Gaza Strip

[Judge Hades]

The latter would be overall better for the planet.

[Commissar]

Murdering civilians out of spite is never understandable, let alone condonable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is another example of the brand of thinking I love. Terrorists murder civilians with very clear political goals in mind, not because they're bored and decide it'd be fun to do. ObL didn't just wake up one morning and decide that he hated America; he has very specific reasons why he hates America, based on American acts, real or imagined, and he has very clear goals in his campaign. That's not to say that we should give in to him, but it's a little naive to take the "we're victims because they're jealous" approach.

 

Like I said before, it's worthwhile to understand terrorism, and to not get emotional about it. Wave your flag all you want, but it'd be worthwhile to have a more objective view now and again.

[213374U]

The latter would be overall better for the planet.

No, not really. As "better" and "worse" are both human concepts. And without humans to apply them, their value is lost.

 

OH NOES! FOILED AGAIN!

[Drakron]

OsL was trained by the US to fight the sovients in Afganistan, the US made a lot of promises that they "forgot" when the cold war was over.

 

Its a bit ironic that OsL turned but then again the Hamas itself was supported by Israel to undermine the OLP.

[Judge Hades]

The latter would be overall better for the planet.

No, not really. As "better" and "worse" are both human concepts. And without humans to apply them, their value is lost.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And that in of itself would be sublime.

[213374U]

What worked in the Soviet Union, exactly?  To my knowledge, they haven't defeated any terrorists at the cost of twenty million deaths, let alone sixty million.  Last I heard, Russia's still going at it with the Chechens. 

Nice try. You are talking about Russia, I was talking about the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union there was virtually no terrorism. Nobody wants to see their family end in a gulag in Siberia, no matter how miserable their lives are.

 

 

You call it giving in to the demands of terrorists, I call it negotiating a settlement.  The major terrorist conflicts of the last fifty years have been settled not by one side winning a victory of arms, but by negotiating.  Negotiation is the only thing that has a chance to work in Israel, and negotiation involves concession.

Oh, right. How polite of you. In the end it is nothing but accepting conditions imposed by means of murdering civilians. Call it what you will, but that's what it is.

 

 

Yeah, the Israelis tried to live in peace, while oppressing the Palestinians.  Of course that's a strategy doomed to fail. 

Wait, now it's my turn to be polite. It's not oppression. It's called "security".

 

 

And you may well believe that there's only black and white with terrorism, but that's not really the way the world works.  We're going to learn that pretty soon.  Hell, we've learned it; why do you think we're encouraging Sunni political leaders - some of whom are strongly suspected of being part of the Iraqi 'insurgency' - to come to the negotiating table?  Because we've been in there for years now and force alone has...not...worked. 

No. There is only black and white. It all comes down to accepting the demands of murderers or not. Simple as that.

 

And force alone hasn't worked because we aren't really using force. Don't be mistaking the particular brand of "peacemaking" that the US military is exercising in Iraq with force, because it's not the same thing.

 

 

This is another example of the brand of thinking I love.  Terrorists murder civilians with very clear political goals in mind, not because they're bored and decide it'd be fun to do.  ObL didn't just wake up one morning and decide that he hated America; he has very specific reasons why he hates America, based on American acts, real or imagined, and he has very clear goals in his campaign.  That's not to say that we should give in to him, but it's a little naive to take the "we're victims because they're jealous" approach. 

 

Like I said before, it's worthwhile to understand terrorism, and to not get emotional about it.  Wave your flag all you want, but it'd be worthwhile to have a more objective view now and again.

This is all the proof I need. Unlike you, I don't care about their reasons. I don't tolerate murdering civilians, under any circumstances. You, on the other hand, seem to establish degrees of tolerance depending on their reasons.

 

Yes, it must be truly great to have such an infallible universal moral compass that helps you to establish when is it fair for people to get murdered and when it isn't.

 

You would be funny, if we weren't talking about innocent people getting murdered. Oh, wait. They are not so innocent, are they? Right. They were oppressing the Palestinians.

[213374U]

The latter would be overall better for the planet.

No, not really. As "better" and "worse" are both human concepts. And without humans to apply them, their value is lost.

And that in of itself would be sublime.

The same reasoning applies to any subjective evaluation of the situation. Your logic fails to deliver, once again.

[Judge Hades]

And your point? I never have nor will I ever work off logic. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not Vulcan.

[213374U]

And your point?  I never have nor will I ever work off logic.  Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not Vulcan.

Well, logic is useful when you are trying to make sense. If what you mean is that you don't care whether or not you make sense, then fair enough.

[Commissar]

Nice try. You are talking about Russia, I was talking about the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union there was virtually no terrorism. Nobody wants to see their family end in a gulag in Siberia, no matter how miserable their lives are.

I'm being genuine here when I say that I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. There's virtually no terrorism in Mexico, either, or Denmark...what does that prove?

 

Oh, right. How polite of you. In the end it is nothing but accepting conditions imposed by means of murdering civilians. Call it what you will, but that's what it is.

Could well be. Then again, I'm pretty sure we got the Japanese to accept our terms to ending World War II by killing quite a few civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as has been stated numerous times in this thread.

 

No. There is only black and white. It all comes down to accepting the demands of murderers or not. Simple as that.

 

And force alone hasn't worked because we aren't really using force. Don't mistaking the particular brand of "peacemaking" that the US military is exercising in Iraq with force, because it's not the same thing.

Well, what about Afghanistan? I'd say we used force, and continue to use force, there. I think what you're advocating, however, is something along the lines of a kill 'em all policy, and that's impossible without significant and massive civilian deaths, which is kind of self-defeating, and only breeds fresh recruits in the end.

 

There is all the proof I need. Unlike you, I don't care about their reasons. I don't tolerate murdering civilians, under any circumstances. You, on the other hand, seem to establish degrees of tolerance depending on their reasons.

 

Yes, it must be truly great to have such an infallible universal moral compass that helps you to establish when is it fair for people to get murdered and when it isn't.

 

You would be funny, if we weren't talking about innocent people getting murdered. Oh, wait. They are not so innocent, are they? Right. They were oppressing the Palestinians. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And here we are back at Japan again. We murdered plenty of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the attempts at defending them as valuable military targets have, I think, been put to bed finally.

 

And I do not establish degrees of tolerance. I've said from the beginning of this thread up until now that I do not condone terrorism, simply that I understand where it comes from and why. That doesn't mean I find it acceptable. I do not, in point of fact, think that the Palestinians should be asserting their claims to the Gaza Strip with terrorism.

 

But at the end of the day, I don't negate their right to a state of their own, either, as that condemns thousands upon thousands of Palestinians who haven't so much as thrown a rock at an Israeli tank.

 

Seriously, though, tell me what your alternative is? What do we do if we don't let them establish their own state? Maintain the status quo? Won't work. Hasn't worked. What do we do? C'mon, I'm dying to know.

[Judge Hades]

Finally, someone understands.

[PrincessSarah]

The mess started with World War 2.  The US and Britain stuck their nose in where it doesn't belong and we have paying for it since.  You would think the US would learned their lesson about getting involved with idiocy like this but the government hasn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmmm....I think I'd sound real sexy with a German accent.

 

Then again, I probably wouldn't even be alive, considering my grandparents live in England.

[213374U]

I'm being genuine here when I say that I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.  There's virtually no terrorism in Mexico, either, or Denmark...what does that prove? 

There are no militant dissident groups in Denmark, to speak of. Care to post any other blatant non sequitur?

 

 

Could well be.  Then again, I'm pretty sure we got the Japanese to accept our terms to ending World War II by killing quite a few civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as has been stated numerous times in this thread.

Fair enough. But you are conveniently disregarding the fact that the Japanese were damn well entrenched and a land invasion of Japan to force their surrender would have arguably taken a much higher toll in human lives. It was war remember?

 

 

Well, what about Afghanistan?  I'd say we used force, and continue to use force, there.  I think what you're advocating, however, is something along the lines of a kill 'em all policy, and that's impossible without significant and massive civilian deaths, which is kind of self-defeating, and only breeds fresh recruits in the end.

No, it's not kind of self-defeating. As I said, it worked in the Soviet Union. But again, I don't advocate the murder of innocent civilians. Sending terrorists (and perhaps their families) to concentration camps is a different story entirely.

 

 

And here we are back at Japan again.  We murdered plenty of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the attempts at defending them as valuable military targets have, I think, been put to bed finally.

Read above.

 

 

And I do not establish degrees of tolerance.  I've said from the beginning of this thread up until now that I do not condone terrorism, simply that I understand where it comes from and why.  That doesn't mean I find it acceptable.  I do not, in point of fact, think that the Palestinians should be asserting their claims to the Gaza Strip with terrorism.

Let's put it simply. My lawn is private property. But if you trespass into my lawn, and I shoot you dead, I am a criminal, regardless of my reasons for shooting you. That's why I don't care about their reasons, and I'm not even willing to listen to them until they stop it.

 

 

Seriously, though, tell me what your alternative is?  What do we do if we don't let them establish their own state?  Maintain the status quo?  Won't work.  Hasn't worked.  What do we do?  C'mon, I'm dying to know.

I'm not against negotiating. In fact, I'm all for it. But I wouldn't be willing to do it until they stopped harboring and encouraging terrorists.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Why do we always end up back with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Who is the douchebag whos manipulating all the debates towards this?

[Commissar]

There are no militant dissident groups in Denmark, to speak of. Care to post any other blatant non sequitur? 

I still don't follow. You think the Soviet Union successfully shut down all resistance to its regime by gulag'ing thousands upon thousands of people? If that's the case, I'd recommend a little research into Soviet resistance movements.

 

 

Fair enough. But you are conveniently disregarding the fact that the Japanese were damn well entrenched and a land invasion of Japan to force their surrender would have arguably taken a much higher toll in human lives. It was war remember? 

I'm not disregarding that fact. I was responding to this:

 

Unlike you, I don't care about their reasons. I don't tolerate murdering civilians, under any circumstances. You, on the other hand, seem to establish degrees of tolerance depending on their reasons.

Now, it seems to me like you're saying war and the prevention of even greater loss of (American) life is a good enough reason to murder civilians in one statement, and then you're negating that in another. Which is it?

 

 

No, it's not kind of self-defeating. As I said, it worked in the Soviet Union. But again, I don't advocate the murder of innocent civilians. Sending terrorists (and perhaps their families) to concentration camps is a different story entirely.

And once again I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. There were plenty of underground resistance movements in the Soviet Union - perhaps you've heard of "One Day In the Life of Ivan Denisovich"?

 

Read above.

Read again:

Unlike you, I don't care about their reasons. I don't tolerate murdering civilians, under any circumstances. You, on the other hand, seem to establish degrees of tolerance depending on their reasons.

 

Let's put it simply. My lawn is private property. But if you trespass into my lawn, and I shoot you dead, I am a criminal, regardless of my reasons for shooting you. That's why I don't care about their reasons, and I'm not even willing to listen to them until they stop it.

Alright, if the law is your ultimate source of morality, I suppose I can respect that. I certainly don't agree with it, though. If you rape, torture, and murder my wife and children, I'm going to be the one to kill you; I'm not going to turn you over to twenty-to-life in prison. That'd be murder on my part, too, but to me, it'd be justified.

[Commissar]

Why do we always end up back with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Who is the douchebag whos manipulating all the debates towards this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't use it initially - not due to anything high-minded, I'm ashamed to say, but because it simply didn't occur to me - but I did bring it up this time.

 

It's just such an obvious argument whenever anyone goes off the deep end into absolutes about the killing of civilians. Especially when they're arguing from a pro-American standpoint.

[Musopticon?]

Out of interest; have you got your desire of political debate and bum rushes satisfied, Commissar? :D

[Commissar]

Out of interest; have you got your desire of political debate and bum rushes satisfied, Commissar? :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the present time, yes.

 

I'm kind of waiting to see what happens with the Iraqi consistutional convention, though. One way or another, I imagine I can make a debate out of that, too.

[213374U]

Now, it seems to me like you're saying war and the prevention of even greater loss of (American) life is a good enough reason to murder civilians in one statement, and then you're negating that in another.  Which is it?

It was the lesser of two evils. Carpet bombings, artillery bombings, famine and the rest of side effects of a continued land campaign would have killed many more, both Japanese and North American. I don't advocate murdering civilians, but that was war. A war they started, mind you.

 

 

And once again I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about.  There were plenty of underground resistance movements in the Soviet Union - perhaps you've heard of "One Day In the Life of Ivan Denisovich"?

And what did they achieve? What were their successes? What was their effect? International projection?

 

My point exactly. If you are trying to say that the Soviet Union was inefficient at managing internal dissidence (which if left unchecked may lead to armed resistance), perhaps it is you who needs to do some research.

 

 

Alright, if the law is your ultimate source of morality, I suppose I can respect that.  I certainly don't agree with it, though.  If you rape, torture, and murder my wife and children, I'm going to be the one to kill you; I'm not going to turn you over to twenty-to-life in prison.  That'd be murder on my part, too, but to me, it'd be justified.

Non sequitur. Nobody has raped and killed anyone's family here, not politically, not literally. If anyone, it's been the palestinian suicide bombers.

 

That kind of twisted logic and maliciously presented straw men may work to confuse some people, but you are going to have to do better with me.

[Commissar]

It was the lesser of two evils. Carpet bombings, artillery bombings, famine and the rest of side effects of a continued land campaign would have killed many more, both Japanese and North American. I don't advocate murdering civilians, but that was war. A war they started, mind you.

So you're backing off from your "under no circumstances" standpoint of half an hour ago? That certainly sounds like justification for the killing of civilians, to me. So I guess it must exist.

 

And what did they achieve? What were their successes? What was their effect? International projection?

 

My point exactly. If you are trying to say that the Soviet Union was inefficient at managing internal dissidence (which if left unchecked may lead to armed resistance), perhaps it is you who needs to do some research.

Glasnot', for one. That's something internal dissidence achieved. That in turn lead to democratization. I'd say that they were woefully inadequate at managing internal dissidence, yeah. Look at the Baltic states for other examples, or even Armenians in Azerbaijan.

 

Non sequitur. Nobody has raped and killed anyone's family here, not politically, not literally. If anyone, it's been the palestinian suicide bombers.

 

That kind of twisted logic and maliciously presented straw men may work to confuse some people, but you are going to have to do better with me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I can see I'm dealing with a truly formidable intellect.

 

I wasn't making an analogy to the Palestinian situation; you stated that you wouldn't even listen to their reasons for committing murder, and gave your example of shooting the trespasser. I agreed that wouldn't be a good reason, and gave you a reason for murder that I, personally, would consider satisfactory, illustrating the highly relative nature of justification. You don't think the Palestinians are justified in what they're doing, and neither do I; I just don't agree with what you'd do in response.

[213374U]

So you're backing off from your "under no circumstances" standpoint of half an hour ago?  That certainly sounds like justification for the killing of civilians, to me.  So I guess it must exist.

No. In war, the rules are different. And again, it was a war they started. If the US hadn't demolished Japan, they would just have rearmed, and charged forward again. Stop trying to milk your Hiroshima example, it's getting old already, and it should be obvious by now that you aren't going to accomplish anything.

 

 

Glasnot', for one.  That's something internal dissidence achieved.  That in turn lead to democratization.  I'd say that they were woefully inadequate at managing internal dissidence, yeah.  Look at the Baltic states for other examples, or even Armenians in Azerbaijan.

Huh? And here I was thinking that Glasnost, Perestroika, and the rest of the reforms undertaken by Gorbachev were due to his wish to revive the soviet people's interest and faith in the Party, and to give an impulse to the economy in an attempt to keep up with the US. Wait, that's the most widely accepted theory. I guess the world is wrong then, and you are right.

 

 

I wasn't making an analogy to the Palestinian situation; you stated that you wouldn't even listen to their reasons for committing murder, and gave your example of shooting the trespasser.  I agreed that wouldn't be a good reason, and gave you a reason for murder that I, personally, would consider satisfactory, illustrating the highly relative nature of justification.  You don't think the Palestinians are justified in what they're doing, and neither do I; I just don't agree with what you'd do in response.

Your particular preference for personal vengeance is of no concern to me. It's still illegal. If you wish to live outside the law, and outside any rules that make convivence possible, that's your choice. As somebody said before, vengeance is the moral equivalent of drinking sea water.

 

Sorry, but no. I don't accept your reasons for murdering anyone. It's still wrong. But even if I accepted those particular reasons, they still have nothing to do with the topic at hand. But perhaps you are not as interested in debating as you are in "winning", even if that means making arguments so circular that they aren't related at all. Well, I hope you "win".

 

I for one will keep just debating.

[Shadowstrider]

So you're backing off from your "under no circumstances" standpoint of half an hour ago?  That certainly sounds like justification for the killing of civilians, to me.  So I guess it must exist.

No. In war, the rules are different. And again, it was a war they started. If the US hadn't demolished Japan, they would just have rearmed, and charged forward again. Stop trying to milk your Hiroshima example, it's getting old already, and it should be obvious by now that you aren't going to accomplish anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I feel the need to point out that this contradicts this, which was your original position.

 

Unlike you, I don't care about their reasons. I don't tolerate murdering civilians, under any circumstances. You, on the other hand, seem to establish degrees of tolerance depending on their reasons.

 

War is a circumstance. Who started the war is a circumstance. The nuke killed civilians, but it is okay because it prevented a possible larger loss of life. It is okay, you contradicted yourself. Not a big deal, but don't pretend you didn't.

 

Stop deflecting the issue, both of ya

[213374U]

War is a circumstance.  Who started the war is a circumstance.  The nuke killed civilians, but it is okay because it prevented a possible larger loss of life.  It is okay, you contradicted yourself.  Not a big deal, but don't pretend you didn't.

I guess that depends on what you understand by "murder". Note that I used the word "murder" and not just "kill", for a reason. Murder is not when you kill in self-defense, and that's what it ultimately came down to in Japan. So no, I'm not contradicting myself, no matter how you put it.

[Commissar]

No. In war, the rules are different. And again, it was a war they started. If the US hadn't demolished Japan, they would just have rearmed, and charged forward again. Stop trying to milk your Hiroshima example, it's getting old already, and it should be obvious by now that you aren't going to accomplish anything.

And if the Palestinians consider themselves to be at war, as many of the militant organizations do?

 

"Doesn't count!" I can hear it now.

 

Huh? And here I was thinking that Glasnost, Perestroika, and the rest of the reforms undertaken by Gorbachev were due to his wish to revive the soviet people's interest and faith in the Party, and to give an impulse to the economy in an attempt to keep up with the US. Wait, that's the most widely accepted theory. I guess the world is wrong then, and you are right.

Revive their faith and interest in the Party, huh? Wonder why it waned? My wife's family lived through this particular period of Soviet history; her father was a member of an underground press association. When one of their number was taken up, they publicized it, they didn't call it a day. The gulags only led to more resistance and more dissatisfaction; it's impossible to make a contrary argument.

 

Your particular preference for personal vengeance is of no concern to me. It's still illegal. If you wish to live outside the law, and outside any rules that make convivence possible, that's your choice. As somebody said before, vengeance is the moral equivalent of drinking sea water.

 

Sorry, but no. I don't accept your reasons for murdering anyone. It's still wrong. But even if I accepted those particular reasons, they still have nothing to do with the topic at hand. But perhaps you are not as interested in debating as you are in "winning", even if that means making arguments so circular that they aren't related at all. Well, I hope you "win". 

 

I for one will keep just debating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It'd be kind of difficult not to, to tell you the truth.

 

Actually, I'm hard-pressed to boil your argument down to any one point. Is it that the Palestinians shouldn't be given a state until they stop harboring terrorists? That's essentially an argument for the status quo, and apparently Israel hasn't found the status quo too palatable recently. The status quo just means more suicide bombers, more Israeli airstrikes on apartment buildings, more of the same old, same old. They've decided to, as the hippies put it, give peace a chance. I for one think it's about damned time.

[Shadowstrider]

Here we go...

 

The act of murder is defined as...

 

To kill (another human) unlawfully.

To kill brutally or inhumanly.

To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.

To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.

Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

 

or

 

1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY

3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE <murders French> d : to defeat badly

 

 

Since there is no "law of war" except to win, you can rule out the first definition. So "to kill brutally or inhumanly" would be the fall back, or "to slaughter wantonly." I'd say dropping a bomb which is very, very capable of leveling an entire city is pretty wanton (merciless), brutal and possible inhuman, not having suffered through a nuclear blast I wouldn't know and don't care to speculate.