IS

[Phrossack]

I'm not sure that IS are being all that innovative by killing defenceless Palestinian refugees.

I quite like IS. In a way. They're unapologetic about their tactics, instead of the usual mealy mouthed platitudinous hypocrisy we've become all too familiar with from other sources.

If you're going to go to war at all, you may as well make all your potential enemies respect you for your brutality. Not for me any of this Geneva convention nonsense. War is war and peace is peace. Let's not muddle them up.

I don't understand why people think hypocrisy is literally worse than genocide, sex slavery, and sawing off people's heads or burning them alive for the world to see. If one side says it doesn't want to kill civilians but sometimes does, and the other practices slavery, tries to exterminate entire religious/ethnic groups, and savagely executes civilians, you cannot possibly say they're morally equal just because one is hypocritical. Hypocrisy has nothing on the evils ISIS are committing. Nothing, and the sooner we stop pretending evil is okay as long as you're honest, the better. War's brutality can be limited, and it's dangerous to pretend otherwise. Your moral equivalencies have gone too far this time.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't understand why people think hypocrisy is literally worse than genocide, sex slavery, and sawing off people's heads or burning them alive for the world to see. If one side says it doesn't want to kill civilians but sometimes does, and the other practices slavery, tries to exterminate entire religious/ethnic groups, and savagely executes civilians, you cannot possibly say they're morally equal just because one is hypocritical. Hypocrisy has nothing on the evils ISIS are committing. Nothing, and the sooner we stop pretending evil is okay as long as you're honest, the better. War's brutality can be limited, and it's dangerous to pretend otherwise. Your moral equivalencies have gone too far this time.

Why are humans holy in your worldview? Ultimately, IS is the product of human fallability. As such, their atrocities simply make clear the stupidity that humans are capable off. IS soldiers are no less human than their victims.

The problem of IS is not that they kill humans, it are the reasons why: Like Christanity and Communism, Islam espouses an egalitarian morality that considers all humans equally trash, including themselves. IS has been the most consequent follower of Islam, not because they follow it to the letter, rather, because they attract all the world's filth in their ranks - those that have no interest in a society that prizes virtues and abilities because they lack it - the ideal people for any ideology of egalitarianism, including Islam. To defeat the ideology of IS intellectually, you must engage its ideology intellectually, rather than pitying their victims. Ultimately, their victims are humans, just like the members of IS. Instead, one must look in admiration to those who are stronger than IS.

 

[Borachio]

I don't understand why people think hypocrisy is literally worse than genocide, sex slavery, and sawing off people's heads or burning them alive for the world to see. If one side says it doesn't want to kill civilians but sometimes does, and the other practices slavery, tries to exterminate entire religious/ethnic groups, and savagely executes civilians, you cannot possibly say they're morally equal just because one is hypocritical. Hypocrisy has nothing on the evils ISIS are committing. Nothing, and the sooner we stop pretending evil is okay as long as you're honest, the better. War's brutality can be limited, and it's dangerous to pretend otherwise. Your moral equivalencies have gone too far this time.

Hahahaha! You and I are never going to see eye to eye, are we, Mr Phrossack?

I, for one, am not saying that hypocrisy itself is literally worse than genocide, sex slavery, and sawing people's heads off. (Bombing can effectively be used to saw people's heads off. I'm not so sure how bombing could cause sex slavery, but it does seem to be prevalent in Western countries in any case. As for genocide, well, you don't have to look far back in history to find it everywhere you look. I guess it depends how global your view is.)

But when you do these things and compound it with hypocrisy, how is it not worse?

As for thinking that the brutality of war can be limited, experience would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[MacAttack]

If you're going to go to war at all, you may as well make all your potential enemies respect you for your brutality. Not for me any of this Geneva convention nonsense. War is war and peace is peace. Let's not muddle them up.

Brutality should not command respect in any way whatsoever since it is a disrespect to human life. It should demand world wide outrage and have justice dealt to those who use brutality as a tactic. Human life, regardless of age, gender, beliefs, race or ethnicity is too precious.

 

[Borachio]

I agree totally.

In every case, we should condemn the killing of human beings by any means whatsoever. And for any reason.

 

[Tigranes]

I quite like IS. In a way.

This spirit is the most consistent of them all. So he needs to score the highest on your like list.

Spoiler :

 

[Borachio]

That's interesting. You see Satan - or is it Lucifer? - as archetypically consistent?

Consistency by itself isn't enough, of course. But we can be sure that lack of consistency is a sure sign of error, can't we?

 

[Commodore]

That's interesting. You see Satan - or is it Lucifer? - as archetypically consistent?

Consistency by itself isn't enough, of course. But we can be sure that lack of consistency is a sure sign of error, can't we?

What if one is consistently inconsistent?

 

[Borachio]

Er... then one is always inconsistent? So, logically(!), one couldn't be consistently inconsistent? Or even inconsistently consistent?

More pertinently: what if one was inconsistently consistently inconsistent?

(And... so on.)

 

[Agent327]

By their own lights, yes.

I don't understand people who seem to think they can kill other people "just a little bit", so that it's perfectly acceptable.

(And when I say "I don't understand", I really mean I do, but I don't agree with them.)

Never heard of war crimes, I guess...

 

[Borachio]

I have heard of them.

It's something the losing side is guilty of, and the winning side never commits.

It's almost magical how it always turns out that way.

It makes me believe in the possibility of divine intervention. Very nearly.

 

[r16]

I have started to read, but then gave up... how is this related to IS? Open a Turkey thread and spam all you want!

very much . In the sense that the New Turkey and ISIL are the pages of the same book . The one about the re-drawing of the borders of the Middle East and make it more accessible to Capitalism . That's the kindergarten variety of conpiracy as should be familiar to all but delving deeper would make my posts even more confusing .

as for the thing that obviously confuses let's say this New Turkey gets immense cover from people one would readily expect to be hostile in this particular context . In New Turkey an Armenian journalist , knowing very well what will happen , simply says "Did you know that Melih Gökçek is actually of Armenian origins?" The mayor of Ankara might or might not have Armenian ancestors and who cares or even should care ? As expected Gökçek sues the journalist , because in Turkey , in this newly discovered oasis of tolerance , "Armenian" simply equates to "disgusting" . Gökçek's attorney actually used the term in his application to the courts . And then you see the Little Imperialist's Armenian advisor , who was also a star participant in the destruction of the Military and hence also claims he was deceived by the Congregation , explaining the 52-56 seconds affair . We hear we should have believed the lady in question , daughter-in-law of an A-K-P mayor of a neighbourhood in Istanbul . We should , could and would do exactly so if she had limited it to some guys insulting her . Despicable , but such things happen . And had it really happened you would discover those 60-70 guys would have been found by the nightfall and they would all have a police baton inside them and they wouldn't like it (whatever their sexual orientation might have been) and trust me ı would have no idea on what the fuss was about , mumbling about that the Turkish Police tortures but this must surely be a lie .

this is yet another thing of the New ; they paid Google tons of money so that you can never find the picture of the girl who carried a placard which described the '99 earthquake as a punishment from Allah for the seculars' ban on headscarves , the eathquake that killed almost 40000 , at least half of them demonstrably more Islamic than me . It's ISIL and its cells who will call the 52-56 seconds affair as proof of the godlesness of Turkey and why its denizens should be all killed . And it will be of no benefit to Armenia , because they are slated to get usefully used , killing the Azeris . Iran gets to get to bomb , because they have some 30 millions of Azeris whom we might deceive if Tahran joins the Crusade , you know ...

as a final thing it seems the word around is that ı know Natalie Portman . That's kinda insulting in the sense that the uncomprimising Star Wars fan [ı am] can not like the portrayal of Padme Amidala without a vested interested . The thing is with all those smart people in Turkey they will "discover" an "acquitance" and within a week the Turkish Police will be writing a file on her and asking Washington for her arrest and turning over to Turkey . Luckily , the Pentagon knows ı would simply blow up another power station .

 

[r16]

Your moral equivalencies have gone too far this time.

it's kinda wrong to assume that London would actually give up the battering ram that's ISIL . Plus , this ain't the 70s when Palestinians were with some fever of invincibility ; and they know they can ask stuff when they feel a need for stuff . No automatic stuff , but maybe it would be better if it was .

(and Palestinians also know the freaking NATO Patriot batteries did not fire on an incoming Syrian missile that might have hit a Turkish border outpost and Battalion Headquarters . )

 

[Hygro]

But when you do these things and compound it with hypocrisy, how is it not worse?

Because our values should be aspirational and we should strive towards them.

 

[NovaKart]

I think borachio likes to play devils advocate.

 

[Tahuti]

Because our values should be aspirational and we should strive towards them.

I would add 'individually' after 'them'.

 

[Phrossack]

I think borachio likes to play devils advocate.

I think he believes in total moral equivalency. ISIS is no worse at all than anyone else who's ever hurt anyone in that view. If they enthusiastically endorse slavery and crucifixion, believe it is religiously forbidden for peace with unbelievers to last any more than 10 years, and think that negotiating with the infidel is apostasy, well, that's their opinion. If they saw off the head of a defenseless aid worker or two and relish in it on a broadcast video, and you attack them, you're apparently no better than they are.

It's a baffling and frustrating mindset.

 

[Borachio]

I think borachio likes to play devils advocate.

Sometimes.

I sometimes like to play around with ideas that aren't quite the conventional way of looking at things.

I also like to see things from other viewpoints.

I also imagine that people the world over are pretty much similar to one another. And that treating the "other" as someone wholly "other" is a mistake.

Sometimes - or indeed very often - my way of looking at things causes other people to get upset.

I also don't believe in moral calculations that would have me believe that killing two people is somehow twice as bad as killing one person.

Now, I can understand that other people do make such calculations, it's just that they're not for me, thank you.

 

[Phrossack]

Sometimes.

I sometimes like to play around with ideas that aren't quite the conventional way of looking at things.

I also like to see things from other viewpoints.

I also imagine that people the world over are pretty much similar to one another. And that treating the "other" as someone wholly "other" is a mistake.

Sometimes - or indeed very often - my way of looking at things causes other people to get upset.

I also don't believe in moral calculations that would have me believe that killing two people is somehow twice as bad as killing one person.

Now, I can understand that other people do make such calculations, it's just that they're not for me, thank you.

Once you kill one, there's nothing wrong with the next few million, am I right?

 

[Borachio]

No. I think you've misinterpreted me. (And I suspect, deliberately.)

I think that killing the first one is absolutely wrong.

(Maybe. I really don't like to be categorical about anything. I'm often wrong about things myself.)