majority of the 'punished' aren't so for their sins and a majority of sinners aren't punished. Except by being such. I.e. being sinners. Sin is its own punishment. Perhaps that's what you mean? Half of all murders are never detected. Two thirds of the detected lead to a conviction. There is no justice. Some closure. Attenuating grief. Not in this life. And certainly not in the next. Where there is the restitution of all things. Which is better than justice.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Either we are at war in Syria or we are
If you think assassination is a legitimate tactic against vicious people who break international law, with whom we are not at war, I question why we have not targetted, for example, Bashir Al-Assad, or the military leaders of Eritrea.
Unlike "Jihadi John", Assad is the leader of a country. Remove him at this point and there is no clear, obvious successor who might be suitable to put in place. It's currently a three-way fight between Assad's forces, Daesh and the rebels and their backers (complicated, admittedly, by Russia's recent ambiguous actions). If Assad goes, the government forces lose their backing, the few remaining bits of Syria that are relatively stable will also blow up and the lid will come completely off the chaos with all groups fighting all out for control. It will be another Libya.
No, a different member of his family would take over - it would simply offer a facesaving out for those who have sworn black and blue they won't do business with that specific individual.
(Also, it is a looong way past being a three way fight with just one proxy power.)
[ 14. November 2015, 16:49: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Either we are at war in Syria or we are not.
I'm not sure this is true. The condition of being "at war" is ill-defined these days.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
No, a different member of his family would take over - it would simply offer a facesaving out for those who have sworn black and blue they won't do business with that specific individual.
That's certainly a possibility but again, there still isn't any clearcut indication of who might get it.
quote:
(Also, it is a looong way past being a three way fight with just one proxy power.)
True, given all the infighting, but for simplicity's sake I'm lumping all the anti-Assad factions together and the pro-Daesh factions in with each other for the moment.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oi, you up on the chimney, Ariel, may I apologize for my pathetic attempt at disingenuous sophistry. I appreciate your analysis on the Paris thread for a start.
So may I flush and go, go forward with a more open dialectical approach, exploring your proposition, as a Christian I presume, that it is justified to kill sadistic serial killers, of whom Mohammed Emwazi was one? In common sense terms he certainly got what was coming to him. Should Christians have given it? Not just in combat (what are Christians doing in that?), but by full judicial process after being taken prisoner?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So may I flush and go, go forward with a more open dialectical approach, exploring your proposition, as a Christian I presume, that it is justified to kill sadistic serial killers, of whom Mohammed Emwazi was one? In common sense terms he certainly got what was coming to him. Should Christians have given it? Not just in combat (what are Christians doing in that?), but by full judicial process after being taken prisoner?
The pacifism I hold strongly has been shaken by IS and their attacking of the totally innocent Yazidi. This weekend a mass grave has been found.
I ask myself whether the Lord would protect these innocents against the mad murdering bastards - even at the expense of the normal processes of justice.
For me, this is where the line must lie. A person who is fighting fairly should be treated fairly. But a mad fucking nutter who is murdering innocents who cannot defend themselves should be taken down. I'm sorry to say it, because those words stick in my pacifist mouth. But fuckit. Take them down before they murder anyone else.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Either we are at war in Syria or we are not.
I'm not sure this is true. The condition of being "at war" is ill-defined these days.
Well, in some ways, that equivocation suits the Western powers just fine. They can declaim about a state of war with IS, but this is not legally a state of war. If it is, then IS are given a kind of legitimacy - for example, it is presumably legal for them to bomb the West, and legal for us to bomb them.
Granted, this has always been the problem with asymmetric warfare, see the IRA. They are murdering bastards, but then they are shaking hands with the Queen. But I suppose the equivocation is also useful as with N. Ireland, and many post-imperial settlements. Yesterday's terrorist is today's prime minister.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
mr cheesy.
All the smilies superpositioned.
I've been there recently and Paris, for some reason, doesn't take me back. I was aware of the obscene, pointless suffering of the Yazidi in general, but had reacted to Andrew, Justin and George all demanding military action NOT to their persecution but that of their own denominations of Christianity being targeted (therefore NOT the Syriac of course).
I FULLY empathize with you. But I'm still fadingly angrily disappointed at the global failure of Christian leaders to follow their leader in any meaningful way. That's any.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But a mad fucking nutter who is murdering innocents who cannot defend themselves should be taken down.
This also describes many of the drone strikes we and our allies have carried out. Do you really want to go there?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And the drone strikes feed the terrorist movements precisely because of the deaths of the innocent.
Though I pull no responsibility or guilt from the bastards who planned the attacks or pulled the triggers, the deaths in Paris can be seen as collateral damage of our actions.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So, once again, as St. John (after whom Jihadi John is named) said "Give peace a chance. Imagine.". As tried spectacularly in Northern Ireland and South Africa and ... ?
Can we just ALL stop. And start again? It CAN be done.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So, once again, as St. John (after whom Jihadi John is named) said "
I thought he was named after John Lennon? (There were four of them so they got nicknamed after the Beatles?) Apparently Sir Paul is a bit miffed, not unreasonably.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's the saint I meant. Hence my quoting him.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Can we just ALL stop. And start again? It CAN be done.
Baldrick's plea in Black Adder goes forth.
Fiction of course. It was however fact that come 1916 all participants in that wonderful Great War had had enough. Bizarrely, as is often the case with war, no one knew how to stop it.
Islamic Fundamentalism and it's obsession with Holy War goes back further than most of us can remember. It might be encouraging to believe that this movement has finally been distilled into IS, and that the complete destruction of said group will bring an end to it. Yet something in me says that such a belief comes with an equally large helping of naivety.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
mr cheesy, all of us: These are the times that try men's souls. Tom Paine.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's the saint I meant. Hence my quoting him.
Yeah, of course. Sorry. I'd just about forgotten the lyrics to that awful song.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
the deaths in Paris can be seen as collateral damage of our actions.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.....
There are two problems with this line.
First, as C.S. Lewis points out in the article I cited upthread, “we” in contexts such as these really means “them”, ie stupid people quite separate from the writer, who despises them, but uses “we/us” because it makes him/her seem humble, realistic and self-flagellatory.
It is actually a strategy of moral vanity.
Secondly, you can demonstrate any connection if you set your mind to it.
The classic sophisical example is that “we” (ie the victorious nations in WWI) are responsible for the Holocaust because the terms of the Versailles settlement facilitated the rise of Hitler.
It is legitimate to questions aspects of Western countries’ Middle East policies (I for one opposed the Iraq War) and deplore some of their unforeseen consequences, but to even raise the possibility, however obliquely, that “we” therefore bear some responsibility for the atrocities of the Taleban, Al Qaeda or ISIS is polemically very dodgy.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
ere are two problems with this line.
First, as C.S. Lewis points out in the article I cited upthread, “we” in contexts such as these really means “them”, ie stupid people quite separate from the writer, who despises them, but uses “we/us” because it makes him/her seem humble, realistic and self-flagellatory.
Mind reading then, are we? Thank you for telling me what I mean, I thought I meant something else. Good to be set right.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is legitimate to questions aspects of Western countries’ Middle East policies (I for one opposed the Iraq War) and deplore some of their unforeseen consequences, but to even raise the possibility, however obliquely, that “we” therefore bear some responsibility for the atrocities of the Taleban, Al Qaeda or ISIS is polemically very dodgy.
So then, we may question so long as the answer absolves us?
Those who commit atrocities bear full responsibility for doing so. We bear some responsibility for creating the conditions which facilitate their crimes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl
As to whether killing him was the right thing to do, I think it was the only way to stop him.
I see this as the only justification for the death penalty, but it is a justification.
Moo
I stopped short of saying it was the right thing to do, only that it was the only way of stopping him. We do need to decide if we are actually at war with ISIL or just using it for political purposes - in which case assassination from a distance is evil.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
As to war with ISIL, I think the U.S. needs to think long and hard about whatever actions it takes. We've fucked up enough over the past 60+ years in the ME and no matter how often our actions come back to bite us we continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
How? Because the current mechanisms are hardly of surgical precision:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
Right, I am certainly not justifying drone attacks - which seem to manage to kill as many or more civilians as targets.
I'm mostly here discussing my uncomfortable thoughts about whether it is moral for a known murderer who is existing outside of any legal recourse to be killed. As a philosophical point, I'm thinking that if that individual can be seen to be engaged in genocide and/or mass killing (of unarmed civilians in particular), then there may indeed be a justification to kill him rather than attempt to bring him to justice.
It seems to me that drones are mostly being used to avoid putting our "own people" in harms way due to the total military cock-up in Iraq and then Afghanistan.
Maybe in practice it is not possible. But you have to understand this is a major step in my thinking to imagine that a lone sniper taking out Jihadi John might be a moral action.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
ere are two problems with this line.
First, as C.S. Lewis points out in the article I cited upthread, “we” in contexts such as these really means “them”, ie stupid people quite separate from the writer, who despises them, but uses “we/us” because it makes him/her seem humble, realistic and self-flagellatory.
Mind reading then, are we? Thank you for telling me what I mean, I thought I meant something else. Good to be set right.
I certainly think you're saying broadly what KC thinks you're saying, and to me your statement below "We bear some responsibility" appears to confirm that.
So if we've both misunderstood what you're saying, please could you have another go.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is legitimate to questions aspects of Western countries’ Middle East policies (I for one opposed the Iraq War) and deplore some of their unforeseen consequences, but to even raise the possibility, however obliquely, that “we” therefore bear some responsibility for the atrocities of the Taleban, Al Qaeda or ISIS is polemically very dodgy.
So then, we may question so long as the answer absolves us?
Those who commit atrocities bear full responsibility for doing so. We bear some responsibility for creating the conditions which facilitate their crimes.
We are not all guilty. I've said before, elsewhere that 'we are all guilty' is a moral fallacy. It doesn't become less so by being repeated over and over again by public pundits. As KC has said, what underlies it is a belief in one's moral superiority. It really means, 'them over there (usually those in power) are guilty but I am not because with my superior ethical sense I have seen this'.
It also gives one the illusion that by claiming to feel guilty about things I can't do anything about, I can distract myself from the things I can change in my own life.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So then, we may question so long as the answer absolves us?
Those who commit atrocities bear full responsibility for doing so. We bear some responsibility for creating the conditions which facilitate their crimes.
and this has more bearing when we come to talk about solutions, as at least part of that consists of fixing the conditions that make these kinds of things more likely.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We are not all guilty. I've said before, elsewhere that 'we are all guilty' is a moral fallacy. It doesn't become less so by being repeated over and over again by public pundits. As KC has said, what underlies it is a belief in one's moral superiority. It really means, 'them over there (usually those in power) are guilty but I am not because with my superior ethical sense I have seen this'.
I think this is a difference in perception, Enoch. I feel that I am partly responsible for creating, supporting, financing etc a world which encourages this kind of behaviour. At a very basic level, by living in luxury whilst others die from easily treatable diseases (just to name one thing), I am committing a sin of omission.
I understand what you mean though. I just don't see that your reasoning is very helpful, because in the same way as you throw out the moral weight of those "morally superior" beings who have recognised the error of their ways, you've now redrawn the line between the "evil" and the "good" guys. In fact, you're now claiming to be morally superior, objective and outside of the messed up world we all see.
This weekend I was reflecting once again on the the words of Provost Richard Howard when he tacked two burned up stakes together from the ruins of Coventry Cathedral and set them behind the high altar.
There are many things he could have said in the wake of the ruination of Coventry and the fear that gripped the city. But Provost Howard refused to hate, and told the world that after the war (this was in 1940) he would work for peace.
The words behind the cross in the ruins say simply "Father forgive", missing the key word "them". The Coventry litany of reconciliation spells this out even more clearly: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
We've all contributed to the fucked-up nature of this world. Not just the guy in the bomber that destroyed the Cathedral, all of us who in any way contributed to creating the conditions where this stuff happens.
That seems to me to be a very healthy way to think.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That seems to me to be a very healthy way to think.
It's a very confused way to think.
Of course we are all fallible and sinful as individual human beings, and no country which opposed fascism had an unblemished record.
If such moral equivalence reductionism had prevailed during WWII, however, Nazism would never have been confronted and would still be in control.
There is such a thing as the lesser of two evils.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That seems to me to be a very healthy way to think.
It's a very confused way to think.
When we split our own countries into an us v. them, we allow ourselves to ignore the evils "they" do.
Like it or not, our governments exist at our collective sufferance. We enjoy the benefits, we must also face the deficits.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When we split our own countries into an us v. them, we allow ourselves to ignore the evils "they" do.
And when people unctuously lament their country's faults in terms of what "we" have done, when in fact they have no effective agency, and might not even have voted for the government which carried out the measures which they deplore, then they are surreptitiously and pharisaically splitting their country into a righteous "us" and a reprobate "them", under cover of seeming to take corporate responsibility for things over which in fact they have little or no control.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's a very confused way to think.
Of course we are all fallible and sinful as individual human beings, and no country which opposed fascism had an unblemished record.
I think it is possible to take this thought in various different ways.
First one might want to think about what sins one has lost sight of (individually, nationally, corporately) in the fight for the (perceived) greater good.
Second one might want to contemplate how actions or inactions have caused the very things we despise (and/or which have caused us such pain). For example the unfairness of WW1 reparations, the funding of Islamic militants for strategic objectives, the continued support for the evil Saudi regime.
Third one might want to think about how the civilians are affected who are caught up in the troubles. Ironically it is said by some that the carpet-bombing of Dresden was related to the previous decimation of Coventry. And the double irony is that post-war Coventry sought to reach out to Dresden (and also Nagasaki, IIRC) as fellow cities devastated by war.
One might also want to contemplate how easy it is to slip into tit-for-tat responses to violent outrages, how we tend to associate ourselves with clean motives and others with evil, how we all lose sight of the humanity of others during times of conflict, how we all might be pushed into similar actions should we find ourselves in similarly extreme situations.
To me, those are all much healthier thoughts than "that action is evil, therefore he is evil, may he rot in hell and I am never going to forget this great outrage he has done to me and my city".
quote:
If such moral equivalence reductionism had prevailed during WWII, however, Nazism would never have been confronted and would still be in control.
There is such a thing as the lesser of two evils.
That's true. But in fighting the monster, we must be careful not to become the very thing we most hate in others.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That seems to me to be a very healthy way to think.
It's a very confused way to think.
When we split our own countries into an us v. them, we allow ourselves to ignore the evils "they" do.
Like it or not, our governments exist at our collective sufferance. We enjoy the benefits, we must also face the deficits.
Collective, but not individual sufferance.
Unless you're suggesting that every time the government does something we disagree with, we have a moral duty to blow shit up, then I don't see how someone who's opposed to a particular policy can be subsequently held responsible for its outcomes.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Collective, but not individual sufferance.
Unless you're suggesting that every time the government does something we disagree with, we have a moral duty to blow shit up, then I don't see how someone who's opposed to a particular policy can be subsequently held responsible for its outcomes.
I think there are levels of responsibility.
There is a probably apocryphal story of a judge who had to hear a case of an old woman caught shoplifting food.
There was no doubt that the woman had stolen bread, which was the only way she could feed her grandchildren.
The judge said that the law insisted he fine her, then took out his own wallet to pay the fine and ordered everyone else in the room to pay a small fine "for living in a country where an old woman has to steal bread to feed her children" - and gave all the collected money to the woman.
Probably a story with no basis in truth. But I think on some level we each have some responsibility for things done in our name, even if we didn't actively promote or support them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
And of course, I also note the irony of my own previous comments about Muslims taking responsibility for the terrorists.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I simply fail to see how my mate Abbas can be held in any way responsible for either the actions of the Iranian government, or the actions of Muslims as a whole. And vice versa, he knows I'm dead against drone strikes, Sykes-Picot and generally interfering in matters beyond our understanding, so am not to be held responsible for those things.
If there's one good thing that came out of the latest gun thread in Hell, it's my slow realisation that most Americans are simply powerless to affect any change whatsoever in their gun laws, and simply have to work with the status quo. Despite my frequent and plaintive cry of "what the fuck is wrong with you people?", I ought not hold them responsible for something they may well deplore, but can't change.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I simply fail to see how my mate Abbas can be held in any way responsible for either the actions of the Iranian government, or the actions of Muslims as a whole. And vice versa, he knows I'm dead against drone strikes, Sykes-Picot and generally interfering in matters beyond our understanding, so am not to be held responsible for those things.
Yes, I am caught between thinking two contradictory things at the same time.
I think maybe one way for me to resolve it is whether I actually am able to do anything about these things. If I deplore the drones, have I done anything significant about it (voting against particular candidates, writing letters to MPs etc, perhaps).
If I have, well fair enough, as you say I'm not then responsible and have registered my objection. But if (as is my actual lived experience) these things just piss me off enough to type something on a bulletin board but precious little else, then to some degree I am still responsible.
On the other hand, I also refuse to believe that Muslims are responsible, nor should have to constantly apologise, for idiots who do things in the name of their religion. I think I think that one cannot really be tarnished by someone who says they are doing something in your name but shares none of your values.
OK, that hasn't really resolved the contradiction at all.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
