Mmmmm....I think all scenarios are on the table personally.

One thing seems for certain it's going to happen....Well, it kind of already is.....that's the lesson of history with two competing powers in one region...there's an argument for getting it out the way while neither have nuclear weapons....At least I think this is how SA are perhaps regarding it....maybe with half hearted western backing on back channels.

When I say half hearted...I mean that we are never going to back Iran.....because of Israel.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Nov 2017 7.09am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You have totally missed the point.

The article was about how sexual harassment is a resigning issue for an MP but the death of human beings isn't. Sexual harassment should be a resigning but the fact that because people - even children - are not British their deaths don't matter - eg your "We are not interested in the horrors in Yemen." comment.

You are not bothered if a 5 year old kid gets blown away in Yemen, that's obvious. But other people would be if the media actually reported it. The media do not report and this is part of a wider issue of our failure to accept moral equivalence in human life, and that is about 'the Rights' decision to "pick sides in an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' situation. If you accept moral equivalence you are not picking sides.

Also please enlighten me as to how post modernism relates to the article in the context of your response.

Also if you believe that a "gun seller isn't complicit in a later murder." doesn't it follow that someone funding the purchase of explosives shouldn't be complicit in a terrorist act if those explosives are used to bomb a tube train?

Edited by Bert the Head (11 Nov 2017 11.31pm)

Edited by Bert the Head (11 Nov 2017 11.32pm)

Nope, you mislead with your title thread, simple as that.

As I have said, all human life has a worth but I don't equate equally across all human life......and if you have a normal relationship with a family either do you. My views on Yemen are a natural extension of that.

Their lives do matter, but not as much as those I relate to. I wish no one ill who doesn't wish me ill.

These are your characterizations, not mine. I'm expressed myself my own way. I grant you what you are about to read next isn't particularly pleasant but it is reality....how the world works. I feel you have issues accepting human behaviour between groups.....essentially human nature..that's kind of unfortunate because it isn't going to change.....all we can do is make wise decisions about human nature....we can't actually change it....it can be repressed...which is rarely for the greater good...it can be denied or redefined ..but it is what it is.

Moral equivalence in human life? Now you may be different but I usually find that those pushing this view are hypocrites. In reality there is little to no moral equivalence in their own lives.....yet they lecture others on it.

If there is moral equivalence in human life then you value your own life no more highly than a stranger in the street. You value your children's life no more highly than Katie Hopkins's life or the life of some old man down the street who hates you.

Moral equivalence is sanctimonious nonsense that rarely stands up to scrutiny.

Back in the real world of world leaders who have to take actual decisions....moral equivalence is laughable and would quickly see themselves being taken advantage of by other national leaders and quickly no longer being leaders in their own countries.

Head in the clouds stuff.....a denial or disgust of human nature that I find many 'progressives' putting out...Religion is gone but in its place is the same old sanctimonious lecturing moral superiority that looks to repress and shape human nature.....like I say, it's easier to rage against the machine than actually run one.

The 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' situation is the unfortunate reality of many global situations.

It's an attack on how foreign policy works, pretty much around the whole world in the modern era, hence, post modernistic.

I kind of answered this point when referring to the British being armed by the US.....So my first answer to this is the obvious one of perspective.

The US knew those arms were going to be used to kill/murder. Yet they agreed with the aims of those who would use those weapons....because ultimately at chimed more with their self interest.

So to the British those arm sells were celebrated. To the Germans....well, if a German or a satellite state were selling those arms to the British they would be criminals and subject to consequence.

So if you sell arms to SA because you side with them against...whoever....essentially that's the contextual justification.

If you are Joe Bloggs and you are knowingly funding a purchase of explosives for a terrorist attack within your state...then you are an enemy of that state. So you brake their laws because that transaction is specifically for that attack or attacks. You are the subject of consequence here and celebrated elsewhere by our enemies.

So it's perspective....I don't support attacks against my state or my citizens or those I have affinity with and support action against those who would wish me or those allies harm.

Timothy McVeigh pointed out all the hypocrisies of the various positions in his letter justifying his federal building bombing.....essentially his reasoning was perspective justifies action.

[Link]

I found it very hard reading because the reality is that if you are to partake in warfare then the whole question of morality is purely perspective....in other words, what side you support. The innocent will die with the guilty and it's a sh1tshow.

Even if you don't take sides when you could then you still can be pointed at as having allowed deaths by inaction...ie the Syrian vote in Parliament.....There is no innocence or moral superiority because the dynamics of reality don't allow fir it.

There is only perspective and self justification.

I'll say again, every human life has value. No war is better than war. War is the manifestation of hate.

However, If you don't partake in warfare then you are taken over by those who do. You expressing moral outrage would have seen you taken away to a labour camp or put up against a wall and shot or clubbed to death.

If you make the argument that war should only ever be taken in self defence then you can make the argument that Britain declaring war on Germany in WW2 was unethical because Poland isn't Britain. Nations need to make decisions about who to favour in conflicts for greater safety long term. Self defence is self interest and it's an arguable point over what stage it should be enacted militarily.

Not taking sides is unrealistic intellectual luxury.

If you don't support a side and this stuff is really important to you....well perhaps you shouldn't really be living with the benefits of this country...which mostly come from that warfare and move to one that is more agreeable to you.

Live by your own principles don't expect people to follow yours.

Edited by Stirlingsays (12 Nov 2017 4.13am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)