|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 21 2016 04:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 04:34 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:
The thing with drone strikes is that every alternative seems to be just as bloody, if not much more so. Pretty much any war from the 80's onward had 90%+ civilian casualty ratios. There are lots of numbers about drone strikes around but it least it seems as if they've gotten that number down somewhat over the last few years. Yeah if you ignore Just War Theory and only care about the life and liberty of US/Western persons then it's a perfectly great tool, because non-Western people are just ants anyway. non Western people are also saved by drone strikes if we assume that it's at least to some degree effective at taking out combatants that threaten non Western civilians. Which is probably a safe assumption to make given that non Western people are the one's most affected by, say ISIS or terrorists in Yemen. Given that the people being killed by drones are pretty far away from the West I'd actually say the West is taking the worse deal here because we're drawing quite a lot of attention to us.
And it's good that Americans get to decide which ants die and which ants live, because they know best and have dominion over all the earth.
If the police here at home want to blow up your house because you are next to a terrorist who wants to bomb my workplace next week, I'm glad it's you that's dying and not me.
|
I think it beats arming a bunch of para-military militias just so we can feel good about not hurting their sovereignty. We're in agreement though that ISIS is unambigiously bad and that anybody is justified to take them out, right?
On July 21 2016 04:38 IgnE wrote:
If the police here at home want to blow up your house because you are next to a terrorist who wants to bomb my workplace next week, I'm glad it's you that's dying and not me.
The police here doesn't need to blow up my house because they have better tools to combat terrorists living next door. Can we please not descend into weird analogies?
|
On July 21 2016 04:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 03:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 21 2016 03:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 21 2016 03:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 21 2016 03:48 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 21 2016 03:48 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2016 03:44 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 21 2016 03:42 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2016 03:40 Cowboy24 wrote:On July 21 2016 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
This is huge. He does not even intend to be president. How is this shitshow still going. god damn GOP, you really fucked up this year. "An anonymous source from the Kasich campaign..." lol @ anyone who buys this kind of stuff. Its the NYT, they don't make up quotes. Bwahahahahahahaha! They just did. Sure thing coach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_BlairI guess they do have a history of making up quotes! Relevant Yes, because Trump hasn't been repeatedly shown to be a compulsive liar, eh? We're just supposed to take that tweet at face value? Your attempt to justify an obviously false slander piece is mildly entertaining I wasn't justifying the piece. I was calling out the astonishing level of intellectual dishonesty that you consistently carry through this thread.
Politics just has this magic way of bringing people together
|
On July 21 2016 04:40 Nyxisto wrote:
I think it beats arming a bunch of para-military militias just so we can feel good about not hurting their sovereignty. We're in agreement though that ISIS is unambigiously bad and that anybody is justified to take them out, right?
"Not hurting their sovereignty" is a funny euphemism for blowing up innocent people's families.
|
There's no scenario in which ISIS can be combatted without civilians dying. Do nothing and civilians die, arm insurgencts and civilians die etc... What matters is what is the least bad tool to kill them while reducing the civilian body count as much as you possibly can.
|
On July 21 2016 04:34 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:
The thing with drone strikes is that every alternative seems to be just as bloody, if not much more so. Pretty much any war from the 80's onward had 90%+ civilian casualty ratios. There are lots of numbers about drone strikes around but it least it seems as if they've gotten that number down somewhat over the last few years. Yeah if you ignore Just War Theory and only care about the life and liberty of US/Western persons then it's a perfectly great tool, because non-Western people are just ants anyway.
Even if you were to apply Just War Theory, I'm not sure that it per se prohibits current American drone operations.
|
On July 21 2016 04:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 04:40 Nyxisto wrote:
I think it beats arming a bunch of para-military militias just so we can feel good about not hurting their sovereignty. We're in agreement though that ISIS is unambigiously bad and that anybody is justified to take them out, right? "Not hurting their sovereignty" is a funny euphemism for blowing up innocent people's families.
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that the drone program has flaws and those should be addressed. But I also do not believe there are many good or “ethical” options for dealing with terrorist that actively attempt to put civilians in danger to increase collateral damage.
|
A professor at my law school has actually written on the subject of how just war theory and preemptive strikes don't conflict as much as it may appear, I'll find his book.
|
United States44203 Posts
On July 21 2016 04:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 04:09 KwarK wrote:Yeah Donald but Melania actually did the thing people say she did. What did people say Hillary did regarding her server issue that she didn't do?
According to Cowboy in this very topic, treason.
|
Four years ago Milo Yiannopolous called for banning trolls from the internet http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/yiannopoulos/3359/the-internet-is-turning-us-all-into-sociopaths/
So perhaps what’s needed now is a bolder form of censure after all, because the internet is not a universal human right. If people cannot be trusted to treat one another with respect, dignity and consideration, perhaps they deserve to have their online freedoms curtailed. For sure, the best we could ever hope for is a smattering of unpopular show trials. But if the internet, ubiquitous as it now is, proves too dangerous in the hands of the psychologically fragile, perhaps access to it ought to be restricted. We ban drunks from driving because they’re a danger to others. Isn’t it time we did the same to trolls?
|
On July 21 2016 04:48 Nyxisto wrote:
There's no scenario in which ISIS can be combatted without civilians dying. Do nothing and civilians die, arm insurgencts and civilians die etc... What matters is what is the least bad tool to kill them while reducing the civilian body count as much as you possibly can.
This is a crucial distinction. With all hands off, civilians die every day as a result of ISIS. It is extremely frustrating to see people pretend ISIS will just kinda fizzle out on its own if we did nothing. There are a lot of reasons ISIS exists. Bombing civilians is not even close to the only reason.
|
On July 21 2016 04:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 04:43 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 04:40 Nyxisto wrote:
I think it beats arming a bunch of para-military militias just so we can feel good about not hurting their sovereignty. We're in agreement though that ISIS is unambigiously bad and that anybody is justified to take them out, right? "Not hurting their sovereignty" is a funny euphemism for blowing up innocent people's families. I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that the drone program has flaws and those should be addressed. But I also do not believe there are many good or “ethical” options for dealing with terrorist that actively attempt to put civilians in danger to increase collateral damage.
Honestly the reason I brought this issue up wasnt really even to bring up the issue of whether drone strikes are ethical are not, thats not a debate that hasnt been brought 12312515 times before and is going to get anywhere. Although I was naive to think that it wouldnt deviate that way if someone really wanted to push that agenda.
The real issue I wanted to bring up is that in the Syria case specifically they massively fucked up and the reaction to it has simply been, alright that sucks thats war, move along. Surely you have to take responsibility for it and look at the efficacy of what is happening. And more importantly people should care about this stuff just as much as Paris or Baton Rouge or Dallas.
+ Show Spoiler [Regarding drone strikes in soverign st…] +The drone strikes on sovereign countries is a totally separate issue. By the by, drone strikes even in Pakistan actually managed to achieve fuck all aside from take out some high profile targets that simply get replaced. The real thing thats freed up alot of the territory is being conducted by the Pakistan army in the last few years when the intelligence agencies (which is basically also just the army) finally stopped being denial regarding the fact that they could control extremist elements whether that be to fuck with India or to any other end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Zarb-e-Azb (granted thats a wiki article that is somewhat exaggerating the effectiveness but its rooted in what actually is happening). There is lots of backlash but its working. The results are tangible, and civillian casualties most importantly were probably as minimal as possible. With drone strikes there have been little to no tangible results, and civilian casualties are through the roof. Im not going to blame that on the US totally because we didnt do enough and it was our problem and the US was doing what it felt it needed to. The whole situation is way to complex to even begin to ascribe who is morally or ethically in the right or wrong. Its just a whole lot of grey. For states that dont have a structure in place like Syria I honestly dont know what the solution is. But US Foreign policy as usual has been pretty miserable. Also as far as Yemen is concerned, thats literally Americans bombing people becaues the Saudis ask and dont like people questioning them, there is literally nothing else to it.
|
On July 21 2016 04:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 04:34 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 04:27 Nyxisto wrote:
The thing with drone strikes is that every alternative seems to be just as bloody, if not much more so. Pretty much any war from the 80's onward had 90%+ civilian casualty ratios. There are lots of numbers about drone strikes around but it least it seems as if they've gotten that number down somewhat over the last few years. Yeah if you ignore Just War Theory and only care about the life and liberty of US/Western persons then it's a perfectly great tool, because non-Western people are just ants anyway. Even if you were to apply Just War Theory, I'm not sure that it per se prohibits current American drone operations.
Depends on your assumptions about states and citizens. Drone operations outside of ISIS-controlled Syria at the very least dehumanize and depersonalize non-US citizens. I'm sure you would agree that it would be immoral/illegal to use drones in the United States with possible citizen casualties. Preemption involves a calculus that the life of a pre-criminal is worth less than the life of an innocent citizen. But when you are striking in a sovereign country in peacetime you are also devaluing the lives of foreign innocents who are not war participants, have not consented to a legitimate state authority making war (or going to make war) on the US, and have not bargained, as foreign nationals in sovereign territory, for the risk of being blown up in exchange for fewer possible pre-criminals roaming around within their territory. It's like turning them into non-sovereign individuals, unpersons, ants.
|
On July 21 2016 05:06 Nevuk wrote:Four years ago Milo Yiannopolous called for banning trolls from the internet http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/yiannopoulos/3359/the-internet-is-turning-us-all-into-sociopaths/Show nested quote +So perhaps what’s needed now is a bolder form of censure after all, because the internet is not a universal human right. If people cannot be trusted to treat one another with respect, dignity and consideration, perhaps they deserve to have their online freedoms curtailed. For sure, the best we could ever hope for is a smattering of unpopular show trials. But if the internet, ubiquitous as it now is, proves too dangerous in the hands of the psychologically fragile, perhaps access to it ought to be restricted. We ban drunks from driving because they’re a danger to others. Isn’t it time we did the same to trolls?
The irony is rich. But he had not figured out how to feed his ego using the internet, which clearly is his focus.
|
On July 21 2016 04:52 farvacola wrote:
A professor at my law school has actually written on the subject of how just war theory and preemptive strikes don't conflict as much as it may appear, I'll find his book.
There are law professors that have written on the subject of why the death penalty is just or why gay marriage is not constitutional. But I assume you agree with this just war theory guy's thesis.
|
On July 21 2016 04:34 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 04:31 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2016 04:26 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 04:17 zlefin wrote:
Igne ->
I did specifically state:
"There are several different groups of drone strike targets, and the validity of each of them varies. "
perhaps that should've been clearer about the geographical differentiation being the key one, but I did state it.
But surely you can see that the validity of each of them does not depend on the intentions of the people authorizing the drone strike. The validity depends on political and material facts, assuming application of Just War theory. Civilians asking for support in the overthrow of an illegitimate state authority are necessarily engaged in a revolutionary war against said authority, and are war participants in a way that innocent civilians in sovereign countries with legitimate state authorities are not. The analysis has got nothing to do with whether or not the US is "intending" to kill just the bad guys. yes, i did see that, which is why I SAID they varied. Intentions are one factor in moral culpability, and were relevant for the case being discussed. I did not cover the cases that were not a part of the discussion; nor cover all the various reasons for the variation of validity (and there are many). So you're assuming things about my stance that I didn't say. Better to ask for more clarification than assume. I shouldn't have to cover piles of other related cases just so people don't misinterpret what I'm saying. You could've just asked: "what do you make of the drone strikes in Pakistan? Yemen?" that would've been much better. I did ask for you to construct your syllogism so that I didn't misrepresent your views.
and I never said I had finished that because I hadn't, and was only responding to other things posted. And I said it would take time. You could've waited for that syllogism and for me to say it was ready. So I still consider this to be on your error.
Also your continued use and pushing of the ants things bespeaks a strong agenda and less a search for understanding. Such things tend to, though do not necessarily cause, arguing in poor faith.
|
Actually, I'm not sure. He's a good prof though 
|
On July 21 2016 00:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin. I disagree; I consider it to be quite substantial. And it is regarded as so by criminal law systems throughout the world. Also, why add the hyperbole? it adds nothing to your point, and only detracts from it with nonsense. Your point is better made without the hyperbole.
@ zlefin
Sure dude, agree to disagree about whose fault it was, but we arrived at common ground. I was responding to the bolded part of your post here which was presumably supporting this point raised earlier in the thread:
But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy".
So it seemed like you thought intentions mattered quite a bit. It still puzzles me why you even decided to comment on the intentions justification, since you seem to agree with me that numerous political and material facts weigh on the validity of any drone strike, and that the intent has relatively little bearing.
|
On July 21 2016 05:16 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 04:34 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 04:31 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2016 04:26 IgnE wrote:On July 21 2016 04:17 zlefin wrote:
Igne ->
I did specifically state:
"There are several different groups of drone strike targets, and the validity of each of them varies. "
perhaps that should've been clearer about the geographical differentiation being the key one, but I did state it.
But surely you can see that the validity of each of them does not depend on the intentions of the people authorizing the drone strike. The validity depends on political and material facts, assuming application of Just War theory. Civilians asking for support in the overthrow of an illegitimate state authority are necessarily engaged in a revolutionary war against said authority, and are war participants in a way that innocent civilians in sovereign countries with legitimate state authorities are not. The analysis has got nothing to do with whether or not the US is "intending" to kill just the bad guys. yes, i did see that, which is why I SAID they varied. Intentions are one factor in moral culpability, and were relevant for the case being discussed. I did not cover the cases that were not a part of the discussion; nor cover all the various reasons for the variation of validity (and there are many). So you're assuming things about my stance that I didn't say. Better to ask for more clarification than assume. I shouldn't have to cover piles of other related cases just so people don't misinterpret what I'm saying. You could've just asked: "what do you make of the drone strikes in Pakistan? Yemen?" that would've been much better. I did ask for you to construct your syllogism so that I didn't misrepresent your views. and I never said I had finished that because I hadn't, and was only responding to other things posted. And I said it would take time. You could've waited for that syllogism and for me to say it was ready. So I still consider this to be on your error. Also your continued use and pushing of the ants things bespeaks a strong agenda and less a search for understanding. Such things tend to, though do not necessarily cause, arguing in poor faith.
Oh shit, I forgot. Rhetoric not allowed. Must persuade through cold, neutral logic alone with analytically precise terms and fully enumerated conditions and caveats.
You really don't like the "ants" thing? I guess that's just another thing we will have to agree to disagree on. You are free to use terms like "unperson", "subhuman", "exploited chattel", etc. if you prefer those.
But honestly if you think I, in particular, am a polemical, agenda-driven fanatic who doesn't respond to the content of arguments I don't even know why you post in this thread, because there are few people in here who care about consistency and content more than I do.
|
Devils advocate here but isn't ISIS kinda good for the west? keeping the middle east down for more years while the oil runs out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
