Turn on thread page Beta

Now do people see the difference between terrorism and say the war in Iraq? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Sure. Not everyone thinks the same tho, I would like to hear how vienna justifies morally the difference.
    Are you one of those people?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I thought you said it was oil?
    I said the war was partyly for oil. Sanctions and the end of the good relationship were started by Kuwait and Israel.

    Fair point - Al Qaeda doesnt mean much as a term - but I dont see any evidcence of Iranian involvement (I dont doubt there COULD be).
    Fair enough. I just have a different insight into Iran than other people.

    And that means?
    From aggressive, Imperialist Capitalism to welfare capitalism or at least capitalism as it is in scandanavia. Then we'll end up with socialism and then communism. This is my hope.

    So because they dont oust the US troops they must be controlled by them
    No but they have made no anti-occupation noises and things they have tried to do have been slapped down by the US.

    I hope youre right - but Im not sure .... Russian nukes arent exactly locked up nice and tight.
    Not overly easy to steal or launch either though.

    The US would not do that today.
    Because it doesn't need to

    half a century ago
    So you won't use the Jewish expulsion from Israel as an excuse for creating the modern state?

    The most pro war compared to who and on what metric?
    I think it was either British or British and American news agencies. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/bbc-j10.shtml

    As said - I dont take the word of those who suffered in Fallujah at face value.
    He wasn't bombed and he had no family killed. He simply went back after the rampage, And they flattened the whole city. They bombed everything. Maybe they would prefer it if all civilians were gone to refugee camps, but they weren't too bothered if they weren't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    You misread my post - I meant the BABY WAS THE MURDERER - not ebing killed.
    Ah my mistake, apologies.

    The baby clearly doesn't know what it is doing and I agree that in the situation of accidentally killing someone by mistake you are right, however if we apply to this example in Iraq:Those planning bombing raids know there is a certain percentage chance that they will kill someone and this is different.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Are you one of those people?
    I agree with you that moral judgements are subjective and hence it is impossible on a moral level to make an objective judgement between the killing of 1 deliberately and 10 accidentally.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I said the war was partyly for oil. Sanctions and the end of the good relationship were started by Kuwait and Israel.
    I still fail to see evidence for either.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    From aggressive, Imperialist Capitalism to welfare capitalism or at least capitalism as it is in scandanavia. Then we'll end up with socialism and then communism. This is my hope.
    Communism? I cant wait... I can hear the Gulag a'callin

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    No but they have made no anti-occupation noises and things they have tried to do have been slapped down by the US.
    Like?

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Not overly easy to steal or launch either though.
    Not easy - but certainly not impossible

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Because it doesn't need to
    Indeed - my point is that they dont want to kill as many civilians as possible - otherwise they would still be doing it.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    So you won't use the Jewish expulsion from Israel as an excuse for creating the modern state?
    What?

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I think it was either British or British and American news agencies. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/bbc-j10.shtml
    Inherently subjective - I rarely see the BBC give an opinion. RElative to other news organisations, I find it sufficently objective. It certianly hasnt been kind to the government on a number of issues.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    He wasn't bombed and he had no family killed. He simply went back after the rampage, And they flattened the whole city. They bombed everything. Maybe they would prefer it if all civilians were gone to refugee camps, but they weren't too bothered if they weren't.
    He went back AFTER? Then How on EARTH can he provide evidence of the deliberate targeting of civilians for the purpose of killing as many as possible?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    I agree with you that moral judgements are subjective and hence it is impossible on a moral level to make an objective judgement between the killing of 1 deliberately and 10 accidentally.
    You mistake morality being subjective with it being meaningless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Ah my mistake, apologies.

    The baby clearly doesn't know what it is doing and I agree that in the situation of accidentally killing someone by mistake you are right, however if we apply to this example in Iraq:Those planning bombing raids know there is a certain percentage chance that they will kill someone and this is different.
    But it highlights the fact that morality or immorality is a judgement that turns on the mindset of the actor in combination with the acts, not just the acts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    You mistake morality being subjective with it being meaningless.
    Go on.. I'm willing to learn something.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Go on.. I'm willing to learn something.
    If saying "it is morally wrong to do x" means either:

    a) I think it is bad to do x

    or

    b) Most people think it is bad to do x

    Then in neither case is it a meaningless comment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    But it highlights the fact that morality or immorality is a judgement that turns on the mindset of the actor in combination with the acts, not just the acts.
    You think that is the only factor that the judgement rests on?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    You think that is the only factor that the judgement rests on?
    What else?

    How much we blame someone for a result turns on their mental state.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Communism? I cant wait... I can hear the Gulag a'callin
    We'll be dead already don't worry

    Like?
    It was a reflection of Iraqi popular hatred of the occupation that 82 of the national assembly's 275 members signed a petition calling for a speedy withdrawal, after the prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, appeared to be breaking his election promise to insist on a scheduled pullout. Jaafari went on to renege in the most humiliating fashion, standing next to George Bush at the White House as the US president declared: "I told the prime minister that there will be no scheduled withdrawal."
    What?
    I hope you won't refer to Jews being thrown out of Israel 2000 years ago as a reason for the creation of the modern state since you regard my example of half a century ago as too far back.

    Inherently subjective
    What's inherently subjective?

    He went back AFTER? Then How on EARTH can he provide evidence of the deliberate targeting of civilians for the purpose of killing as many as possible?
    I did not say they wanted to kill as many civilians as possible and never have I said that. He provides evidence that there was a massacre. Like journalists who were not present at the Sabra and Shatila massacre, but went there afterwards, can confirm there was a massacre there.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    If saying "it is morally wrong to do x" means either:

    a) I think it is bad to do x

    or

    b) Most people think it is bad to do x

    Then in neither case is it a meaningless comment.
    Its not meaningless, its tells us what a certain societies values are, I agree but quite how much value we do put on that judgement is interesting. In the case I described I would personally say I do not think that there would be a majority for either scenerio.

    What is seen as right tho for case b should not change depending on the area code you are in too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    What else?

    How much we blame someone for a result turns on their mental state.
    The result of the actions. Both should surely be considered, you seem to agree with this in your last post but this post seems to go against that some what.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    We'll be dead already don't worry
    Not me ... Im living till 498. As soon as I stop ordering dominos ...

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I hope you won't refer to Jews being thrown out of Israel 2000 years ago as a reason for the creation of the modern state since you regard my example of half a century ago as too far back.
    Youre comparing apples and oranges. My point is that the actions of a state in the 1940s is not indicative of they act or will act today. Differnt population, differnt culture, diferent government, different policies. I dont know how Israel gets into that.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    What's inherently subjective?
    Measuring "pro" and "anti" war from news coverage.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I did not say they wanted to kill as many civilians as possible and never have I said that. He provides evidence that there was a massacre. Like journalists who were not present at the Sabra and Shatila massacre, but went there afterwards, can confirm there was a massacre there.
    Massacre meaning?

    If you concede that they dont want to kill civilians, then you concede they are not the same as terrorists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Its not meaningless, its tells us what a certain societies values are, I agree but quite how much value we do put on that judgement is interesting. In the case I described I would personally say I do not think that there would be a majority for either scenerio.
    I disagree - but if you want - do a poll - that would tell us - exactly the way you put it:

    Is deliberately killing one person morally worse than accidentally killing 10?


    (Original post by material breach)
    What is seen as right tho for case b should not change depending on the area code you are in too.
    Meaning?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    The result of the actions. Both should surely be considered, you seem to agree with this in your last post but this post seems to go against that some what.
    Of course the result matters - but the result in conjunction with the mindset. Without the mindset the results are empty of normative content.

    If you sneeze and hit someone by mistake as part of the involuntary action - do we make moral judgements? Of course not...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    No it lies in the purpose for the acts. Ie to kill civilians or not.
    In terms of morality it is only a matter of opinion that one purpose is more immoral than another. I happen to agree with you but perhaps not to the same extent.

    So when you say there is an actual difference, then that argument, to my mind, is infallible (unless of course one can prove deliberate and indiscriminate killing of civilians by soldiers in Iraq which is inevitably going to be very difficult but i'm sure John Pilger will make us aware of it, if and when it happens).

    However, the morality of the difference is not something one can prove one way or another. So anyone's opinion on it doesn't either support or undermine the argument for terrorism in London or millitary action in Iraq.

    So in the same way that in some people's minds there isn't always a moral difference between manslaughter and murder then equally it is possible to believe there isn't a moral difference between terrorism/US millitary action.

    This brings me back to my original suggestion that the difference isn't as stark as claimed. I suppose we are expressing different value judgements in that respect.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    I disagree - but if you want - do a poll - that would tell us - exactly the way you put it:

    Is deliberately killing one person morally worse than accidentally killing 10?

    Meaning?
    Poll is done. But I managed to accidentally copy it wrong and miss out an I but message has been dispatched to the mods to ask them to sort it.

    And you seem to apply that a subjective decision based on what most people think was significant yet I personally have trouble with the idea that this varies from place to place. This is more my unwillingness to accept there are no such things as universal morals tho. I realise there aren't but the world would be easier if there were.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zeek)
    In terms of morality it is only a matter of opinion that one purpose is more immoral than another. I happen to agree with you but perhaps not to the same extent.
    I apologise - I was ambigious - I didnt mean ultimate ends - I meant that the purpose of the attack was to kill civilians. The purpose of invading Iraqw was not to kill civilians.

    (Original post by zeek)
    So when you say there is an actual difference, then that argument, to my mind, is infallible (unless of course one can prove deliberate and indiscriminate killing of civilians by soldiers in Iraq which is inevitably going to be very difficult but i'm sure John Pilger will make us aware of it, if and when it happens).
    A point people seem to disagree with

    (Original post by zeek)
    However, the morality of the difference is not something one can prove one way or another. So anyone's opinion on it doesn't either support or undermine the argument for terrorism in London or millitary action in Iraq.
    It does it we start from an assumed grundnorm - which we often do have.

    (Original post by zeek)
    So in the same way that in some people's minds there isn't always a moral difference between manslaughter and murder then equally it is possible to believe there isn't a moral difference between terrorism/US millitary action.
    A moral difference? Maybe not - a difference? Yes.

    (Original post by zeek)
    This brings me back to my original suggestion that the difference isn't as stark as claimed. I suppose we are expressing different value judgements in that respect.
    Stark as in clear - stark as in worlds apart? Thats another matter.
 
 
 

1,075

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.