"What the media get wrong is..."

[Fenris]

Does anyone think that some of the impetus to lie spin, exaggerate or minimize in the media comes from our tendency to demand that things like wars on terror be talked about as wars between good and true evil

I mean, one side was literally beheading babies and burning them alive. They gang raped women next to the dead friends. They abducted people and dragged them away to what kind of torture we can't even imagine.

If that doesn't fit your definition of "evil", then what does?

[Oscar_Kipling]

link doesn't work, I know wikileaks has been intermittent for years, I tried last night and again this afternoon. I am going to go ahead and respond anyway without it though.

It was working last night when I posted. But yeah, I get the 504 gateway time out now.

Well, I appreciate you continuing to attempt to clarify. A few more questions, are you saying that when you arrived in country in 2004 you were directed that you had broad authority to use deadly force in any circumstances against anyone that merely had a weapon or were engaged in any activity that you deemed could conceivably be construed as an imminent or future threat and that this essentially describes the limits and character of the direction you received on any engagement while in country?

Yes.

Then in 2005 you received more granular direction in that your ROE included direction for "raids" and then all other activities outside of "raids". Your broad authority remained the same during "raids", but in all other circumstances you were only authorized to engage with deadly force once you were fired upon or hostility had already been initiated by an enemy combatant?

Yes

And just to be clear you were neither directed, briefed or in no way was it intended that you understand that the broad authority you were given in '04 was meant to apply to any specific engagement like the battle of Fallujah for instance.

"Battle of Fallujah" in 05, the ROE was as it was when we first arrived in 04. Maybe our disconnect is I'm talking about patrolling in and all around Fallujah from 04 to 05 on a daily basis and in the middle of a tour, the ROE changes. Plus I was located near ArRamadi when the ROE change took place. While you are focused on "a battle" in retaking of Fallujah. For that battle the ROE was clear for all us Infantry, find the enemy, destroy them, so it was as when we first arrived in Iraq, weapons were free.

Finally prior to 2005 did anyone ever introduce you to the concept of ROE that are applicable to particular engagements, duties or circumstances and not others or that that may be the case during your tour in Iraq?

While we were initially at weapons free when we first arrived in Iraq, this was only concerning clear threat. The two examples I gave may seem vague (person or persons carrying weapons, or a person digging a hole along patrol routes) but concerning the lives of my men, any threat was immediately eliminated.

Any situation that was not a threat, an example: we cordon off the N/S highway along the east side of Fallujah. Traffic is building up on the S traveling side, which is roadblocked by my LT's Bradley. I'm abreast him, to his right on the N traveling side. Our wingmen (the other two Bradleys) are facing(securing) south on the N/S lanes about 400m behind us. He does the required verbal and hand and arm signals based on the ROE but traffic begins to move toward the road block. The LT gets louder, even brings out his megaphone (which we are equipped with) to be even louder, his hand and arm signals get more animated, he even pointed his M4 at the traffic. Yet, traffic slowly moves closer. I inform the LT via the radio that I am going to do warning fire if they get within 200 meters of the front of his Bradley. They moved to that limit and I open fire with a port-firing weapon I kept with me in the turret. I fired half a magazine into the highway, all tracer rounds of 5.56 about 20 feet infront of the lead cars.

They stopped and never moved again until the cordon was complete. If they had continued to move, and a VBIED lethal blast zone is 100m (on average), then I would have taken out the front row of vehicles before they can be such a threat.

The ROE was clear and in 04, we had no problem with the ROE.

22Oct 11:39EST, that link was working.

Yes, your descriptions came off as quite vague to the point of appearing from my perspective as well outside of my understanding of how many rules there actually were for engagement outside of specific circumstances like battles i.e verbal warning signals/signs and warning shots, essentially what constitutes a threat and what you can do about it. Additionally from your previous descriptions it was difficult if not impossible to see any indication that you were given specific and meticulous direction on ROE, which is again well outside of my experience and understanding of essentially anything in the army, instead it seemed you were saying you were given vague instruction and latitude to act with a kind of ambiguous & unmitigated freedom and impunity that you don't get with something as simple as rolling your ACU sleeves. What I didnt get from your previous posts was any indication of the of the rich culture specificity and detail orientation that characterized my expirience (I mean except when it bafflingly wasn't specific). It was also not clear to me when you arrived in country, pre or post the first battle of Fallujah, which to my understanding marked key changes in posture and character for both us and the enemy, in my eyes it is crucial in understanding & contextualizing the arc of your argument. I'll admit that I would still like to go into more detail and gain further clarification regarding exactly what you are trying to explain here and your position, but I do appreciate your efforts  to explain.

[Slug1]

Yes, your descriptions came off as quite vague to the point of appearing from my perspective as well outside of my understanding of how many rules there actually were for engagement outside of specific circumstances like battles i.e verbal warning signals/signs and warning shots, essentially what constitutes a threat and what you can do about it. Additionally from your previous descriptions it was difficult if not impossible to see any indication that you were given specific and meticulous direction on ROE, which is again well outside of my experience and understanding of essentially anything in the army, instead it seemed you were saying you were given vague instruction and latitude to act with a kind of ambiguous & unmitigated freedom and impunity that you don't get with something as simple as rolling your ACU sleeves. What I didnt get from your previous posts was any indication of the of the rich culture specificity and detail orientation that characterized my expirience (I mean except when it bafflingly wasn't specific). It was also not clear to me when you arrived in country, pre or post the first battle of Fallujah, which to my understanding marked key changes in posture and character for both us and the enemy, in my eyes it is crucial in understanding & contextualizing the arc of your argument. I'll admit that I would still like to go into more detail and gain further clarification regarding exactly what you are trying to explain here and your position, but I do appreciate your efforts  to explain.

I honestly feel I can't write at a level that is comprehensible for you.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Does anyone think that some of the impetus to lie spin, exaggerate or minimize in the media comes from our tendency to demand that things like wars on terror be talked about as wars between good and true evil

I mean, one side was literally beheading babies and burning them alive. They gang raped women next to the dead friends. They abducted people and dragged them away to what kind of torture we can't even imagine.

If that doesn't fit your definition of "evil", then what does?

it's not so much the defining of baby beheading and gang rape as evil that trips me up (though I do have my feelings on attaching supernatural agency to that definition), it is that it appears to me that the opposition is good as if by default. In my mind you do not have to be good at all to stand in opposition to literally baby murder and rape, and doing so doesn't make you good. To be frank you don't even have to be against baby murder and rape in general to fight to the death against people that raped your family and murdered your babies. I think most importantly though, the tendency to cast ourselves as good often comes with a sense that what we do and the extents to which we go in service of eliminating evil is also good by default. again, so that i'm not misunderstood, what i'd personally be willing to do in order to eliminate Hamas or various other terrorist organizations would make your toes curl, but i'm not even remotely good, a and a lot of what i'd do out of pragmatism or utility would have both immediate and long lasting repercussions that I don't think anyone would consider to be good. this is all a little beside my point, but I thought it might help you to understand me a little better.

To the point that I was initially trying to make with the post you are responding to though is that from my perspective, if someone like myself points out that what we are going to do in the name of eliminating Hamas (which again they suck if that isn't clear) is likely to end in at least a few headless babies in Gaza and women whose entire reproductive systems and surrounding tissues are turned into a fine pink mist and that is not at all good, then there is no room for that. There isn't room for anything outside of black or white , good or evil and imo that is not the character of war or conflict or humanity. To criticize the media for reflecting back at us our rejection of any nuance, or even the truth of complicated issues in service of casting our actions in ways that don't make us feel a little gross for choosing utility over the lives of people in unfortunate locations is to lack self awareness or any sense of responsibility for the state of the world we've contributed to imo. I should also say that i'm not bringing up the weirdos who are calling Hamas freedom fighters and whatnot because literally no one that i've seen on this board is making that argument so what would be the point other than to rail against a bunch of folks for fun and pleasure.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Yes, your descriptions came off as quite vague to the point of appearing from my perspective as well outside of my understanding of how many rules there actually were for engagement outside of specific circumstances like battles i.e verbal warning signals/signs and warning shots, essentially what constitutes a threat and what you can do about it. Additionally from your previous descriptions it was difficult if not impossible to see any indication that you were given specific and meticulous direction on ROE, which is again well outside of my experience and understanding of essentially anything in the army, instead it seemed you were saying you were given vague instruction and latitude to act with a kind of ambiguous & unmitigated freedom and impunity that you don't get with something as simple as rolling your ACU sleeves. What I didnt get from your previous posts was any indication of the of the rich culture specificity and detail orientation that characterized my expirience (I mean except when it bafflingly wasn't specific). It was also not clear to me when you arrived in country, pre or post the first battle of Fallujah, which to my understanding marked key changes in posture and character for both us and the enemy, in my eyes it is crucial in understanding & contextualizing the arc of your argument. I'll admit that I would still like to go into more detail and gain further clarification regarding exactly what you are trying to explain here and your position, but I do appreciate your efforts  to explain.

I honestly feel I can't write at a level that is comprehensible for you.

haha, I know, and I'm not going to ask you to. I really do appreciate that you stuck with me. Your last post was much more clear, and really indicated that you were trying to work with me, I really can't ask more of you and try to be a person too. anyway thank you

[Fenris]

it's not so much the defining of baby beheading and gang rape as evil that trips me up (though I do have my feelings on attaching supernatural agency to that definition), it is that it appears to me that the opposition is good as if by default. In my mind you do not have to be good at all to stand in opposition to literally baby murder and rape, and doing so doesn't make you good.

Yes, being opposed to murder and rape makes one good.

 

To the point that I was initially trying to make with the post you are responding to though is that from my perspective, if someone like myself points out that what we are going to do in the name of eliminating Hamas (which again they suck if that isn't clear) is likely to end in at least a few headless babies in Gaza and women whose entire reproductive systems and surrounding tissues are turned into a fine pink mist and that is not at all good, then there is no room for that.

Israel is doing their very best to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties. Much more than any other countries have done in similar situations.

At the end of the day, war is hell. If you know of a better way of killing thousands of genocidal terrorists hiding amongst a civilian population, I'd love to hear it.

[Oscar_Kipling]

it's not so much the defining of baby beheading and gang rape as evil that trips me up (though I do have my feelings on attaching supernatural agency to that definition), it is that it appears to me that the opposition is good as if by default. In my mind you do not have to be good at all to stand in opposition to literally baby murder and rape, and doing so doesn't make you good.

Yes, being opposed to murder and rape makes one good.

well, I guess we just disagree, I think it takes more than that. At the very least I think that what actually constitutes the opposition should factor into the adjudication of the goodness of the opposition...ends vs means, good for bad reasons, bad for good reasons and so forth. Personally I suspect good isn't something we can be, it's something we can strive toward. It probably seems like I hold good to a higher standard than evil, and it's because I do, evil is far easier to accomplish.


 

To the point that I was initially trying to make with the post you are responding to though is that from my perspective, if someone like myself points out that what we are going to do in the name of eliminating Hamas (which again they suck if that isn't clear) is likely to end in at least a few headless babies in Gaza and women whose entire reproductive systems and surrounding tissues are turned into a fine pink mist and that is not at all good, then there is no room for that.

Israel is doing their very best to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties. Much more than any other countries have done in similar situations.

At the end of the day, war is hell. If you know of a better way of killing thousands of genocidal terrorists hiding amongst a civilian population, I'd love to hear it.

I mean,yeah, don't do war at all because there isn't a "good" way to execute one no matter what side you are on. I think the least we can do is acknowledge that and remain cognizant that what we are doing isn't good just because it is the best we can manage or the best we are willing to manage. I should also say, just because you aren't "good" it doesn't mean that you are by default evil, what we are is really more complex and nuanced than that imo. I do not think that it helps our ability to evaluate ourselves if everything must fall into a strict binary...and not to beat a dead horse, the fact that this is how we treat things does not promote sober factual detailed analysis, it promotes overly simplistic sloganic takes on things that would be better served by sober factual detailed analysis.

To be clear, I am not asserting that Israel isn't taking world class measures to minimize civilian casualties, but just like the US there are limits to what they are willing to do in the name of avoiding collateral loss of life while still accomplishing the military objectives that they have. And again Israel is not special or weird or mean for having military goals, it is what it means to have a competent military and be attacked.

[Fenris]

well, I guess we just disagree, I think it takes more than that.

Why look for a complicated answer? Moral clarity is just that simple.

I mean,yeah, don't do war at all because there isn't a "good" way to execute one no matter what side you are on. I think the least we can do is acknowledge that and remain cognizant that what we are doing isn't good just because it is the best we can manage or the best we are willing to manage.

I disagree. Using violence can be good, even holy, if it is used for the right purposes. Smashing the Nazi regime is one example. Smashing Hamas is another.

I should also say, just because you aren't "good" it doesn't mean that you are by default evil, what we are is really more complex and nuanced than that imo.

Most people are nuanced. But some are not. Some are clearly and irredeemably evil.

To be clear, I am not asserting that Israel isn't taking world class measures to minimize civilian casualties, but just like the US there are limits to what they are willing to do in the name of avoiding collateral loss of life while still accomplishing the military objectives that they have.

And sometimes a nation has to do what they have to do.

[Oscar_Kipling]

well, I guess we just disagree, I think it takes more than that.

Why look for a complicated answer? Moral clarity is just that simple.

Believe me when I say that I didn't look for this conclusion, It is a conclusion that has crept up on me over the years like a slinking cat.

I disagree. Using violence can be good, even holy, if it is used for the right purposes. Smashing the Nazi regime is one example. Smashing Hamas is another.

Well, Idk that there is much for us to do with this one as holiness is a concept that isn't very coherent to me. I don't like Nazi's either, I'd say they were the worst, but in some ways I prefer an old timey Nazi to a modern terrorist...that's neither here nor there though, Violence is to war as a bucket of water is to the ocean. A single act of violence can be uncomplicated, but especially in the modern era of wars on terror, it is a menagerie of violence. To quote another classic bad guy, quantity has a quality all of its own, and for my money the moral quality of a single act of violence does not linearly scale all the way up to war.   

Most people are nuanced. But some are not. Some are clearly and irredeemably evil.

oh boy could I go on and on about how at least  in my mind our failure to even treat redemption as a possibility much less a priority is the saddest kind of self sabotage and self imposed arrested development. But that would be a tangent, yeah I can agree that if we took a deep dive on every Hamas, how should I say, participant, we would find some that are more or less doing it for the joy of inflicting pain, fear, cruelty and death on others and will never change, never feel remorse or regret even academically (this is about as near as I would define something as irredeemably evil). I do not think that this property commutes to all other... participants, so at the scale of a war i'd argue that you are almost never going to be killing nothing but faceless irredeemably evil storm troopers. All that to say insofar as I agree, in the context of an entire war encountering only this kind of person is not an actual thing.

And sometimes a nation has to do what they have to do.

We've never been in disagreement on this point, just on whether or not it makes them good.

[Fenris]

Believe me when I say that I didn't look for this conclusion, It is a conclusion that has crept up on me over the years like a slinking cat.

That doesn't make it correct, or moral, or justified.

Well, Idk that there is much for us to do with this one as holiness is a concept that isn't very coherent to me. I don't like Nazi's either, I'd say they were the worst, but in some ways I prefer an old timey Nazi to a modern terrorist...that's neither here nor there though, Violence is to war as a bucket of water is to the ocean. A single act of violence can be uncomplicated, but especially in the modern era of wars on terror, it is a menagerie of violence. To quote another classic bad guy, quantity has a quality all of its own, and for my money the moral quality of a single act of violence does not linearly scale all the way up to war.   

I see why other people are frustrated with you.

Your approach appears to be that a state should tolerate violence against its citizens from a neighboring, genocidal state, because defending itself from said violence would be even less moral.

Sorry, I don't buy it. It's neither moral nor practical. 

oh boy could I go on and on about how at least  in my mind our failure to even treat redemption as a possibility much less a priority is the saddest kind of self sabotage and self imposed arrested development. But that would be a tangent, yeah I can agree that if we took a deep dive on every Hamas, how should I say, participant, we would find some that are more or less doing it for the joy of inflicting pain, fear, cruelty and death on others and will never change, never feel remorse or regret even academically (this is about as near as I would define something as irredeemably evil). I do not think that this property commutes to all other... participants, so at the scale of a war i'd argue that you are almost never going to be killing nothing but faceless irredeemably evil storm troopers. All that to say insofar as I agree, in the context of an entire war encountering only this kind of person is not an actual thing.

The laws of war (again, there is such a thing!) recognize that non combatants and innocent civilians will inevitably die in war. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. If anything, the wrongdoing here is by Hamas, who callously and deliberately hide behind civilians, which is in fact a war crime.

We've never been in disagreement on this point, just on whether or not it makes them good.

If you can't tell the moral difference between a liberal, democratic state defending itself against terrorists, and a lunatic genocidal religious fundamentalist state deliberately murdering, raping, dismembering, and kidnapping civilians, I don't think you have the right to lecture anyone on "morality".


I would love the luxury of being a pacifist. I would love to live in that world that was without violence, without hate, without injustice. But it isn't reality. Yet you seem compelled to find every act of violence equivalent. I don't understand it.

[Oscar_Kipling]

That doesn't make it correct, or moral, or justified.
 

Yes, that is true. I was just responding to the idea that I went looking to make it complicated for myself.

Your approach appears to be that a state should tolerate violence against its citizens from a neighboring, genocidal state, because defending itself from said violence would be even less moral.
 

is that what you got from what I said or have been saying? I guess maybe I kind of live in a state of constant cognitive dissonance, so it is difficult for you to imagine that a person might be able to believe that this is not good thing is the same and not believe that Israel should just twiddle their thumbs while hell rains down upon them. I have a hard time understanding how people don't have complicated feelings about basically anything they decide to pay attention to. I'm not trying to make life complicated, I actually believe life is complicated. I guess your insistence that I have to think its good or else I'm either on Hamas' side or some sort of weird pacifist masochist. My first car was the only car I could afford, just because it was the best I could get without organizing my entire life around the project of getting a good car, that did not by force of circumstance make it a good car. I'm sure that you understand this concept when it comes to cars, or houses or maybe even girlfriends or jobs, but if you could imagine a person that could think of this war in that way, then you might understand me and how I could be thankful to have the transportation, recognize that its better than the bus or walking, defend my reasons for buying this car, but also acknowledge that it is not a good car and believe its strange at best & dangerous at worst to insist that its a really good car because its super useful.

The laws of war (again, there is such a thing!) recognize that non combatants and innocent civilians will inevitably die in war. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. If anything, the wrongdoing here is by Hamas, who callously and deliberately hide behind civilians, which is in fact a war crime.

in this particular case I'm not talking about civilians, I'm talking about the Hamas guys and their constellation of backers and supporters. I do not think that they are to a man all soilless irredeemable killing machines...Well I don't believe in souls but you know what I mean. So fighting against pure androids that charge their batteries with the blood of the innocent may be an actual battle against pure evil, but there has never been a war like that where every single guy on the other side was irredeemably evil especially considering that war is a young man's game and people seem to understand how occasionally young people are really passionate about really dumb, dangerous and destructive ideas. It is difficult to even acknowledge that you cannot be sure that all of the combatants that you are aiming to kill would have continued or even escalated their evil deeds, and still kill them. I think that this is a fact that we should  not simply live with, but value and cherish, because killing people should stick with you, even if you were cornered into it and would also do it again.

If you can't tell the moral difference between a liberal, democratic state defending itself against terrorists, and a lunatic genocidal religious fundamentalist state deliberately murdering, raping, dismembering, and kidnapping civilians, I don't think you have the right to lecture anyone on "morality".

I'm an American, I have the right to to feel superior about anything I put my mind to. That was a joke. I can tell that there is a moral difference, The evilness of one does not default the other to good. Have you ever heard of a show called Dexter? If so what do you think of the main guy on that show, Dexter?

I would love the luxury of being a pacifist. I would love to live in that world that was without violence, without hate, without injustice. But it isn't reality. Yet you seem compelled to find every act of violence equivalent. I don't understand it.

If anything I feel like I am making distinctions about violence and treating choices and actions as lying along a spectrum. I mean I made that whole war ocean analogy, how could you possibly think that I believe that all violence is equivalent? Whereas you keep insisting that unless I treat it as rigidly one or the other and perhaps one because of the other, then I too have to be at the extremities as a pacifist or Hamas apologist or supporter or some sort of maniac that thinks beheading babies is morally equivalent to pushing a guy that stepped on your shoe. To me it is no wonder that the media falls all over itself to pick a side and jump all over a definitive take regardless of whether or not it reflects the preponderance of the facts, why bother? Nobody wants it really, they just like to complain about it, not because they don't themselves stake out the extremes, but because its another thing to be ultra categorical about. If it were just this war or just wars in general or just this conversation, or board, or if everything didn't take on this sort of absolutist tinge then I would be more doubtful that I'm seeing a pattern that reflects some ground truth.

[Fenris]

is that what you got from what I said or have been saying?

Yes.

I guess maybe I kind of live in a state of constant cognitive dissonance, so it is difficult for you to imagine that a person might be able to believe that this is not good thing is the same and not believe that Israel should just twiddle their thumbs while hell rains down upon them. I have a hard time understanding how people don't have complicated feelings about basically anything they decide to pay attention to.

Because some things are less complicated than they appear.

I mean, is it regrettable that civilians will die in Gaza during an Israeli military operation? Of course. Does Israel have a choice in the matter? No.

I'm not trying to make life complicated, I actually believe life is complicated. I guess your insistence that I have to think its good or else I'm either on Hamas' side or some sort of weird pacifist masochist.

I don't think you're on Hamas' side. I do think that you're lacking a strong moral compass for whatever reason. You seem to be subject to what is called "paralysis by analysis".

in this particular case I'm not talking about civilians, I'm talking about the Hamas guys and their constellation of backers and supporters. I do not think that they are to a man all soilless irredeemable killing machines...

It doesn't matter if they are "soilless irredeemable killing machines" or not. They want to commit genocide and made a really good go of it on 10/7. They are in a state of war with Israel and so have to be destroyed. It's perfectly legitimate to kill enemy combatants during a war. If you want to sit on the sidelines and pontificate on the philosophy of such behavior, you are free to do so. But passing judgement on those willing to do the heavy lifting while you reap the benefits seems to be a bit much.

Well I don't believe in souls but you know what I mean. So fighting against pure androids that charge their batteries with the blood of the innocent may be an actual battle against pure evil, but there has never been a war like that where every single guy on the other side was irredeemably evil especially considering that war is a young man's game and people seem to understand how occasionally young people are really passionate about really dumb, dangerous and destructive ideas. It is difficult to even acknowledge that you cannot be sure that all of the combatants that you are aiming to kill would have continued or even escalated their evil deeds, and still kill them. I think that this is a fact that we should  not simply live with, but value and cherish, because killing people should stick with you, even if you were cornered into it and would also do it again.

You're not living in reality.

If I may ask, how old are you?

I'm an American, I have the right to to feel superior about anything I put my mind to. That was a joke. I can tell that there is a moral difference, The evilness of one does not default the other to good. Have you ever heard of a show called Dexter? If so what do you think of the main guy on that show, Dexter?

I don't watch much TV.

If anything I feel like I am making distinctions about violence and treating choices and actions as lying along a spectrum. I mean I made that whole war ocean analogy, how could you possibly think that I believe that all violence is equivalent?

Because you seem content to say that "all violence is some degree of bad" and as a result "If Israel were truly moral" they wouldn't take the war to Hamas.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Because some things are less complicated than they appear.

Sure, some things. Now is the hostility that people certainly seem to have toward the idea that a thing that they think is simple is actually complicated well correlated to the actual complicated things and simple things. I would argue that calibrating this is something people kind of suck at because the sensation of certainty that something is simple is a feeling you can have regardless of its complexity. Arithmetic is uncomplicated, I do not think that war is uncomplicated. I do not think the moral implications and outcomes of war are uncomplicated, I do not think the ethical or moral choices that are made are uncomplicated, I don't think that the inciting factors for a war are uncomplicated, I don't think that people are uncomplicated. If all of those complicated things can be boiled down to a simple boolean choice good or evil then I do not see how.

I mean, is it regrettable that civilians will die in Gaza during an Israeli military operation? Of course. Does Israel have a choice in the matter? No.

I guess you can see that civilian death is regrettable, but I guess you cannot cotton to describing it as not good. There is no room to call this anything but good vs evil, but there are regrets. If to me the regrettable loss of civilian life causes me to weigh it as anything shy of good, then my moral compass is in shambles. I can regret it, but that regret has to be a sort of wispy diaphanous notion that has no actual bearing on my moral assessments or judgement. Have you ever heard of a non-apology?

I don't think you're on Hamas' side. I do think that you're lacking a strong moral compass for whatever reason. You seem to be subject to what is called "paralysis by analysis".

Well, idk about that. What we are doing is talking, I'm not some guy in a grocery store with a damaged amygdala that can't make a choice between 2 virtually indistinguishable rolls of toilet paper. Neurodivergent as I may be, these 2 things aren't even close and do not pose this problem for me. What does pose a problem for me is the insistence that I ignore regrettable features that have a meaningful impact on what I deem to be good, for the sake or what exactly? So that I can claim that my moral compass needle doesn't smoothly sweep across its face and instead ticks through discrete setpositions? Perhaps my moral compass is precise, but not accurate, I often wonder this.

It doesn't matter if they are "soilless irredeemable killing machines" or not. They want to commit genocide and made a really good go of it on 10/7. They are in a state of war with Israel and so have to be destroyed. It's perfectly legitimate to kill enemy combatants during a war. If you want to sit on the sidelines and pontificate on the philosophy of such behavior, you are free to do so. But passing judgement on those willing to do the heavy lifting while you reap the benefits seems to be a bit much.

Pardon, I didn't mean that they lacked soil, though I guess in some ways that could be a discussion. For me Legitimate =/= good, that has been sort of my whole deal for this entire convo. I don't know what you think it would mean for me to get off the sidelines and into the game, also what benefits am I reaping? I can in fact be a bit much, i've been told.

You're not living in reality.
 

I wish, when I have difficulty sleeping I like to imagine myself in the alpha quadrant of the Star Trek universe circa the mid to late 2300's. I'm not having adventures or anything, I'm just building things with all of the advanced tools & technologies, so fun to think about. In this reality, I guess I'd deluded enough to believe that what people do, especially on large scales usually defies naive categorisation, I leave the archetypes on the holodeck.

I don't watch much TV.

Man, I love TV. Anyway Dexter is a serial killer, but get this, he only kills other sick demented cruel horrible serial killers because he lives by a code. To him murder is absolutely necessary, He has to kill, its like insulin for him, so he kills only nasty bad guys.

Because you seem content to say that "all violence is some degree of bad" and as a result "If Israel were truly moral" they wouldn't take the war to Hamas.
 

Why is that in quotes as if I ever wrote that sentence? First, it doesn't have nearly enough arbitrary, commas, to even seem like a thing I wrote. Anyway, quote me on this, Everytime one launches precision guided munitions into civilian populated areas in the pursuit of dangerous bad guys then it is some degree of bad. I mean we are talking about war here which again I said is a "menagerie of violence" (why couldn't you quote that one, I mean that's good stuff, "menagere" that is an SAT word), War is an ecosystem of violence. We could talk about my feelings on individual acts of violence, but if I do not believe in the concept of a good modern war, that doesn't mean that I believe that all violence is to be judged the same or even all wars for that matter. A "moral country" makes even less sense to me than a "moral person", Whether they retaliated or not my list of moral countries is exactly 0 entries long. I guess to some, they have to think of themselves and or their countries as moral or else their heads fall off or something, I'm perfectly content to say we, all of us at every scope and scale of human endeavor are along the spectrum of morality and we never can quite reach the either margin...because in my view ultimately morality is just like Arithmetic the in that there is no 7 orbiting a star somewhere, and there isn't some guy that never made a less than morally ideal decision or action, its conceptual not actual. What can I say, perhaps I am broken, perhaps I lack imagination, but I do not see the value in pretending to think that the world works in a way that really doesn't seem possible, advances no useful goals of mine and doesn't help me to explain or understand a single thing about reality.

[Rebecca]

The most words have never made a post, the best .

[Fenris]

If all of those complicated things can be boiled down to a simple boolean choice good or evil then I do not see how.

Was smashing Nazi Germany "complicated"? Or a simple choice of good vs evil? Clue me in here.

I guess you can see that civilian death is regrettable, but I guess you cannot cotton to describing it as not good.

Because sometimes it is necessary. God Himself destroyed Sodom, even while conceding that there might be non wicked people still there. Such is life.

Neurodivergent as I may be, these 2 things aren't even close and do not pose this problem for me. What does pose a problem for me is the insistence that I ignore regrettable features that have a meaningful impact on what I deem to be good, for the sake or what exactly?

It seems to me that given the opportunity, you would either be incapable of acting, or would allow Hamas to remain in power. Am I mistaken?

I wish, when I have difficulty sleeping I like to imagine myself in the alpha quadrant of the Star Trek universe circa the mid to late 2300's. I'm not having adventures or anything, I'm just building things with all of the advanced tools & technologies, so fun to think about. In this reality, I guess I'd deluded enough to believe that what people do, especially on large scales usually defies naive categorisation, I leave the archetypes on the holodeck.

You keep reverting to fictional universes. I'm trying to be polite here, but I wonder if any further discussion would be fruitful for either of us.