Morality encompasses more than just law or justice. It also encompasses compassion. I suspect that if a drone from a foreign power flew in and accidentally killed your family, you'd feel pretty upset and want to attribute blame and see justice done.
You should delve into the dark underbelly of twitter, you'll run out of bingo cards in 0.0003 pico seconds flat: All I'm saying is they'll eventually turn on each other.
No it is the moral reality that intent matters in homocide that informs the law, not the other way, it is the result of our moral viewpoint. And still doesn't make it a moral equivalence with the terrorist side. What we are talking about is grievances not morals in such an example and when compared to a counter factual of purposeful murder vs accidental there's an obvious difference.
It is a moral view that it matters, but it does not exonerate. Because the experience of the victim matters too. My point is that the victim may not experience that distinction. We can ague legally and ethically that there is a difference, but the grieving families may feel that it makes no difference to their experience of loss and grief. And unless we appreciate that perspective, we will keep wondering why some people in the Middle East hate us. And a grievance is a moral complaint.
It happened, I'm speechless from disgust: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/...r-bombing-were-pro-sodomite-sluts-and-whores/
That's so unchristian it's unbelievable.(I don't mean the disagreement he has with other people's lifestyle necessarily but that his ideology should inform him that regardless of that he is compelled to love all people. Unless of course he just uses his faith as a cloak for his bigotry.) Cockwomble I think is the term. Unfortunately we have to wage war sometimes and we also have to try and still conduct necessary military operations and our current way of doing so is the best we've got. We've made a lot of strategical mistakes. There are a lot more reasons than civilian deaths. Even if that is so that doesn't mean the actions as a result are excusable or reasonable response or that the grievance is valid. Moreover we must be careful not to make a moral equivalence between the actions of the West in arguing for the recognition of the role of such grievances and cold blooded purposeful killers
I'd actully agree with this in Harlequin's case, but stuartpb did nothing but question moderation practices.
Also: Just saying. Let's name it: We've killed innocent civilians along the way. If our actions can be justified, their consequences can be owned. But they add to the pile. Neither must we disown the consequences of our actions, no matter how just.
I'm sure that rationale has been employed by islamic moderates too, after all they don't have the funds to sit in apache helicopters, shoot indiscriminately at people (who might be reuters journalists) and laugh at the "dead *******s"
I agree guys like that probably secretly love cock. And their wives probably hate gay people because their husbands love cock in the case of WBC in the first photo. [/quote] I think we're probably both roughly in agreement now, as far as I can see we both conceded towards eachother, unless I'm wrong of course.
That's why I said most deaths. There are many examples of such atrocities (but not the norm or the aim) and our governments have to deal with the transgressors. Without Assange we never would have known that.
Rational respectful discourse maybe. I think there might be something in that we seem to be finding less to disagree on each post so I assume...
The Police and security services must have got some gen following last night's bombing and subsequent raids and investigations. The terror threat level has been raised to 'critical', soldiers are ready.
Are you sure about that not being the norm? I would say you can't possibly know, because any reports from the frontline are heavily curated, therefore your opinion on that matter is only wishful thinking. What was chilling about the Manning video is that it was an unedited, raw "slice of life". Embed vimeo video
I don't think it is. The incidents happen because of individual soldiers on the ground and the cover up happens to the top. But there is so much has been leaked in regards to this I don't see much more. I think it's almost like the government is nearly all out of secrets that could be revealed. In regards to high level command as far as I know the strategic bombing is arranged to avoid collateral not to create it. Also regardless I think the idea it is the norm has to be proven.
