Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Labouring the Obvious...

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

09:12 / 27.07.05

Sorry for Labouring the bleeding obvious, but I really had to bent spleen on what I saw on the news last night. Tony, good ol' Tony, referring to civilian casualties in Iraq:

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but...

...does suggesting that 'Innocent Iraqi's are being slaughtered by these butchers' without even a hint of awareness of the depraved irony of saying as much strike anyone, anywhere, as the utterance of a non-psychotic man?

And, upon being challenged about it, following up with:

'We deeply regret the deaths of civilians, these people revel in it.' As if that makes some kind of difference?

Please help me, I feel I'm losing grip on my own sanity here. Does that make sense? Is stating that you 'regret' the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians sufficient grounds for considering your conscience clear compared to those of suicide bombers?

I'm fucking disgusted.

Sorry for ranting.

09:46 / 27.07.05

Actually, I think that there is a very interesting question here. That is, suppose for a second that you support some military intervention on human rights grounds - a humanitarian intervention. To what extent should the inevitable "collateral damage" affect the moral calculation of supporting the intervention and its continuation?

I don't think this is an easy question to answer and I *do* think that there are those who are and were supporters of the Iraq war who are genuinely concerned at this problem. Though not Blair, probably.

One might take the view that ultimately there is little moral difference between deliberately taking life and doing something which will kill people even if that isn't the main objective - a strong anti-war stance would probably be based on that kind of observation. I'm less sure of that, myself, since a war of self-defence isn't usually thought of in those terms. And at this point, people often mention the second world war, though I'm never sure if it is very helpful.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:58 / 27.07.05

That is, suppose for a second that you support some military intervention on human rights grounds - a humanitarian intervention. To what extent should the inevitable "collateral damage" affect the moral calculation of supporting the intervention and its continuation?

I don't think this is an easy question to answer and I *do* think that there are those who are and were supporters of the Iraq war who are genuinely concerned at this problem.

Odd that they should be concerned at this problem, since it is not of the slightest relevance to the Iraq war.

10:22 / 27.07.05

I know what you mean, but I think that there are those who genuinely believe it was a humanitarian intervention. Saddam Hussein, despite the propoganda, really was an evil dictator and we are all glad he is locked away. I think it is deeply mistaken, but still possible to see this as justification for war in good faith.

12:43 / 27.07.05

IRA are not al-Qaeda says Blair
tony telling us all not to compare the two and then doing so.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

14:04 / 27.07.05

Well, in many ways it boils down to this - either we are being clearly told that violence is an unacceptable way to solve a perceived problem, or we're not. Especially violence which kills* civilians.

And if violence is no means to solve a perceived problem, then what the fuck are we doing in Iraq?

If, on the other hand, violence is a valid means of solving a perceived problem, then enough with the "Them and Us" rhetoric already. And no, this is no way an apologist statement for barbarous acts of horror and murder, more a levelling of the barbarity and murder which, apparently, we 'good people' are not involved in compared to them 'nasty evil' people.

*Am I wrong to see no moral or qualitative difference between "which kills" and "deliberately directed at" when considering the deaths of civilians in violent solutions to political problems?

Why is the death of civilians 'by proxy' or 'coincidentally to other aims' less appalling and more easily conscionable than deliberate targetting of such? Am I being disingenuous to suggest that there is no difference whatsoever? Ask the survivng victims of such. "Oh, but we regret your loss."

Oh, well, so long as it wasn't malicious, so long as you aren't revelling in it, come in, use my toilet.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

14:09 / 27.07.05

I know what you mean, but I think that there are those who genuinely believe it was a humanitarian intervention.

Only in hindsight. WMD's. 45 minutes. Lies, spin and dead weapons inspectors. Remember that?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

14:14 / 27.07.05

*Am I wrong to see no moral or qualitative difference between "which kills" and "deliberately directed at"

Sorry to quaote myself there, but this is basically equivalent to the whole 'shoot to kill' farago in that other thread.

You fire a gun at someone, you mean to fuck them up. You don't fire a gun at a human being without the absolute certainty that more than likely, if you hit them, they will die. Shoot to wound? Yeah, right, the Lone Ranger, Clint Eastwood, I saw that movie. Bollocks.

You carpet bomb a city, fire missiles into heavily populated areas, the deaths of civilians are only 'regrettable' if you're a fucking psychopath with a camera in your face. Otherwise, you knew it would most likely happen, and did it anyway. Lack of empathy. Greater good. Whatever weird and fucked up nonsense people who can live with the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians use to convince themselves it's all OK.

16:22 / 27.07.05

Blair is not psychotic. He is, however, articulating a morality based disproportionately on intent rather than outcome. The bombers are "evil" because their "idealogy" makes them intend to kill civilians. Those behind the Iraq war, on the other hand, are not in the least "evil" because, despite being responsible for the deaths of thousands more civilians, their (stated) intent was not to cause those deaths.

Outcome is blithely dismissed as we look to intent to determine who's Good and who's Evil. Which makes me wonder: if the terrrrists couched their aims in terms of regime change and expressed regret for any 'collateral damage', would this make them not-evil? In fact, would this make them even more not-evil than those with a much, much higher body count ie. Blair and Bush?

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

17:13 / 27.07.05

A good point, which highlights the absurdity of the position in the first place I reckon...What's that old cliche about the road to hell and what it's paved with?

17:17 / 27.07.05

So I mentioned the world war two, above, and I want to return to it. A supporter of the Iraq war might respond to Ganesh like this; it is quite plausible that *not* opposing Hitler would have resulted in considerably fewer deaths than a long, protracted war. However, this sort of utilitarian calculus cannot be applied to the situation and one has to take into account morality and the principle of opposing evil as well.

I think there are lots of problems with that sort of analogy, but I wonder if it really does serve as a template for the thinking of the pro-war crowd, where the mythic status of ww2 means it gets misapplied to every conflict, dividing people into the good guys and bad guys. Certainly, some of the language that gets used is pretty suggestive - apologists, appeasers (Chamberlain sometimes gets explicitly mentioned), Islamofascists (sometimes upgraded, nonsensically, to Nazis), Saddam's genocide, a fight for civilisation etc.

Then again, maybe this is just an ordinary process of demonisation used to deflect criticism and justify our own killing.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

10:02 / 31.07.05

Job done re: morality.

The suspect detained in Italy has apparently claimed that the July 7th attacks were 'never intended to kill' but actually planned to 'scare' people...and blatantly linked the motivation to Iraq by stating that 'more than prayers, we were watching films of Iraq and their suffering'.

So, London terrorists and Tony Blair - neither intended to kill innocent people, so they both claim. What a moral conundrum.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

12:24 / 31.07.05

I got the impression that suspect was talking about the attacks on the 21st... ever-so-slightly more plausible as a defence if that's the case. But it doesn't, I admit, alter your point at all.

Scrambled Password Bogus Email

14:22 / 31.07.05

Sorry, Stoatie correctamundo...the 21st attempts, not the 7th.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

15:42 / 01.08.05

It was in all the Sundays that the terrorist suspect in Italy has said that they were motivated by Iraq and not Islam, though the 21/7 attempt appears to have been extremely half-arsed compared to other attacks, so maybe they were different. We'll never know.

And Blair will stand down at the next election. So there is a reason to go on, unless he wants Blunkett to succeed him.

12:31 / 05.08.05

Blair just announced new deportation laws for those living in the UK who preach violence or terrorism or support terrorism.

I'm an American, but hearing this from Blair strikes me as a big deal. It is, isn't it?

23:10 / 05.08.05

I think it's a big deal. On the one hand I think, "Good, those fuckers have got to go. They've been allowed to do their thing for far too long." On the other hand, I'm not sure that praising the insurgents in Iraq is something that one should be deported for. How do you draw the line between someone voicing their opinion and someone advocating violence?

As an American, I think it's great that the British are doing this. You guys are doing us a favor and embarking on a very dangerous test run. Let us know how it turns out.

00:03 / 06.08.05

%Thanks for that, Slim.%