Another Cronulla on the way?

[mottrain]

Well then......

I have to give you credit for managing to defend daterape in the context of a beheading.

Not defending just using Coup's logic which is hypocritical.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The bloke killed in England was a current serving member and a valid target for a combatant in the "war on terror" using the USA's and UK's own logic.

Looking at it from a completely objective point of view, you're right. There is little difference in intent between a drone strike removing a jihadist from life and a jihadist removing a serving soldier from life. There are arguments that a uniformed soldier represents a State, which is itself a legal entity while groups such as al-Qaeda or IS have no legal existence in the scope of international law besides the human rights of their membership as individuals, but when you look at it objectively what exactly is seen?

Both remove operatives fighting the other.

Before anyone jumps the gun, no I am NOT advocating the killing of Australian soldiers on Australian streets just because they participate in Washington's 'war on terror'. I don't want it to happen and I am not inciting anyone to advocate this kind of violence.

All that is being discussed here is 'moral equivalency'.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Looking at it from a completely objective point of view, you're right. There is little difference in intent between a drone strike removing a jihadist from life and a jihadist removing a serving soldier from life. There are arguments that a uniformed soldier represents a State, which is itself a legal entity while groups such as al-Qaeda or IS have no legal existence in the scope of international law besides the human rights of their membership as individuals, but when you look at it objectively what exactly is seen?

Both remove operatives fighting the other.

Before anyone jumps the gun, no I am NOT advocating the killing of Australian soldiers on Australian streets just because they participate in Washington's 'war on terror'. I don't want it to happen and I am not inciting anyone to advocate this kind of violence.

All that is being discussed here is 'moral equivalency'.

Purely objectively he is technically right, but at the end of the day, I do think that these extreme Islamic groups are the "bad guys", and although they in their minds are doing the right thing, from my point of view they aren't and deserve to be destroyed.

When you simplify the situation enough you can certainly see the point of view of Islamic groups, but I think people forget that them 'winning' or getting their way is very bad for a lot of people. Certainly the west hasn't been righteous in all their actions, but we certainly aren't as oppressive as these groups. When you look at WW2, Nazi Germany's military actions near the beginning can be interpreted as justified due to the terms of surrender in WW1 being too harsh, and in the same way Islamic groups actions can be "justified" for different reasons, but we shouldn't lose sight of the other facts about these groups.

 

[The Coup]

Looking at it from a completely objective point of view, you're right. There is little difference in intent between a drone strike removing a jihadist from life and a jihadist removing a serving soldier from life. There are arguments that a uniformed soldier represents a State, which is itself a legal entity while groups such as al-Qaeda or IS have no legal existence in the scope of international law besides the human rights of their membership as individuals, but when you look at it objectively what exactly is seen?

Both remove operatives fighting the other.

Before anyone jumps the gun, no I am NOT advocating the killing of Australian soldiers on Australian streets just because they participate in Washington's 'war on terror'. I don't want it to happen and I am not inciting anyone to advocate this kind of violence.

All that is being discussed here is 'moral equivalency'.

Not only that, the USA and UK have justified the conditions at Guantanamo Bay, as well as extra judicial torture in Egypt and Abu Ghraib against non combatants including some terrorists. Essentially they used military protections against a civilian populace. I would say this is the justification the English terrorists use for attacking any British or American or Australian soldiers, regardless of where they are in the world. What's good for the goose, as they say.

And I know I'll have to make a similar disclaimer to you, so anyone else reading, pretend I wrote this bit:

Before anyone jumps the gun, no I am NOT advocating the killing of Australian soldiers on Australian streets just because they participate in Washington's 'war on terror'. I don't want it to happen and I am not inciting anyone to advocate this kind of violence.

 

[The Coup]

Purely objectively he is technically right, but at the end of the day, I do think that these extreme Islamic groups are the "bad guys", and although they in their minds are doing the right thing, from my point of view they aren't and deserve to be destroyed.

When you simplify the situation enough you can certainly see the point of view of Islamic groups, but I think people forget that them 'winning' is very bad for a lot of people. When you look at WW2, Nazi Germany's military actions near the beginning can be interpreted as justified due to the terms of surrender in WW1 being too harsh, and in the same way Islamic groups actions can be "justified" for different reasons, but we shouldn't lose sight of the other facts about these groups.

Of course. I just hope everyone who was for the war against Afghani, Syrian, Libyan, Iranian and Iraqi Civilians (Or the War on Terror as some of the more ignorant people in the world call it) are completely ashamed of us being involved removing those nominally secular socialist governments that were able to keep the various ethnic communities in relative peace. I doubt it though, they probably think more guns are what is required.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Not only that, the USA and UK have justified the conditions at Guantanamo Bay, as well as extra judicial torture in Egypt and Abu Ghraib against non combatants including some terrorists. Essentially they used military protections against a civilian populace. I would say this is the justification the English terrorists use for attacking any British or American or Australian soldiers, regardless of where they are in the world. What's good for the goose, as they say.

And I know I'll have to make a similar disclaimer to you, so anyone else reading, pretend I wrote this bit:

Before anyone jumps the gun, no I am NOT advocating the killing of Australian soldiers on Australian streets just because they participate in Washington's 'war on terror'. I don't want it to happen and I am not inciting anyone to advocate this kind of violence.

At the end of the day, any act of violence being justified or reprehensible is a matter of perspective. For mine, as reprehensible as some of the actions by soldiers has been, the end result their actions are working towards is a lot more preferable to the end result of the Islamic terrorists actions.

Of course. I just hope everyone who was for the war against Afghani, Syrian, Libyan, Iranian and Iraqi Civilians (Or the War on Terror as some of the more ignorant people in the world call it) are completely ashamed of us being involved removing those nominally secular socialist governments that were able to keep the various ethnic communities in relative peace. I doubt it though, they probably think more guns are what is required.

I agree that as with all things, a good degree of objectivity is a good lens to look at the issue through.

 

[The Coup]

While the Islamic community does probably need to do a lot more to distance themselves from terrorism and extreme ideology, I don't think the lynch mob mentality should be commended.

In any case, if a 'whirlwind' wants to harass people I highly doubt they'll check if the person is even a muslim first, and resort to just yelling at people who 'look' muslim.

What a ridiculous post. I imagine if American soldiers beheaded a terrorist on the streets of Iraq you'd probably be (rightfully) outraged. There shouldn't be double standards.

Americans, English and Australian soldiers were regularly beheading people in that part of the world (and much closer to home) in the name of capitalism pretty recently.

At least attacking a soldier makes some measure of sense, but our team used to behead civilians in their own countries for money. Those noble diggers indeed.

 

[The Coup]

At the end of the day, any act of violence being justified or reprehensible is a matter of perspective. For mine, as reprehensible as some of the actions by soldiers has been, the end result their actions are working towards is a lot more preferable to the end result of the Islamic terrorists actions.

What are the end results? America clearly had no end result in mind at all imo. It was war for money, against innocent and impoverished foreigners (Around 90% of the casualties were civilians, mostly women and children)

At least the Wahabbi crazies are getting paid AND think they're liberating their people from oppression.

 

[The Coup]

<Removed>

What you really mean to say is the UK, Australian and USA governments are disgusting. This is the situation they deliberately created.

 

[The Coup]

Not defending just using Coup's logic which is hypocritical.

It is hypocritical logic, well done on identifying that. But it is not my logic, it is the argument made by our own governments against civilians in well... the entire world.

 

[Richard Pryor]

What are the end results? America clearly had no end result in mind at all imo. It was war for money, against innocent and impoverished foreigners (Around 90% of the casualties were civilians, mostly women and children)

At least the Wahabbi crazies are getting paid AND think they're liberating their people from oppression.

No end result in mind is better than an end result of an oppressive dictatorship. Criticism of America shouldn't translate to romanticism of their enemies.

America is in the wrong in a lot of ways, but I'd say ISIS is comfortably a lot worse.

To invoke Godwin's law again, Germany was certainly hard done by after WW1. I still wouldn't say the Allies in WW1 were worse than Hitler.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Ahh so here's they hypocrisy. Women shouldn't be 'r*ped' even if they have engaged in actions which are leading or the like but it is OK for him to be killed and valid because he's a current serving member and thus then seen as a combatant on the war on terror. Totally hypocritical from you and absolute disgraceful views that you think there can be justification for his death.

Let's look at the act of rape as opposed to an act of war, shall we? In civilian life men and women are individuals, right? Sex between two individuals is a consensual agreement between individuals. If one party withdraws agreement then sex shouldn't happen. 'I got so worked up by what she was wearing that I just had to f*ck her no matter what' won't stand up in court as a defence of non-consensual sex, and with good reason.

Now let's look at the act of war. Removing ideology it boils down to one side hurting or killing the other until its own position is unchallenged. Both sides' assets to the fight, be it personnel or equipment, contribute to this fight. Their removal, at least logically, helps to degrade this warfighting capability.

In truth, the killing of Lee Rigby has had no effect on the warfighting capabilities of the British Army nor has the thousands of drone strikes over the years on Taliban targets in Afghanistan sapped their will to fight or ability to get their hands on military equipment.

The concept remains valid though - remove enemy assets.

There are psychological factors to take into account as well - the very name 'terrorism' alludes to this. Things like morale are as important in warfighting as anything else. Making an opponent feel unsafe on his own turf might be very a desirable outcome depending on which side you're on.

AGAIN, this is NOT advocacy for any particular act, merely a neutral, objective view of warfighting processes and concepts.

 

[The Coup]

No end result in mind is better than an end result of an oppressive dictatorship. Criticism of America shouldn't translate to romanticism of their enemies.

America is in the wrong in a lot of ways, but I'd say ISIS is comfortably a lot worse.

To invoke Godwin's law again, Germany was certainly hard done by after WW1. I still wouldn't say the Allies in WW1 were worse than Hitler.

America's end game is an oppressive dictator though. It's called American foreign policy.

IS would not exist if not for America's plans.

I'd say the British Air Force was more bloodthirsty than almost any other combatant in WW2 (not the Japanese but about on par with the Waffen-SS).

What they did to Dresden and Tokyo was quite easily the worst war crime I'm aware of in modern history, and they have a lot of competition in that regard. they also set the template for using terrorism in modern warfare and targeting civilians, a trend that has increased exponentially with each successive Anglo military failure.

The Anglo's have a severe amount of hubris based on the fact they're still wealthy from colonial era land theft. They think they can pick and choose the leaders of other countries, and they always end up creating something much worse in the process. But the rich get richer, and the poor get deader.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Purely objectively he is technically right, but at the end of the day, I do think that these extreme Islamic groups are the "bad guys", and although they in their minds are doing the right thing, from my point of view they aren't and deserve to be destroyed.

When you simplify the situation enough you can certainly see the point of view of Islamic groups, but I think people forget that them 'winning' or getting their way is very bad for a lot of people. Certainly the west hasn't been righteous in all their actions, but we certainly aren't as oppressive as these groups. When you look at WW2, Nazi Germany's military actions near the beginning can be interpreted as justified due to the terms of surrender in WW1 being too harsh, and in the same way Islamic groups actions can be "justified" for different reasons, but we shouldn't lose sight of the other facts about these groups.

Yeah. Removing objective neutrality, I agree with you. I hate religious fundamentalism in all its forms. All this 'you follow our ways and worship our God or we'll kill you' shit is disgusting, and an affront to human rights and human dignity.

 

[The Coup]

Yeah. Removing objective neutrality, I agree with you. I hate religious fundamentalism in all its forms. All this 'you follow our ways and worship our God or we'll kill you' shit is disgusting, and an affront to human rights and human dignity.

I agree. I also think the same of large superpowers who force other nations to adopt their economic system at gunpoint and handover their natural resources.

 

[mottrain]

Let's look at the act of rape as opposed to an act of war, shall we? In civilian life men and women are individuals, right? Sex between two individuals is a consensual agreement between individuals. If one party withdraws agreement then sex shouldn't happen. 'I got so worked up by what she was wearing that I just had to f*ck her no matter what' won't stand up in court as a defence of non-consensual sex, and with good reason.

Now let's look at the act of war. Removing ideology it boils down to one side hurting or killing the other until its own position is unchallenged. Both sides' assets to the fight, be it personnel or equipment, contribute to this fight. Their removal, at least logically, helps to degrade this warfighting capability.

In truth, the killing of Lee Rigby has had no effect on the warfighting capabilities of the British Army nor has the thousands of drone strikes over the years on Taliban targets in Afghanistan sapped their will to fight or ability to get their hands on military equipment.

The concept remains valid though - remove enemy assets.

There are psychological factors to take into account as well - the very name 'terrorism' alludes to this. Things like morale are as important in warfighting as anything else. Making an opponent feel unsafe on his own turf might be very a desirable outcome depending on which side you're on.

AGAIN, this is NOT advocacy for any particular act, merely a neutral, objective view of warfighting processes and concepts.

No trying to use Rigby killing in any way related to war is dumb.

 

[The Coup]

No trying to use Rigby killing in any way related to war is dumb.

LOL you are one hell of a character mottrain.

 

[Floor Pie]

Ahh so here's they hypocrisy. Women shouldn't be 'r*ped' even if they have engaged in actions which are leading or the like but it is OK for him to be killed and valid because he's a current serving member and thus then seen as a combatant on the war on terror. Totally hypocritical from you and absolute disgraceful views that you think there can be justification for his death.

****in' hell Tom...

Looks like I was right about your stance on rape and victim blaming...

 

[mottrain]

LOL you are one hell of a character mottrain.

So a guy gets murdered in the name of Islam while walking the streets in London. What relevance has that got to a war. Should someon

****in' hell Tom...

Looks like I was right about your stance on rape and victim blaming...

Nothing to do with my stance on rape but rather to do with the coup's stance on soldiers getting murdered in places where the conflict is not even happening.

 

[The Coup]

That isn't my stance mottrain, that is the stance of our government, the UK and the USA.

Get it matey?

I think wars should be conducted at present by uniformed soldiers, but we couldn't justify killing so many civilians if we actually followed the Geneva Convention. I think it is pretty pissweak to do this to brown people and then get all upset when it happens to westerners in much, much, much, much, much lower numbers than we kill their wives and children.

And ideally I think we should move to a system of war where the country that can throw the most inebriated orgy wins the war. But that will take time.

 

[mottrain]

That isn't my stance mottrain, that is the stance of our government, the UK and the USA.

Get it matey?

I think wars should be conducted at present by uniformed soldiers, but we couldn't justify killing so many civilians if we actually followed the Geneva Convention. I think it is pretty pissweak to do this to brown people and then get all upset when it happens to westerners in much, much, much, much, much lower numbers than we kill their wives and children.

And ideally I think we should move to a system of war where the country that can throw the most inebriated orgy wins the war. But that will take time.

Oh Dear.

 

[The Coup]

Its ok mate it was a simple mistake.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So a guy gets murdered in the name of Islam while walking the streets in London. What relevance has that got to a war...

According to this he was a "true warrior".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22644857

Drummer Rigby had taken up a post with the Regimental Recruiting Team in London in 2011.

"An experienced and talented side drummer and machine gunner, he was a true warrior and served with distinction in Afghanistan, Germany and Cyprus," said his commanding officer Lt Col Jim Taylor...

Currently serving soldier? Check.
Fought against Muslims? Check.

In their minds he was a valid target. Just as a Taliban or Islamic State machine-gunner may be targeted by a drone strike or a hit by special forces.

 

[RisingPhoenix]

Ok am I going nuts here, but do we have blokes on here saying Australian soldiers are fair game when off duty on the streets of Australia?

Christ almighty.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Ok am I going nuts here, but do we have blokes on here saying Australian soldiers are fair game when off duty on the streets of Australia?

Christ almighty.

Nobody has said that.

It's clear from our government actions that civillians in other countries are fair game.