Bootyboy wrote:
SilkWizard wrote: It's not really that surprising, Silk can't be told apart from a generic college Republican, down to the smugness and Racism. | |
Jp wrote:
It's not a matter of stereotypes. It's a matter of cold, hard fact - there have been a number of cases of US troops hitting civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yeah we know British soldiers would never hit civilians they are perfect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6HS6jyxoFE | |
Woo, lots of comments.
Silk: When enemy combatants set up base and hide near (or with) civilians, the military has little choice. There is a big difference between collateral damage and soldiers killing civilians for sport. The U.S. takes extreme care to avoid civilian casualties; doing otherwise would sabotage our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given that the US campaign in Iraq started out by literally firing missiles at the capital city of Iraq, and given the number of civilian deaths, and given the number of examples of negligance by the various armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think it's pretty clear that not enough care is being taken. Yes, it's unavoidable that some civilians are going to die, particularly when, yes, the guerillas are using the populace as a shield. But not this many. I'm not so sure the odd civilian death is out of line with the intentions of some of the upper levels of the US government at the start of the war. It's pretty damned clear that this was always about oil and international politics, rather than to help the Iraqi and Afghan people. That's not to say I think that the Bush administration wanted to kill civilians, or even didn't care about them - but I don't think it's ever been a high priority. Yes, Ace is a muslim. I'm pretty sure he's been left-leaning since well before his conversion to islam. And given the number of people who dislike the various wars America has started in the middle east without being a muslim, I don't think that 'explains' much at all. Soldierman: Yeah we know British soldiers would never hit civilians they are perfect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6HS6jyxoFE You've misinterpreted my post. I wasn't trying to say "Yes, the stereotype is true, Americans just want to blow shit up" I was saying "It's not because of a stereotype, it's because American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have blown shit up". Re-reading my comment, that's a pretty easy misreading to make. Sorry. Anyway, at no point have I intended to claim that only Americans are shooting the wrong people, nor that the British (or Australian) troops over there haven't made mistakes. Just to be clear, my opinion of the situation in general: It's not on to protest at soldiers, particularly soldiers returning from war. Unless they're the specific group that was responsible for some incident, they're probably innocent of wrongdoing. Protest at the government, the soldiers don't determine where they go. | |
Jp wrote:
It's not on to protest at soldiers, particularly soldiers returning from war. Unless they're the specific group that was responsible for some incident, they're probably innocent of wrongdoing. Protest at the government, the soldiers don't determine where they go. Particularly considering it was the Government that didn't respond to the concerns about civilian casualties, that made the decision not to count civilian casualties etc. I suspect that you and Silk agree on one thing certainly, which is that the soldiers themselves don't particularly deserve this kind of treatment for following orders. I personally wouldn't have, however I also didn't join the Armed Forces because of that fact. I wasn't prepared to sacrifice my moral decision-making for the sake of orders. That said, I can certainly also appreciate the sentiment shown toward the soldiers, even if I really don't agree with it. Although that kind of blame can also be sat on our collective heads, for not doing anything after the initial anti-war protests. | |
Bootyboy wrote:
Collectivist bigotry... that's very disappointing coming from you, Silk. As has been obvious to me for quite awhile, you have a very skewed concpet of what collectivism is. If I were insulting Acebloke's race, gender, health or sexual orientation, THAT would be collectivist bigotry. Rand's description of racism/collectivism: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." Acebloke has made a conscious, measured decision to become a Muslim. This decision was based upon his ability to reason, and his system of ethics. Being a Muslim isn't an uncontrollable genetic trait, like race, nor some sort of physical ailment, like a handicap. Acebloke chose his belief system. Now, that tells me something about him. Knowing (at least in part) what he believes, and the ethical guidelines he has decided to follow, it actually tells me quite a bit. If Acebloke were a member of "THE CHURCH OF THE MAGNIFICENT PURPLE ELEPHANT", that would tell me something about him as well. Attacking a belief system is not "collectivist bigotry". Get your facts straight before making such accusations. You've got a lot to learn about the anti-collectivist ideals that you claim to hold. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Bootyboy wrote: Collectivist bigotry... that's very disappointing coming from you, Silk. Just so the BYOND community can see for themselves, I clearly understand what collectivism is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." You are decribing a subset of collectivism: racism. A modicum of research will inform you that your view is incomplete... that is, if you believe collectivism only applies to race. Acebloke has made a conscious, measured decision to become a Muslim. This decision was based upon his ability to reason, and his system of ethics. Being a Muslim isn't an uncontrollable genetic trait, like race, nor some sort of physical ailment, like a handicap. Acebloke chose his belief system. And assumption of declaration of one's religion is supposed to excuse you of a broadbrushed assumption? Again, it would be beneficial for you to understand collectivism. Now, that tells me something about him. Knowing (at least in part) what he believes, and the ethical guidelines he has decided to follow, it actually tells me quite a bit. If Acebloke were a member of "THE CHURCH OF THE MAGNIFICENT PURPLE ELEPHANT", that would tell me something about him as well. Then expand for the community, with specifics, data, and logic why the statement: "Is Acebloke saying that because he's a Muslim? Because that would explain a lot." What about being Muslim would explain it? He is a free thinker and chooses to do it... just like you are a free thinker. Attacking a belief system is not "collectivist bigotry". Get your facts straight before making such accusations. You've got a lot to learn about the anti-collectivist ideals that you claim to hold. Again, it's a shame you don't want to research much. The BYOND community who reads the simple two page wikipedia page I referenced will have a better understanding of collectivism than you do now... and given your research skills, probably for a long while. | |
It's been long enough since I've talked to you that I've forgotten that you don't actually bother to read my posts before you reply to them. Consider this my last response to you on this topic, because debating with you is a waste of my time.
To use my own words to answer your "new" points: Bootyboy wrote: And assumption of declaration of one's religion is supposed to excuse you of a broadbrushed assumption? SilkWizard wrote: Acebloke has made a conscious, measured decision to become a Muslim. This decision was based upon his ability to reason, and his system of ethics. Being a Muslim isn't an uncontrollable genetic trait, like race, nor some sort of physical ailment, like a handicap. Acebloke chose his belief system. Bootyboy wrote: Then expand for the community, with specifics, data, and logic why the statement: "Is Acebloke saying that because he's a Muslim? Because that would explain a lot." What about being Muslim would explain it? He is a free thinker and chooses to do it... just like you are a free thinker. SilkWizard wrote: Now, that tells me something about him. Knowing (at least in part) what he believes, and the ethical guidelines he has decided to follow, it actually tells me quite a bit. If Acebloke were a member of "THE CHURCH OF THE MAGNIFICENT PURPLE ELEPHANT", that would tell me something about him as well. Bootyboy wrote: collectivist bigotry SilkWizard wrote: Collectivist Bigotry = Racism = "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." | |
Just for the record, in regards to the topic, does anyone agree with what Acebloke is saying? If so, I'd really love to hear why you think this.
| |
Whoa a lot of comments. I haven't been on since so sorry for the lack of response.
I don't want to beat my own stick, but unlike Silkwizard, I happily allow everyone's posts to remain unless it gets completely stupid (which is very very rare). I hope Silkwizards understanding of Islam (in particular in situations of War) include the various Quranic laws of war which include a complete ban on killing civilians, following peace if it is offered (and attempting to promote it) and the importance of free and healthy treatment of Prisoners of War (of which the "Harshest" treatment available to us is to bind them if they attempt to escape or cause trouble - complete ban of torture, execution etc). These are aspects that, as of late, is completely lacking in Western civilisations; and yes that does include British troops which mistreat, abuse and kill civilians and I am just as against them as anyone else. This also includes Muslims, most of the Muslim world if fucked up and virtually all militant groups go against what I personally believe. "The U.S. takes extreme care to avoid civilian casualties; doing otherwise would sabotage our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. " Sorry Silkwizard, I don't mean to laugh at you as I don't hate you as much as you probably think I do, but perhaps that might be why Nato forces are doing so badly in the public support from those two countries. The use of unmanned drones and bombers to attack areas that we KNOW include civilians, should not be legitimised by the fact that there are Taliban/Iraqi Nationalists/Al-Qaeda affiliates using it for a base. Our nations inability to speak up for crimes like this is why I get so pissed off with my own military, my own Government. For our Soldiers to do the right thing is not enough, we are supposed to be in an alliance (a Military Alliance at that) and yet we are working to different rules and different scripts. I would very much like to source news articles relating to this, but only if European/African/Arab/Asian sources are considered credible. I've noticed a lot of Americans discount a lot of news sources for being too "Liberal" or "Left wing" or something. But ok, lets just do a quick search in the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1638657.stm (some civ deaths) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7685593.stm (heck, school AND the wrong country!) http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_2890000/ 2890183.stm (the Iraqi Governments count was 14 dead! on the childrens section of the BBC site too) | |
Three links, all from the same source. One is from 2001, and briefly mentions some civilian casualties, one is from 2008 and is about the bombing of a "school" that was actually a base for a Taliban leader. The third doesn't work.
If that's all the proof you can muster, I feel pretty comfortable calling you a liar and a coward outright. You also have nothing to back up this statement: Acebloke wrote: I don't want to beat my own stick, but unlike Silkwizard, I happily allow everyone's posts to remain The only comments I ever delete on my blog are from people launching personal attacks on me or others. I always follow up the deletion of such offensive comments with a lifetime ban. Seeing as I've banned most of the trolls on BYOND, I rarely have to delete such comments anyway. So, you're left with nothing, other than ad hominem attacks on me trying to distract from the real issue, which is that you have absolutely no proof for your outrageous accusations of murder. Frankly, you're no better than the scum who taunted those soldiers. Acebloke wrote: Sorry Silkwizard, I don't mean to laugh at you as I don't hate you as much as you probably think I do It hadn't occurred to me to consider your opinion of me, one way or the other. Based upon what you've written here, however, if you didn't hate me I might be concerned. | |
Bootyboy, reading back over your last post, I caught something. You quoted me, but completely edited my statement to make it have an entirely different meaning.
My original words, a question to Acebloke: "Are you saying that you're a Muslim? Because that would explain a lot. " Your edit: "Is Acebloke saying that because he's a Muslim? Because that would explain a lot." Perhaps you did it innocently - but that is a dirty, dirty way to debate someone. It also supports my conclusion that you aren't interested in responding to what I have to say, but instead want to stand up on your soapbox and preach whatever is on your mind at the given moment. Whatever the your rational behind it, please don't misquote me again. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
The only comments I ever delete on my blog are from people launching personal attacks on me or others. I always follow up the deletion of such offensive comments with a lifetime ban. Seeing as I've banned most of the trolls on BYOND, I rarely have to delete such comments anyway. Then wouldn't you have to delete half your comments on your own blog and most of your posts? You only banned me because kept pointing out flaws in your reasoning. You really are the tim B^Uckley of byond | |
Great Post Acebloke, Im happy others share my views on issues regarding the seriousness of keeping our armed forces in order.
Its really disappointing to see a lot of the news articles about mistreatment of the Iraqi people. I have empathy for our solider's situation but i feel like if more effort (from the higher ups) was put into avoiding those situations, it'd be better for all of us. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
My original words, a question to Acebloke: "Are you saying that you're a Muslim? Because that would explain a lot. " Your edit: "Is Acebloke saying that because he's a Muslim? Because that would explain a lot." That was a mistake, sorry about that... was trying to clarify that it was about Acebloke and not you, and I got my "because" in the wrong place in the process. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
It's been long enough since I've talked to you that I've forgotten that you don't actually bother to read my posts before you reply to them. Consider this my last response to you on this topic, because debating with you is a waste of my time. I actually read your posts from start to finish, and I do reply to them in a very rational and detailed manner. You should try to do the same. SilkWizard wrote: Acebloke has made a conscious, measured decision to become a Muslim. This decision was based upon his ability to reason, and his system of ethics. Being a Muslim isn't an uncontrollable genetic trait, like race, nor some sort of physical ailment, like a handicap. Acebloke chose his belief system. Repeating yourself... hmm... Acebloke has chosen a belief system, but you do not know what it is. You are assuming that if someone declares that he or she is of a particular religion that is implies that they conform to a set of actions that you have a preconceived notion of. Each person is capable of individual thought regardless of their religious beliefs. Every person has free will. All you know is that his religion of choice is Islam, not whether Islam is the reason behind his decisions. SilkWizard wrote: Now, that tells me something about him. Knowing (at least in part) what he believes, and the ethical guidelines he has decided to follow, it actually tells me quite a bit. If Acebloke were a member of "THE CHURCH OF THE MAGNIFICENT PURPLE ELEPHANT", that would tell me something about him as well. Repeating yourself again... not very effective, Silk, not at all. What about him being Muslim explains what he wrote? Do you honestly believe that choosing a religion makes him a mindless robot to the word of the Quran? Does choosing a religion prevent you from exercising free will in the future? SilkWizard wrote: Collectivist Bigotry = Racism = "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." Again, Silk... since you fail again at research, I will pull out the snippet of wikipedia to hopefully educate you: "Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals. The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts/pieces. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism There's plenty more there for you to research... come back when you understand what collectivism is. I'm trying to help you out. We know you're establishing your own "Objectivist" blog -- it's to your own benefit to be able to actually form a logical argument. | |
Mohfar1 wrote:
Great Post Acebloke, Im happy others share my views on issues regarding the seriousness of keeping our armed forces in order. I don't understand how criticizing someone for something they aren't responsible for is okay in any way. These low lifes(which is what they are) are assaulting/insulting people who are defending their(low lifes) right to protest, and live without the government persecuting them(keep in mind these privileges weren't previously available to Iraqis or Afghanis). The soldiers are being called butchers, baby killers/rapists, along with a slew of other dissenting accusations, all of which are false. The soldiers in question in the article have served two tours in the past two years. They served their country with pride, dignity, and honor. They aren't butchers, baby killers, rapists, or murderers. The unit had two of it's soldiers killed in the line of duty; They deserve the utmost respect of not only the UK, but of the whole free world. | |
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
The soldiers in question in the article have served two tours in the past two years. They served their country with pride, dignity, and honor. They aren't butchers, baby killers, rapists, or murderers. The unit had two of it's soldiers killed in the line of duty; They deserve the utmost respect of not only the UK, but of the whole free world. Yeah, it's very unfortunate when the focus is on the soldiers themselves. The Vietnam War was pretty much the first war where the soldiers were labeled as "baby killers" and the like. While technically it's true, it's more a collateral effect of mechanisms of war. As a data snippet, in college I interned at a military research facility. One could easily research statistical outcomes of certain military strategies probably as far back as the Korean War. Everything was modeled, even the collateral civilian damage. There are calculations based on improved technology, but you never have an absolute answer with any of it -- always a margin of error to consider. At best, any war should accept at least a noise floor level of civilian deaths. But, it's hard to communicate that to the public when all it takes is a snapshot from a journalist and a crazed-agenda-filled spokesperson to rile up the masses... all over statistical noise. | |
This is exactly why I don't get into politics. Every time I see something like this I'm reminded of South Park when the whole town gets mad and just starts going "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE"
:) | |
Bootyboy wrote:
Disturbed Puppy wrote: I suspect what you are seeing there is an emotional response to the situation as a whole. I definitely don't agree with the way they went about it in so far as they are directing their feelings at the wrong people, however their concerns are worth considering. Unfortunately statistical noise is not an explanation people who are emotionally involved would listen to. Stepping away from the protest itself, there are certain things about war that I've found to be personally alarming. The big one is the decision by the Coalition not to make any record of civilian deaths. While I can appreciate the argument that says this kind of record would be an administrative overhead the forces could not bear, it's still rather concerning from the wider perspective of our conduct. For a good while in Iraq, Coalition forces represented the strongest and most effective organisation on the ground, making them best placed to maintain something vaguely resembling an accurate record of civilian casualties. To make a decision against at least attempting to keep count sent out a very worrying message to me. That perhaps they aren't keeping count because they just don't care at the end of the day. I really don't think the soldiers themselves felt that way, but it does leave me with certain doubts about the approach taken by people higher up. It sends out a very mixed signal. We're meant to be the good guys, but we don't even keep track of the losses suffered by the people we're meant to be liberating. There is a pretty nasty side-effect of this decision too, which is no-one has anything close to an accurate figure on the civilian casualties. The Iraq Body Count project puts it at what they acknowledge to be a conservative estimate of 91,000 since the invasion. On the other hand, ORB puts their top-end at a staggering 1,120,000. Both are considered loosely credible (in so far as their is some methodology and the numbers aren't just plucked out of thin air), yet they vary by a frightening factor. A Coalition project would've produced something that I'd consider to be a much more accurate estimate, however it wasn't conducted, leaving us with this "anyone's guess" situation. That represents one of the things I am left feeling should be given some serious review. | |
Are you saying that you're a Muslim? Because that would explain a lot.
Collectivist bigotry... that's very disappointing coming from you, Silk.