Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:


Reminds me of general reactions towards Nazism; The Nazi's were people. Terrorists are people. ISIS is filled with people too. That's why it's so scary. We don't like thinking that people are capable of that kind of violence. Distorting it by lumping them down to simple psychos, or disturbed individuals blinds us to the reality that somewhere along the line, a perfectly normal person stopped being normal and started strapping bombs to kid's chests and sawing peoples heads off.

Trust me, I've been enough places to know some people are capable of all kinds of evil things. They are not 'regular people' though. Regular people end up terrorized by/submitted to these folks. I'm not calling them simple psychos. I know enough about the radicalization and desensitizing processes to have a bit of a grasp as to what we face. The turing of kids into murderous thugs in parts of Africa is another example. Those kids are not 'regular people' one they find it okay to hack apart their parents and other villagers with machetes.

Calling a person who takes a downed pilot, jams him in cage and sets him on fire a 'regular person' is silly. Regular people don;t set other people on fire. That is not a regular act in any part of this world.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I saw evidence of internal debates they were having. We assume that they are monolithic in what they think, and in fact they’re not. Is it OK to kill civilians? Is it OK to kill children? The destruction of the mausoleums in Timbuktu: Was that a good thing for us to do?

Look at that. Terrorists have internet debates just like regular people!

Too bad they are not regular people.

Except they totally are. What makes you think they aren't?

Well, we're past the point in history where it is acceptable to saw off a captive's head or put a prisoner in a cage and set him on fire. Blowing up historical sites because they were representative of a religion other than your own is also not considered 'good' anymore. Forcing low intelligence kids to strap on bombs and then remotely detonating them in market places is also discouraged. Chucking folks off the roof of buildings for having a sex life you don't approve of is also considered bad.

Regular folks don't do these things at this point.

Where we're from, sure, that's true.

AlmightyWalrus so often I see your posts and think you truly sympathize with horrible people. To call them regular people is to consider the behavior exhibited by them normal and acceptable. They do not fit in to societal views or world views as to what is acceptable, therefore they are not the regular, they are irregular.

 redleger wrote:
AlmightyWalrus so often I see your posts and think you truly sympathize with horrible people.

Heaven forbid anyone hold a different opinion than someone else, but I'm not sure that you can take A and drag it all the way to Z like that. Pretty sure there's letters in between.

To call them regular people is to consider the behavior exhibited by them normal and acceptable.

There you go dragging A to Z again. It is entirely possible to see a horrible person as "regular" in an abstract sense, because what is "regular" but an abstract anyway, and still recognize them as horrible. In other parts of the world where terrorism is a far more common daily reality than the boogyman it is in the West, it can be very regular. ISIS might be grabbing all the headlines for its brutality, but there are hundreds of thousands of terrorist groups in the world. You'll have a hard time jamming them all into your little box of inhumanity. A really good movie for this is The Battle of Algiers, a 1966 film about the Algerian War which hosted one of the world's first "modern" terrorist campaigns. It also happens to be a classic film and is totally worth watching just because they don't make action scenes like that anymore Now it's all shaky cam, and switch angles more frequently than fish flopping about on dry land.

The thing is, we're now having a discussion on an internet forum on something that the greatest minds that have ever lived have been debating for some 6000 years...

We're not going to crack this one open.

In saying that... Me personally, I do think there's good and bad people. Whether they're inherently good or not, I dunno. However, like Colossus says, there are choices in life that define whether you are a Good or Bad person.

Sure, there's things like the Stanford Experiment etc. However, I do think that, ultimately, it does come down to choices.

There's a saying, "everyone is the hero of their own story." However, I think that doesn't excuse actions and choices, just rationalises them to the point that a person can sleep at night. - That doesn't make them a Good choice with a big G. Or them being a Good person.
- To Godwin the thread again, think of Nuremberg. If memory serves, many Nazi officials did horrible things, but thought it balanced out by, for example, letting one particularly sad looking child get lost in the paperwork.

So yeah, I do think that a bunch of ISIL fighters are the very definition of Bad people. Though, I do think it's very much a spectrum of Evil to Good and there may be very many of those in the middle.

But, as Colossus says, it's going to be 5 moments or so in their life, that determines them one way or another...

 Compel wrote:

If memory serves, many Nazi officials did horrible things, but thought it balanced out by, for example, letting one particularly sad looking child get lost in the paperwork.

Actually most thought that it was balanced out by "I was following orders'.

It was not a new idea.

"Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know
enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if
his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes
the crime of it out of us." -Henry V, Act 4, Scene 1


You're most likely thinking of Henry Wirz, who thought his treatment of the inmates at Andersonville was balanced by his efforts to keep the children sent to him as POWs alive.

And on a positive note, another high profile ISIS tool bought the farm.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/is-confirms-key-leader-shishanis-death/ar-BBujOCS?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

An Israeli Merkava was spotted in the Golan Heights.

Perhaps a non-issue at face value, though that area's supposed to be an armistice zone.

The Israelis have attacked the Syrian government a few times recently (blowing up air bases before ISIS became a real thing). The IDF could be sticking troops there as a deterrent, but against what? ISIS hasn't gotten too involved with Israel.

Deterrent to the Israelis tends to mean a preemptive show of force...

 redleger wrote:

AlmightyWalrus so often I see your posts and think you truly sympathize with horrible people.

I'm not responsible for your delusions. ISIS is an atrocious group, but we're never going to be able to prevent similar groups from forming if we just can't be bothered trying to understand how they think and decide that they're an abberation.

 redleger wrote:
To call them regular people is to consider the behavior exhibited by them normal and acceptable.

No it isn't. I have no clue how you got to that conclusion, but it's blatantly not necessarily so.

 redleger wrote:
They do not fit in to societal views or world views as to what is acceptable, therefore they are not the regular, they are irregular.

And who decides what is acceptable? In ISIS's so-called Caliphate that IS the norm and acceptable.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
An Israeli Merkava was spotted in the Golan Heights.

Perhaps a non-issue at face value, though that area's supposed to be an armistice zone.

The Israelis have attacked the Syrian government a few times recently (blowing up air bases before ISIS became a real thing). The IDF could be sticking troops there as a deterrent, but against what? ISIS hasn't gotten too involved with Israel.

Deterrent to the Israelis tends to mean a preemptive show of force...

I can your point then again I can see Israel point. Assad group is not a recognized government anymore right? Though I can also see Israel moving in and building up that area in case ISIS goes nuts. Merkava looks to be guarding the construction work(?)

If the Syrian government can barely control its own country, the Israelis presumably are ignoring any pacts made with the government in the short term (not that they tend to care about them in the first place).

I'd suspect they're fortifying the area as a precaution, and may not even be deploying many men there. My take is them just preparing for an increase in hostilities with the armed groups in Syria. That place is too much of a gak-show for Israel to ever mount a proper invasion, especially now that Russia's investing in offshore Israeli gas.

Taking a little bit more of their neighbor's land is always a treat though.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 redleger wrote:

AlmightyWalrus so often I see your posts and think you truly sympathize with horrible people.

I'm not responsible for your delusions. ISIS is an atrocious group, but we're never going to be able to prevent similar groups from forming if we just can't be bothered trying to understand how they think and decide that they're an abberation.
Deciding that they are an aberation means accepting they are not the norm or regular in societies eyes. We can only speak from our point of view, and from a reasonable persons POV that behavior is not regular. To say it is, is to take their POV.

 redleger wrote:
To call them regular people is to consider the behavior exhibited by them normal and acceptable.

No it isn't. I have no clue how you got to that conclusion, but it's blatantly not necessarily so.
As said above.

 redleger wrote:
They do not fit in to societal views or world views as to what is acceptable, therefore they are not the regular, they are irregular.

And who decides what is acceptable? In ISIS's so-called Caliphate that IS the norm and acceptable.

And to accept that as normal means you are rejecting that it is not normal. Unless you are a memeber of the Islamic State, then sure its normal. If you are not, then defending it as normal is actually kind of sickening.

Well, we're past the point in history where it is acceptable to saw off a captive's head or put a prisoner in a cage and set him on fire.

I am not sure there was ever a point in history where someone somewhere was not doing this sort of thing or worse - its not different now and likely will continue happening as long as we have free will, religion, causes, emotions etc.

It seems to be part of the make up of humanity - we are capable tfo great wonders and truly heroic and /or humanitarian acts and truly terrible terrible things, maybe its part of being a carnivore/ omnivore as well, I don't know - maybe the whole pack mentally comes in as well.

 redleger wrote:

And to accept that as normal means you are rejecting that it is not normal. Unless you are a memeber of the Islamic State, then sure its normal. If you are not, then defending it as normal is actually kind of sickening.

He does have a point. We can only speak from our PoV.

What I think ? Nobody is right or wrong. What they are doing is sickening, but not "right" nor "wrong", and the same reasoning applies to us.

However, they are our enemies, and as such we need to get rid of them. To protect ourselves and what we stand for.

 LethalShade wrote:

What I think ? Nobody is right or wrong. What they are doing is sickening, but not "right" nor "wrong", and the same reasoning applies to us.

Honestly, that line of thought is disgusting to me.

 CptJake wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

What I think ? Nobody is right or wrong. What they are doing is sickening, but not "right" nor "wrong", and the same reasoning applies to us.

Honestly, that line of thought is disgusting to me.

I can understand that. Hope it'll not prevent us to continue debating things calmly.

 CptJake wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:

What I think ? Nobody is right or wrong. What they are doing is sickening, but not "right" nor "wrong", and the same reasoning applies to us.

Honestly, that line of thought is disgusting to me.

How do you objectively prove what is right or wrong in a moral sense?

 redleger wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 redleger wrote:

AlmightyWalrus so often I see your posts and think you truly sympathize with horrible people.

I'm not responsible for your delusions. ISIS is an atrocious group, but we're never going to be able to prevent similar groups from forming if we just can't be bothered trying to understand how they think and decide that they're an abberation.
Deciding that they are an aberation means accepting they are not the norm or regular in societies eyes. We can only speak from our point of view, and from a reasonable persons POV that behavior is not regular. To say it is, is to take their POV.

We can also speak from a historical point of view and realize that there's been atrocious behaviour across the globe for as long as humans have existed. In such a perspective, ISIS is hardly abberant. They're friggin' disgusting, sure, but not an aberration.

 redleger wrote:

 redleger wrote:
To call them regular people is to consider the behavior exhibited by them normal and acceptable.

No it isn't. I have no clue how you got to that conclusion, but it's blatantly not necessarily so.
As said above.

As above.

As an example, owning slaves was normal in the American South. Me pointing thing out does not mean that I consider owning slaves acceptable, that argument is completely absurd. Trying to understand the context in which people act does not mean condoning their actions.

 redleger wrote:
And who decides what is acceptable? In ISIS's so-called Caliphate that IS the norm and acceptable.
And to accept that as normal means you are rejecting that it is not normal. Unless you are a memeber of the Islamic State, then sure its normal. If you are not, then defending it as normal is actually kind of sickening.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How do you objectively prove what is right or wrong in a moral sense?

Why do you need to? Objective proof isn't what things like morality and ethics are based on. That doesn't mean it's impossible to determine if something is moral or immoral though, although grey areas certainly do exist. But that also doesn't mean that it's wrong to say that groups like ISIS are very clearly taking part in immoral actions, or that it's valid to claim that their actions fall into some sort of morally relative grey area (they don't).

 Hordini wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How do you objectively prove what is right or wrong in a moral sense?

Why do you need to? Objective proof isn't what things like morality and ethics are based on. That doesn't mean it's impossible to determine if something is moral or immoral though, although grey areas certainly do exist. But that also doesn't mean that it's wrong to say that groups like ISIS are very clearly taking part in immoral actions, or that it's valid to claim that their actions fall into some sort of morally relative grey area (they don't).

If you cannot define what is moral and why that is so, how can you be "right"?

Look at it this way: we all accept the premise that chopping off peoples' heads is something bad. Having thus accepted that this is the case, we say that doing so is immoral. Why have we accepted the premise though? I'd argue that it's because we as a society realize that the benefits ot not chopping off people's heads by far outweigh doing so. ISIS, on the other hand, disagrees, because they're striving towards different objectives than we in the West are. To them, the benefits of chopping off peoples' heads do outweigh the negatives, because they're convinced that God wants it. If God is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not moral, ISIS' actions are by definition moral from their point of view. We'd obviously disagree, but that's the point: it's a disagreement, not something that can be objectively proven. There really isn't any point in claiming that what they're doing is immoral, because either you're doing so to people who already agree or you're trying to convince people that sympathize with ISIS by telling that they're wrong without trying to explain why. Would you be convinced of the moral fiber of ISIS simply because someone affiliated with them said that what they're doing is moral?

This is getting a bit philosophical now, isn't it? Pretty soon someone is going to be talking about relativistic morality, moral realism, universal morality and utilitarianism.

All of which are *way* above my qualifications to debate.

I've attempted to read up on it before... Probably to punish myself for some reason. I think I decided that I'm one for universal morality. However, I also recognise the requirement at times for immoral acts.

EG the classic Val Jean "is it immoral to steal a loaf of bread to feed ones starving family." - Yes it is immoral but that doesn't mean it isn't something that one had to do to survive.

 Compel wrote:
EG the classic Val Jean "is it immoral to steal a loaf of bread to feed ones starving family." - Yes it is immoral but that doesn't mean it isn't something that one had to do to survive.

I don't think even universal moralists postulate that allowing your family to starve to death because "stealing is wrong" is the right choice over stealing so they don't stave to death. Stealing is a legal conception, which is distinct from morality. Allowing people to starve to death when you can do something about it will be immoral under every moral theory I'm familiar with (Utilitarianism, Relativism*, and Categorical Imperative).

As a general rule of moral theory since the Enlightenment; the sacredness of human life is paramount. Any action that results in a loss of life starts on the far end of immorality, and only reaches the near end of morality by whatever strain of reason/logic is being used by the given moral theory to pose the action as preferable to others.

*Relativism has been horribly dumbed down for the sake of politics for most people, who assume that it's code for "anything goes" when it really isn't. And by dumbed down for the sake of politics, I mean politicians have distorted the academic concept so they can use it as an insult.

And that is why I said it was way above me.

Applying Western thinking towards Radical Ideology (or Radical thought processes) is a "No Go"

 Jihadin wrote:
Applying Western thinking towards Radical Ideology (or Radical thought processes) is a "No Go"

Define "Western thinking". Because we totally can try to reason and understand the context in which ISIS is operating.

What people don't get is that you can understand the reasons behind such actions without supporting them.

Apparently, a 17-year-old Afghani refugee indiscriminately attacked passengers in a train with an axe, here in Germany, near Würzburg.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36832909

After the emergency brake had been used, he jumped out and fled. By sheer luck, apparently a SEK(SWAT) was nearby for something else and took pursuit. The perpetrator tried to attack them, too, which has to be suicide-by-cop at the point - he was shot.
A hand-made IS flag was found in his room.

Luckily no victim died of their wounds yet, but this isn't good. This guy had been here for two years already, apparently - no telling at what point he was radicalized, though. Young, too.

 Compel wrote:

- To Godwin the thread again, think of Nuremberg. If memory serves, many Nazi officials did horrible things, but thought it balanced out by, for example, letting one particularly sad looking child get lost in the paperwork.

I've never heard of that happening, though it probably did.

There's a plaque in the checkpoint charlie museum thanking some of the border guards of the Berlin Wall for their systematic inaccuracy when shooting at deserters though. They will still following the letter of, but not the spirit, of the rules.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Apparently, a 17-year-old Afghani refugee indiscriminately attacked passengers in a train with an axe, here in Germany, near Würzburg.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36832909

After the emergency brake had been used, he jumped out and fled. By sheer luck, apparently a SEK(SWAT) was nearby for something else and took pursuit. The perpetrator tried to attack them, too, which has to be suicide-by-cop at the point - he was shot.
A hand-made IS flag was found in his room.

Luckily no victim died of their wounds yet, but this isn't good. This guy had been here for two years already, apparently - no telling at what point he was radicalized, though. Young, too.

Germanny has been very kind, open...
France is not so but Germans initially where very good to refugees

The more it goes with time, the more I think ISIS is just claiming those acts as their own when they happen.

To me, what happened in Germany is more the act of an angry teenager having found an echo for his anger in ISIS' propaganda than a true terrorist.

I mean, it looks like he just improvised than following true directives from someone in particular.

Its incredibly likely IMO that ISIS has no credible links within mainland Europe or IMO we would see continued competent acts of espionage. We see non of this, we see out bursts by sad deluded disenfranchised individuals with weak links to fanatical Islam and an internet search history tainted with questionable research. Terrorist groups have a history of claiming responsibility for attacks that further their cause regardless if its out side their direct influence, it gives them power by proxy. We need to dilute this influence by reducing them to what they truly are not by putting them on pedestals as martyr of a cause.

 Sarouan wrote:
The more it goes with time, the more I think ISIS is just claiming those acts as their own when they happen.

To me, what happened in Germany is more the act of an angry teenager having found an echo for his anger in ISIS' propaganda than a true terrorist.

I mean, it looks like he just improvised than following true directives from someone in particular.

I'm guessing you're associating the picture of a determined, trained killer with a plan with "terrorist"? While those guys are certainly the more dangerous kind, I'd say that attacks like this - some random, radicalized 17-year-old with an axe - is also terrorism, and the kind that ISIS needs and wants. Some random guy, starting to attack people while shouting "Allahu Akbar". If people start to worry about every grumpy-looking, roughly middle-eastern-looking youth - then ISIS gets the suspicion of foreigners and the separation & isolation of minorities in European cultures that they want, because it gives them breeding ground for MORE terrorists.

It's just a good thing that killing someone with a melee weapon really doesn't seem to be that easy, even in a somewhat well-picked location like a moving train where people can't get away from their attacker properly.