The promise of Christian Nationalism

[bilby]

Good Christians and Bad Christians wage war with the same bullets, and Lockheed Martin manufactures them without principle.

Point of information - Lockheed Martin has never made bullets.

 

[Politesse]

Good Christians and Bad Christians wage war with the same bullets, and Lockheed Martin manufactures them without principle.

Point of information - Lockheed Martin has never made bullets.

Metaphorically speaking.

(But I applaud the nitpick, for indeed you are correct, and its very much the kind of nit I'm often found picking)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This discussion has become a remake of "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan?" Dropping the bomb would have saved millions more lives across the globe if we had had it in 1941.

 

[Politesse]

This discussion has become a remake of "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan?" Dropping the bomb would have saved millions more lives across the globe if we had had it in 1941.

Just to be clear, this is an argument for moral justifiability of mass killings of civilians, when a military commander feels it is warranted by the situation?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This discussion has become a remake of "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan?" Dropping the bomb would have saved millions more lives across the globe if we had had it in 1941.

Just to be clear, this is an argument for moral justifiability of mass killings of civilians, when a military commander feels it is warranted by the situation?

Do you think that is what is happening? I don't. Non-combatants are dying but I don't think they are being targeted. Hamas, however, clearly targeted non-combatants. In Hamas's view there are no non-combatants in war. And maybe they are right.

 

[Politesse]

This discussion has become a remake of "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan?" Dropping the bomb would have saved millions more lives across the globe if we had had it in 1941.

Just to be clear, this is an argument for moral justifiability of mass killings of civilians, when a military commander feels it is warranted by the situation?

Do you think that is what is happening? I don't. Non-combatants are dying but I don't think they are being targeted. Hamas, however, clearly targeted non-combatants. In Hamas's view there are no non-combatants in war. And maybe they are right.

That's not an answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But my point is, I trust Islamic folks to be smart enough to dislike that but observe the truth of it and swallow the bile to do the hard, but right thing for the many millions of people here. We can at best reduce our support of Isreal, and even that is a very thin stretch.

I wish I shared your confidence that Islamic folks are that much smarter than Usonian folks overall, but I don't.

Also my opinion on US support for Israel has changed a great deal since last fall. I used to favor cutting off military aid. In light of recent events I think we should boost it.
Whatever else Israel is, it's the sole representative of multi-ethnic, secular democracy in the region.
Tom

They killed twenty thousand mostly innocent people in a matter of months, hitting their supposed targets so infrequently it seems like random chance would have been more effective.

Continuing to repeat this over and over doesn't make your conclusions any more valid.

At this point Gaza is claiming 32,000 dead--but notably the Ministry of Health data shows 20,000 accounted for. This corresponds well with the Israeli claim of 12,000 combatants dead. The Ministry of Health data is compiling the civilian dead. Since we can draw basically the same results from the numbers on both sides they're probably in the ballpark. That means 37% of the dead are combatants. However, approximately 1% of the total population is combatants.

Somehow I can't see 37% being the same as 1% (which is what random targeting would get.)

(And note that the Ministry of Health data will be counting Hamas-inflicted civilian casualties as caused by Israel. The real number is clearly higher than 37%)

You've never actually seen the disembodied head of child, I imagine? It's not pretty. They don't just stay in pristine head shape with a bit of romantic gore at the bottom like in the movies, they fall half to pieces. I've said this all through the two generational wars, and I'll say it all through this one: if the price of American "freedom" is unthinking cruelty to the rest of the world, why should anyone want us to be free?

Then why aren't you blaming the perpetrators, Hamas?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Blame the Christianity, blame the Israelis, blame whoever you want, but don't blame Biden because he's as much a hostage of the state of reality as the rest of us.

You managed to come up with a list that includes Christianity and Biden, but not Islam or Hamas?
Seriously?
Tom

The difference is, I am not advocating voting for Hamas. You are advocating voting to support the genocide you find most palatable.

How can you, with a straight face, advocate for "voting for the best of two bad options" while greenlighting mass murder of anyone who so much as lives in the same country as someone you hate? You think your preferred victims didn't "vote for the best of the bad options" they were presented with? Well, no they didn't. Because they were toddlers. But they certainly were not given any more of an option.

What is worse, to not have a choice, or to have a choice and use that choice to actively support the commission of atrocities?

But you are voting for Hamas in saying that Israel should stop fighting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Blame the Christianity, blame the Israelis, blame whoever you want, but don't blame Biden because he's as much a hostage of the state of reality as the rest of us.

You managed to come up with a list that includes Christianity and Biden, but not Islam or Hamas?
Seriously?
Tom

Hamas is a gross consequence of not including Palestinian people. It was an enemy created and perpetuated by consistent failure of humanitarian principles.

Hamas, and the desire to destroy Israel, could have entirely been eliminated by neighbourly compassion, and helping to build and educate Gaza.

It would have taken work, and peace would not have happened overnight, but it would have happened, and could have united the middle east.

You're ignoring the elephant--all the money that goes to war. Nothing Israel can do will overcome that.

The terrorist leaders wrecked the Palestinian economy so the people would suffer and would be more willing to be cannon fodder.

Instead, Israeli policy created Hamas.

Hamas isn't relevant. Hamas is simply the puppet-da-jour of Iran.

Israel can, yet again, do something. They could say "shit, we're sorry" and rebuild Gaza for the Palestinians, rebuild schools, rebuild the hospitals, the roads....

And promptly have it turned against them, just like every other time they've tried to be good guys.

Again, peace wouldn't happen overnight, but with enough effort, mostly Israeli because the current regime of Israel is responsible for a lot of the issues here.

They could kill Hamas with love and effort and aid and education.

The US can't do that. The US could switch to offering Israel aid for those specific purposes only, probably? That could be an effective path forward?

But the fact is, if I am to blame Hamas, this just puts more blame on Israel.

And the sheep can be safe by showing the wolves in love.

(And, yes, that comparison is exactly accurate. Hamas needs to attack Israel to get the money to exist.)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This discussion has become a remake of "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan?" Dropping the bomb would have saved millions more lives across the globe if we had had it in 1941.

Just to be clear, this is an argument for moral justifiability of mass killings of civilians, when a military commander feels it is warranted by the situation?

Do you think that is what is happening? I don't. Non-combatants are dying but I don't think they are being targeted. Hamas, however, clearly targeted non-combatants. In Hamas's view there are no non-combatants in war. And maybe they are right.

That's not an answer.

If that isn't an answer then you didn't ask a question. People play the hands they are dealt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This discussion has become a remake of "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan?" Dropping the bomb would have saved millions more lives across the globe if we had had it in 1941.

Just to be clear, this is an argument for moral justifiability of mass killings of civilians, when a military commander feels it is warranted by the situation?

Do you think that is what is happening? I don't. Non-combatants are dying but I don't think they are being targeted. Hamas, however, clearly targeted non-combatants. In Hamas's view there are no non-combatants in war. And maybe they are right.

It just doesn't make the news. Russia is pretty much genociding the areas they control. Kill the military age males, ship the children to Russia.

 

[Politesse]

This discussion has become a remake of "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan?" Dropping the bomb would have saved millions more lives across the globe if we had had it in 1941.

Just to be clear, this is an argument for moral justifiability of mass killings of civilians, when a military commander feels it is warranted by the situation?

Do you think that is what is happening? I don't. Non-combatants are dying but I don't think they are being targeted. Hamas, however, clearly targeted non-combatants. In Hamas's view there are no non-combatants in war. And maybe they are right.

That's not an answer.

If that isn't an answer then you didn't ask a question. People play the hands they are dealt.

Yes, actually. I asked whether you are making an argument for the conditional mass killing of civilians, as occurred in your example of "the bomb".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This discussion has become a remake of "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan?" Dropping the bomb would have saved millions more lives across the globe if we had had it in 1941.

Just to be clear, this is an argument for moral justifiability of mass killings of civilians, when a military commander feels it is warranted by the situation?

Do you think that is what is happening? I don't. Non-combatants are dying but I don't think they are being targeted. Hamas, however, clearly targeted non-combatants. In Hamas's view there are no non-combatants in war. And maybe they are right.

That's not an answer.

If that isn't an answer then you didn't ask a question. People play the hands they are dealt.

Yes, actually. I asked whether you are making an argument for the conditional mass killing of civilians, as occurred in your example of "the bomb".

And I responded that non-combatants are not being targeted. So I am not arguing for the conditional targeting of non-combatants whatever that means. I also added that Hamas intentionally targets non-combatants, a claim for which there is ample evidence. Are you somehow arguing that Hamas is "conditionally" and therefore justifiably targeting non-combatants? I certainly am not.

 

[Politesse]

This discussion has become a remake of "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan?" Dropping the bomb would have saved millions more lives across the globe if we had had it in 1941.

Just to be clear, this is an argument for moral justifiability of mass killings of civilians, when a military commander feels it is warranted by the situation?

Do you think that is what is happening? I don't. Non-combatants are dying but I don't think they are being targeted. Hamas, however, clearly targeted non-combatants. In Hamas's view there are no non-combatants in war. And maybe they are right.

That's not an answer.

If that isn't an answer then you didn't ask a question. People play the hands they are dealt.

Yes, actually. I asked whether you are making an argument for the conditional mass killing of civilians, as occurred in your example of "the bomb".

And I responded that non-combatants are not being targeted. So I am not arguing for the conditional targeting of non-combatants whatever that means. I also added that Hamas intentionally targets non-combatants, a claim for which there is ample evidence. Are you somehow arguing that Hamas is "conditionally" and therefore justifiably targeting non-combatants? I certainly am not.

Civilians were most certainly targeted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the dual incident you cited in support of Israel's recent killings.

 

[TomC]

This discussion has become a remake of "Should we have dropped the bomb on Japan?" Dropping the bomb would have saved millions more lives across the globe if we had had it in 1941.

Just to be clear, this is an argument for moral justifiability of mass killings of civilians, when a military commander feels it is warranted by the situation?

Do you think that is what is happening? I don't. Non-combatants are dying but I don't think they are being targeted. Hamas, however, clearly targeted non-combatants. In Hamas's view there are no non-combatants in war. And maybe they are right.

That's not an answer.

If that isn't an answer then you didn't ask a question. People play the hands they are dealt.

Yes, actually. I asked whether you are making an argument for the conditional mass killing of civilians, as occurred in your example of "the bomb".

And I responded that non-combatants are not being targeted. So I am not arguing for the conditional targeting of non-combatants whatever that means. I also added that Hamas intentionally targets non-combatants, a claim for which there is ample evidence. Are you somehow arguing that Hamas is "conditionally" and therefore justifiably targeting non-combatants? I certainly am not.

Civilians were most certainly targeted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the dual incident you cited in support of Israel's recent killings.

Would anyone have died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki if their government hadn't launched all those attacks?

I don't think so myself. But maybe you disagree.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Would anyone have died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki if their government hadn't launched all those attacks?

I don't think so myself. But maybe you disagree.
Tom

Is your argument then that civilian mass killings are acceptable, as long as it is in retaliation for a previous attack by other people of their race, faith, nation, etc?

 

[Politesse]

I really don't think it is asking for much, to ask for a coherent argument concerning when and how it is acceptable to kill innocent people. If you have a moral compass at all, you should be able to explain what it is, and when and where it applies. If you don't, I'm not going to take your moral arguments seriously; if you have never rationally considered your own ethical positions, why should I? Especially on an issue as momentous as the targeted killing of children. I have rationally considered my own ethical position on this issue, and am happy to explain at whatever length you have the patience for, why I consider mass killing of civilians to be both morally reprehensible, and strategically and diplomatically suicidal.

 

[TomC]

Would anyone have died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki if their government hadn't launched all those attacks?

I don't think so myself. But maybe you disagree.
Tom

Is your argument then that civilian mass killings are acceptable, as long as it is in retaliation for a previous attack by other people of their race, faith, nation, etc?

No.
Is your argument that civilian mass killings are acceptable, if Muslims do it?

That's what it sounds like.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Would anyone have died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki if their government hadn't launched all those attacks?

I don't think so myself. But maybe you disagree.
Tom

Is your argument then that civilian mass killings are acceptable, as long as it is in retaliation for a previous attack by other people of their race, faith, nation, etc?

Holy take something out of historical context, Batman! The bomb was not used except as any other weapon was used in that war.

Do you think the Japanese ask themselves if they were right to bomb Pearl Harbor or commit genocide in Nanking? What do they say?

I really don't think it is asking for much, to ask for a coherent argument concerning when and how it is acceptable to kill innocent people.

I think that's called poisoning the well, but please enlighten us. I always liked that Star Trek episode with the Organians being able to prevent any and all human/klingon induced warfare and death. But of course that's Hollywood, not the real world. Where are those Organians and GORT when you need them?

 

[Politesse]

I think that's called poisoning the well, but please enlighten us.

Noy my job. My own argument has been made more than clear. You object, but can only explain why by making the vaguest of references to historical incidents of mass killings. Do you have a clear, understandable moral argument concerning mass killings, or not? If you do, please provide it.