On the Nature of Crime vs War - An Open Discussion on Terrorism and Censorship

You make some good points, Kyrin. I've argued to the contrary, but reading this entire conversation is leading me to another possible conclusion. Crime, terrorism, violence, and morality is judged differently on a macro versus micro level.

On the micro level, to the individual victim, whoever perpetrated the violence upon them will always be morally wrong. The victims of terrorism will always see the group or individual responsible as the enemy. Individual extremists may see the U.S. and the western world as "terrorists" based on their own experiences. Individual victims of rape or violence will always live with the fear of it happening again, regardless of the progress on a large scale made to minimize these risks. I've been arguing from the point of view of these individuals.

I see now that you, Kyrin, are arguing more from the macro level. Our western society, as a whole, has made great progress toward curbing violence and promoting equality. We have struggled against the scourges of slavery and religiously motivated genocide. We more recently made steps toward being more accepting of the LGBT community. On a large scale, we have much to be proud of.

On the macro level, we all agree that the Nazi movement in Germany had some horrific results and the war to put an end to it was justified. On a micro level, a polish soldier forced into the German Army against his will who disagreed with the Nazi platform of religious and racial persecution and genocide still ended up dead from an American bullet.

On a macro level, we agree that ISIS and extremists like them are immoral and need to be dealt with, perhaps with extreme prejudice. On a micro level, one of these may be a misguided and angry teenager manipulated by others to carry out these terrorist acts.

These are some new thoughts on the subject so I'm sure they need to be refined further.

Leah Starspectre wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: so, a country where "inst the law here to harm another based on sex, religion, race, etc, but it still happens" there is going to be the same level of brutality as a culture of people who "stormed Sinjar, in northern Iraq, murdering around 3,000 men and older women and taking thousands women and girls into sexual slavery, repeatedly raping them and selling them between fighters in public marketplaces."

you dont see the difference here?

that one blatantly celebrates murder and rape and the other publicly denounces them and does actually try to punish those who commit them?

because some slip through the cracks we are just as bad as those who would make it national policy (if it werent for the fatc that they dont have a nation, only territory they have invaded)

you think america is hiding a deliberate and prolific campaign of genocide and sexual slavery?

would you please provide some sources to that effect?

Yes, there is absolutely a sexual slave market in the USA (which includes domestic and imported victims), including children, "mail order brides", and a trafficked women. PLUS all of the above in the form of pornographic videos and photographs.

Yes, woman are being raped and sexually assaulted at an alarming rate, and they are doubted and blamed.

Yes, there are groups in America that are calling for the murder of other groups of people (ex. capital punishment, pro-lifers, neo-nazis, anti-LGBT groups). And there are people who do perpetrate these murders, although they are somewhat retrained by the law and so tend to work sporadically and not as groups (they're mainly connected by ideology rather than an organized group). Go ahead and ask a black trans woman (or any other intersectional person, really) in any given American city and she'll probably tell you that she lives in fear of harm every time she steps foot outside her home - if she even has one.

The fact that laws exist to combat discrimination simply pushes it underground. So if the only difference is that some people/groups can be brutal openly and others need to hide it, is it REALLY a difference after all?

so you cannot actually provide any evidence to suppoirt the claim that america is just as violent and brutal to its outsiders as daesh is?

right?

you have no evidence, only your feelings, correct?

neither of the following links are from what you can call "neutral parties"but then again neutral parties may be the most disgusting parties of all when it comes to these kinds of issues

from: https://mic.com/articles/96452/one-troubling-statistic-shows-just-how-racist-america-s-police-brutality-problem-is#.GsnGa4hxH

"White officers kill black suspects twice a week in the United States, or an average of 96 times a year."

from: https://76crimes.com/100s-die-in-homophobic-anti-gay-attacks-statistics-updates/

"In the United States, out of the almost 6,000 hate crimes committed in 2013, 20 percent (approximately 1,200) were based on victims’ sexual orientation, according to the FBI."

so in one year there was approximately 1,200 "hate crimes" reported against people for their sexual orientation and about 96 blacks are killed by police officers in the United States (for all number of reasons, some of which are fair)

from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31962755

In August 2007 jihadists attacked Yazidi villages in Nineveh, killing between 400 and 700 people

one month! this was several years ago btw, case you didnt notice, and only reflects the numbers of people who were actually MURDERED (from one village in one month)

so its not counting the thousands who lost their homes (in that one month) or those girls who were taken into slavery, who we could argue suffer a much worse fate) are half of the numbers for an entire year here in the US

" "In some instances, villages were entirely emptied of their Yazidi population."
A statement by the OHCHR says: "One witness described how two ISIL members sat laughing as two teenage girls were raped in the next room.
"A pregnant woman, repeatedly raped by an ISIL 'doctor' over a period of two-and-a-half months, said he deliberately sat on her stomach.
"He told her: 'This baby should die because it is an infidel; I can make a Muslim baby'. ""

do you think this is all just being made up? a dozen different sources of different instances all point to the same thing

and understand that the term "hate crime" in america doesnt mean only murder and rape, or attacks of such magnitude; if someone spits a goober at someone while calling them a fag, that is a hate crime.
a slap in the face is assault, and if it is determined that it was motivated by anti lgbt sentiments then it is a hate crime.

matter of fact, spray painting nasty words or symbols on the side of a building is a hate crime in the USA

now, i am not promoting the view that lgbt issues are not legitimate issues; they are. i have done fundraising and organizing work for HRC as a canvasser, and i am very much in support of lgbt rights

also there is an obvious history of deliberate oppression of minorities, particularly blacks, in america
and as a group they still suffer as a result of that history and the nation has not done all of what it could (or should) to make equality a reality, i mean it is a struggle and there are those who have been working for a long time, some progress has been made and some continues to be, but its still far from perfect and i see that

but neither blacks nor lgbt's as groups in america are facing anything near what the yazidis are facing at the hands of daesh,

both blacks and lgbts have got mechanisms for improvement which are built into the fabric of our political and social system, there are people who fight for the rights of minorities in america

we actually have that as a cultural value for a large portion of our population

the genocide against the yazidis is only one example of many, of daesh evil

from the above link:
"In a new report, it says IS had "the intent... to destroy the Yazidi as a group."
Tens of thousands of Yazidis fled villages in northern Iraq amid IS advances last summer. Many were killed or captured and enslaved."

and that is the official policy of daesh leadership

the official policy of USA leadership is that attacking people is against the law, and raping people is against the law, and enslaving people is against the law

youre a nice person and i dont have any desire to generate negativity between us

youve taken a position that i consider to be totally ridiculous and you have nothing to back it up with

you dont acknowledge the horrors being reported, thats the biggest thing to me, that youve got the information right inf ront of you and you just ignore it

and the fact that america has a process that is designed to punish people who inflict this kind of violence on others, while daesh rewards them and that IS a serious difference

unless you start recognizing the information thats being presented to you or you can present some information to back up your position, i dont think we have anything else to say to each other on this topic

peace

Gwinn wrote:

The fact that the ideology exists IS relevant. What would happen if other powers didn't keep this ideology in check? They could easily become storm troopers again.

The ideology was not destroyed by force. We can stop an organization by force, but if the ideology still exists, it will lurk in the shadows, waiting to emerge again. Only by changing the ideology can we stop it.

Once again, no its not and here is why. In fact the two have quite a few differences. The original Nazis were a political movement that believed in Aryan supremacy. They believed in a military dictatorship and the eradication of several components of their nation including many white factions to achieve racial purity. They took this ideology to the world by forcefully invading Europe and enacted the systematic extermination of races such as the Jews in concentration camps. (The holocaust).

While Modern day Neo-Nazis do carry some of the ideologies of the original Nazi movement, they are not a political party and they believe more in white supremacy rather than racial purity. They are a peaceful counter culture movement for the most part and they deny the Holocaust ever happened. Nazism and Neo-Nazism are currently banned the Germany.

The biggest difference between the two movements and the reason that we as a species can live with Neo-Nazis but not the original Nazis is that even though Neo-Nazis live a lifestyle that could be deemed as counterproductive to our species as a whole, none are born or enter into that lifestyle that are systematically oppressed or without the option to leave at any time as many of the different ethnic groups were that lived in Germany during the reign of the original Nazis. The Neo-Nazis operate within the boundaries of US law and they do not visit organized systematic violence on others outside their belief system in an effort to force them to conform to their lifestyle.

the Neo_Nazi movement has evolved into something quite different than the original Nazi movement. This was done by violence - unfortunate but necessary. We should have the hope that organizations like ISIS evolve in a similar manner. We may never follow or believe in their ideologies just as we may never fully believe in the ideologies of other Arab nations but the goal is to get them to a place where we can live side by side with them and to stop the oppression and violence. This is something that often times takes force, especially in the face of an enemy unwilling to accept any sort of peaceful solution, just like what happened with the original Nazis.

Senan wrote: You make some good points, Kyrin. I've argued to the contrary, but reading this entire conversation is leading me to another possible conclusion. Crime, terrorism, violence, and morality is judged differently on a macro versus micro level.

On the micro level, to the individual victim, whoever perpetrated the violence upon them will always be morally wrong. The victims of terrorism will always see the group or individual responsible as the enemy. Individual extremists may see the U.S. and the western world as "terrorists" based on their own experiences. Individual victims of rape or violence will always live with the fear of it happening again, regardless of the progress on a large scale made to minimize these risks. I've been arguing from the point of view of these individuals.

I see now that you, Kyrin, are arguing more from the macro level. Our western society, as a whole, has made great progress toward curbing violence and promoting equality. We have struggled against the scourges of slavery and religiously motivated genocide. We more recently made steps toward being more accepting of the LGBT community. On a large scale, we have much to be proud of.

On the macro level, we all agree that the Nazi movement in Germany had some horrific results and the war to put an end to it was justified. On a micro level, a polish soldier forced into the German Army against his will who disagreed with the Nazi platform of religious and racial persecution and genocide still ended up dead from an American bullet.

On a macro level, we agree that ISIS and extremists like them are immoral and need to be dealt with, perhaps with extreme prejudice. On a micro level, one of these may be a misguided and angry teenager manipulated by others to carry out these terrorist acts.

These are some new thoughts on the subject so I'm sure they need to be refined further.

Thank you, That was very well said! I agree completely with your points. We as a species need to keep a constant vigilance over our own actions in a never ending effort to self police ourselves so that we may ever evolve towards a more just and peaceful and balance existence generally as a species. We will never attain perfection but that does not mean we should ever stop trying. The Journey in the point and the constant progression towards a more harmonious and productive life for ALL is the goal.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: [Neo-Nazis] are a peaceful counter culture movement for the most part ...

Neo-Nazism is simply a peaceful, counter-cultural movement, a la the hippies of the 1960s? I think I've read it all now. Nazi apologism on the TOTJO. What's next, alt-right added as one of the SIGs? Anyway, here are some Facts™, not that I imagine they will be of much interest.

Germany's New Old Problem: The Rise of Neo-Nazi Violence

‘We don’t believe in candles and flowers’: Neo-Nazis bring violence to peace vigil in Brussels

German neo-Nazi protesters clash with police at new migrant shelter

‘Neo-Nazi gangs paint blood swastikas’ at violent clash with anti-fascists in Dover

Mar del Plata’s dark secret: Neo-Nazi violence in an Argentine beachside retreat

Far-right racist terror surges in Europe as Austrian neo-Nazi who threatened to massacre refugees is arrested

Masked 'Neo-Nazis' Assault Migrants In Sweden

Anders Behring Breivik (neo-Nazi who killed almost 80 people in Norway in 2011)

Senan wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: so, a country where "It is against the law here to harm another based on sex, religion, race, etc, but it still happens" there is going to be the same level of brutality as a culture of people who "stormed Sinjar, in northern Iraq, murdering around 3,000 men and older women and taking thousands women and girls into sexual slavery, repeatedly raping them and selling them between fighters in public marketplaces."

you dont see the difference here?

that one blatantly celebrates murder and rape and the other publicly denounces them and does actually try to punish those who commit them?

are you saying that because some slip through the cracks here in america that we are just as bad as those who would make it national policy (if it werent for the fatc that they dont have a nation, only territory they have invaded) to do such things a s a matter of ocurse?

you seem to be making the case that america is hiding a deliberate and prolific campaign of genocide and sexual slavery

would you please provide some sources to that effect?

To be fair, comparisons like this tend to be entirely biased by the side of the comparison we each come from and can be based and huge generalizations. ISIS is not a "culture of people" anymore than "whites" or "blacks" are. Americans are not a homogeneous group of freedom loving patriots. ISIS is a group of individuals that share some common beliefs and motivations, not necessarily including blatant celebration of murder and rape. Some who identify as ISIS certainly do, but not all. Americans tend to share some common beliefs and motivations as well, not necessarily including shooting at cops. Some Americans do, but not all.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, members of ISIS, many of whom experienced the invasion and/or occupation of their countries by U.S. military and coalition forces, believe Americans to be terrorists. ISIS members stormed Sinjar and we can use this as an example of brutality, but in their minds (and sometimes in truth) the U.S. stormed their entire world and continues to do so on a daily basis using unmanned machines to do the killing.

"Terrorists" do not differentiate the way we choose to in our examples. Brutality is brutality. If brutality is thrust upon them by Americans, they are obliged to answer with brutality. It doesn't matter if the situations are factually different. It only matters what people believe to be the truth that motivates them. Some use religion and some use nationalism, but these are just rationalization for behavior.

ISIS is not a "country" capable of enacting any sort of legislation, so to say something is "illegal" in the U.S. means nothing in comparison to the actions of ISIS. Even if they choose to invoke some holy scripture as "law", it means nothing to those who do not recognize it as law. All sides are simply justifying behavior with their own set of beliefs.

That's why terrorism is not always about what is actually being perpetrated. It is about creating an environment of fear so that your victims believe you are in the position of power. Whether we are discussing rape, brutality by police, child abuse or military invasion, the victims will likely feel terrorized whether the action is illegal or not. That is why the original question concerning crime vs war is such a difficult one. What one side calls "war", the other calls "terrorism", but often they are one and the same. The only difference is the perspective you are viewing it from.

the word "culture" is a lot like "religion" in that there is no one single definition which applies to every instance

i respect your point about the difference of experience and perspectives within any given racial group for instance, but daesh is not nearly as large and diverse a group as "white people" or "black people" in america

they are pretty culturally homogeneous, religiously and ideologically coherent, unified under a single leader with a definite command structure and specific tenants which they agree are correct and agree to follow

they are cohesive with each other in the pursuit of specific goals

they are not only muslims, but they are muslims who agree that Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badri is their caliph and that their caliphate is the legitimate and divinely ordained caliphate of the world

they agree to this enough to fight for it, how many of them really believe it "in their hearts" is impossible to know for sure

but they most definitely do count as a culture, or at least a sub-culture, if you prefer. an extremely violent and dangerous culture

that they are each individuals is true and well and good, but seeing america and the west as enemies is only one aspect of their belief system, they are united in a vision of their caliphate, and they are exterminating people who do not submit

so at a certain point their justifications become irrelevant to the rest of the world, not because they dont have as much right to their own ideas as everyone else, but because the pursuit of their ideas results in the murder and subjugation of literally everyone they make contact with, so respecting their views and their rights to have those views as valid is accepting that they have the right to murder everyone who disagrees with them

even where you could provide examples of american behavior which seems to fit that same description, so too will you find checks and balances, some kind of limiting force to such within american policy or the american culture; theres always laws and rules which place limitations on what we can do and there are always people who are watching and who want to see people who violate those limits held accountable

does that always work? no of course not
but america as a culture still widely agrees that such limitations need to exist, even if we dont agree on exactly where the lines need to be drawn

bottom line: if you can find a way to convince daesh to stop raping and murdering people, then we can make a case that they have a right to their views

Adi wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: [Neo-Nazis] are a peaceful counter culture movement for the most part ...

Neo-Nazism is simply a peaceful, counter-cultural movement, a la the hippies of the 1960s? I think I've read it all now. Nazi apologism on the TOTJO. What's next, alt-right added as one of the SIGs? Anyway, here are some Facts™, not that I imagine they will be of much interest.

Germany's New Old Problem: The Rise of Neo-Nazi Violence

‘We don’t believe in candles and flowers’: Neo-Nazis bring violence to peace vigil in Brussels

German neo-Nazi protesters clash with police at new migrant shelter

‘Neo-Nazi gangs paint blood swastikas’ at violent clash with anti-fascists in Dover

Mar del Plata’s dark secret: Neo-Nazi violence in an Argentine beachside retreat

Far-right racist terror surges in Europe as Austrian neo-Nazi who threatened to massacre refugees is arrested

Masked 'Neo-Nazis' Assault Migrants In Sweden

Anders Behring Breivik (neo-Nazi who killed almost 80 people in Norway in 2011)

i wouldnt call neo nazism peaceful either but in the context of this discussion i would say that when they inflict their violence on others, we, as a culture, agree that the men (and women) with guns need to go and get them

the point that i see being made here is that the skin heads are perfectly free in our society to be idiots and to believe in idiotic things, SO LONG AS THEY DONT HARM ANYONE

once they exceed that limitation, it is perfectly justifiable to use violence in order to get them under control

and it was definitely the use of violence which ended the threat of the original nazis

OB1Shinobi wrote:
i wouldnt call neo nazism peaceful either but in the context of this discussion i would say that when they inflict their violence on others, we, as a culture, agree that the men (and women) with guns need to go and get them

the point that i see being made here is that the skin heads are perfectly free in our society to be idiots and to believe in idiotic things, SO LONG AS THEY DONT HARM ANYONE

once they exceed that limitation, it is perfectly justifiable to use violence in order to get them under control

it was definitely the use of violence which ended the threat of the original nazis

I could not have said it better. Thank you!

OB1Shinobi wrote: They are pretty culturally homogeneous, religiously and ideologically coherent, unified under a single leader with a definite command structure and specific tenants which they agree are correct and agree to follow

they are cohesive with each other in the pursuit of specific goals

they most definitely do count as a culture, or at least a sub-culture, if you prefer

that they are each individuals is true and well and good, but seeing america and the west as enemies is only one aspect of their belief system, they are united in a vision of their caliphate, and they are exterminating people who do not submit

so at a certain point their justifications become irrelevant to the rest of the world, not because they dont have as much right to their own ideas as everyone else, but because the pursuit of their ideas results in the murder and subjugation of literally everyone they make contact with, so respecting their views and their rights to have those views as valid is accepting that they have the right to murder everyone who disagrees with them

even where you could provide examples of american behavior which seems to fit that same description, so too will you find checks and balances, some kind of limiting force to such within american policy or the american culture; theres always laws and rules which place limitations on what we can do and there are always people who are watching and who want to see people who violate those limits held accountable

does that always work? no of course not
but america as a culture still widely agrees that such limitations need to exist, even if we dont agree on exactly where the lines need to be drawn

bottom line: if you can find a way to convince daesh to stop raping and murdering people, then we can make a case that they have a right to their views

These are serious questions, because I don't know enough about daesh or ISIS to know.

If they are in fact a sub-culture with organized leadership command structure, agreed upon tenets, cohesive and specific objectives and a unified goal of creating their caliphate (I have no evidence to believe otherwise), why would we consider them any less capable of checking and balancing their behavior the way Americans do? Perhaps raping and murdering people is acceptable in their culture now, but the culture will eventually mature the way American culture has? Could they not be held to the same standard that we are when it comes to allowing people to agree upon what is and isn't legal/ethical/moral within their culture and time? And if so, do we have the right to impose our rule of law on a sub-culture clearly capable of establishing their own just because we disagree with it?

I ask because if they are bent on rape and murder (which I agree many seem to be), who among them decides whom you can rape or murder and whom you can't? I know that Sharia law comes into play, and if that's the ethical system they choose to use and they all agree, are they all wrong? Those they murder would likely say they are wrong, but it is up to those people to defend their own culture, society and ethical system.

I guess I just get very confused by the Catch 22 of recognizing daesh as an organized and cohesive culture with defined leadership while at the same time claiming they are incapable of developing ethical or moral behavior that works for them. Clearly they believe that they are righteous in this quest. It just seems that their morality and ethics do not mesh well with their neighbors. At some point we can step in to defend those neighbor nations who ask for our help, but what of those who do not want American involvement or consider us an enemy as well? What comes to those loyal to daesh who desire to live in this new caliphate under their chosen ethical system? Would they not all end up fighting among themselves, raping and murdering each other?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Are you actually going to try and tell me that I can witness the systematic and condoned suffering of other members of my species at the hands of these organizations and yet not be able to judge it as wrong?

While our country is bombing innocent men, women, and children, when we push our political ideals on other countries, when we are unwavering in our choices and we consider ourselves superior to all other people as a country -- sure. You can judge something as wrong. But then you'll have a heck of a time excusing your own country's actions. Tell those people who lost friends and family members due to YOUR tax dollars (and mine as well) that they should just get over it and lecture them about how your morals are superior to theirs. You can do that while they're grieving for their children and see how it works. Feel free to judge them, but first you've got to establish that your ideals are objectively better than theirs. You may not be directly responsible for killing babies, but you and I are both indirectly responsible for it. How do we reserve the right to judge them for attacking us after we killed their children? After we killed their mothers and fathers, friends, cousins, neighbors, nephews and nieces?
You and I are both responsible for that. We are both to blame for that. Just like every single US citizen. How are we better? We are different when it comes to certain issues. But unless you're going to claim that there is an objective standard by which we can judge our actions compared to theirs and see which is better, all you can say is that you prefer the ethics of the West over their ethics. And why wouldn't you? You have, presumably, been raised in the US and have gone to US schools, been raised by US citizens. Of course your morals would be in line with the morals advocated by our society. If you were born in Afghanistan, you might not think so.

Dude, Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately you’re just parroting back nothing more than left wing strawman rhetoric. The true history of the evolution of modern day terrorism goes much deeper than “We bombed them first so it’s our fault and they are justified in their criminal acts of war. After all we deserve it.”

Historically Islamic empires had controlled the areas of North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia for more than a thousand years. That is up until the fall of the last great Islamic empire, the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed after WWI. During the time of the decline of the Ottoman Empire over the last 2 centuries European nations added much of the heavily Islamic areas of North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia to their empires, known as the “period of colonialism”. Finally after WWI they carved up most of the remaining parts of the old Ottoman Empire. But after WWII much of this region once again gained independence. However, almost all the new leaders who emerged in countries like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt chose to follow a secular model of government. Many adopted European or American legal systems and other Western ways, forcing Islamic law and culture into the background.

Unfortunately Islamic groups began to form within these new States that generally wanted to reform that states to ones based on Islamic fundamentalism and the literal interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith. They believe that government based on Sharia, or Islamic law, is superior to any government based on secular laws, democracy in which multiple political views are represented, or any religion other than fundamentalist Islam. These groups view themselves as following in the footsteps of Muhammad who in 622 had to flee from Mecca with a small band of followers only to return a several years later with an army of followers to conquer Mecca. Terrorist groups often see themselves as small bands that will similarly lead Islam to victory even though most Muslims believe that terrorist tactics run against the basic teachings of Islam. The Koran set strict rules against suicide and killing women, children, and old people in battle.

The United States was only loosely associated with any of this in the fact that secular states similar to the one the US had were setup in these new nations. Then In 1948, the United Nations, with the strong financial, political and armament support of the United States, partitioned the land then called Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The surrounding Arab countries rejected this partition, which they viewed as another case of European colonialism, with Jews displacing Arabs. The surrounding Arab countries attacked Israel, but Israel defended its new borders and even gained territory. The military failures of the Arab states showed that they were too weak to overcome Israel, which was far more advanced economically and militarily. The first terrorist groups began to emerge in organizations like the PLO. Instead of using traditional Guerilla tactics against military targets they decided to begin a campaign of terrorism against civilian Israeli populations using tactics like kidnappings, shootings, bombings, and hijackings.

This constant struggle back and forth between Arabs and the new Israeli State has gone on for decades but keep in mind that during this time the US never had a “boot on the ground” nor dropped a single bomb. But that did not hinder the perception of these groups that US support of Israel and other “secular” Arab states like Iran was enough to make us the enemy. Fundamentalist Muslims viewed the shah of Iran as a despot who had been put in power by the United States and Great Britain. They saw him as a traitor to Islam and in 1979 a revolution in Iran overthrew him and a Muslim state was created with the state leader also being the supreme religious leader. During the turmoil that took place during the revolution, radical Muslim students seized the U.S. embassy and held American diplomats hostage for more than a year. Iran became the central source for arming and financing radical Islamist terrorist groups in a new war against the west which began with a bombing in Beruit that killed 241 U.S. Marines, sailors, and soldiers who were there as part of a multinational force deployed to supervise the evacuation of PLO forces after an Israeli siege on the city of Beruit that was enacted by Israel to stop the constant attacks on Israeli civilian populations from PLO forces operating from within Lebanon.

During these years, the Soviets also invaded Afghanistan in order to help Afghan communists who had seized power. Muslims from around the world called for a jihad in defense of Islam, to free the Muslim country from the invaders. Thousands from many countries volunteered to be mujahedeen, holy warriors. Saudi-funded religious schools in neighboring Pakistan produced many volunteers for the jihad. Much of this was funded by the CIA who contributed more than $3 billion, supplied more than 1,000 small, portable Stinger missiles (for shooting down helicopters and low-flying airplanes), and trained the mujahedeen.

One of the Saudi volunteers was 25-year-old Osama bin Laden. For the Afghan jihad, he raised money through his family connections, set up training camps, and commanded mujahedeen in battle against the Soviets. He also organized his fighters into a network that became known as Al Qaeda (“the base”). After the Soviet Union withdrew its troops from Afghanistan in 1989, Bin Laden returned home to Saudi Arabia as a hero. Then in 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait. Fearing that Iraq would next invade Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden offered to bring in mujahedeen to help defend the nation. Instead, Saudi King Fahd decided to rely on American military forces leading a multinational coalition to defeat Iraq. He allowed the US to set up bases in the Muslim holy land. The stationing of non-Muslim troops on Saudi Arabia’s holy soil transformed Bin Laden into an outspoken enemy of the Saudi ruling family and its American defenders.

The rest is more current recent history that most of us have lived. Needless to say the tense relations that western countries have had with Arab nations is much more complex and intricate than “we just dropped a bomb and started a holy war”. The US has always had the best intentions in its actions to support its allies and promote freedom and prosperity for all humanity and I for one find this self-deprecating attitude that “we deserve what we get” completely untenable.

I guarantee you, no strawman was used. The themes I brought up are of central importance to the ethics of this topic. And I do fundamentally believe that the topic of war is inseparable from ethical debate. The core of ethics is understanding the rules by which we decide the moral status of an action. I simply find war to be absolutely disgusting and a complete moral abomination. And my reasoning has been made clear, as far as I'm concerned. I await rebuttal. Don't tell me that your morals are superior. If they genuinely are, you can prove it. But as of right now I've seen assertions, not arguments. Very well, here is my argument clearly laid out.
I have never seen any good evidence to suggest an objective moral standard by which values of one culture can be compared to other cultures. Because I have not seen any such evidence, I reject the notion that you can automatically declare your ethics superior, especially given the depersonalization you brought up and the terrible and inexcusable acts of terrorism by your country, my country. Such acts of terrorism include the current drone strike program which is responsible for an extreme amount of civilian casualties. That is not justice, it isn't justified, and it has no excuse. Assuming that you wish to avoid hypocrisy, you've got to provide some reason as to why our drone strikes are perfectly okay.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

There's one example if you don't know what I'm talking about. If you want to see the real horror that the US has committed, check this one out.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/US-Caused-Civilian-Deaths-Versus-Toll-of-Terrorist-Attacks--20151115-0010.html

Now tell me exactly what you think an American would do if our innocent civilians were being slaughtered like that. Maybe among pacifists their response would be nonviolent. But as far as I can tell, our country is literally handing terrorists anti American propaganda as if it were a gift. And if we as a country were to be truly judged for our actions, like those listed above, maybe we would be seen as a terrorist organization. Are you not willing to admit that the US has committed actions just as bad as any terrorist attack?

As for your history, I'm sure it's accurate. I just don't see how it's relevant. Islam is not the problem or the subject of discussion. Do you honestly believe that the actions of the US are in no way connected to this problem right now, at this point in time? Do you honestly think that all of our actions are excusable and all of theirs come only from madness and a developmentally stunted ethical system which is objectively inferior to yours? And do you wholeheartedly believe that, if the situation were reversed, Americans wouldn't be outraged and begin committing violence?

Wow, that telesurtv article made my head hurt. It seems very biased and misrepresentative. Did it really say the US made the IS to create discord? Ouch... if everyone went around believing articles like that then I could understand why they might think they hate the US.

The vast majority of the civilian causalities in Iraq et al is not from US action directly AFAIK, but from Islamic terrorism within those nations during US operations (often targeted specifically at civilians to destabilize progress by the US forces). It also seems to ignore the reason the US foreign policy even existed in the Mid East, most often (if not always?) agreed upon by the host nation in an effort to counter Soviet expansion during the Cold War. Western conduct of military operations is driven by intelligence activity to be as lawful as possible given the circumstances, and is why the US spends so much on research and development in the area of military systems to ensure better capabilities to have better intelligence and more discriminate capabilities to deal with problems more efficiently. Despite the fear of war mongering, the idea of both diplomacy and military activities is to avoid having to fight or be able to have the smaller fight instead of the bigger fight.

But IS is not anti-US, it is anti-anything not IS. The anti-US narrative was AQ, which as stated earlier was disproven to the Mid East populations in a large extent by the US actions in Iraq (restore self rule and leave) which led to the Arab Spring democracy movement, which unfortunately was not supported internationally within Syria which then led to the creation of the IS. So yea sure a hands off approach absolves a country from having involvement, but it might not make it the best course of action for all involved; and a hands on approach does not make them responsible either. It's more complicated then that article makes it out.

Dude,
I agree that ethics should always take a role when it comes to war. However your repulsion to war has no bearing on the fact that it always has been and will continue to be a necessary part of our existence. We are creatures of emotion and because of that we are capable of both great good and great evil. It is this facet of our reality that directs the idea that there will always be times when we will need to fight either for ourselves, our way of life of for those that can’t fight for themselves.

Beyond that I’m actually disappointed in your rebuttal for the most part. You have either missed the point of my comments or are deliberately using misdirection and deflection to cloud the issue. I have NEVER once said I “can automatically declare my ethics superior over any other culture”. If fact I believe just as you do that I cannot do that, in fact that no one can do that. I also have NEVER stated that I feel Drone strikes are ok. In fact I do not. I don’t think the Air Force can find its ass with both hands most times but that’s just me.

While I see their value in certain situations I think the way we are using drone strikes in a wholesale fashion in the Middle East is a horrible way to wage war. It leaves us in an uncertain state casualty wise and allows the potential to just keep the war going on forever. Contrary to what you may believe I am not a war monger and I don’t like war any more than you do. I have seen it first hand and believe me it is something that I would never wish any anyone else ever!

In fact it is not people like me that are escalating and defending the Drone Strikes. It is the Obama Administration!! He pulled the troops out too early and didn’t allow them to finish the job they had started and now he is trying to cover his mistakes. A quote from your very own article.

Under the Obama administration, many of these targeted killings have been carried out using unmanned drones. Despite the high number of civilian casualties and criticism that the program lacks transparency, President Barack Obama has repeatedly defended the strikes.

I think reports of the casualties in drone strikes varies wildly from source to source but your second source is just way off base. Its to be expected from a controversial left wing source such as telesurtv.

In fact what I have said about my moral standing is not that I have the ability to judge other societies in a wholesale fashion like the Arab nations. I do not agree with some of their ways but that’s ok. They are just not my ways. I have no place to tell them they are wrong. What I do have the ability to morally judge, though, is those few radical groups inside Islam (or any other large group for that matter) that employ genocide, bigotry, hate, terror, racism and misogyny as a way of life and typically use violence and oppression against innocent bystanders and civilians to further their agenda. I hope you don’t mean to tell me that you would stand by as another man raped a woman in front of you and do nothing because, after all his ways are not your ways and you have no ability to judge your moral standing against his? I need no more proof than that of one’s ability to judge specific actions of others or justify my intervention in morally deplorable acts against others.

TheDude wrote: Now tell me exactly what you think an American would do if our innocent civilians were being slaughtered like that.

Uhh, in case you haven’t noticed Innocent American Civilians ARE being slaughtered like that!!! I don’t see them rising up in vigilante groups and attacking Muslims in the streets or kidnapping innocent tourists and cutting off their heads of flying to Arab nations and overtaking planes and crashing them into State Buildings. Instead they are looking to other solutions to solve the issue. Some want military solutions and others want more peaceful or diplomatic solutions like you may be speaking of. But the one thing Americans are NOT doing is running rampant in the streets taking over cities and killing innocent civilians or blowing themselves up in the name of American retribution to Arab aggression.

Are you now going to try and restate “Well, we started it” right? Don’t bother, Please reread my previous post. And I’m not saying that we have not committed actions that have been questionable. The drone strikes I talk about above are an example. But what I am saying is that much of what we have done in those nations has been either in support of our allies or at the request of those nations themselves. It is not the Arab states that are the issue, it is the radical extremist few that use hate as a way of life and oppression and violence as a means to an end. It’s the hate and oppression and violence against other human beings that needs to stop, not the eradication of Islam or any Islamic states. I just want to make that perfectly clear once again.

Senan wrote: If they are in fact a sub-culture with organized leadership command structure, agreed upon tenets, cohesive and specific objectives and a unified goal of creating their caliphate (I have no evidence to believe otherwise), why would we consider them any less capable of checking and balancing their behavior the way Americans do?

Senan, all i can say is to please, if you havent already, please read the news reports and the testimonials from escapees and surviving victims

there is no reason to believe that they will check themselves, because they arent checking themselves

this is not so much towards you Senan, but in general i feel like people are ignoring the facts of what daesh is doing

it seems to me as if my using the words "rape" and "murder" as evidence of wrongdoing is somehow more distasteful to some people than the actual rape and murder; like me calling it wrong is more offensive to some than the fact that it is happening

im not talking about muslims or iraqis or afghans or arabs or even "terrorists"
i am talking about one specific group of people who call themselves the islamic state, and the specific religious leader (lunatic) who has set himself up as caliph and changed his name to abu bakr
which would be like someone taking the name paul of tarsus, or moses, and forming a religious death cult around himself and his interpretation of the Bible or the Torah



and there are quite a lot of sources offering quite a lot of examples of their brutality

Senan wrote: Perhaps raping and murdering people is acceptable in their culture now, but the culture will eventually mature the way American culture has? Could they not be held to the same standard that we are when it comes to allowing people to agree upon what is and isn't legal/ethical/moral within their culture and time? And if so, do we have the right to impose our rule of law on a sub-culture clearly capable of establishing their own just because we disagree with it?

by this line of reasoning, every murderer and every rapist everywhere should be allowed to rape and murder until they mature to the point they no longer want to rape and murder

if this principle logically applies to a culture who is reaching out and attacking other cultures which are near to it, why wouldnt it also apply to an individual who roams around his or her city attacking other individuals?

and by extension to all individuals who do such?

its basically suggesting the that the "rights" of the criminals to figure out how to be decent people on their own are more important than the rights of the victims to not be raped and tortured and murdered

Senan wrote: I ask because if they are bent on rape and murder (which I agree many seem to be), who among them decides whom you can rape or murder and whom you can't? I know that Sharia law comes into play, and if that's the ethical system they choose to use and they all agree, are they all wrong?

yes, they are all wrong; every single on of them
and everyone else who says its ok to rape and murder entire villages of helpless people is wrong, regardless of their nationality or their cultural upbringing

might i be equally wrong if i had lived their life?
very possible
does that mean it isnt really wrong?
no

Senan wrote: Those they murder would likely say they are wrong, but it is up to those people to defend their own culture, society and ethical system.

if i understand the point being made here, it is that it is the responsibility of victims to prevent themselves from being victimized?

if that is the point in the above statement, would you like to live with this line of reasoning applied to your own society?
to your own family and your own neighborhood?

Senan wrote: I guess I just get very confused by the Catch 22 of recognizing daesh as an organized and cohesive culture with defined leadership while at the same time claiming they are incapable of developing ethical or moral behavior that works for them.

they have; their ethical system is that everyone who doesnt submit to their caliphate is an infidel and deserves to be killed or enslaved

by all accounts, thats their ethical system

Senan wrote: Clearly they believe that they are righteous in this quest. It just seems that their morality and ethics do not mesh well with their neighbors. At some point we can step in to defend those neighbor nations who ask for our help, but what of those who do not want American involvement or consider us an enemy as well?

this really does take us into area beyond what is politically practical: imo genocide is a situation where the USA should definitely be willing to play "world police"

theres a long list of genocides around the world in which we could have made a great deal of difference, but we didnt because we didnt have a direct vested interest

i would make the case that we should interfere simply because its the right thing to do, but thats not a position which the decision makers are buying, up to this point

HOWEVER, daesh has openly declared that america and the west are its enemies and it is active in efforts to cause our citizens harm

does anyone reading feel that to be up for debate?

Senan wrote: What comes to those loyal to daesh who desire to live in this new caliphate under their chosen ethical system? Would they not all end up fighting among themselves, raping and murdering each other?

you mean after theyve wiped out all of their neighbors, and all of their rivals, (which includes us) and the only ones left to devour are themselves?

maybe, but thats a lot of dead people to get through before we see it, and we happen to be some of those people

Kyrin,
I don't believe that to be the case. Not only has war in general been on decline in recent history, but some nations -- not small, insignificant nations, but economically important ones -- operate entirely without their own military. There's a reason why the current fight is against relatively small extremist groups. And both Al Qaeda and ISIS are relatively small, compared to the nations we've fought alongside and against in the past. I reject the notion that war is inherent based on the current trends toward pacifism that we see many nations taking part in. In terms of countries actually going to war with each other, it's not exactly happening at an alarming rate. For the most part, countries have learned to respect each others' borders. The very fact that this thread exists shows that the military engagements we're involved in right now may not even fit into the definition of war, or at least certainly not well enough for there to be clear agreement on the subject. If we continue to operate in this way, world peace is a VERY viable option and more than that, given the economic dependence between countries in the global marketplace and world economy, I'd say that world peace is not only viable but highly likely within my lifetime (world peace I'd define as a period without military conflict between nations).

Yes, American citizens are getting slaughtered. But that's by other Americans. Not foreign invaders. There may have been a few cases of foreigners committing mass shootings in America, but last year -- when there were more mass shootings on record than there are days in a year -- I'm pretty sure all of it (but am absolutely sure that the VAST majority of it) was done by US citizens (within the US). There isn't exactly a central figure, organization, or group for the American people to rally against. Besides their own government. But given the history of authoritarian culture here in America, I doubt we'll see any revolution happen any time soon. According to what I can find, less than 10,000 American soldiers died in both Iraq and Afghanistan combined. As of December 23, 2015, 12,942 American citizens died in the US due to gun violence. That's one year compared to the entire duration of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Am I really supposed to worry about a terrorist threat when a week of gun violence in the US kills more people than a terrorist attack?

Please don't attempt to strawman me by using examples such as someone raping someone else. I believe my position on self defense and justified aid to assist others in their own self-defense was made clear. My argument was never that "we started it", my argument is that our actions in the middle east have contributed to anti-American propaganda and anti-Westernism, which contribute to terrorism. By committing terrible actions, we create enemies. It doesn't matter who started it. Who started it has never been of any importance to me -- two wrongs don't make a right. I'm only saying that we contributed, and that it's easy to see that contribution. Our country bears moral responsibility for that, and we as citizens of this country who literally hand our money to politicians who commit these actions are also morally responsible for the actions of our country. Those drone strikes wouldn't have happened if the American people refused to allow them to happen.


Adder,
I picked the article mainly to demonstrate that the conclusion of the US's responsibility is one that's easy to reach. Its bias is what I'm trying to demonstrate. But the author of that article likely wasn't personally affected by the actions of the US like some others who might have been driven to join organizations such as Al Qaeda as a result of their experience combined with propaganda from those kinds of organizations. I don't mean specifically anti-American propaganda, though that surely is plentiful, but general anti-Western, anti-non-radical-Islam propaganda seems like an inevitable result of some of our actions in the middle east.
I believe this is a far better paper from Princeton:
https://www.princeton.edu/~ppns/papers/robichaudAAwithappend.pdf

My point is perhaps more eloquently made on the second page, and since it's 52 pages long I'll just quote the bit I wanted to point out below.

Within the existing empirical limitations, we will assert some basic observations:
a) In the past six years, the period covered by the Pew data set, there has been a
rise in reported anti-American sentiment around the world, especially in Europe
and the Middle East.
b) In the past seven years, the period covered by the RAND-MIPT data set, there
has been a rise in terrorist violence in the greater Middle East.
c) The relationship between these two factors is complex and difficult to measure,
but some correlation is likely.
d) Facilitating conditions are key in translating anti-Americanism into antiAmerican
violence.
e) A large part of both the rise in violence and the rise in reported antiAmericanism
is explained by factors related to Iraq: the decision to invade, the
war, and the ongoing occupation.
f) Antagonism toward America constitutes a major impediment to suppressing the
Iraq insurgency.
g) Three other factors also contribute to these trends: the demonstration effect of
9/11, the intifada, and the “Global War on Terror.”

In the France thread I wrote a half-decent reply, but this thread kinda seems to be covering the same topic.

In my opinion, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George H.W Bush and the rest of them deserve to be the prime targets, not ISIS. Remember that the United States intervention in Afghanistan in the 70's led to ISIS and Al-Quaeda. These men have committed more crimes than ISIS. These men have spilt more blood than ISIS. It is wrong that we are led by men like these. Puppets of corporate America. Thank you.

Silas Mercury wrote: In my opinion, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George H.W Bush and the rest of them deserve to be the prime targets, not ISIS. Remember that the United States intervention in Afghanistan in the 70's led to ISIS and Al-Quaeda. These men have committed more crimes than ISIS. These men have spilt more blood than ISIS. It is wrong that we are led by men like these. Puppets of corporate America. Thank you.

No I don't remember that. You can't just make sweeping statements without backing them up with any real facts and expect anyone to actually buy it. Try again with some real facts next time. And please no liberalist VOX videos. Instead I would like to hear some honest, well thought out commentary, not the avocation of violence against our nations leaders thinly veiled in leftist rants.

Dude,

I would concede that war may be on the decline. In fact I have never said it’s on the increase but I think the reason some nations, (Japan for example) do not have strong militaries is because they are protected by other countries that do have strong militaries. Even with that being the case, the fact that North Korea seems to be testing the waters with Japan is a sign that the show of deterrence will last only so long before force will have to be enacted. What I am saying is that we are a LONG way from any state of world peace if we can ever really achieve that. Just as you, I would love to see our planet in that state. However realistically speaking I just don’t think we will ever fully get there. Many conflicts are not between nations but between factions of a single nation in civil wars or even racial like black/white conflicts or classes of people like the current Blacks vs cops conflicts going on or even civil like the “War on Drugs” that has killed countless numbers. Here is just one list of current armed conflicts going on in the world. It’s actually quite staggering to look at.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

I don’t want to see the increase in armed conflict any more than you and I would love to see world peace. But conflict is always going to be a part of who we are. Conventional wars are but a fraction of they types of conflict we experience as a species. We as individuals and societies and tribes and races are ALWAYS going to have disagreements and because we are creatures of great passion and emotion, sometimes those disagreements will erupt into violence. I’m just a realist that believes we as imperfect, emotional beings should always strive for peace but will never fully achieve it. But it’s not the goal that’s as important as the journey. Basically meaning we should never give up the pursuit of peace. We will just have to achieve that through conflict at times.

As well, you are right that Americans are being slaughtered by other Americans but that has no bearing on the fact that they are also being slaughtered by Terrorists. The World Trade Center attack alone killed 3000 and injured 6000 more. More people died there than in the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese in WWII. ISIS is running rampant across the globe right now killing without regard to anything outside their narrow view of the world. Look at this list of ISIS led attacks in 2016 alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_linked_to_ISIL#2016

Many, many Americans have been killed in any number of these attacks!! The numbers are staggering and I for one am ready to visit fire on fire and end it. These people know no other way than violence and it will take violent means to stop them. And it is sad to say but this is something that will never be totally eradicated in us as a species. There will always be conflict and there will always be a path to save more lives through violent means to end that conflict than through peaceful ones.

And yes, specific actions on our part may have created some enemies. But lets be fair, actions on their part also creates enemies. As well reactions on both sides can create enemies. How you handle yourself in the face of conflict speaks a great deal as well. Did those that felt attacked or mistreated ever even try to use peaceful means to resolve an issue or did they immediately jump to violence? In that violence did they only attack military targets or did they go after innocent civilians in terror campaigns designed to inflict more fear and hatred and violence on a global scale?

Actions on our part were never designed to create enemies or invite violence. Its not like we went over there and said "Well fuck you, were gonna do what we want". Our actions over the years were measured ones in support of allies or those that we felt were in the best interest off all nations involved. And yes that can be a subjective thing and hind site is 2020 but that does not mean we went over there as warmongers looking for a fight like many try to depict us as.

Do you feel that we should not have supported the United Nations in the creation of the state of Israel?
Do you feel that we should not have supported the Afghan fighters in the war against Russia?
Do you feel that we should not have supported our ally Saudia Arabia when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

These are the events that have so pissed of a few radical extremist's so much they have left normal lives and formed into militant terrorist bands and now roam the world indiscriminately killing anyone who does not believe as they do.