Is it slightly worrying

[Rukh]

Because it's the thread topic, and your reply was off-topic, so I brought it back on-topic.

He didn't say fighting back against ISIS was genocide.

[Warlord Booty]

People knee jerk reaction all the time. We beat BTW and people were worried everyone would get an ass kicking since they beat up 2 players after.

[ringpriest]

Is it slightly worrying how quickly some peoples moral compass changes when acts of terrorism / war / conflict is involved? You'll see somebody condemn genocide until something like a brutal atrocity occurs then they're suddenly supporting genocidal actions against them.

It's the biggest threat civilization faces from terrorism - overreacting, and thus damaging its own, painfully won, ethical and moral progress. Terrorism (even including ISIS and 9/11) is not any sort of 'existential threat' (it's on par with lighting strikes - slippery bathtubs are far more dangerous, for crying out loud!), but destroying ourselves with out own "immune system" is a very real and imminent threat.

[Voidism]

The main thing I'm worried about is all the things that comes with the compass change. People who are afraid of something tend to become overall more conservative, and as a homo dude that is bad for me personally.

So annoying that there's no immigration-critical socialdemocratic party over here. It always tend to go hand in hand with being generally "critical" of everything. :s

[Deleted]

It's the biggest threat civilization faces from terrorism - overreacting, and thus damaging its own, painfully won, ethical and moral progress. Terrorism (even including ISIS and 9/11) is not any sort of 'existential threat' (it's on par with lighting strikes - slippery bathtubs are far more dangerous, for crying out loud!), but destroying ourselves with out own "immune system" is a very real and imminent threat.

I do agree with you here - the prime example being US reaction to occasional terror acts - I`m not diminishing importance of those events but really, they arent even worth to have a tactical response to them, let alone strategic.

[vaeevictiss]

Im guessing the OP is talking about the pilot that was burned alive. It was brutal to watch, but a couple hundred years ago during the Inquisition the Christians did the same thing.

I fully support eradicating ISIS and anyone that remotely supports them, but im not going so far as to say just nuke all muslims. There are millions of Muslims out there that are just trying to survive and are doing it while having to fight off these sick fuckers. Im not going to get into whether Islam is a religion of peace or terror. I dont even care if the Quran specifically states to murder people...because the people that actually are, are only a fraction of Muslims.

[Rukh]

Im guessing the OP is talking about the pilot that was burned alive. It was brutal to watch, but a couple hundred years ago during the Inquisition the Christians did the same thing.

I fully support eradicating ISIS and anyone that remotely supports them, but im not going so far as to say just nuke all muslims. There are millions of Muslims out there that are just trying to survive and are doing it while having to fight off these sick fuckers. Im not going to get into whether Islam is a religion of peace or terror. I dont even care if the Quran specifically states to murder people...because the people that actually are, are only a fraction of Muslims.

ISIS is unfortunately a multinational threat. The US has been a bit lax on response to ISIS. We're responsible for a lot of the instability and weakened state of countries like Iraq that allow them to exist, so we do in fact have some obligation to lend to their eradication. It needs to be done through aiding local groups though not invading with a huge army and causing all sorts of collateral damage, further instability, and emnity towards the west.

[Goldie Standard]

War has been a means to an end for as long as we've wielded stick and stone, and it isn't going to stop anytime soon. The casus belli might change as time goes on, but there's always something to be gained, and if my views are shown in the reasoning for the war...

Well, it's much easier to support.

[Endus]

It's not like there's one you that exists for all time. Your ethical stance can evolve with you over time without being a failure to describe your "real" stance.

Evolution, sure. And I'll allow for people to change their position.

But you can't say one day that "war is wrong", and then the next champion a war against a specific enemy, not unless you're stating that you were wrong, before. Or you're being inconsistent.

I wasn't saying that you can't change your views. Just that you can't hold a general view that war is wrong, but this war is alright. That's a contradiction, and means you don't believe the former, at least not phrased that simplistically.

Extend that same principle to other issues, such as the "abortions are immoral and wrong, except my abortion, because I have reasons" thing that crops up now and then.

[PIsForPhuck]

Yes which is why people in the US and Britain completely supported an invasion into Afghanistan and Iraq when there was literally no such thing as Al Qaeda, we made it up to charge Osama Bin Laden for RICO.

Pff, if you're going to believe in conspiracy theories, at least believe in real ones.

- - - Updated - - -

"I started a War; I'm just not doing the fighting." - Abraham Lincoln

War is terrible. What is worse? Letting it happen.

Every, single, person is to blame. Until we have no reason to fight.. which will be never. Conflict happens, and the victors write the history. So don't lose.

Dafuq? So you're saying the president who started the war to end slavery was... worse than the people fighting in the war because he let it happen??
I think you might have used a bad coupling of quote+your next statement. The last part of your post was okay.

[Daelak]

Pff, if you're going to believe in conspiracy theories, at least believe in real ones.

It isn't a conspiracy, in January 2001 the FBI named OBL's religious group so that he could be charged in the US for group conspiracy RICO (Racketeer Influence & Corrupt Organization)

[PIsForPhuck]

It isn't a conspiracy, in January 2001 the FBI named OBL's religious group so that he could be charged in the US for group conspiracy RICO (Racketeer Influence & Corrupt Organization)

Nope, you need to find actual proof because it still just sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

[Daelak]

Nope, you need to find actual proof because it still just sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

http://cns.miis.edu/reports/pdfs/binladen/indict.pdf

There's the charge.

Here was Jamal al-Fadl testimony:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Fadl

He made up a story to make OBL's group look like a large international criminal organization, even though he was a US informant in the 1990's. The FBI built their case around his testimony.

[Aqueous]

No, but people saying NUKE EM or CARPET BOMB SYRIA is somewhat genocidal

Ah, well that's just emotions running the show, and it's simply pure vengeance/retribution.

[meheez]

until something like a brutal atrocity occurs then they're suddenly supporting genocidal actions against them.

Yes brutal atrocity needs to happen.

Do all genocides happen as a punishment for brutal atrocities though?

[PIsForPhuck]

http://cns.miis.edu/reports/pdfs/binladen/indict.pdf

There's the charge.

Here was Jamal al-Fadl testimony:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Fadl

He made up a story to make OBL's group look like a large international criminal organization, even though he was a US informant in the 1990's. The FBI built their case around his testimony.

Look, I didn't read the whole thing (it's 157 pages), but I skimmed most of the first several pages and it doesn't look like any kind of evidence to me. Even on the wiki:

In 1988, he joined al Qaeda and took an oath of fealty to Bin Laden.

In January 2001, the trial began in New York of four men accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa . The U.S also wanted to prosecute Osama bin Laden in his absence under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). To be able to do this under American law, the prosecutors needed evidence of a criminal organization, which would then allow them to prosecute the leader, even if he could not be linked directly to the crime.

Jamal al-Fadl was taken on as a key prosecution witness, who along with a number of other sources claimed that Osama bin Laden was the leader of a large international terrorist organization which was called "al-Qaeda".

I googled it and can't find shit about al qaeda being something the us made up. I've never even heard of this before. Are you basing all of this on the fact that al qaeda is in quotation marks in that last quote or what?

Not really sure if we're starting to derail the thread or not, but OP was pretty vague and this kind of relates to it so, whatever.

[Noomz]

Is it slightly worrying how quickly some peoples moral compass changes when acts of terrorism / war / conflict is involved? You'll see somebody condemn genocide until something like a brutal atrocity occurs then they're suddenly supporting genocidal actions against them.

Because most people are weak-willed and ignorant. The general public is mislead all the time. There are some individuals that think for themselves but they're not always as convincing as political demagogues.

[PIsForPhuck]

Yes brutal atrocity needs to happen.

Do all genocides happen as a punishment for brutal atrocities though?

Do you even need to ask this? Did the Holocaust happen as punishment for "brutal atrocities"? No, so there's your answer.

[Deleted]

Yes brutal atrocity needs to happen.

Do all genocides happen as a punishment for brutal atrocities though?

I don't know how that's relevant to what I said

[Revi]

It's interesting for sure.. Everyone is sitting around in history class telling each other affirmingly "the Germans had to be pure evil to go along with something like that"

Next thing you know, they're asking for the genocide of everyone who calls themselves Muslim.