Hearts Broken; Eaten in Syria

[Al-Faisal]

Didn't that happen in Indiana Jones?

The Temple of Doom! That was a dark and scary film.

[Rumostan]

This is quite disgusting and from some other information that was on the BBC website, it sounds like he has done some pretty disgusting/extreme things before. This is why the UK and the EU has not rushed in to supporting any side, it is not a case of good vs evil anymore, it is a case of who has done the less evil things and who will manage to create a new Syria that is not an Islamist state and has some small inkling of democracy.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the UK recently said it was going to double its support for the rebels.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, I meant military intervention. It also seems to me that all of the sides are pawns in other nations games with Russia and Iran etc. supporting President Assad and Israel, Saudi Arabia and others supporting the rebels.

[Antic Master Fegelein]

Didn't that happen in Indiana Jones?

The Temple of Doom! That was a dark and scary film.

great, now everyone knows where i got my nuclear slap of doom.....

[Central Slavia]

Western world, this is the sort of scum you're supporting.

They don't care about the Syrian people or what the rebels do. Eating hearts, using nerve gas, allying with Al Qaeda, it's all irrelevant.

Bashar al-Assad has relations with Russia and allowed a Russian naval outpost, so this is a longer game for the West to turn Syria to their "side" in the never-ending East-West pissing contest that didn't end with the Soviet Union.

Agreed
Things like this just expose the hypocrisy of doing that, and then claiming noble motives.

[Arkolon]

Ok... Never trying Syrian cuisine.

pffffttffttftftathahahahahahahaahahaa

[Esparmuran]

What an idiot. He has to cook it first, you know.

[Mirage]

You can try to rationalize as much as you want. It doesn't change anything.

Except, it does. It has. And it will continue to.

You see, we all live in this place called "Reality". You should try joining us here.

Fine, continue to try to justify all those murders if it makes you feel better.

[Zilam]

Western world, this is the sort of scum you're supporting.

They don't care about the Syrian people or what the rebels do. Eating hearts, using nerve gas, allying with Al Qaeda, it's all irrelevant.

Bashar al-Assad has relations with Russia and allowed a Russian naval outpost, so this is a longer game for the West to turn Syria to their "side" in the never-ending East-West pissing contest that didn't end with the Soviet Union.

This, basically.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Except, it does. It has. And it will continue to.

You see, we all live in this place called "Reality". You should try joining us here.

Fine, continue to try to justify all those crimes if it makes you feel better.

Once you can actually state a coherent argument, you'll be worth speaking to.

[Mike the Progressive]

Yeah, I read about this earlier. That's...gruesome. What else is there to say?

At least they aren't eating bugs *nods*

[Mike the Progressive]

Didn't that happen in Indiana Jones?

The Temple of Doom! That was a dark and scary film.

Also, I don't think anybody ate the hearts....just pulled it out of the guy's chest, as it was beating, chanting "Kalima."

[Antic Master Fegelein]

Fine, continue to try to justify all those crimes if it makes you feel better.

Once you can actually state a coherent argument, you'll be worth speaking to.

my emperor.

you are the emperor of reality and mankind. all who oppose you will be purged, for you are a god.

*leaves plate of cookies and milk as a non antic.*

[Choronzon]

my emperor.

Only one poster could do this, and he has left us.

[EnragedMaldivians]

1) War isn't murder. There is a very clear legal definition of murder.
4) The desecration is more for the families of those killed as well as to tr and prevent war returning back to barbaric practices.

1) Regardless of the legal definition, both are same. (war isn't murder, the act of killing in war is)

4) War is barbaric.

Tell you what, during the 50s Israel had to put up with a lot of Feday'een raids from Syria, where armed men would go into border villages and carry out fatal attacks on Israeli settlers. Do you think there would have been a qualitative moral difference, in your opinion, between the two proposed actions the IDF could have taken in response: 1) Finding out who the exact perpetrators were, locating them, and shooting them (assume that for whatever reason, they cannot simply be arrested), killing say, four of them. 2) After getting a general impression of what Syrian village they reside in, they simply retaliate by killing four Syrian villagers who belong to that village, and who had otherwise done nothing wrong.

Or do you think the morality or lack thereof in carrying out either of these responses would have been equivalent; killing is killing is killing?

[Mirage]

(Image)

Once you can actually state a coherent argument, you'll be worth speaking to.

So calling something what it really is being edgy now ? right.

[The Emerald Dawn]

(Image)

Once you can actually state a coherent argument, you'll be worth speaking to.

So calling something what it really is being edgy now ? right.

You have yet to prove yourself right. You've used circular logic, at best.

Again. Coherent argument, present one.

[Choronzon]

So calling something what it really is being edgy now ? right.

No, deliberately failing to understand so you can continue to shout "ALL SOLDIERS ARE MURDERERS" is a very transparent attempt at being edgy.

I'm gonna go with "troll" actually.

[Mike the Progressive]

(Image)

Once you can actually state a coherent argument, you'll be worth speaking to.

So calling something what it really is being edgy now ? right.

Not only that, but it seems calling somebody edgy has become the edgy thing to do. Same goes with internet tough guy.

[Mirage]

Tell you what, during the 50s Israel had to put up with a lot of Feday'een raids from Syria, where armed men would go into border villages and carry out fatal attacks on Israeli settlers. Do you think there would have been a qualitative moral difference, in your opinion, between the two proposed actions the IDF could have taken in response: 1) Finding out who the exact perpetrators were, locating them, and shooting them (assume that for whatever reason, they cannot simply be arrested), killing say, four of them. 2) After getting a general impression of what Syrian village they reside in, they simply retaliate by killing four Syrian villagers who belong to that village, and who had otherwise done nothing wrong.

Or do you think the morality or lack thereof in carrying out either of these responses would have been equivalent; killing is killing is killing?

I don't see the point you are trying to make. I said that killing someone regardless of the reason is still killing someone. It doesn't matter what the reason is. You are still taking a life.

[Choronzon]

Tell you what, during the 50s Israel had to put up with a lot of Feday'een raids from Syria, where armed men would go into border villages and carry out fatal attacks on Israeli settlers. Do you think there would have been a qualitative moral difference, in your opinion, between the two proposed actions the IDF could have taken in response: 1) Finding out who the exact perpetrators were, locating them, and shooting them (assume that for whatever reason, they cannot simply be arrested), killing say, four of them. 2) After getting a general impression of what Syrian village they reside in, they simply retaliate by killing four Syrian villagers who belong to that village, and who had otherwise done nothing wrong.

Or do you think the morality or lack thereof in carrying out either of these responses would have been equivalent; killing is killing is killing?

I don't see the point you are trying to make. I said that killing someone regardless of the reason is still killing someone. It doesn't matter what the reason is. You are still taking a life.

No, you said it was "murder", a loaded term with very specific legal and ethical connotations. We, all being intelligent adults, assumed you had chosen your words for a reason.

[The American Nuclear Fallout Zone]

Cool.

[Risottia]

Yeah, I read about this earlier. That's...gruesome. What else is there to say?

Well, although the desecration of a corpse isn't exactly nice, I'd be much more eager to try those who (on both sides) disregarded all international conventions on warfare by targeting (both indiscriminately and deliberately) civilians (aka, non combatants), or used weapons of mass destruction, or abducted and killed journalists.

Frankly, corpse desecration doesn't disgust me as much as attacking civilians.

[Mirage]

You have yet to prove yourself right. You've used circular logic, at best.

Again. Coherent argument, present one.

Prove what exactly again ?

If you find my arguments incoherent, i am afraid that is because of your bias on the subject.

[Benuty]

That would assume he wanted to eat the heart as anything more than a message. I very much doubt that his lunch usually consists of human organs.

Liver. Chianti. Fava beans. Blah blah blah.

Hannibal Lector is that you?

[The Emerald Dawn]

You have yet to prove yourself right. You've used circular logic, at best.

Again. Coherent argument, present one.

Prove what exactly again ?

If you find my arguments incoherent, i am afraid that is because of your bias on the subject.

That all killing in war is murder. You made the claim, you back it up.