5 ms·

Where does he say it's acceptable to kill innocents? Oh, i dunno, right about here? Now the Syrians are doing to their "former" colonial masters what the Fren

Where does he say it's acceptable to kill innocents? Oh, i dunno, right about here? Now the Syrians are doing to their "former" colonial masters what the French have been doing to them for the past month - bombing them. The implication is absolutely disgusting.

tinco 11y ago
He is making an observation. Perhaps you should ask him if it he thinks it is right that those innocent people died, or if he thinks those people were not innocent then we know what sort of ethics he's applying. These sorts of discussions work better if you ask directly instead of filling in gaps yourself. edit: The whole situation is disgusting, the war is certainly as disgusting as this bombing. But perhaps if not for (our taking part in) the war things would've been even more disgusting out there, I don't know.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Which, you'll note, I did. And then he doubled down in the very next post: Indiscriminate killing of civilians? Like when the French opened fire on crowds marching for Syrian independence in 1945 (like the French did in Algeria and elsewhere?) Like the French bomb and kill people on Greenpeace boats? Again, the implication is crystal clear: France killed Syrian civilians, so Syrians are justified in killing French civilians.
  - tinco 11y ago
    I guess you're right, in my reading he more dodged the question than offering a direct judgement, though it certainly could be that implication. I read it more as "France killed Syrian civilians, so Syrians are killing French civilians", i.e. minus the "are justified in". Just as an aside, I think it's more likely the perpetrators were actually French civilians or perhaps Iraqi civilians, with an interest in conquering Syria for establishing the (Iraqi) IS caliphate. So perhaps the whole "revenge for syrians" angle doesn't work at all in any case.
dang 11y ago
> Oh, i dunno [...] absolutely disgusting Any comment that begins with snark and ends with rage has clearly moved the needle into flamewar red, what we most seek to avoid here. Please don't post any more like this, regardless of the provocation.

tinco 11y ago

He is making an observation. Perhaps you should ask him if it he thinks it is right that those innocent people died, or if he thinks those people were not innocent then we know what sort of ethics he's applying. These sorts of discussions work better if you ask directly instead of filling in gaps yourself. edit: The whole situation is disgusting, the war is certainly as disgusting as this bombing. But perhaps if not for (our taking part in) the war things would've been even more disgusting out there, I don't know.

Karunamon 11y ago
Which, you'll note, I did. And then he doubled down in the very next post: Indiscriminate killing of civilians? Like when the French opened fire on crowds marching for Syrian independence in 1945 (like the French did in Algeria and elsewhere?) Like the French bomb and kill people on Greenpeace boats? Again, the implication is crystal clear: France killed Syrian civilians, so Syrians are justified in killing French civilians.
- tinco 11y ago
  I guess you're right, in my reading he more dodged the question than offering a direct judgement, though it certainly could be that implication. I read it more as "France killed Syrian civilians, so Syrians are killing French civilians", i.e. minus the "are justified in". Just as an aside, I think it's more likely the perpetrators were actually French civilians or perhaps Iraqi civilians, with an interest in conquering Syria for establishing the (Iraqi) IS caliphate. So perhaps the whole "revenge for syrians" angle doesn't work at all in any case.

dang 11y ago

> Oh, i dunno [...] absolutely disgusting Any comment that begins with snark and ends with rage has clearly moved the needle into flamewar red, what we most seek to avoid here. Please don't post any more like this, regardless of the provocation.