Islamic militants praise 'heroic' slaughter of pregnant woman, 4 daughters

[Az]

I take this post back, fully. I didn't think it over.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Were you against Kosovo, Spiffor? Or Gulf I?

Kosovo: against. All diplomatic solutions hadn't been exhausted when the war began, and the propping up of the UCK is the main reason why Kosovo sucks as it currently does.

Gulf War 1: too young to know. I was dragged by the simplistic propaganda of "evil Saddam" back when I was 9 to 10 (and I really mean simplistic: at least my understanding of thigs was simplistic). I suppose I'd have been in favor of defending Kuwait accoring to a defensive alliance, and drive Iraq home, nothing further.


Azazel:
If that post was directed to me, don't worry, I didn't get to read it

[Kuciwalker]

If we were going to go to war anyway, why not carry it all the way to Saddam and prevent him from, say, gassing hundreds of thousands of Kurds?

[Az]

It wasn't directed at anyone. It was an observation I made about humans, and then I realized I was wrong, and retracted it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

First, LOTM, thanks for your patience. I can expect my point to upset you very strongly (more than many Apolytonites), yet you're the one who is willing to discuss, and to actually share your point of view

Second, I agree with the fact the hells of war should be limited. Unfortunately, I haven't seen many encouragin things, even since WW2. The war in Vietnam killed millions of civilians. The war in Chechnya completely leveled Groznyi, and I suppose many other cities as well. The war in Korea killed millions (admittedly, many of them were fighters), and pretty much every war so far has been outrageously nasty.

Even in Iraq, where the American efforts of treating the population well to win its heart are to be greeted as good news, torture has been found, indiscriminate violence in war zones has been found, etc. And this is probably the most "humane" war ever waged so far, since the hearts of the Iraqi people are the ultimate military objective!

I wish these people don't get killed. I wish these barbarous acts stop. I can hope for better methods of killing (i.e rockets instead of pump rifles, automatic rifles instead of lynching), but I don't see how the logic of death is any different with the new methods. The soldier that has been killed, whether by a rocket or a dull knife, will continue to leave mourning parents, and maybe mourning orphans. The children who lose their parents, their friends or their homes in an attack will suffer just the same whether the attack has been done by a nice smart bomb, by a bulldozer, or by ye olde TNT.

I would have prefered these Palestinians to scare the hell out of these settlers so that they go back in Israel without muttering. I would have even prefered these Palestinians to capture these people and treat them humanely in some compound. Of course I'd have preferd that over the murder of a pregnant mother and all her children. And obviously, I would have prefered that nothing happens at all instead of this murder (well, maybe not the "scare" part, because I really think these people are the worst thorn to peace on the Israeli side, and their abandoning their homes is absolutely needed if we want to create the conditions for a successful peace).

Maybe that's because I'm a maximalist. But I think war shouldn't happen unless absolutely warranted, because war is the time where every human may turn back into a beast. I don't want to see the day where war will be deemed a palatable political tool, at least in the perspective of the one on the good side of the gun.

I think i see where we differ.
youre focusing on the results, the utilitarian view of war.
Youre just as dead in WW2 if you were a German killed by an American bomber attempting to hit factory, as if you were killed by a British bomber targeting housing. All that matters is the numbers. In the same sense arent ALL deaths equally tragic?? If World war 2 accelerated the development of Penicillin, would that make it more worthwhile??? AIDS is hell, and traffic accidents are hell, and so are a lot of things.

War isnt hell just because people die, are injured, etc. Peace in lots of places is hell on that ground. War is hell not so much because people die BUT BECAUSE THEY kill. It suspends the moral law that says THOUGH SHALT NOT KILL. It does so inevitably, since a soldier MUST kill to stay alive. And that is why we want to minimize war, and not just check the net death count. Not all wars which can be shown to reduce the net death count (as many wars against dictatorships could) are justified. But that means that there are better and worse hells based not just on the number of deaths, but on the ACTIONS of those who kill. A bomber in WW2 targeting housing was reduced to a deeper circle of hell than one who killed civilians by accident while targeting a factory. And a Soldier firing at another soldier is not reduced as much as one who kills civilians by accident. And someone who kills civilians out of pure hatred, like the Nazis, or like certain instances involving my countrymen and native americans, or like (i believe) the incident in Gaza in the OP, are at the bottom circle. The laws of war matter, and NOT ONLY because they reduce the casualty count (though i think they do)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Maybe that's because I'm a maximalist. But I think war shouldn't happen unless absolutely warranted, because war is the time where every human may turn back into a beast. I don't want to see the day where war will be deemed a palatable political tool, at least in the perspective of the one on the good side of the gun.

IE if we reduce the distinctions between "lawful" acts of war, and "unlawful" acts or atrocities, that will lessen the palatability of war.

I fear that in many cases, by normalizing the "unlawful" acts it only serves to radicalize the "good side" and to make peaceful solutions less tenable. I see that definitely happening in Israel. And I think the same might be true in Kashmir and Chechnya, though Im less familiar with those situations.

I must also admit that at some gut level i cant be objective on this. My great grandfather was murdered by folks commiting an unlawful act against a civilian, as were 3 of my wifes grandparents. My parents in law survived ONLY because the good side of the gun was relatively ruthless about killing in the hundreds of thousands WITHIN, MORE OR LESS, (Stalinist atrocities excepted) the laws of war.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Azazel
I take this post back, fully. I didn't think it over.

I see your post, and raise it.

[Sirotnikov]

regarding lotm's post: that's a problem i meet in many people, which i simply can't understand.

they judge falt out according to the result, which often can be misleading and failed, instead of juding actions according to the intent.

now obviously you can't be absolutely sure of intent - no one can be sure whether the iraqi war was for freedom or for oil or for both.

but i think that intention is the only way we can judge morality because morality judges behavior.

If a soldier has accidentally killed 3 civilians and you're judging him according to the result, you are judging his competence rather than his real behavior.

Romeo and Juliet is a tragedy not just because two people die - that's true for many stories. It's a tragedy because of their pure intentions and the cruel irony of result compared to intention.

[Drake Tungsten]

I see the discussion on if it is OK or not to kill a pregnant woman and her children continues unabated.

This thread sickens me.

[East Street Trader]

Edited out.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I think i see where we differ.
youre focusing on the results, the utilitarian view of war.
Youre just as dead in WW2 if you were a German killed by an American bomber attempting to hit factory, as if you were killed by a British bomber targeting housing.
[...]
But that means that there are better and worse hells based not just on the number of deaths, but on the ACTIONS of those who kill. A bomber in WW2 targeting housing was reduced to a deeper circle of hell than one who killed civilians by accident while targeting a factory. And a Soldier firing at another soldier is not reduced as much as one who kills civilians by accident. And someone who kills civilians out of pure hatred, like the Nazis, or like certain instances involving my countrymen and native americans, or like (i believe) the incident in Gaza in the OP, are at the bottom circle.

Originally posted by Siro
regarding lotm's post: that's a problem i meet in many people, which i simply can't understand.

they judge falt out according to the result, which often can be misleading and failed, instead of juding actions according to the intent.
[...]
but i think that intention is the only way we can judge morality because morality judges behavior.

This is a very interesting argument.

I think it transposes to pretty much every discussion on these boards regarding colateral damage (including the recent flamefest in the British torture thread). And I think it is one of the main differences between a European outlook on war, and an American / Israeli one. This may explain why Americans aren't too shy of going to war, while Europeans tend to be extremely reluctant to do so.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This is a very interesting argument.

I think it transposes to pretty much every discussion on these boards regarding colateral damage (including the recent flamefest in the British torture thread). And I think it is one of the main differences between a European outlook on war, and an American / Israeli one. This may explain why Americans aren't too shy of going to war, while Europeans tend to be extremely reluctant to do so.

Intersting the difference in cultural outlook. One could raise the arguement that since Americans have not in recent generations seen the horror of war on its own soil they are less likely to oppose use of war. (similarly after the Civil War America entrtenched itself into Isolationism, broken in periods only by the Teddy Rosevelts admin) Europeans still have generational memories of WW2 and as a consequence are more hesitant to see those same horrors unfold. Israel OTOH is intimately aware and engaged in a never ending war and whilst they see the horos have survival as their aim.

Which raises the question why aren't the Canadians aboot to raise some hell, ehh? (oops forgot they're all distracted with Stanley Cup finals going on)


After that tho' beware the menace from the north.

[Cruddy]

Sigh. Arabs shoot at Israeli children, Israelis shoot at Arab children.

Is it any wonder that sometimes the bullets strike home?

[dannubis]

DD
no it's not ok to shoot children

but i'll take your feeling on the matters seriously if, when sometime in the future an islamic child is killed, you exhibit the same kind of resentment.

until then i regard this thread as an attempt to prove the american stance on israel to be morally correct.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by dannubis
DD
no it's not ok to shoot children

The post started off good but then it wandered into trying to accuse me of something with no basis in fact. Which makes me doubt you really believe this part.

until then i regard this thread as an attempt to prove the american stance ...

That killing a woman and her children in cold blood is wrong as are the people that defend it. Oops. Sorry dannubis.