Historical causes vs. justification (Iraq and ISIS)

[BainsBane]

Some here seem to have a lot of trouble distinguishing reasons and motivations for action--like ISIS' burning of the Jordanian pilot and beadings of journalists--from the circumstances that gave rise to a movement. I'm trained as a historian. Everyone who has taken a college level history class knows that you learn about causes that lead to key events like, for example, WWII. Any survey course will teach you that the harsh reparations imposed on Germany following WWI set the context that would eventually give rise to National Socialism. Does that mean that England and France were directly responsible for the death camps? No. That responsibility falls to the Nazis.

ISIS would not have come into existence if not for the Iraq War, people insist. That is very likely true. It is also likely true that its rise is in part due to the fall of the Soviet Union and the decline of Soviet influence throughout the Middle East. That also plays a considerable factor in the rise of terrorism. If the Soviets had not invaded Afghanistan, if they had not retreated from Afghanistan, on and on. If the European colonial powers hadn't made a mess of the map of the Middle East in the early twentieth century. There are all kinds of factors that lead to our current stage in history, but NONE of them, NONE, are justifications for the burning of a Jordanian pilot or brutal beheadings. That responsibility lies with the killers alone. Confusing the two leads to some very shaky moral justifications.