Iraq in ruins

[regan is true fullback]

mugwump wrote

Ah, I see your point. I have a lot of sympathy with it, though I suspect it's a slightly theological argument, where the answer depends more upon faith than any evidential proof. I think the important point, though, is that some ideologies marshal human cruelty and sadism, and these are evil. Churchill got this point about Nazism quickly and clearly. Many people are alive and living in democracies today because he did.

you realise that he didn't win the war, he tagged along for the ride? Who actually had the little fascist varmint cowering in his bunker? it was Joe Stalin, the biggest baddest Bolshie of them all with his Red Army. surely this proves that God has a sense of humour...

[Mugwump]

you realise that Churchill didn't win the war, he tagged along for the ride? Who actually had the little fascist varmint cowering in his bunker? it was Joe Stalin, the biggest baddest Bolshie of them all with his Red Army. surely this proves that God has a sense of humour...

Yes,indeed. But without Churchill's defiance in May 1940, there would have been no prospect of the invasion of Western Europe by the Allies. If Britain had agreed terms with Hitler, as many in the British Cabinet wanted that month, Britain was have been demilitarised if not actually reduced to Vichy status. There is then no base for D-Day. After the Soviets and Nazis had finished their mutual barbarities, all Europe would have belonged to one or both. The British Empore would probably have been passed to the Nazis. Churchill had many faults, but his actions in May 1940, at immense risk to his nation, his family and himself, made his faults secondary.

[Mugwump]

^ David, we're probably into the definitional phase of the discussion, which is a sign that it's due for the ashtray. I'm with you that an individual's evil may not be absolute, permanent or all-consuming. As i see it, the word can be just shorthand for a given individual's propensity to act wickedly. On universal moral laws, well, yes, unless one is religious, any such would be a human construct. But when nearly every human has certain preferences - for life, liberty, freedom from pain, etc - i think there is enough to build a universal morality upon, as you do with utliitarianism. We may then use that standard to judge (fallibly, since we are finite beings) the character of another human being based on their actions. That judgement may include their degree of wickedness in action.

[David]

Fair enough. I guess the only significant point I disagree on there is that I don't think we can 'judge' other people because I don't believe humans have free will (and, therefore, I'm in pretty much permanent "there but for the grace of God" territory). But perhaps that doesn't necessarily contradict your argument.

If it is mere semantics, then it's a semantic issue I'm happy to keep championing because I do think "evil" has dehumanising and anti-scientific connotations. But I understand that you see it as serving a more positive purpose.

[think positive]

When you say humans don't have free will, exactly what do you mean?

[pietillidie]

Do we have any solid facts on ISIS yet? The Wikipedia entry reads like it's part of the Little Golden Book for Gullible Dummies Series. Mind you, it was still more informative than what Abbott and Shorten have to say on the matter.

Oh, and apparently they're not the only nutters with a/v of psychopathic behaviour. I wonder if these will ever see the light of day so they can contradict the racist notion of "people like us" being somehow "special": http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/opini ... rture.html

[pietillidie]

Oh, and let's not forget the oil in all this.

I wonder how much of this article is accurate? (Did someone else post this on Nick's recently?)

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... ules-iraq/

[Culprit]

Do we have any solid facts on ISIS yet? The Wikipedia entry reads like it's part of the Little Golden Book for Gullible Dummies Series. Mind you, it was still more informative than what Abbott and Shorten have to say on the matter.

Oh, and apparently they're not the only nutters with a/v of psychopathic behaviour. I wonder if these will ever see the light of day so they can contradict the racist notion of "people like us" being somehow "special": http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/opini ... rture.html

Murdoch is informing us daily. Today an Australian aircraft was attacked mind you not one bullet hit the plane.

[stui magpie]

When you say humans don't have free will, exactly what do you mean?

Oh damn, you had to ask that. I suppose it was predetermined, you had no choice in it.

Interesting observation I heard today about ISIS in relation to the Muslim vs Christian schtick, ISIS have killed a **** more muslims than christians, they just don't consider them muslims. It's like the Irish Catholic vs Protestant (which I'll never understand either).

[David]

[watt price tully]

While I abhor what ISIS is doing (that could be isisis) I'm not too sure this is the best strategy yet for the following reasons:

1. What is the end game here?
2. What is the exit strategy?
3. What will be left after the bombing?
4. Who will be in power?
5. What is Turkey's role in this?
6. How will Turkey react to groups of Kurds being given arms?
7. How do we stop the arms going to those we don't want the arms to go to?
8. If ISIS retreats to Syria what then?

Other questions to be asked include:

* Who is funding ISIS - is it some wealthy individuals in the hierarchy of Saudi Arabia as is mooted? Is it Catarrh? If so why aren't we dealing with them?
* What do we want in Syria - what is the least worst option?
* To what extent does our intervention increase our risk in Australia?

That is why Wilkie & The Greens really did hit the nail on the head here. We need more discussion about our intervention.

[Mugwump]

^ they're good questions, WPT, though a decision may have to be made without answers being available. I certainly doubt that Qatar is involved in funding ISIS, at least at a state-sanctioned level. In my experience, Qataris are pretty much bent on becoming a second UAE, and their prime focus for the last 20 years has been on making money. It's hard to see how a chaotic, murderous insurgency raging across the ME would fit with that strategy. The Saudis have their (family) money already and a different strategy, and one can think of strategic reasons why they might back ISIS.

[think positive]

[think positive]

When you say humans don't have free will, exactly what do you mean?

Oh damn, you had to ask that. I suppose it was predetermined, you had no choice in it.

Interesting observation I heard today about ISIS in relation to the Muslim vs Christian schtick, ISIS have killed a **** more muslims than christians, they just don't consider them muslims. It's like the Irish Catholic vs Protestant (which I'll never understand either).

Hehehehehehehe to the first line!big ZING!

I still reckon all this killing in the name of religion is just a power thing, an excuse to try to be the king of the castle, feeding the ego of silly men. I don't get how people can live next to someone for years, share a BBQ, say merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, or whatever, and then Kill them because they attend a different church. What if there was no religion at all?

After a quick read of an idiots guide to the conflict, wow, 1.8 million people in just 146 square miles. Mostly from refugee settlements from way back in 1948. Being used as human shields from one side and border protection by the other. Those poor people. What an awful awful life to have to lead.

How much of this has to do with the natural gas offshore. And why don't the lives of people, all people, matter more? I don't get it, I just don't get it.

Imagine.


Edit: Oops, I'm in the wrong thread!

But is there any difference?

[David]