Please, do not be hate-baited and lower yourself to their level.
(Red newbie P's = Propaganda)

Reasoning and facts are secondary to anyone who defends this kind of atrocity.

Hey Red P's, repeat after me...
TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, TOTALLY INDEFENSIBLE
...and that's from your closest ally.

Please ignore the flame baiting, do not lower yourself to their level.

Reasoning and facts are secondary to anyone who defends this kind of atrocity.

I do understand that the purpose of Godwin's law is to reduce the worst kinds of hyperbole, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do.

Whatever you think about Israel's policies regarding the Palestinians, referring to it as extermination only shows that you haven't taken the time to understand anything about the current conflict and you are just reacting emotionally to the terrible horror of war. Extermination is the total elimination of a certain population by killing, and such an action is so far beyond the state of oppression we see in Gaza today that I just can't take your comparison seriously.

The only way you bother to support these outlandish statements is by telling me that death is death - no matter what the cause - as if that mindless tautology is enough to render two wildly different sets of circumstances and tactics equivalent.

Should we also call all murders murders and not bother to make distinctions between first degree, second degree, involuntary manslaughter, etc? Should we treat the serial killer the same as the drunken brawler who hit someone too hard in a bar fight?

Of course not. As thinking people we analyze factors such as intent, quantity, severity, remorse, and perhaps most importantly, we consider what measures can possibly be taken to correct the underlying cause. All of these elements are wildly different in the different degrees of murders, and having an honest grasp of these differences helps us understand how we as a society should react to each degree, both in terms of punishment and rehabilitation.

To similar ends, it is very important that we consider analogous distinctions in the different degrees of atrocities between nations or ethnic groups. The fact that it is obvious that I would much rather be in Gaza today than a concentration camp in 1943 is very much so relevant to this sort of analysis. The fact that there is no Israeli intent to exterminate the Palestinians is also relevant.

But if you want to leave the depth of your understanding at "dead is dead" then I guess that's your choice.

It's not just airtime given to Israeli officials, it's the manner in which these interviews are conducted. Channel 4's Jon Snow didn't have any representative for the Palestinian point of view either, just Mark Regev, Netanyahu's spokesman. But he confronted him on the bullshit he was spewing, he put the atrocities right in his face.

US media, on the other hand, gives them free reign to promote their own point of view without any challenge. What about the intentional attacks on hospitals, schools and mosques? What about the bombings of UNWRA schools? What about the bombing run in Khan Younis that reportedly killed 19 children from the Abu Jami’ family? What about the attacks on Al Jazeera?

Plenty of material to challenge the Israelis on, yet they decide to be a one-sided mouthpiece instead.

As I understood it, all Israelis are required to serve in the army and may be recalled to it at any time. To me, that means there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian.
The same can't be said for those trapped in Gaza with no (American made and paid for) missile shield, no shelters, no warning system, no food or water, and no way to leave. You really have to ignore most of the facts to feel bad for Israel here.
It's gratifying that, finally, the world is seeing the unconscionable actions of Israel for what they are instead of blindly supporting them in any atrocity.

Well, you were the one that initially compared your marriage fidelity (or hypothetical lack thereof) to virtuous (or immoral) behaviours. You can't really compare one side (the behaviours) and then complain about a comparison of the (dis)incentives.

Both are systems of reward and punishment. You incentivise desired behaviours and disincentivise undesired ones. Whether the incentive is a tax break or an emotional response is irrelevant.

But let's say that you're right and there is a distinction between them. It still doesn't solve the problem of encouraging moral behaviour.

If I'm the CEO of a company and I make a decision that makes me and my family better off, everyone is happier, right? Moral bonus all round.

Except maybe my decision impacts someone else profoundly negatively. Halfway around the world, someones working conditions got much worse. Locally someone got laid off so I could employ the people with the crap working conditions. I saved money on environmental standards now at the cost of a problem in the future.

But none of that has an immediate social or personal consequence to me. I just bought a boat and took my family sailing and they're happy!!

The fact is that with the best will in the world, it's really easy for those with power to abuse it, and no, morality does not keep them in check. It might in a few individual cases, but those are dwarfed by the colossal atrocities perpetrated by those whose morality fails to keep their power in check.

Again, look at the current banking system. Please don't tell me you think there are moral people in charge of that, and for the love of all that is holy, please don't tell me that we just need to give them the opportunity to exercise their moral muscle.

The problem with this libertarian philosophy is that it has been the default position throughout history and the outcome has been spectacularly bad.
Libertarians counter this by claiming that we haven't had a "true" libertarian system, which to me is akin to trying to put out a fire with gasoline and then when it doesn't work, claiming we didn't add enough gasoline.

From the reports so far (no clue to the veracity of them, just as there's no clue to the veracity of your 'reports') a group of about 5000 have so far, taken nearly 1/2 the country and 'informed' the populace that if they are the wrong sect of Muslim they must leave (or be killed)...they have massacred, raped, punished, tortured, and on...publicly and proudly (which makes them more dangerous, because they don't consider what they do is wrong, Saddam did but did it anyway). EDIT: they are gaining in numbers and power FAST...if they reached the level of power Saddam had and follow through on their 'promises', there will be millions killed and far more displaced.
Fuck you with your insulting BS, because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I know full well of the atrocities committed by Saddam, repeatedly, over decades, with and without our support and acceptance. You, on the other hand, claim Saddam was as bad as Hitler and Pol Pot, so I'll parrot your insult and say YOU must be ignorant of history. I repeatedly said gassing was not the only crime Saddam committed, but was obviously the worst SINGLE crime...genocides are multiple crimes over time, gassing is a single act at a single time, and the worst one he did. Understand now?
I would not accept Saddam's records to make your arguments, he was a well known insane liar.
for instance, which is it...4500 villages, or 7500 villages destroyed? Your 'information' claimed both, perhaps you should READ the information you cut and paste before deriding others for 'being ignorant of it'?
When you are forming your opinions ABOUT American policy, it makes no sense to ignore American policy.
I don't share your view about removing 'the bad man' from power because it never works. Without a reasonable, well liked, popular, intelligent government to 'take over' for the despotic leaders, and few if any zealots willing to destroy everything if they can't control it, you always end up with smaller despotic leaders fighting over the power or civil war, which has nearly always been worse (at least in the short term) than the despot. Because it never happens that the reasonable replacement government is ready before the expulsion of the despot, or that there are no zealots grasping for the power that's suddenly up for grabs, simply removing despots is usually worse than leaving them in power.
If it were done thoughtfully and thoroughly, I would support replacing them, but it's not done that way. At best, it seems the follow up is an after thought, which usually leads to disaster.

From what I've seen so far, the current 'insurgents' (ISIS) are even more hard line, and more ruthless than Saddam was. They have not yet had time or power to commit the genocide he did while we supported him, give them time. They certainly seem to be working hard on it from my viewpoint.
I knew full well about him gassing his own people, I did reference it in my post. I'm making the assumption that, if they gain the power they're seeking, ISIS will be worse, I make this assumption because they already have shown their colors with the limited power they have, I would expect worse if they gain real power.
My point about the US supporting Saddam does not mean I don't see the evil of his acts, it means I don't see how we, as a nation, can really complain about them now when we gave him the arms and put him in power, and kept him there after he committed atrocities, nor can we use them as 'reasons' to remove him from power...since we supported him at the time.

Should I assume you do not agree with the sentence...Saddam was not at bad as.... Hitler...Pol Pot...etc. Perhaps you should go read about WW2 before attacking the viewpoint that Saddam was not the worst possible leader...I suggest there have been worse than him.

we *can* work together, the problem is that most of the time we don't *want* to work together. Humanity is still very much ego driven and selfish. We'd still rather compete than cooperate

How do you convince someone who has "made it" that in all probability, they were merely lucky. How many success stories can be boiled down to basically right place, right time. I'm not saying don't work hard..quite the opposite....hard work/skill combined with luck is what usually equals success. If you only have one or the other, things won't move forward.

most of the atrocities committed by humans in our history have usually been committed by people who thought they were "deserving" or thought the universe was on their side" when bzzt...wrong...please try again. The fact that they were defeated kinda proves that they weren't

but yet..try to convince someone that they are not "the chosen" "the pre-ordained" and you'll likely have better success talking to a brick wall.

Just the other day I had to work with a programmer who thought his coding was "divine providence" (his words)

When the day comes when we can successfully and consistently compartmentalize and/or shut off our ego when needed, humanity is going to leap forward.

Goddamnit, this is actually worse than the TMNT trailer.

And what the fuck is Neal McDonogh doing in this? He was in Band of Brothers, FFS. He must now go do penance for the rest of his life for participating in this atrocity.

This is an illustration of why I find it so offensive when people tell me I should respect soldiers for protecting my freedom. With a lot of exceptions, people become soldiers for lack of any better option, and find themselves forced to make small contributions to massive atrocities/injustices.

@lantern53

ah my friend.
you seem to have fallen into the propaganda trap.
allow enoch to chat with you for a bit.

are you comfy? need a drink? coffee? a beer?

ok,then let us begin

this is not a political ideology.
this is not right nor left.(seriously limiting terms anyways).

this is about the full picture.

so let us discuss WHAT propaganda actual is,rather than what we are TOLD it is.
propaganda is simply manipulated information presented in a way to appeal to our irrational and emotional response rather than our rational and reasonable.

when i use the term "manipulated" i am not inferring or implying an outright conspiracy (though often-times it may possibly be a conspiracy) but rather a set goal to illicit the desired response.

and there is always an element of truth in propaganda but the truth being presented is controlled and manipulated.which is apparent in your commentary.

corporations use this tactic and we call it mass marketing but the first usage was that of the state to control its own citizenry.america being the major and first to pioneer this tactic.see:edward bernaise and the council of propaganda (later changed to the council of public relations).

so let us break down your examples which i assume are an attempt by you to discredit the assertions in dr wasfi's speech in this video.

1.to point out the crimes against humanity is a straw man argument.
it is irrelevant.
it is a last ditch effort by the american government to excuse and/or validate an illegal war of aggression:
a.no weapons of mass destruction
b.no connection to al qaeda
c.almost 1 trillion lost (literally,they cant account for that money)

so the american government points to the atrocities of saddam hussein and says "look! look at what a bad person he is"!

SQUIRREL!

which brings us to your next point.

2.the atrocities you are referring to were well know when saddam was a paid participant by multiple government agencies.
let me say that again for you:
saddams atrocities were WELL known and was on the american government payroll.
did saddam gas the kurds?------yes
who sold him the gas components?---we did.

so when my government,in a last ditch effort to absolve its complicity in the wreckage that is iraq by pointing to the awful and horrific acts saddam perpetrated on his own people as somehow making the invasion of iraq a righteous act is utter..and complete..hypocrisy.

they KNEW what he was doing and did nothing because it was politically expedient for them to do so.they wished to corral iran and the ends justified the means.see:Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard

there are many MANY accounts where the american government turned a blind eye to the suffering of other nation-states citizens because it did not align with our interests.

i find the whole situation morally repugnant and it angers me even further when i see the propaganda twisting my fellow countrymen into believing this is somehow a morally just way to deal with despots,tyrants,zealots.

when it was MY country who put them in power in the first place!

the rationalizations are so deeply cynical and hypocritical that it creates an almost vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

and this is my main point in regards to your commentary.
it is a rationalization given to you by those who wish to continue to oppress,dominate and control those who are powerless.

it gives a semblance of morality where there is none.

because if we took your commentary to its logical conclusion:that sometimes war is necessary to rid the world of "evil" (an arbitrary term based on perspective),then why are we not in those countries that ALSO oppress,kill,maim,torture and immiserate their citizens?

answer:because it does not serve the interests of this government.

so the only usage of emotional heart string pulling is to give americans a sense of moral superiority,while not dealing with the actual reality.

you are being manipulated my friend.
and they have given you a convenient myth to hold onto.

by my commentary i am not dismissing the great works of my country nor am i saying that my country is inherently evil.
i served my country and did my duty.

but i also will not turn a blind eye to the reality on the ground just because i find that information..uncomfortable.

many times the truth is uncomfortable and it takes courage to look at it with clear eyes and a critical mind.

i always stick to the axiom:governments lie

as for your nazi reference,
i invoke godwins law.
the death camps were not even a known reality till the war was almost over and were not the reasons for the war in the first place.
so the context is irrelevant.

as always,
eyes open...
and stay sharp.

@lantern53 keepin it frosty since 1982.stay awesome my man

Ok, let's change the territory. Forget Muslims and Al Queada and the Middle East and all that.

Let's roll the clock back 30 years, and let's find a comparable scenario where we have stateless actors living in a country who's reluctant to extradite them (either through inability to locate them or because they don't really like the country asking for extradition). These actors are responsible for a number of atrocities committed in the name of a political cause that has some tacit support by the locals of this country.

So we have the IRA hiding in the Republic of Ireland for bombing civilians in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

Now let's assume the British have drones. Is it acceptable for them to drone strike targets within the Republic leading to civilian casualties? If not, why not?

Hell, let's go forward 20 or 30 years to when Iraq or Afghanistan have drones and the USA refuses to extradite the people that illegally invaded their country and then committed crimes against humanity there. Is it ok to drone strike Texas to get to GW Bush?

This is not a door we want to open. You're happy with it now because you're the ones holding the big stick, but legitimising international assassination because you don't get your way is a recipe for a nightmare.

Everything virtual does not have to be this kind of choice, VoodooV-I'm no wimp, the process would work were it not continually hijacked by a mechanism that is both glaringly apparent and for a certain privileged few to tweak at their leisure while maintaining a simple yet elaborate ruse. 'Writing' someone in would not work and this cold-cut fact should also be glaringly apparent to anyone with the capacity for critical thought tinctured with a dash of common-sense. Elections are and have been simply an exercise in complacent self-approbation and self-deceit for some time now...going waaay back-The white-knights and villains are agreed, in every personality, every human breathing as all are capable of the worst atrocities and the infinite empathy and kindness. The checks-and-balances only work if everyone plays by the rule book and not the cheat-sheet.


Now, an intelligent breakdown of your reaction cloaked as some meaningful response:

'someones feeling attention deprived again, trolling and picking fights to overcompensate'

No-I'm not picking a fight, I'm picking at a soft-spot in a personality and calling attention to particular predictable rhetorical repetition in a manner which also predictably, causes these certain personalities to cry foul, troll (insert racist here, as those who cry racism are invariably the racists themselves) or any other convenient terms which halt the process of reason.

"If I thought there would be actual rational discourse, I would engage him." (here's your chance) 'But nope' (there's the cop-out and hasty retreat with the regular gang of supporters)

'It would just be noise' (perhaps to yourself, as this is yet another convenient dismissal of an alternative point of view or realization).

And bareboards, sorry if I cause you to la la la with fingers in your ears, I did nothing rather, your reaction as well connotes a predictable denial of the meat in my rant, as is Chaos calling out the mundane aspect of mistyped punctuation.

Haven't had a drop of alcohol when this was written earlier this morning, nor have I smoked the ganja for over 2 months...question mark, exclamation point.....and more than enough ....el;ipsis

As tired of the childish shit as y'all are of mine?? Yep-But I hold-out hope for communion and understanding, as we all play here together.

@RedSky,

I really hear what you are saying. When faced with Rwanda though, I just can not agree that the world response of doing nothing, even to the point of refusing to use the term genocide, was 'better' than an intervention, even a unilateral one. I know it's maybe not a strong logical, factual argument, but standing aside while a genocide takes place is to me morally wrong and unacceptable.

I also don't see any strong argument that an intervention would have made things 'worse' in the long run. The forces that committed the genocide were never actually stopped or apprehended. They just moved out of Rwanda and into the jungles of the Congo, where it's worth noting they continued to commit horrendous atrocities, all the way up until today, and no doubt tomorrow and years from now.