View Poll Results: Does defense justify genocide?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • No.

    7 53.85%
  • No.

    2 15.38%
  • No.

    2 15.38%
  • No.

    2 15.38%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 63 of 63

Thread: Does defense justify genocide?

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Last Seen
    10-15-12 @ 02:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    523

    Re: Does defense justify genocide?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kev316 View Post
    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.
    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 :P

    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.
    Last edited by SirPwn4lot; 12-14-10 at 05:21 AM.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-25-11 @ 05:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    464

    Re: Does defense justify genocide?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    And so Bush is the only one who's ever crossed the line?
    Is anyone who commits a crime ever the only one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Bush wasn't some Monarch gone crazy like Vlad the Impaler.
    Yes, actually he was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    He wasn't the only say-so in this decision.
    Indeed, there was also Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and to some extent Karl Rove, although Rove was largely concerned with propaganda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    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.
    You can play the "blame the world" game AFTER the people who plotted and committed the crime are brought to justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    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.
    Not merely "unlikely" - impossible. National and political loyalties are not genetically predetermined, and your "theoretical" hypothesis is irresponsible in the extreme.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    You sure are naive about the world, warfare and have no comprehension about what constitutes a crime or even first degree murder.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Oh, well if some random internet dude says so, it MUST be true! After all, the world obviously operates in black and white.
    Even with all the other colors in the spectrum, black and white DO exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Fun fact: At least 70% of people say that torture is justified in some circumstances:
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If this were expanded beyond "suspected terrorists," I think the numbers would be even greater.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    If there was an enemy that was committed to fighting to the death and to the last person, then yes.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I guess those of us that consider it will be alive and you wont.
    Right, because Germany's WW2 doctrine was a sure-fire recipe for "survival."

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Only because we passed laws making it so, all we have to do is change those laws and it would no longer be illegal...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    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.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    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...
    Yes, your desperate straw men are pretty silly. Everyone who would defend the indefensible plays the "blame the world" game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    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...
    I could say the same thing. You seem to agree with their morality and think the foundations of Western civilization are a joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    These are absolutely dumb questions.
    They're not questions at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Winning justifies anything.
    Does it justify losing what you're fighting for?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    History is quite clear that anything is forgiven if you win.
    Pyrrhos of Epirus might have a different opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    How quickly did the entire Pacific and the U.S. cheer when Japan surrendered unconditionally?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    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?
    Aren't you even slightly ashamed to be citing Nazism as an example to emulate?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    With Al-Queda an organizational wreck, how many people actually care about the three terrorists that were waterboarded?
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Philosophy is for the classroom.
    The world is a classroom to everyone who is not deliberately ignorant.

  3. #63
    Professor
    marywollstonecraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-13 @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,317

    Re: Does defense justify genocide?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    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.
    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?
    Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •