Are you a pacifist? What would you do if you came home to an intruder violently raping your wife? That will tell me everything I need to know about you and your values.

Which is which?

The "western" narrative is that the Jihadists hate the west and are out to get us. Therefore, we are justified in defending ourselves by destroying them.
The jihadist narrative is that the west is a danger to their society and actively trying to undermine it. Therefore they are justified in defending themselves by destroying it.
I believe there's plenty evidence that both of these assertions are true.

Both sides appear to believe in what they're doing. Each justifies themselves by saying the other is evil and/or the other started it.
For the record, I don't believe in what either side is doing. I maintain that it's the ignorance and prejudice that propagate both positions that are evil.


So back to labelling one side murderers and the other victims. This is essentially the same thing as I previously described regarding dumbing it down to "good guys" and "bad guys". It only makes sense if you're on one or other side already and have accepted the premise that there is an essential difference.

Can you put yourself in the shoes of a jihadist? Can you imagine thinking there's a god who wants you to fight for him? Can you imagine thinking there's a country or way of life that you owe allegiance to? Would you believe in what you were doing? Would you think you were a terrorist?

Now,

Can you put yourself in the shoes of a US soldier? Can you imagine thinking there's a god who wants you to fight for him? Can you imagine thinking there's a country or way of life that you owe allegiance to? Would you believe in what you were doing? Would you think you were a terrorist?

The only "bad guys" are those in the background who don't believe in what's going on but have something to gain personally. There are plenty of those on both sides but they rarely, if ever, get hurt. Those who believe in what they're doing all think they're fighting evil and doing their duty. That's what propaganda is for. Others are there for other social or economic reasons. Maybe joining the army is a way to learn a trade or pay the bills, maybe it's the only home you can find, maybe it's the only way to keep your family safe. Philosophically and logically speaking, I don't I don't see much difference between the two sides in most respects. I consider both sides to be detrimental to the general good of humanity. I also don't think you can describe the individuals on either side as evil, or good, unless you're willing to accept the same values being ascribed to both sides.

We've gone WAY off topic here. This started off about an ex pro cyclist who doped.
But what the hell, this conversation is much more interesting and potentially constructive!


Edit: Oh yeah, I meant to mention that someone who actually enjoys watching other people die and seeks out opportunities to indulge that pleasure, seems a worthy candidate for "bad guy". You don't get to say you're doing it for your family or culture, or god. What does it do except give you pleasure? How can you think this is not disturbing?

Can we get a list of these lives he supposedly destroyed? This is typical bullshit that is being pushed by Betsy and Greg, both of whom picked a fight with Lance to advance their own agendas.

Lack of conviction, eh?
And what do you base that on? Come on, make an actual reasoned argument.
Point out an instance where my posts have suggested a lack of conviction. Because I'm stumped.

Lance just donated $10,000 to Adrian Costa's gofundme.

Nah you’re just a wanker. If you pulled your head out of your arse for two seconds you would see there is a world of difference between a jihadi who takes pride in killing defenceless civilians wether they be women or children and a western soldier who does everything they can to limit civilian casualties.

Their belief they are both ‘right’ doesn’t mean their actions are equal.

.....Question for Ai-1 though. Surely you believe that in SOME cases there really is a "good" and a "bad" and that in extremely rare cases violence may be a necessary or justified reaction?......

I didn't say their action were equal.
Do you really think the western forces kill fewer civilians? I'm not so sure.

I don’t get it either. He’s a human being just trying to live life. He can’t evolve into something better than he was? He’s supposed to continually pay publicly for past actions? Forever?

I didn't say their action were equal.
Do you really think the western forces kill fewer civilians? I'm not so sure.

Edit: Incidentally, what's with starting off by telling me I'm a wanker? You disagree with me fine, but try and keep it civil. If you're trying to get at me that won't do it. Demonstrate why my argument doesn't make sense - I wouldn't like that. I'd have to re-think it all and join some armed forces. We have a guy who says he likes watching guys getting killed for pleasure, and I'm the wanker because I think all murder should be avoided. Em - Wow!

Have a nice weekend!

He's one of the greatest, if not the greatest, sports frauds of all time. He destroyed people's lives, without a second thought, to propagate his fraud while enriching himself. This happened only a few years ago; not generations ago. He deserves all the vitriol directed at him.

What Fenton said.

And there's plenty more to it than that, but I'm not giving you any more of my time. You're a lost cause from what I can tell. You've clearly got pretty entrenched views and going by your over the top responses, they're not based on reason and you're not capable of questioning them - look how you react when someone else even suggests there's something to consider!

Your opinion of me is of honestly of zero consequence. I just find it unfortunate that so many guys like you exist. You just try and drag everything back to gut instinct and ignorance and the whole world suffers for it. In case you missed it, YOUR attutude is the same as the one I criticised in my earlier posts.

The irony is palpable. You’re criticizing him of being entrenched in his own worldview while simultaneously looking down on others who question your own entrenched worldview. Which, I might add, despite your opinion is not an objectively correct one.

I'm not insisting on agreement. I do take exception to someone wading in with crude insults and failing to follow that up with any rationale. I'm not about to take someone like that seriously. I think he illustrates some of my earlier points but I do not respect an argument he hasn't made. If he wants to apologise and say something useful, fine.

I don't look down on those who don't share my views. I look down on those who sling personal insults in lieu of debate. I also think less of those who refuse to criticise their own beliefs, but it's pretty normal unfortunately, so I try and keep that to myself in everyday life.

I don't think you've found irony.

You say my view is not correct. Want to elaborate? You should know by now that I don't care what you say unless you've got a reason I should believe it.

....I'm not saying your view is incorrect either.....

....Thats my point. Who decides who is the good guy and bad guy or whether there are good guys or bad guys at all? Y'all are both looking down on the other for having differing opinions in a complex matter that doesn't have a right answer.....(/quote]
That doesn't differ from my view in the slightest. I never said either side were the "good guys" or "bad guys". I criticised any attempt to dumb it down to "good guys" and "bad guys" as a harmful distortion of the reality.
I absolutely agree with the part in bold, but I also think "democracy" is commonly used in much the same way, thus the inverted commas. I can't stomach cynical use of "democracy" as an excuse for murder either.