Islamic State VS Western Governments - Who is more morally wrong?

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

If the answer to the question posed in the tile of this topic is "Islamic State"...

 

How are we judging what's 'morally wrong'?

 

Are we going by statistics or are we simply basing it upon our own subjective emotions?

 

Is beheading one civilian worse than air striking one hundred civilians for example (or just two civilians for that matter)?

 

Answer honestly|&|plainly: Do you place a lower value on the lives of the millions of civilians massacred by western governments in 'Muslims countries' as opposed to the hundreds of 'fellow' western civilians killed by IS in what they (IS) describe as 'retaliatory attacks'? And does the media hype strongly influence your opinion on what is and is not morally bad?

 

Lets discuss.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Ibrahim

[Spite]

I think that as a muslim, you must first accept that certain things are morally bad and certain things are morally good. It isn't a competition for who is "most bad". For example, if you sin against Allah, you should not point to another man and say "this man sinned more", you should repent.

 

I believe the Islamic state have committed acts which are objectively bad and unIslamic as well. If you want to make a "who is more evil" thread you need to try again.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I think that as a muslim, you must first accept that certain things are morally bad and certain things are morally good. It isn't a competition for who is "most bad". For example, if you sin against Allah, you should not point to another man and say "this man sinned more", you should repent.

 

I believe the Islamic state have committed acts which are objectively bad and unIslamic as well. If you want to make a "who is more evil" thread you need to try again.

 

Okay I'll try again then: "Who is more evil" in your opinion? Western governments or IS.

 

If you say IS then please also answer the questions in the OP. Thank you.

[Victor Truchev]

You ask us, though I'm curious how you make your own determination? What guides your own moral compass? 

 

Also, is it fair to say that war is hell as both side inherently sacrifice moral integrity to accomplish their goals?

[Belisarius]

Yes, the Islamic State is morally evil for its genocidal campaign against the Yezidis. Let's distill this to its components, shall we?

• The Yezidis never harmed nor attacked the Islamic State
• The Yezidis are not complicit in the atrocities of Bashar al-Assad, nor the policies of the Iraqi government.
• Further, the Yezidis are a ethnoreligious group very much on the margins of Syrian, Iraqi, and Middle Eastern society.
• The Yezidis suffer from greater poverty and discrimination than their Sunni Arab and Turcoman neighbors.

Now, let's just talk about this. The Islamic State can continue its operations against Assad, the Iraqi government, and everyone else without committing genocide. Without committing child rape. Without enslavement. Without murdering and harming a single Yezidi.
 
And yet, they have. And they've done so with gusto, enthusiasm as they murder men, women, and children. This cannot be denied, nor sidestepped. 
 
By committing a genocidal campaign against the Yezidis, the Islamic State is on par with all other genocidal regimes in history. Such a regime must be destroyed and eliminated from the face of the Earth. 
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/12/yes-the-islamic-states-attacks-on-the-yazidis-are-a-genocide-new-report-says/
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/09/yazidi-women-rape-slave-islamic-state.html
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/escape_from_hell_-_torture_and_sexual_slavery_in_islamic_state_captivity_in_iraq_-_english_2.pdf
 
From the Islamic State's magazine Dabiq:
 

“Unlike the Jews and Christians, there was no room for jizyah (non-Muslim residents) payment. Also, their women could be enslaved... After capture, the Yazidi women and children were then divided according to the Sharī’ah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations, after one fifth of the slaves were transferred to the Islamic State’s authority to be divided as khums [fifth]... Before ShaytÄn [satan] reveals his doubts to the weak-minded and weak hearted, one should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffÄr [infidels] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharī’ah...â€

Never mind that the non-existence of God makes Shariah law irrelevant. Any moral code that legitimizes slavery and child rape is immoral and is evil. Or are you going to disagree with that? Not the god bit, but on the immorality of slavery and child rape? 

The evils of the Assad regime does not offset the evils of the Islamic State. Period.

[Belisarius]

I should also add that your argument in the OP constitutes a Tu quoque logical fallacy. Why? Because the atrocities committed by Western nations or the Syrian regime do not invalidate the atrocities of the Islamic State.
 
The actions of the Islamic State are immoral by themselves. What another faction does does not invalidate that simple fact.
 

Are we going by statistics or are we simply basing it upon our own subjective emotions?

 

Doesn't matter if the Syrian regime killed more people. That does not take away from the deaths committed by the Islamic State.

 

 

Is beheading one civilian worse than air striking one hundred civilians for example (or just two civilians for that matter)?

 

Intent matters. Why did the Islamic State kill those civilians? Because they weren't true believers? Yezidis? Atheists? Homosexuals? "Traitors?" Again, what you're doing here is saying: "Yeah the Islamic State kills people...but so does the West!!!" without grappling with whether the Islamic State is justified in killing the people that it does. 

 

 

 

Answer honestly|&|plainly: Do you place a lower value on the lives of the millions of civilians massacred by western governments in 'Muslims countries' as opposed to the hundreds of 'fellow' western civilians killed by IS in what they (IS) describe as 'retaliatory attacks'? And does the media hype strongly influence your opinion on what is and is not morally bad?

 

All lives are equal. But it's understandable why events nearer to Westerners would garner more attention. In much the same way I'd be more interested if a flood struck my hometown than say in another state, so would I care more if Paris was attacked than Kabul. Paris is in the Western cultural imagination; Kabul isn't. The same applies to those in Kabul and the rest of the Islamic world. It's understandable why they'd care more about the Israel-Palestine conflict than the Zapatistas in Mexico, or atrocities in North Korean.

 

Essentially, it's human nature. You may as well argue against gravity for all the good that'll do you.

 

Now! Let me ask you:  Do you lower the value of Yezidis than Muslims? Why or why not? And do you think the actions of the Islamic State against them - which IS trumpets and is proud of - is moral?

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Alright, I think i may have phrased the question wrong:

 

I'm really more interested in who you believe is MORE morally wrong -

 

If that's IS... please answer the questions posed in the OP.

 

Thank you all for your contribution.

 

Edit: Edited the topic title so there is no more confusion in this regard. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Ibrahim

[Rozalia]

You're back I see.

 

Their deaths over there are worth less than people dying here, as a Nationalist that will be the case for me and I don't lie about it like some people do. A few things to note however. 1: You don't care about civilian deaths, no one who has said what you have could, so appealing on that front is hypocritical and laughable. 2. I've never supported the interventions to aid fanatics in the ME. 3. Just because I see their deaths as of less importance to me doesn't mean I'm completely uncaring on the matter. ISIS are evil fanatic scum who need to be put in the ground regardless of who they're killing. 

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

 

You're back I see.

 

Their deaths over there are worth less than people dying here, as a Nationalist that will be the case for me and I don't lie about it like some people do. A few things to note however. 1: You don't care about civilian deaths, no one who has said what you have could, so appealing on that front is hypocritical and laughable. 2. I've never supported the interventions to aid fanatics in the ME. 3. Just because I see their deaths as of less importance to me doesn't mean I'm completely uncaring on the matter. ISIS are evil fanatic scum who need to be put in the ground regardless of who they're killing. 

 

I appreciate your honesty.

 

Am i right to assume that you don't see the killing of civilians as something that is necessarily 'immoral' as long as those civilians happen to be Muslims in the middle east (particularly Sunnis)?

[Victor Truchev]

 

 

 

 

I appreciate your honesty.

 

Am i right to assume that you don't see the killing of civilians as something that is necessarily 'immoral' as long as those civilians happen to be Muslims in the middle east (particularly Sunnis)?

 

 

The precise targeting of Sunni muslims is something that Western Governments (such a broad term) aren't particularly caring of, in my observation. Western Governments continuously seem to ignore sectarian tensions (See the creation of Israel all the way to the creation of the Iraqi Government during the occupation[2003-2011]). If you are a threat to Western Governments, simply expect to be treated as one. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Victor Truchev

[Spite]

Can you specify which Western governments please, and what criteria or period we're judging them under. For example, the USA has existed for hundreds of years and ISIS has existed for 3-4 years. I'm not sure whether your question is:

 

1. Are the actions of the Islamic State NOW more morally evil than that of the USA NOW

2. Is conventional warfare equally morally reprehensible to terrorism

 

I think personally it's the second one you're getting at but you need to ask more specific questions before I, personally, can answer.

[Hereno]

OP is trying to make the point that, even though ISIS are nuts and behead people, more harm has been done by imperialism. For example, ISIS probably wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for American meddling in Iraq. How much responsibility does America bear for ISIS? What about the Saudis? The Iraqis? The members themselves? The people who have accepted their rule as legitimate? The blame game can get pretty ridiculous but I've yet to see anyone really address the argument made in the OP.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

The precise targeting of Sunni muslims is something that Western Governments (such a broad term) aren't particularly caring of, in my observation. Western Governments continuously seem to ignore sectarian tensions (See the creation of Israel all the way to the creation of the Iraqi Government during the occupation). If you are a threat to Western Governments, simply expect to be treated as one. 

 

I would argue the exact opposite. Almost every 'Muslim country' (only exception being Iraq) that America has invaded/bombed have had majority 'Sunni Muslim' civilian populations and millions of Sunni Civilians were killed as a result of the bombs that were dropped from American/Allied planes.This becomes more clear when you look at the American invasion of Iraq (which has Shia Majority) in which they almost exclusively bombed the Sunni Areas whilst propping up a criminal Shia Government that continued to massacre the Sunni population during and after America withdrew from Iraq. You can't put that down to simple "ignorance" when they did nothing about the countless Sunni civilians that were turning up dead every day in the streets of Baghdad after they were tortured and executed by the American trained Iraqi Shia death Squads. It was widely reported and Obama was well aware of it.... America gave them the green light to commit genocide against the Sunnis. This was in fact what gave rise to IS in the first place and it's also what is continuing to fuel it, so yes a point can be made that America (along with other western countries) have been/are engaged in the ethnic cleansing of Sunni Muslims around the world.

[Rozalia]

I appreciate your honesty.

 

Am i right to assume that you don't see the killing of civilians as something that is necessarily 'immoral' as long as those civilians happen to be Muslims in the middle east (particularly Sunnis)?

 

I see what you're going for, but it doesn't cut the mustard. I've made my position quite clear I think and were Assad Sunni and ISIS Shia it'd not change anything for me.

 

OP is trying to make the point that, even though ISIS are nuts and behead people, more harm has been done by imperialism. For example, ISIS probably wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for American meddling in Iraq. How much responsibility does America bear for ISIS? What about the Saudis? The Iraqis? The members themselves? The people who have accepted their rule as legitimate? The blame game can get pretty ridiculous but I've yet to see anyone really address the argument made in the OP.

 

America, Britain, Saudis, and some others are responsible yes. The House of Saud will one day have all their heads on pikes and the war criminals in the west will find themselves in prison... if we can free ourselves from the parties that support such "interventions" anyway.

[Arthur Wellington]

I dont agree with the statement. You are trying to compare two things that are not comparable. A statement could be muslim world versus islamic world or something. But both are way to diverse to use in any analytical thesis.

 

I as a resident from a western country am not responsible for my governments acts. Nor is a normal resident from IS territory. Following this you could then try to compare IS to a (not all!) Western government. Still, to vague and too generic.

 

Based on your posts in this topic you want statements on how western lives are more important then Muslim (middle eastern) lives. I would tell you: no!

 

This is not an important question, its an open invitation to flaming and trolling. If you are concerned about this topic you should try to bridge the gap between cultures, try to raise awarness for muslim citizens or something like that.

 

Lives in the Middle East wont improve with more estrangement..

[Mike Haggar]

The sad fact is that the majority of crimes in world history goes unpunished and even unknown. Everyone should strive to improve the morality of their side. As others have stated, comparing crimes does no one any good.

 

If we go back to imperialism, how about going back to the destruction of the Byzantine Empire? Or the initial conquests of Islamic states? Few living (and I'd even hazard to say NONE living) come from innocent ancestors. The fact that we have even made it far enough that Western & Islamic states are concerned about the deaths of civilians is a tremendous breakthrough. 100 years ago, neither side considered each other fully human.

 

Slavery, wanton killing, and extortion for religious reasons are bad. Killing civilians is also bad. These crimes and policies are the enemies to be slain, no matter which side they are on.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

Can you specify which Western governments please

 

The three musketeers: America, UK, and France.

 

And what criteria or period we're judging them under. For example, the USA has existed for hundreds of years and ISIS has existed for 3-4 years.

 

Since there inception.

 

I notice that a lot of people get extremely emotional over "beheading" in particular, but how many realise that France was founded on the beheading of tens of thousands of people... that they invented the Guillotine simply due to the fact that they could not behead people fast enough? 

 

Were the beheading of all those people justified because it was done in the name of "Liberté, égalité, and fraternité" as opposed to Sharia Law?

 

If Islamic State remains and the same length of time passes.... will there actions (which is considerably less) be forgiven and forgotten?

[Stormrideron]

Islamic State is definitely very evil for sure. They rape and molest girls as young as age nine, even without the girls contest. They even treated them like slaves and traded them. Only one thing why they had gotten strong over the time is because people feared them.

 

Western societies has become more and more humane since 1800s by promoting equal rights, treatments and the like.

[Mike Haggar]

 

If Islamic State remains and the same length of time passes.... will there actions (which is considerably less) be forgiven and forgotten?

The question is whether the Islamic State will moderate or continue on the path to dehumanization. Egypt made a turn to a more Islamic community without resorting to the crimes IS is committing.

 

People keep attempting to make it Islam vs. the West. That will only lead to the dark path of destruction. If that's what someone wants, they should send the U.S. missile silos their coordinates so their wish can be fulfilled.

 

The war we should be fighting is cruelty vs. kindness. Believe it or not, kindness is winning. Most are just too shortsighted to realize it.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

The reality of the situation is that 'Islamic State' is trying to create just that... an Islamic 'state" (shocker i know)... and almost every single state in existence has come into existence through lots of bloodshed, so why are we judging Islamic State by a higher set of moral standards? All estimates show they have killed around 10 thousand people which is in fact very low compared to how many people many states in existence today have killed in their inception.

 

Just look at the American civil war, the French 'reign of terror', creation of Israel etc - Look at any country and you will be sure to dig up bones.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Ibrahim

[Franz Von Dietrich]

I'm sorry, the civilized west doesn't go out in the streets of IRAQ or SYRIA beheading thousands of people for their so called "religious morales"

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I'm sorry, the civilized west doesn't go out in the streets of IRAQ or SYRIA beheading thousands of people for their so called "religious morales"

 

Yes. The "civilized west" drops "civilized bombs" on the streets of IRAQ and SYRIA blowing up thousands of civilians & destroying vital infrastructure for "democracy". 

Edited January 4, 2016 by Ibrahim

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Yes. The "civilized west" drops "civilized bombs" on the streets of IRAQ and SYRIA blowing up thousands of civilians & destroying vital infrastructure for "democracy". 

So targeting Islamic State Militants are civilians now, lol?

 

I'm sorry, but you can't compare Afghanistan to Iraq & Syria.

 

And as for those statements considering "for democracy" this is 2016, we're not in 2003 or 2001 when Bush the fool invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan causing many unneeded deaths

 

Oh, and let's not forget the cowards that used the citizens of Ramadi as body-shields. (cough ISIS COUGH)

Edited January 4, 2016 by Francisco Franco

[Four]

Folks, 

 

This is a preemptive post to remind you all to stay within the lines of the OP as well as within the guidelines and rules of this community. Too many threads have derailed, lets keep this discussion moving in a constructive manner. 

 

If you're interested in Community Rules and Guidelines - check out the links in my sig. 

 

Carry On. 

[Nadir Aminu]

I think that IS and western governments are extremely far from the good life. Western govt is perverted and so is the IS.