Does defense justify genocide?

Harshaw said:

The war was defined as being against terrorist organizations with a gloabl reach. You can certainly destroy organizations and kill their members. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Yup. Exactly.

Harshaw said:

Sure, but no one has ever seriously understood it to be a war on the feeling of terror.

Click to expand...

Not trying to be argumentative here, but feelings have nothing to do with terrorism. In this case, terrorism is a verb, an action designed to terrorize innocent people at any time for no reason. The hard wired human reaction is terror, unless one becomes numb to it, which isn't good either. The response tends to be motivated by that terror and unless caution is exercised, a whole lot of bad things happen which had nothing to do with the original problem. As we all have clearly seen and, hopefully, learned a few hard lessons. Imho.

Aunt Spiker said:

If we're 'the ultimate creation' then God needs to find a new hobby!

We wage wars - killing MILLIONS at a time, rape the earth and piss in each other's Wheaties (if we're not just taking the wheaties away) - and much of this was done IN the name of religion no less.

He must be so proud. :roll: His little derelict troublemakers of the Universe. So impish and cruel - we're adorable and precious!

Move over Rubicante! Man's a comin.

Click to expand...

Lmfao. Aren't we though? Just ask the special Jesus people. Lmao - Actually, the fact that some of us have turned in to spoiled rotten selfish little brats with fat bellies and fluffy pillows has nothing to do with The Spirit of The Universe, in my opinion. That whole free will thing always gets in the way, ya know? Oh well, we all got a path...

Guy Incognito said:

I think we need to keep in mind here that the war on terror is an analogy and not a literal war. Like the war on crime and the war on drugs.

Click to expand...

Lol... And how are those workin' out for us, ya think? They are breaking the bank and wasting resources better used elsewhere.

Here's where I end up looking like my dog when he's trying to understand me and can't quite get there; head sideways and ears cocked, eager to understand yet totally lost. Where has this moral relativism come from with conservatives?

"Well, they do it, so we can do it."

NO no no no no!!!!! When one claims the standard of morality and decency in the world, as well as exceptionalism in all things (as our far right friends have), there is no relativism allowed. Period. There should be a rule.

Aunt Spiker said:

The only people against you are the ones actually fighting you - most countries are Neutral when it comes to many issues that go on.

Click to expand...

to be neutral in this kind of endeavour is to serve as an enabler, and thus, not to be neutral. it's like saying i'm not supporting a criminal gang, i just let them use my house for their meetings and my cars to get to and from their heists.

Guy Incognito said:

I think we need to keep in mind here that the war on terror is an analogy and not a literal war. Like the war on crime and the war on drugs.

Click to expand...

certainly it is ill-named, but that is by necessity. this is a 4Gen war against Islamist Fundamentalism.

cpwill said:

to be neutral in this kind of endeavour is to serve as an enabler, and thus, not to be neutral. it's like saying i'm not supporting a criminal gang, i just let them use my house for their meetings and my cars to get to and from their heists.

Click to expand...

So because one big, wealthy country decides one day to wage war on a ghostly group (eventhough it's a legitimate country-concerned issue) means that everyone else has to throw their selves, citizens and resources into it headlong?

cpwill said:

certainly it is ill-named, but that is by necessity. this is a 4Gen war against Islamist Fundamentalism.

Click to expand...

Sure feels like a damn war to me.

An actual declaration of war isn't necessarily for it to be a war-time effort.

Aunt Spiker said:

So because one big, wealthy country decides one day to wage war on a ghostly group (eventhough it's a legitimate country-concerned issue) means that everyone else has to throw their selves, citizens and resources into it headlong?

Click to expand...

life isn't fair, eh?

but remember, that wealthy country didn't decide to one day wage war on a ghostly group; a widespread and powerful ideology declared war on the existance of an entire culture. that's a key difference here; if we win, Islam still survives.

Sure feels like a damn war to me.

Click to expand...

and to me. i often feel a coward that i left my old battalion when i reenlisted; they rotated back to afghanistan and have taken quite a few casualties since.

cpwill said:

to be neutral in this kind of endeavour is to serve as an enabler, and thus, not to be neutral. it's like saying i'm not supporting a criminal gang, i just let them use my house for their meetings and my cars to get to and from their heists.

Click to expand...

Isn't that a prescription for perpetual war? This is the same "good and evil", "for us or against us" attitude that has caused so much needless death, economic hardship and bad decisions as a nation.

It is a false choice.

It is also another one of the standards the United States herself cannot live up to. Because quite frankly, the United States doesn't seem to mind terrorism a lick when they agree with the cause. We call those guys Freedom Fighters.

Kev316 said:

It is also another one of the standards the United States herself cannot live up to. Because quite frankly, the United States doesn't seem to mind terrorism a lick when they agree with the cause. We call those guys Freedom Fighters.

Click to expand...

When they do it it's terror, when the United States or her allies do it it's anti-terror. Simple enough, why can't you understand this?

Liberal

Go and read the UN charter. International law makes it clear that aggression is the greatest of war crimes. Same with the threat of aggression.

Aunt Spiker said:

And so Bush is the only one who's ever crossed the line?

Click to expand...

Is anyone who commits a crime ever the only one?

Aunt Spiker said:

As far as I'm aware everyone IN CONGRESS crossed the line when they knew what was going on and they permitted it to happen, anyway.

Click to expand...

My impression was that they operated under implicit threat, but that is neither here nor there - your attempt to thinly spread responsibility is not important. The crimes were plotted, committed, and the most inflammatory proof (e.g., video recordings of interrogations) was deliberately destroyed even as the perpetrators rubbed their guilt in the faces of the American people.

Aunt Spiker said:

In order for it to be considered unconstitutional - it first must be declared as 'torture' by the Supreme Court. You can't just decide that "this is torture . . . that is not" because *you* feel that way. In order to punish someone there must be a defined law which is broken or a regulation which is determined to be violated.

Click to expand...

The law explicitly defines torture, and the Bush regime openly committed numerous acts identified as such under both federal criminal law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and international treaties. There is no ambiguity on this point, and their actions to cover it up and obscure the details of their tactics proves they knew what they were doing was a crime.

Aunt Spiker said:

Bush wasn't some Monarch gone crazy like Vlad the Impaler.

Click to expand...

Yes, actually he was.

Aunt Spiker said:

He wasn't the only say-so in this decision.

Click to expand...

Indeed, there was also Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and to some extent Karl Rove, although Rove was largely concerned with propaganda.

Aunt Spiker said:

Many had the knowledge and power to speak out against him or to try to stop his decisions from going through - and some did try - but many did not and no one actually took necessary steps to stop him.

Click to expand...

You can play the "blame the world" game AFTER the people who plotted and committed the crime are brought to justice.

molten_dragon said:

Actually, I would argue that theoretically, genocide would be justifiable in defense of oneself or one's country under certain circumstances. If you were fighting an enemy who refused to surrender, and would continue to be a threat as long as any of them were alive, then genocide would be the only option. This is unlikely to come up in real life though.

Click to expand...

Not merely "unlikely" - impossible. National and political loyalties are not genetically predetermined, and your "theoretical" hypothesis is irresponsible in the extreme.

jamesrage said:

You sure are naive about the world, warfare and have no comprehension about what constitutes a crime or even first degree murder.

Click to expand...

Why don't you tell me what a crime is? See, I and most people in America and the world seem to have this "naive" belief that human beings have rights, that words have meaning, and that laws apply to Republicans.

jamesrage said:

I bet you probably think we should apologize to the Japanese for dropping atomic bombs on them and for putting the lives and safety of our troops ahead of the civilians in Japan.

Click to expand...

I would hesitate to bring up WW2 if I were arguing from your position - the Allies hanged German and Japanese officials for acts committed (and in some cases admitted to) by Bush appointees, and which you implicitly defend.

RightinNYC said:

Oh, well if some random internet dude says so, it MUST be true! After all, the world obviously operates in black and white.

Click to expand...

Even with all the other colors in the spectrum, black and white DO exist.

RightinNYC said:

Fun fact: At least 70% of people say that torture is justified in some circumstances:

Click to expand...

More fun facts: Torture is officially a crime in every country on Earth; is against international law; is condemned by the United Nations; no government openly admits to practicing it; is explicitly prohibited by the US Constitution; is criminalized under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; is a felony under US federal and state law punishable by life imprisonment; resulted in the hangings of German and Japanese officials after WW2; if it results in the deaths of the victims (as happened to several terrorism suspects), it constitutes special circumstances eligible for the death penalty; no human rights organization on Earth considers it justifiable; and no document or treaty ever issued under the banner of human rights rationalizes it under any circumstances.

RightinNYC said:

If this were expanded beyond "suspected terrorists," I think the numbers would be even greater.

Click to expand...

Whereas if we contracted it to the respondents' own families, the numbers would be quite a bit smaller. People are typically quite flexible with the rights of others.

Bodhisattva said:

If there was an enemy that was committed to fighting to the death and to the last person, then yes.

Click to expand...

Since the topic is genocide, you would have to posit the existence of an entire race of people who are genetically incapable of surrender or negotiation. Is it your position that there is a race of people who cannot be reasoned with, and must be destroyed?

Bodhisattva said:

I guess those of us that consider it will be alive and you wont.

Click to expand...

Right, because Germany's WW2 doctrine was a sure-fire recipe for "survival."

Bodhisattva said:

Only because we passed laws making it so, all we have to do is change those laws and it would no longer be illegal...

Click to expand...

The laws were passed to reflect moral truths. If you disagree, then you reject the basic principles of the Enlightenment that founded our republic and underlie all freedom, democracy, and human rights. It is your prerogative to reject these things, but a tad hypocritical to enjoy them in fact while rejecting them in principle.

Bodhisattva said:

Unless you are torturing an evil person that wants to kill you and your innocent loved ones for no reason other than hatred, so that you can get information that will help you stop others of like mind.

Click to expand...

You seem to be a little fuzzy on the concept of rights. These are not things you get to hand out or withhold according to your judgment of another person's worth or motives. Or are you saying that it's okay to torture you or your family members too if someone in power decides you're a threat to them?

Bodhisattva said:

Every person in America is in the position to stop it... through the power of voting. So, in essence, you are condemning tens of millions of people to first-degree murder with capital special circumstances. Pretty silly...

Click to expand...

Yes, your desperate straw men are pretty silly. Everyone who would defend the indefensible plays the "blame the world" game.

Bodhisattva said:

No, this is the Internet and why don't you go spend some time with the Taliban and see if that changes your perspective at all...

Click to expand...

I could say the same thing. You seem to agree with their morality and think the foundations of Western civilization are a joke.

Bodhisattva said:

Ahhh... those were the days. I remember the look on that one ladies face as she was just starting to burn at the stake... pure comedy.

Click to expand...

The fact is witch-burnings were, according to the beliefs of the time, an act of "defense." They believed the only way to protect themselves against the "diabolic forces" was to purify the suspected witch through Holy Fire. If she was guilty, then evil would be punished. And if not, then The Lord would reward her for her sacrifice. The attitude of those who rationalize torture is identical.

MSgt said:

These are absolutely dumb questions.

Click to expand...

They're not questions at all.

MSgt said:

Winning justifies anything.

Click to expand...

Does it justify losing what you're fighting for?

MSgt said:

History is quite clear that anything is forgiven if you win.

Click to expand...

Pyrrhos of Epirus might have a different opinion.

MSgt said:

How quickly did the entire Pacific and the U.S. cheer when Japan surrendered unconditionally?

Click to expand...

If your claim is correct, then the same people must have cheered just as loudly to have been invaded in the first place as they were when the invader was thrown out. Or maybe human beings are not the amoral scum you portray them as - maybe we know the difference between an aggressor and a defender.

MSgt said:

How easy was it for Germans to dismiss their own history of treatment towards people as long as all of Europe was under the Swastika?

Click to expand...

Aren't you even slightly ashamed to be citing Nazism as an example to emulate?

MSgt said:

With Al-Queda an organizational wreck, how many people actually care about the three terrorists that were waterboarded?

Click to expand...

No more and no less than would care if you were waterboarded. Aren't you glad there are people ready to defend your rights, even if you wouldn't pluck a hair for theirs?

MSgt said:

Philosophy is for the classroom.

Click to expand...

The world is a classroom to everyone who is not deliberately ignorant.

molten_dragon said:

Actually, I would argue that theoretically, genocide would be justifiable in defense of oneself or one's country under certain circumstances. If you were fighting an enemy who refused to surrender, and would continue to be a threat as long as any of them were alive, then genocide would be the only option. This is unlikely to come up in real life though.

Click to expand...

how would you justify it though?

if a group were perceived to be threatening your country's stability BY ANY MEANS, where their continued activity was perceived to be contributing to an environment where future generations were going to be subject to impoverishment, denied rights, living in fear ... would that justify it?