On the Mechanics of Defamation

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's not a preemptive issue.

If his/her crime is in the past, the punishment may follow.  And if it is one gunman, the punishment should be applied to him.  One man...one crime...one punishment.

This is the problem when we get to talking about terrorists and 9/11 or 7/7.  We talk about populations when we should be talking about 1, 2, or 19 individuals.  Terrorism is an act, not a person.

Yes it is a preemptive issue, if you have a Police officer been called to such a situation, which happens often, knowing the actions of previous gunmen who are randomly shooting people.
We are talking about about 20 thousand actually in ISIS, no small figure.

Preemption is not about responding...to anything.  Preemption is about first strike, as they used to say during the Cold War.  Your compatriot nicko puts it candidly: "Do unto others as they would do unto you,------------only do it first!!"  He understands quite well; shouldn't you?  If you want to explore the theoretical aspects of preemption, which was a major subject of political science during the period of the Cold War, read Thomas Schilling, The Strategy of Conflict.

All of your attempts to slice the issue in order to fit your square peg into the round hole, are in fact changing the subject.  The issue is killing for belief...leave it at that: force vs. thought.  We are not talking about soldiers during a war making difficult decisions, nor are we talking about a policeman responding to condition of preexisting violence.  Those are all examples of situations dealing with force vs. force.  Harris is specific:  “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.”  The issue announced by Harris is force vs. belief, and that is what is offensive to people.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Yes it is a preemptive issue, if you have a Police officer been called to such a situation, which happens often, knowing the actions of previous gunmen who are randomly shooting people.
We are talking about about 20 thousand actually in ISIS, no small figure.

Preemption is not about responding...to anything.  Preemption is about first strike, as they used to say during the Cold War.  Your compatriot nicko puts it candidly: "Do unto others as they would do unto you,------------only do it first!!"  He understands quite well; shouldn't you?  If you want to explore the theoretical aspects of preemption, which was a major subject of political science during the period of the Cold War, read Thomas Schilling, The Strategy of Conflict.

All of your attempts to slice the issue in order to fit your square peg into the round hole, are in fact changing the subject.  The issue is killing for belief...leave it at that: force vs. thought.  We are not talking about soldiers during a war making difficult decisions, nor are we talking about a policeman responding to condition of preexisting violence.  Those are all examples of situations dealing with force vs. force.  Harris is specific:  “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them.”  The issue announced by Harris is force vs. belief, and that is what is offensive to people.

Making things up as you go along again Quill where again I notice you avoided my points especially with the Yanks and Japanese in WW2, which was an excellent example to this very point where still and what is even worse you have failed to even understand his point and take on his point where you took one sentence and made a poor decision from.  Yes we are talking about war here, where it would be ethical to stop those who would evade capture and hide, which again shows you did not read any of what he stated. So this is about arguing if it is ethical for opposing soldiers to kill them, if they cannot capture them, which again points very well to where many Yank soldiers came to the same conclusion based off saving lives
Yes again he is very specific, that only if they cannot be captured, where again where you ignorantly ignore, he states, it "may" be ethical only if they cannot be captured, because these people are willing to die the point you glaringly miss at every turn.
Saving lives by taking out the opposing forces, if they cannot be captured is ethical on every turn
Take offence, you ignore the fact they are committing genocide and where again if they cannot be captured it has every justification of killing them, as they are indiscriminately killing others, so your ethical view point has sunk faster than the Bismark


At every turn you have just looked at one sentence not what was fully stated, showing why you have gotten this poorly and utterly wrong, a growing trend with you these days Quill and as stated before as bad as those that read a verse without taking into everything stated into context.

Try again

Here it is explained again for you Quill:



Here is the statement in context (p. 52−53):

The power that belief has over our emotional lives appears to be total. For every emotion that you are capable of feeling, there is surely a belief that could invoke it in a matter of moments. Consider the following proposition:
Your daughter is being slowly tortured in an English jail.
What is it that stands between you and the absolute panic that such a proposition would loose in the mind and body of a person who believed it? Perhaps you do not have a daughter, or you know her to be safely at home, or you believe that English jailors are renowned for their congeniality. Whatever the reason, the door to belief has not yet swung upon its hinges.
The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

There is an endnote to this passage that reads:

We do not have to bring the membership of Al Qaeda “to justice” merely because of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. The thousands of men, women, and children who disappeared in the rubble of the World Trade Center are beyond our help—and successful acts of retribution, however satisfying they may be to some people, will not change this fact. Our subsequent actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of Al Qaeda are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs. The horror of Sept. 11 should motivate us, not because it provides us with a grievance that we now must avenge, but because it proves beyond any possibility of doubt that certain twenty-first-century Muslims actually believe the most dangerous and implausible tenets of their faith.

The larger context of this passage is a philosophical and psychological analysis of belief as an engine of behavior—and the link to behavior is the whole point of the discussion. Why would it be ethical to drop a bomb on the leaders of ISIS at this moment? Because of all the harm they’ve caused? No. Killing them will do nothing to alleviate that harm. It would be ethical to kill these men—once again, only if we couldn’t capture them—because of all the death and suffering they intend to cause in the future. Why do they intend this? Because of what they believe about infidels, apostates, women, paradise, prophecy, America, and so forth.
Aslan and Greenwald know that nowhere in my work do I suggest that we kill harmless people for thought crimes. And yet they (along with several of their colleagues) are doing their best to spread this lie about me. Nearly every other comment they’ve made about my work is similarly misleading.

The only issue that I can take with that is that what ISIS has done is a far better ethical justification for dropping a bomb on their heads than any conjecture (however well-founded) about what they might do in the future. For that matter, there are ex-terrorists, ex-skinheads, etc. -- not everyone who ever espoused a murderous ideology goes on to support it for the rest of their lives.

The point about killing if you can't capture -- it seems to me that he's just over-explaining an obvious point. Of course if someone is in the act of shooting people and can't be reasoned with, it's ethical to shoot them in order to protect everyone else. I don't think we need essays explaining why this is true.

Didge wrote:Making things up as you go along again Quill where again I notice you avoided my points especially with the Yanks and Japanese in WW2, which was an excellent example to this very point where still and what is even worse you have failed to even understand his point and take on his point where you took one sentence and made a poor decision from.

I won’t bother to repeat myself. Read more carefully.

Didge wrote:Yes we are talking about war here, where it would be ethical to stop those who would evade capture and hide, which again shows you did not read any of what he stated. So this is about arguing if it is ethical for opposing soldiers to kill them, if they cannot capture them, which again points very well to where many Yank soldiers came to the same conclusion based off saving lives
Yes again he is very specific, that only if they cannot be captured, where again where you ignorantly ignore, he states, it "may" be ethical only if they cannot be captured, because these people are willing to die the point you glaringly miss at every turn.
Saving lives by taking out the opposing forces, if they cannot be captured is ethical on every turn

In war the conditions are entirely different. Just as there is very little room for violence in times of peace, there is very little room for peace during times of war. The ethics of ad bellum are often the reverse in bello. When an act of violence or conflict is ethical and just is entirely different from when an act of violence is expected.

You completely ignore the distinction between ad bellum and in bello. The problem becomes even greater when speaking of populations…which is where you are heading. While not conceding that the thoughts of an individual justify any violence, you appear to forget that the mind of a population does not rationalize. Only the individual rationalizes. Yet, you would use this premise to justify genocide. Take a look…

Didge wrote:Take offence, you ignore the fact they are committing genocide and where again if they cannot be captured it has every justification of killing them, as they are indiscriminately killing others, so your ethical view point has sunk faster than the Bismark

Game, set, match.

Ben_Reilly wrote:The only issue that I can take with that is that what ISIS has done is a far better ethical justification for dropping a bomb on their heads than any conjecture (however well-founded) about what they might do in the future. For that matter, there are ex-terrorists, ex-skinheads, etc. -- not everyone who ever espoused a murderous ideology goes on to support it for the rest of their lives.

The point about killing if you can't capture -- it seems to me that he's just over-explaining an obvious point. Of course if someone is in the act of shooting people and can't be reasoned with, it's ethical to shoot them in order to protect everyone else. I don't think we need essays explaining why this is true.

Yes they only time they will stop is when there is no more opposition.
Are you seriously now believing they will stop, sorry that is utterly naive Ben, where they will only  stop when in total control? This also avoids what they are doing now, which means sitting back being inactive allowing people to die unnecessarily, when we can actually do something about it.
Well it seems some people do need explanations to get the point home but at least you now see if someone is shooting people and is not going to or willing to be captured, what do you do?
Kill them.
What this actually shows is how badly some on here are not even understanding the belief system around ISIS itself.
This goes back again to my point on the rational and logical thing to do when dealing with a real threat, you eradicate the problem, where innear all aspects of your life we follow this principle.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Making things up as you go along again Quill where again I notice you avoided my points especially with the Yanks and Japanese in WW2, which was an excellent example to this very point where still and what is even worse you have failed to even understand his point and take on his point where you took one sentence and made a poor decision from.

I won’t bother to repeat myself.  Read more carefully.

Didge wrote:Yes we are talking about war here, where it would be ethical to stop those who would evade capture and hide, which again shows you did not read any of what he stated. So this is about arguing if it is ethical for opposing soldiers to kill them, if they cannot capture them, which again points very well to where many Yank soldiers came to the same conclusion based off saving lives
Yes again he is very specific, that only if they cannot be captured, where again where you ignorantly ignore, he states, it "may" be ethical only if they cannot be captured, because these people are willing to die the point you glaringly miss at every turn.
Saving lives by taking out the opposing forces, if they cannot be captured is ethical on every turn

In war the conditions are entirely different.  Just as there is very little room for violence in times of peace, there is very little room for peace during times of war.  The ethics of ad bellum are often the reverse in bello.  When an act of violence or conflict is ethical and just is entirely different from when an act of violence is expected.

You completely ignore the distinction between ad bellum and in bello.  The problem becomes even greater when speaking of populations…which is where you are heading.  While not conceding that the thoughts of an individual justify any violence, you appear to forget that the mind of a population does not rationalize.  Only the individual rationalizes.  Yet, you would use this premise to justify genocide.  Take a look…

Didge wrote:Take offence, you ignore the fact they are committing genocide and where again if they cannot be captured it has every justification of killing them, as they are indiscriminately killing others, so your ethical view point has sunk faster than the Bismark

Game, set, match.

Ha Ha h ah, er, lets recap there is a war going on at the moment.
First of all as I already explained in every natural and rational view point of a real threat you eradicate the problem that would be kill or capture. Again what do you do with vermin destroying your crops Quill?
This is not about a population but those who follow an extreme belief not afraid to die in this cause, all of which you ignore and fail to even comprehend or understand/ The ethical thing to do in saving lives is to kill or capture those taking lives, as is done by many Police forces, armies in war, exterminators against pests, all real threats, of which if you argue there is no threat to people now actually dying you are off your head insane.

Oh dear

Check mate

Right lets explain easily how badly you have gotten what is stated as wrong:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Now how many extremist Muslims and far right people take this verse out of context?
Many to the point they believe it means to kill any non_Muslim, which is wrong on many points because many people are exempt from this tax and this is a verse in regards to those not paying the tax under Muslim rule.

You do the same here like a simpleton again ignoring every point he makes and take out of context, where again he is better qualified than you will ever be on the topic, if you think otherwise I double dare you to go to his site and email him and argue this out and we can all enjoy watching you fall badly Quill.

So the challenge is on, you up to getting your arse whooped?

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:The only issue that I can take with that is that what ISIS has done is a far better ethical justification for dropping a bomb on their heads than any conjecture (however well-founded) about what they might do in the future. For that matter, there are ex-terrorists, ex-skinheads, etc. -- not everyone who ever espoused a murderous ideology goes on to support it for the rest of their lives.

The point about killing if you can't capture -- it seems to me that he's just over-explaining an obvious point. Of course if someone is in the act of shooting people and can't be reasoned with, it's ethical to shoot them in order to protect everyone else. I don't think we need essays explaining why this is true.

Yes they only time they will stop is when there is no more opposition.
Are you seriously now believing they will stop, sorry that is utterly naive Ben, where they will only  stop when in total control? This also avoids what they are doing now, which means sitting back being inactive allowing people to die unnecessarily, when we can actually do something about it.
Well it seems some people do need explanations to get the point home but at least you now see if someone is shooting people and is not going to or willing to be captured, what do you do?
Kill them.
What this actually shows is how badly some on here are not even understanding the belief system around ISIS itself.
This goes back again to my point on the rational and logical thing to do when dealing with a real threat, you eradicate the problem, where innear all aspects of your life we follow this principle.

We are talking about a population...Iraq and Levant.

We are talking about some belief system, which you refuse to discuss.

Yet you posit that belief as a predicate for genocide.

Perhaps you should begin by addressing those three points.

Original Quill wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Yes they only time they will stop is when there is no more opposition.
Are you seriously now believing they will stop, sorry that is utterly naive Ben, where they will only  stop when in total control? This also avoids what they are doing now, which means sitting back being inactive allowing people to die unnecessarily, when we can actually do something about it.
Well it seems some people do need explanations to get the point home but at least you now see if someone is shooting people and is not going to or willing to be captured, what do you do?
Kill them.
What this actually shows is how badly some on here are not even understanding the belief system around ISIS itself.
This goes back again to my point on the rational and logical thing to do when dealing with a real threat, you eradicate the problem, where innear all aspects of your life we follow this principle.

We are talking about a population...Iraq and Levant.

We are talking about some belief system, which you refuse to discuss.

Yet you posit that belief as a predicate for genocide.

Perhaps you should begin by addressing those three points.

Genocide is already taking place, which you ignore and where it happened before, where the point was kill or capture, many Germans were killed or captured, so we are not talking about genocide because again the attempt is to kill or capture, the point you miss again. One that is natural to eradicate a problem. Many people in Iraq and Syria are dying at the hands of this newly formed population of around 20,000 called ISIS.
The need of millions outweigh the needs of 20,000, based on saving many lives.
The reality is you do not even understand the belief system, which is where you have failed to address at any point.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:The only issue that I can take with that is that what ISIS has done is a far better ethical justification for dropping a bomb on their heads than any conjecture (however well-founded) about what they might do in the future. For that matter, there are ex-terrorists, ex-skinheads, etc. -- not everyone who ever espoused a murderous ideology goes on to support it for the rest of their lives.

The point about killing if you can't capture -- it seems to me that he's just over-explaining an obvious point. Of course if someone is in the act of shooting people and can't be reasoned with, it's ethical to shoot them in order to protect everyone else. I don't think we need essays explaining why this is true.

Yes they only time they will stop is when there is no more opposition.
Are you seriously now believing they will stop, sorry that is utterly naive Ben, where they will only  stop when in total control? This also avoids what they are doing now, which means sitting back being inactive allowing people to die unnecessarily, when we can actually do something about it.
Well it seems some people do need explanations to get the point home but at least you now see if someone is shooting people and is not going to or willing to be captured, what do you do?
Kill them.
What this actually shows is how badly some on here are not even understanding the belief system around ISIS itself.
This goes back again to my point on the rational and logical thing to do when dealing with a real threat, you eradicate the problem, where innear all aspects of your life we follow this principle.

Where did I say I think they're going to stop?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Yes they only time they will stop is when there is no more opposition.
Are you seriously now believing they will stop, sorry that is utterly naive Ben, where they will only  stop when in total control? This also avoids what they are doing now, which means sitting back being inactive allowing people to die unnecessarily, when we can actually do something about it.
Well it seems some people do need explanations to get the point home but at least you now see if someone is shooting people and is not going to or willing to be captured, what do you do?
Kill them.
What this actually shows is how badly some on here are not even understanding the belief system around ISIS itself.
This goes back again to my point on the rational and logical thing to do when dealing with a real threat, you eradicate the problem, where innear all aspects of your life we follow this principle.

Where did I say I think they're going to stop?

Maybe not say, but infer.
not everyone who ever espoused a murderous ideology goes on to support it for the rest of their lives.

This group has many goals, one to eradicate or convert Shia Muslims, there is no middle ground and they will not stop until complete, that is the belief system they have. If one IS follower or followers walks away, will the belief system IS has go away?
No

I think you have some bad information, Didge. There is no genocide taking place over there right now. Elias Kasem, a Phoenix-based Yazidi community leader, who has family in Iraq, warns that "It is an imminent genocide if the international powers do not step in right now ..." But he speaks of it as a prospective possibility, not something on-going or foregone.

And he's about as far out as it gets.

There a number of people who have been displaced as a result of the fighting, but to date no genocide. Perhaps you meant to refer to displaced persons.

Original Quill wrote:I think you have some bad information, Didge.  There is no genocide taking place over there right now.  Elias Kasem, a Phoenix-based Yazidi community leader, who has family in Iraq, warns that "It is an imminent genocide if the international powers do not step in right now ..."  But he speaks of it as a prospective possibility, not something on-going or foregone.

And he's about as far out as it gets.  

There a number of people who have been displaced as a result of the fighting, but to date no genocide.  Perhaps you meant to refer to displaced persons.

Wrong:



A United Nations report highlighting the human rights violations of the Islamic State's jihadist campaign in Iraq found that while over 24,000 Iraqi civilians have been injured or killed by ISIS in the first eight months of 2014, and the extremists have taken up the practices of recruiting 12- and 13-year-old soldiers and forcing women and girls into sex slavery.

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in conjunction with the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq released a report last Thursday that investigated ISIS' violations of human rights by conducting interviews with over 500 internally displaced witnesses. The witnesses told the UN investigators of the atrocious ways in which the terrorists were killing, kidnapping and persecuting citizens of all religious beliefs, including those holding ISIS' own faith of Sunni Islam.

Using information obtained from a variety of governmental, non-governmental and local media sources, the report states that in the first eight months of 2014, ISIS terrorist and militants from associated groups have killed approximately 8,493 Iraqi civilians, while injuring 15,782.


I need not say anymore when the vast majority of the world is against this genocidal group, who you seem to neglect that one of its sole purposes is the eradication of Shia and any other Muslim sect and subjucate others. Not only this women and girls and being sold into slavery, just about different crimes that all would be at odds with your liberal left wing view.

Anyway your argument hinges on no war, no threat and genocide, all of which is a reality to the many people of the regions. Even worse you fail to understand also the rational and natural thing to do with a real threat is to eradicate it!
Though even worse you ignore the coontext of what Sma stated

UN says ISIS has carried out atrocities on ‘an unimaginable scale’ in Iraq

http://warincontext.org/2014/09/01/un-says-isis-has-carried-out-atrocities-on-an-unimaginable-scale-in-iraq/

I don't think so.  It would be in the papers.  I doubt the NY Times or the Washington Post would ignore such news.

For example, with Burma, their were daily reports.  I'm sure there are deaths associated with war and fighting, but that is different than genocide.

I don't think someone announcing "...they are oozing with barbarity," is a very precise reporter. I've got money that says he is part of the Shi'ia government, opposing the ISIL.

Original Quill wrote:I don't think so.  It would be in the papers.  I doubt the NY Times or the Washington Post would ignore such news.

For example, with Burma, their were daily reports.  I'm sure there are deaths associated with war and fighting, but that is different than genocide.

Well you must be missing the news the amount of times I have heard about people being executed.


Isil commits human rights atrocities on 'staggering' scale, says UN
Islamic State jihadists are committing such staggering atrocities in Iraq that they could amount to war crimes, says United Nations rights chief

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11137075/Isil-commits-human-rights-atrocities-on-staggering-scale-says-UN.html

Islamic State committing 'staggering' crimes in Iraq: U.N. report

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/02/us-mideast-crisis-un-idUSKCN0HR0R120141002




UN body to probe Islamic State crimes in Iraq
Human Rights Council decides to send team to investigate abuses and crimes, including massacres and forced conversions.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/un-rights-body-probe-crimes-iraq-20149120421507672.html

Well, the news is all over the beheadings and such. But genocide, no. Even your articles speak of 'atrocities,' but not genocide.

And...your articles have all the appearance of plants. I'm guessing...these are reports of some former Shi'ia government players trying to arouse some western country to come fight their battles for them.

We've been seeing that for the past twelve years.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Yes they only time they will stop is when there is no more opposition.
Are you seriously now believing they will stop, sorry that is utterly naive Ben, where they will only  stop when in total control? This also avoids what they are doing now, which means sitting back being inactive allowing people to die unnecessarily, when we can actually do something about it.
Well it seems some people do need explanations to get the point home but at least you now see if someone is shooting people and is not going to or willing to be captured, what do you do?
Kill them.
What this actually shows is how badly some on here are not even understanding the belief system around ISIS itself.
This goes back again to my point on the rational and logical thing to do when dealing with a real threat, you eradicate the problem, where innear all aspects of your life we follow this principle.

Where did I say I think they're going to stop?

Maybe not say, but infer.
not everyone who ever espoused a murderous ideology goes on to support it for the rest of their lives.

This group has many goals, one to eradicate or convert Shia Muslims, there is no middle ground and they will not stop until complete, that is the belief system they have. If one IS follower or followers walks away, will the belief system IS has go away?
No

There's no grounds to infer that I think ISIS is going to (as a whole) deviate from its agenda. But we have seen people who have turned away from extremism of all kinds -- there are ex-terrorists, ex-neo-Nazis, etc.

But let's look at actual solutions. One of the things that has shown to work best in getting people like ISIS to turn away from violence has been kindness -- which you recently posted about. What if we really did "turn the other cheek" and showed kindness to violent people? Well, we've seen what happens.

We also know that even questionable groups won support not through killing, but through being kind to people:

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has built considerable grass-roots support by providing much needed social services in impoverished areas. Such activities have earned it a reputation for competence and honesty, often in contrast to the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), popularly perceived as self-serving and corrupt.

“The brotherhood was extremely popular here, even before the election, because it stands against corruption and its people are honest and respectable,” said Tamer Saeed, a resident of the teeming, low-income Imbaba district of the capital, where two brotherhood candidates savaged their respective opponents from the NDP and independent secular parties.

According to many political observers, the brotherhood’s devotion to social work was the prime driver behind its astounding results in parliamentary elections, held in late 2005. The group managed to capture 88 seats in the People’s Assembly, up from only 15 in the outgoing assembly.

http://www.irinnews.org/report/26150/egyptsocial-programmes-bolster-appeal-of-Muslim-brotherhood

It should be obvious that war (ultimate violence) can't hope to bring about an end to violence. Only kindness can do that; passive resistance and non-violence have proven to be the only strategies that bring about lasting positive change. In "Caesar and Cleopatra," Caesar gives a speech about how the only thing vengeance ever gives rise to is more vengeance, and I think it's about time someone put that lesson into practice in order to stop the cycle of killing.

Yes genocide, where again you are still not grasping their beliefs.

To do that, they are fundamentally born from wahhabism.

Anyway what matters here is you actually recognise your mistake in taking out of context what he said


Have a good day Quill

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Maybe not say, but infer.
not everyone who ever espoused a murderous ideology goes on to support it for the rest of their lives.

This group has many goals, one to eradicate or convert Shia Muslims, there is no middle ground and they will not stop until complete, that is the belief system they have. If one IS follower or followers walks away, will the belief system IS has go away?
No

There's no grounds to infer that I think ISIS is going to (as a whole) deviate from its agenda. But we have seen people who have turned away from extremism of all kinds -- there are ex-terrorists, ex-neo-Nazis, etc.

But let's look at actual solutions. One of the things that has shown to work best in getting people like ISIS to turn away from violence has been kindness -- which you recently posted about. What if we really did "turn the other cheek" and showed kindness to violent people? Well, we've seen what happens.

We also know that even questionable groups won support not through killing, but through being kind to people:

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has built considerable grass-roots support by providing much needed social services in impoverished areas. Such activities have earned it a reputation for competence and honesty, often in contrast to the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), popularly perceived as self-serving and corrupt.

“The brotherhood was extremely popular here, even before the election, because it stands against corruption and its people are honest and respectable,” said Tamer Saeed, a resident of the teeming, low-income Imbaba district of the capital, where two brotherhood candidates savaged their respective opponents from the NDP and independent secular parties.

According to many political observers, the brotherhood’s devotion to social work was the prime driver behind its astounding results in parliamentary elections, held in late 2005. The group managed to capture 88 seats in the People’s Assembly, up from only 15 in the outgoing assembly.

http://www.irinnews.org/report/26150/egyptsocial-programmes-bolster-appeal-of-Muslim-brotherhood

It should be obvious that war (ultimate violence) can't hope to bring about an end to violence. Only kindness can do that; passive resistance and non-violence have proven to be the only strategies that bring about lasting positive change. In "Caesar and Cleopatra," Caesar gives a speech about how the only thing vengeance ever gives rise to is more vengeance, and I think it's about time someone put that lesson into practice in order to stop the cycle of killing.

Again disagree Ben, war and fighting brought changes for the positive for both German and Japan, being the nations they are today, your choices are the best but doe not mean they alone bring about positive change.
The problem is IS are happy to kill, and are indiscriminate and thus why we must support the people on the ground against IS, using support in air strikes.
Also people do turn away from evils, but the belief system will be the same still followed by others


Hav to go, have a good day Ben

You too, Bras.

Any way you look at it, this boils down to the Muslim civil war.  ISIL, which is Sunni, wants a war against the elite of Iraq, which is Shi'ia.  With somewhere between 80% and 90% of the world's Muslims identifying as Sunnis, Sunni Islam is much more common than Shi'ia Islam, but Shi'ias make up the religious majority in a few countries like Iran and Iraq.

When GWB blundered into Iraq in 2003, he broke a Sunni strangle hold over the predominate Shi'ia there.  Saddam ousted, the government was given over to the Shi'ia to run.  Comes now the Sunni (ISIL) back to take over Iraq and the Levant.  That's the civil war of which I speak.

Now the Sunnis don't need us...they have 80-90% of the Muslim world anyway.  So they use the western nations to whip up fervor among their own to march against the Shi'ia in Baghdad.  They'll do anything to get Muslims to hate the west, by beating the drum.  And what better way to do this than bring the coalition forces back (GWB did so well in recruitment for al-Qaeda).

The Shi'ia, on the other hand, are in a distinct minority.  They want the western nations back simply to fight their civil war for them.  They are not strong enough.  So they use articles like the ones you have offered, Didge, to say the Sky is falling!  

It's the same tactic that led them to share the lie that Saddam had WMDs in 2002.  Take a look at one such book, Saddam's Bombmaker: The Daring Escape of the Man Who Built Iraq's Secret Weapon (October 9, 2001), by Khidhir Hamza.  Even back in 1991 these games were being played.

Carrying on, you want to allege genocide Didge, so you go to articles not about genocide, but about atrocities...hoping it will convey the same meaning.  But atrocities are not genocide.  At best, they are great PR for the Sunnis...and while they make us madder than hell, it's great for recruiting for them.

Do we want to stop atrocities...of course, if we can.  Do we want 11 more years of war and $17-trillions more in debt, and be in the same spot then as we are now...mmmmm, maybe not.

Still getting it wrong Quill with not taking on my points or over looking your big error on context.
Gladly the world does not share your view of inaction here.
Thus there is nothing to discuss, unless you wish to engage the points, it seems your only justifiable cause for inaction is money placing money over that of the value of a human and have no need to draw on how placing money above humans would be wrong. Many nations sacrifice parts of their budgets to combat real threats it has gone o for years

The civil war of what you speak, is poor to say the least when this hatred stems from Wahhabism and before. IS an even extremer version of Wahhabism. It would not have matter who on each side ended up in charge, there would have still been the trouble, with those on each side funding for domination. It was only Saddam going that created the arena for each side to exploit.

Well I am sorry but placing it as many Muslims are Sunni and do not need our help when many victims of IS are Sunni also shows how poorly researched your view is, even more so if we turn to Syria.

Conclusion:

Your only valid reason would be money which of course would be morally wrong to use money over humans.

Brasidas wrote:Still getting it wrong Quill with not taking on my points or over looking your big error on context.
Gladly the world does not share your view of inaction here.
Thus there is nothing to discuss, unless you wish to engage the points, it seems your only justifiable cause for inaction is money placing money over that of the value of a human and have no need to draw on how placing money above humans would be wrong. Many nations sacrifice parts of their budgets to combat real threats it has gone o for years

The civil war of what you speak, is poor to say the least when this hatred stems from Wahhabism and before. IS an even extremer version of Wahhabism. It would not have matter who on each side ended up in charge, there would have still been the trouble, with those on each side funding for domination. It was only Saddam going that created the arena for each side to exploit.

Well I am sorry but placing it as many Muslims are Sunni and do not need our help when many victims of IS are Sunni also shows how poorly researched your view is, even more so if we turn to Syria.

Conclusion:

Your only valid reason would be money which of course would be morally wrong to use money over humans.

It's not just money, Didge.  It's wasted time, wasted money, wasted effort...the whole thing is a waste.

These people don't want to have peace.  GWB--albeit, stupidly--blundered into their world and cut loose their civil war.  He took out Saddam and instated Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki...a Shi'ite.  What does he do?  He locks out the Sunnis, just as had been done to his people before.  Now comes the Sunnis in the form of ISIL, and they will do the same.  We--the western nations--could enter the war and I'm sure make a difference temporarily.  But on whose side?  Whichever side we take, we will end up being the bad guy for a substantial part of the population of Iraq and the Levant.

And the plain truth is, we don't really care.

Now, if you think our role will be peacekeeping (so they can finally make up their own minds) consider this: any peace must be internal, inclusive and integrative.  For them--or any of them--to attain peace they will all have to subscribe to something involving these three elements.

Do you see that happening?  I don't...not for a long, long while.  So we go back and spend another 11-years and end up in the same place.  They start all over again, and we are pulled back in and spend yet another 11-years.  Then start all over again.  And over again.  And again...and so on.

These people must want accord on their own.  Right now, they don't.  Their only interests are selfish, each in the manner I have just described in the post above.  They are playing us, and we fall for it every time.  The only effective thing we can do is step back.

Sorry but lets just have this one point shall we addressed before we move on.
How is helping people a waste of time, how is protecting them?

I think the vast majority of people within these region want peace, sadly there is a sizable force who do not.

Brasidas wrote:Sorry but lets just have this one point shall we addressed before we move on.  How is helping people a waste of time, how is protecting them?

It's a waste of time in lots of ways.  If you are not doing any good, you are just over there killing and blowing up and doing bad things.  That's all we did in the GWB Iraqi war.  That's all we are doing in Afghanistan.

Brasidas wrote:I think the vast majority of people within these region want peace, sadly there is a sizable force who do not.

Not to the degree that it makes a difference.  Look at Gaza...looks like mothers, children, families, just trying to get along, eh?  Then they go and vote in Hamas...  Does that sound like the vast majority of the people wanting peace; or does that sound like a people looking for trouble?

What these people want, each, is to have their cake and eat it too.  They want their side to win, and then they want to shut out the other side.  They don't want real peace; they want cessation of hostilities when their side has the advantage.

Frankly, they are just going to have to get beyond that before outsiders can help them.

Again how is saving lives not doing any good?
To be fair on Gaza they only ever had one chance to vote on Hamas who have clung to power since, where again many of them do want peace and many know they made a fundamental mistake in voting in Hamas.

If we can help people and the world is backing this to do so. Then there is no reason why not, only money would be the only reason, which would be absurd and morally wrong to seek to argue against helping save lives verses money.

Brasidas wrote:Again how is saving lives not doing any good?

You are not saving lives. People who call themselves 'peacekeepers' and then shoulder firearms are contradicting themselves. And if we go in there--once again--we will not be saving lives. Let's put that fiction to rest right now.

Brasidas wrote:To be fair on Gaza they only ever had one chance to vote on Hamas who have clung to power since, where again many of them do want peace and many know they made a fundamental mistake in voting in Hamas.

I recognize that too. But the point is they went in that direction. That proves to me that they aren't just little babes in the woods. Mothers and babies and farmers they might be, but they still have a little blackness in their 'innocent' little ole hearts. They knew what they were doing...they wanted a little violence as well.

Brasidas wrote:If we can help people and the world is backing this to do so. Then there is no reason why not, only money would be the only reason, which would be absurd and morally wrong to seek to argue against helping save lives verses money.

No...futility is a better reason than money to stay out. You can't help people who don't want help...or, want the help, but only on conditions that can't be had.

You save lives by countering those who are taking lives, committing atrocities.

It is that simple, what you propose is ridiculous

I have to go, but you have made some fundamental mistakes here.


Bye for now

Brasidas wrote:You save lives by countering those who are taking lives, committing atrocities.

It is that simple, what you propose is ridiculous

I have to go, but you have made some fundamental mistakes here.

Bye for now

There never will be anything simple about it.

Think I'll turn in, too. Nite for now.