Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

[thalassa]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

What is choice 3? How do you negotiate with people that dont want to. Truthfully?

You don't.


There are people that can't be reasoned with. They can't be reasoned with because they don't believe in compromise, or in acceptance. (ETA: And some of them believe that they are so right that they will kill anyone that not just opposes them, but even disagrees with them, without any attempt at discernment or mercy. They have no compassion for anyone that is not like them--and none even for people that are like them and dare to disagree with them.)

If they aren't doing harm, let them go*. When they are, mitigate the harm.

Choice 3 is the acceptance that if life is worth giving, worth creating, and worth saving, then sometimes it is necessary to take it away. Give life with humility, take it with compassion.

Its about trying to navigate the path of least harm. Sometimes you are wrong. Sometimes mistakes are made and accidents happen. And yeah, sometimes people resent you. That is part of life. And it is part of the consequences we accept when we make those very hard decisions.


*ETA: There are many people in this world that can't be reasoned with, beyond groups like ISIL--fundamentalists and zealots of just about any ideology we've managed to dream up. Often these people don't cause pervasive harm--they live in insular groups or keep their opinions relatively low key--relatively speaking, they are harmless and can be left to their own devices (though perhaps watched in case they escalate) More often they do localized harm--quiverfull families, Fundamentalist Mormons, etc....and we have laws that can (and do) deal with the greater abuses people like this cause.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

Here's my option 3 (although I also like the way Thalassa says it)

Treat them like the terrible criminals they are, and deal with them as criminals are dealt with.

First, prevent them from doing more harm, if possible.
Second, confine them, if possible.
Third, subject them to fair justice, if possible.
If none of the above are possible, one is left with no option other than shooting them down, or learning to live with what they do.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

I knew I shouldn't have expressed my dire cynicism, up in here.

Please, count me out of that "either/or" equation. I do not belong to either camp, 1 OR 2. Even option 3, whatever it would or could be, would make my skin crawl, to be honest.

In the following, please be aware that "we" is SERIOUSLY in a vague, general sense and that "they" is also extremely vague and generalized. My point here is about humans, and the isolated nature of their individual upbringings (on a global scale), along with a real close look at the psychology of the human animal. Period.

I see things in small scale and large scale. On a small scale, I wish absolutely no harm to anyone here, with only a couple of exceptions, possibly. I get along famously with individuals, actually, as I'm often seen as charismatic, outgoing and sensitive to the needs of others. On the other side of that coin is this global scale that I very much think people have the wrong impression of. We humans aren't stewards of the planet. But we *are* just arrogant enough to think reality and nature can be neatly modified to suit our desires.

People around the world like to point fingers at others, for blame mostly but also to enhance their own personal viewpoint that, somehow, they are richer in culture, more discerning of taste and even respect. That's a fool's errand. So many social constructs, that we wield as weapons, basically, to prove that some other social construct is vile.

Really? Who's the savage? Who, frankly, is the better human?

Now, it's in *that* cesspool that extremists are born. And here we sit, thinking that our homegrown extremism is somehow less offensive to others than their extremism is to us. We are moulded into this reality by our "Western" culture - if you had been born in, say, some Middle Eastern country, outside of Israel, you'd feel the exact opposite that you do now. How can it be, that where you are born decides whether *this war* or *that bombing* is righteous or not? Who is actually capable of answering that without any influence brought on by their own culture, social breeding (seriously!), experiences, perspective or subconscious bias? God(s)? Some philanthropic philosophy? That makes me laugh.

What is it, exactly, that sets us humans apart from our anthropological cousins? Could it be, self absorption? Arrogance, perhaps? I don't know. I presume it's a mixture of those and a few other well-cherished vices, like hypocrisy. Certainly, we aren't alone in our capacity to kill but the REASON we kill --like, how one thinks and believes -- can be downright appalling.

I'm not writing off the human race, I'm observing its annoying habit of ignoring the realities of the entire species' delicate existence.
I'm not supporting any "do nothing" stance, when it comes to trying to save people's lives or stopping some of the abominations we have learned to inflict on one another.

I'm just saying that *this* bunch of humans have no business deciding whether the perspective on life of *another* bunch of humans is valid or worthy of extermination. I know we can't all just get along, I'm nowhere near that naive. I know that bombing the shit out of a few *strategic targets* isn't going to stop others from [vehemently] condemning us or our actions. I know that a meteor, about the size of Mount Everest, was very likely to be the chief influence on the extinction of not just one species but hundreds, maybe thousands. I know how huge the relative impact was, from SL-9, when it impacted Jupiter. I know the earth will get hit again - not just with *little* rocks like Meteor Crater, Tunguska or Chelyabinsk but BIG ones, larger than Long Island even. Which would create a crater nearly 4 times the size of the "Dinosaur Killer"'s crater. The rocks are out there. We've come close, before, with a teeny, 9 mile jobbie that would have left a crater a little larger than the Yucatan Peninsula crater, from 65 million years ago - more like 200 miles instead just 125 miles across.

That's the end of ALL life on earth, potentially, not just us humans, and we're more concerned about these international squabbles, these tiffs, between cultures?

My gods, humans are such petty, narrow-focused germs. If only they would have paid better attention to less selfish pursuits. I would so love to live in a world that did not have wars, rape, FGM, child abuse or any of those other "fun" activities that too many are unwilling to end or are incapable of stopping. As unrealistic as it is, sure it's something to consider, something to maybe strive for, something to try and achieve. At the very least it should keep all those self-serving genocidal monsters amused until there is nothing left alive to notice that it was all for naught.


So, let me be clear. I do not support more wars. I do, however, support every single man and woman that is enlisted to potentially sacrifice life and limb for their country. I do not support terrorism. I do, however, support the fact that people will always have differing beliefs and points of view. And that is not a 'bad thing'. I detest the killing, no matter who does it. I detest the human rights abuses, no matter who does it. I detest the concept that Western[ized] Civilization should be the ONLY civilization. I detest all the hate, prejudice, callousness and flat disregard for life. And I do not like the fact that I have had to, now, learn how to hate. To me, it's nothing more than a type of self flagellation or extreme deprecation. It's self-defeating to hate hate.

That's all I think I can say, about it. We've gone off the deep end.

[loststarshine]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

^^ well said

[nbdy]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

A few thoughts upon reading this thread: (1) the old trope about how a person can be intelligent, but groups of people tend toward stupidity, (2) wondering if there is some point after which a person's redemption is not possible, and (3) the responsibility each has to all vs. the responsibility all has to each.

I would imagine that just about any member of ISIL would be capable of sounding quite reasonable once separated from the pack. I don't imagine this as a bunch of crazed killers who just happened to get together but as a politically motivated movement of people who have known far too much brutality and disillusionment, and are painting the world in their own images. The group normalizes extreme behavior.

As I considered this I began to wonder if there was some point along that trajectory from which a person could not return. I read the book A Long Way Gone, a first hand account of a boy soldier's redemption, and even though I rejoiced that he had recovered his soul and made a life, I wondered the same thing, whether he still had that inside like an dormant seed that would sprout in the right conditions. The point is that if we are going to talk about killing them all then we are conceding that they are all past redemption, that there is some point past which there is no hope of a person being able to function peacefully in society. I really don't know.

We each make decisions that help determine the type of world we inhabit, so it is not only appropriate but a human responsibility to reject human expressions contrary to what we perceive to be right action. In this case, there are no easy choices, and I am grateful that I am not making the big decisions right now because I'd probably be losing a lot of sleep. There is a high degree of agreement among people all over the world who are not in the habit of agreeing that the path of ISIL is not one of right action, we know that this is not who we wish to be or how we wish the world to be, and yet Nietzsche was spot on about the danger of becoming the monster you engage in battle. No easy answers.

Hardly seems worth posting, but I spent a fair bit of time typing it. *shrug*

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.

Friedrich Nietzsche



It's what I keep thinking when I read the news...

[ChainLightning]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.

Friedrich Nietzsche



It's what I keep thinking when I read the news...

Ugh. No kidding!


It's probably the main reason I like living "in the sticks", in brilliant seclusion and privacy; the only madness I have to cope with, day to day, is my own. Plus, not having a TV in the room I spend most of my time in.

/recluse

[anunitu]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

The powers that be have determined that violent killings are UP,from their very long study.....Wonder what was their first clue?

[loststarshine]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

Looks like were gonna be at this a while

Not weeks. Not months. Years.

That's how long nations entering the fight against ISIS may need to be prepared to spend on the battle, British and U.S. officials say.

British Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament Friday of the likely length of the mission ahead of what turned out to be an overwhelming vote to send UK air power into the fight.

But, he said, what choice does the country have when faced with a well-funded, highly organized force known for virtually unmatched cruelty?

"Beheadings, crucifixions, the gouging out of eyes, the use of rape as a weapon, the slaughter of children. All these things belong to the Dark Ages," Cameron told British lawmakers.

"Left unchecked, we will face a terrorist caliphate on the shores of the Mediterranean and bordering a NATO member, with a declared and proven determination to attack our country and our people," he said.

The same message came from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington: "This is going to be a persistent and sustained campaign, and it will take time," Gen. Martin Dempsey said Friday at a Pentagon briefing.

Coalition grows

In addition to Great Britain, Belgium and Denmark also agreed Friday to join the list of more than 50 countries that have agreed to support the fight against ISIS.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Belgium will send fighter jets. Denmark also will send seven F-16 fighter jets, a spokeswoman for that country's Defense Ministry said.

On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also offered to support Iraq in fighting terrorists, "above all the Islamic State."

Earnest said Friday that the U.S. is "pleased with the pace of this coalition's growth."

The new support came amid fresh battles between Kurdish Syrian fighters and ISIS militants near a city on the border with Turkey.

CNN's Phil Black, watching the fighting from a hillside in Turkey, reported hearing small arms and artillery fire as the Kurdish and ISIS forces fought to advance toward the Syrian city of Ayn al-Arab.

Turkish Kurds gathered near the border to watch the fighting cheered whenever ISIS fighters appeared to take a hit.

A resident of the city, also known as Kobani, told CNN that ISIS forces are 2 kilometers (1.24 miles) from the city and that resistance forces are running low on ammunition.

"We are hoping and waiting for any coalition air strike on these terrorists, to save our city from the barbaric attack," Hussein Kamal told CNN.

Coalition air power was not evident in the region, but earlier in the day, the United States did turn its air power on more ISIS targets, taking out vehicles in other parts of Syria and Iraq and destroying a command node and a checkpoint.

Why it will take so long

The strikes are having some effect, experts say.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/world/...c=world&page=1

The article continues stating the Iraqis are fleeing from them. Like it or not we are headed for war again.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

David Cameron is a mendacious sack of shite. That is all.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

Unlike conventional armies, which can be defeated or victorious, terrorists, when attacked, hide among the people and, using them as shields, continue to terrorize.

Then, when the civilians they use - fully intentionally - are harmed, the terrorists claim what is called "the moral high ground," meaning they say "look at those naughty people who kill civilians."

Forget, for a moment, that killing civilians is what terrorists do, by intent, by definition!

This is called "provocateur action," and is the standard technique of the terrorist's little black play book.

People like to fall for this shitty little trick. I wonder why that is?

Is it, perhaps, self loathing? Or maybe just dumbness?

[ChainLightning]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

People like to fall for this shitty little trick. I wonder why that is?

Is it, perhaps, self loathing? Or maybe just dumbness?

I gotta keep wondering about that. I actually think it's more from the guilt end of the spectrum with a strong self-loathing twist. I seem to recollect a heap of hypocrisy that had floated around about condemning the events that took place at concentration camps, but nary a whisper about a bunch of "innocents" suddenly being vaporized one August morning. Like, what used to be naive is now painfully aware of collateral damage, or what was vengeance is now shock.

I don't know. I really don't know what people expected. Chivalry? I don't know.

[thalassa]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

I wouldn't see it as hypocrisy so much as people are desperate to see things as absolute, even though they say they know that nothing is absolute. We are programmed (culturally, I tend to think) that we live in a dualistic and dichotomous world where your choices are A or B, and each one leads to the next thing...and that we, as individuals, are either powerless to do anything or able to change the world if we have enough power. But an individual is only as powerful as the number and conviction of the people behind them. And there are too many people without any convictions, or convictions they don't care enough about to work to achieve against. Its easier to bitch.

On some level, I blame moral relativism--don't get me wrong, there are very few absolutes in the world...absolute zero, (maybe) absolute hot, absolut vodka... But still, when *nothing* is always "wrong" and *nothing* is always "right", there's a shit ton of people out there with different ideas of what they should and should not be allowed to do, that are willing to die, and or kill to codify those ideas into a new paradigm. This invariably means that there need to be other people willing to die and kill to defend the existing paradigm.

ISIL is not an existing paradigm trying to defend its way of life--its a perversion of an existing paradigm trying to impose itself by taking advantage of turmoil...yes, turmoil that was at least in part caused by the US and the West (though it would have come to this or something like it sooner or later anyhow after Saddam's eventual death...dude was getting old).

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

Honestly, I think that most people are just so damned decent that they can't imagine that there are some humans - even when those humans have demonstrated themselves to be red handed butchers - who are so cynical in their machinations.

That, plus a bit of healthy distrust in one's own government...

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Now we are in the deep end of the pool.

there are very few absolutes in the world...absolute zero, (maybe) absolute hot, absolut vodka...

Awwwwwww, I thought clicking that would lead me to Harry Connick Jr. or something.......