Rechristianization of the Middle East

[rvg]

Yes, but he eats people BECAUSE of the brutal dictator - so we have a guy who eats people and a guy who makes other guys want to eat people.

Really? Then how come most Syrians aren't into cannibalism?

[AE Bravo]

When you suddenly get the urge to eat someone's parts on camera while your frat friends chant, chances are you were always a giant thunderkunt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Really? Then how come most Syrians aren't into cannibalism?

I don't know, how come more Syrians aren't fighting for IS?

People are different, have different breaking points and go different ways. If he joined the FSA then chances are he started out loathing the abuses of the regime and signed up to stop them, which tracks with the first recorded image of him holding out an olive branch to a tank.

What did he see to make him want to eat the heart of his enemy? I don't know - it could be children dead from gassing, it could be the result of one of IS' slave auctions, all those young girls raped.

My point is, Syria is where it is because Assad chose to go down in flames and has escalated in his brutality, if this man has become a monster then that's because of Assad.

Also, you don't know what his moral lines are - he may be into eating the hearts of men he considers evil for his crimes but might otherwise be very moral. That's not to say it's not monstrous, but eating ones enemies does not translate into mass murder, rape, tortue, or brutality in general.

[Montmorency]

Also, you don't know what his moral lines are - he may be into eating the hearts of men he considers evil for his crimes but might otherwise be very moral. That's not to say it's not monstrous, but eating ones enemies does not translate into mass murder, rape, tortue, or brutality in general.

Fear justifies everything for men.

[rvg]

I don't know, how come more Syrians aren't fighting for IS?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe they are capable of seeing the IS for what it is?

People are different, have different breaking points and go different ways. If he joined the FSA then chances are he started out loathing the abuses of the regime and signed up to stop them, which tracks with the first recorded image of him holding out an olive branch to a tank.

Okay, so at which point is it okay to eat a random captured enemy soldier? Note that he wasn't eating Assad's heart. The victim was just an average Alawite schmuck press ganged into Assad's army. Did he really deserve to be eaten?

What did he see to make him want to eat the heart of his enemy? I don't know - it could be children dead from gassing, it could be the result of one of IS' slave auctions, all those young girls raped.

If he ate Assad's heart, I would understand.

My point is, Syria is where it is because Assad chose to go down in flames and has escalated in his brutality, if this man has become a monster then that's because of Assad.

Once again, he became a monster while most didn't. The problem is with this guy.

Also, you don't know what his moral lines are - he may be into eating the hearts of men he considers evil for his crimes but might otherwise be very moral. That's not to say it's not monstrous, but eating ones enemies does not translate into mass murder, rape, tortue, or brutality in general.

Well, I'm not quite sure why you're so eager to justify this guy's actions. I see no justification for them, since the victim was not Assad.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe they are capable of seeing the IS for what it is?


Okay, so at which point is it okay to eat a random captured enemy soldier? Note that he wasn't eating Assad's heart. The victim was just an average Alawite schmuck press ganged into Assad's army. Did he really deserve to be eaten?


If he ate Assad's heart, I would understand.


Once again, he became a monster while most didn't. The problem is with this guy.


Well, I'm not quite sure why you're so eager to justify this guy's actions. I see no justification for them, since the victim was not Assad.

All I'm saying is that this guy is a symptom, Assad is the disease so it's Assad you have to cut out to save Syria.

[rvg]

All I'm saying is that this guy is a symptom, Assad is the disease so it's Assad you have to cut out to save Syria.

Just be sure not to kill the patient in the process.

[Montmorency]

All I'm saying is that this guy is a symptom, Assad is the disease so it's Assad you have to cut out to save Syria.

Very well, I'll repeat myself.

This is why it is impossible to take "humanitarian interventionism" seriously, this idea that "you have to beat all the bad guys and help the good guys, and then we'll all be good", here made even more invidious by the sublimation of all ills into one evil persona.

What your vision boils down to is pure narcissism and hubris, and it is nothing but a hindrance and a blinker.

[Viking]

It's not ideal but in every case I think the secular despot has been better than whatever came after.

This is backwards reasoning. The secular dictatorship is the least stable form of governance in the Middle East. Assad is the last one clinging to power - the rest have been toppled. Now compare that to how many of the countries not ruled by a secular dictator that have experienced revolution or full-scale war during the 'Arab spring': 0.

If Saddam had still been around, his country would probably have gone up in flames, too. Especially since neighbouring Syria descended into war.

[Crandar]

You forgot el-Sisi.

[classical_hero]

All I'm saying is that this guy is a symptom, Assad is the disease so it's Assad you have to cut out to save Syria.

You are just making things up. Basically you are attributing what is inside this guys head when you haven't even met this guy. By doing so you are excusing his behaviour.

[Viking]

You forgot el-Sisi.

No, he is a symptom, as he would likely not been in power now if not for the toppling of Mubarak. We've yet to see how well Sisi himself will do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are just making things up. Basically you are attributing what is inside this guys head when you haven't even met this guy. By doing so you are excusing his behaviour.

I can also explain to you why Archbishop Arundel starting burning people at the stake for being Lollards - and I'm basically a Lollard.

Understanding is not the same as sympathy or endorsement.