47 replies to this topic

[sal]

Exactly the excuse the Arab terrorists use when they gun down Israelis. I guess the massacre of Arab villagers by Irgun justifies the Arabs attempting to annihliate the entire Jewish race? They have "no other option" but to slaughter defensless civilians, right?

You are really blurring the term terrorist. Americans went to world war to stop Hitler. Arabs want to kill Israelis period. Why would you even compare the two?

You really don't have a clue. . First of all, Hitler's election was hardly a fair Democratic process by any standard, as Hitler cheated extensively --- using Nazi party thugs to menace, attack, and terrorize his political opponents on both the left and right, and effectively disenfranchising millions of Germans.

And far from "passively going along" with Hitler, many Germans in both the military and civilian population actively opposed the Dictator.
For instance, members of the German military brass attempted to assassinate Hitler at least once, (http://en.wikipedia....ration_Valkyrie) and the Gestapo arrested thousands of "disloyal" (anti-Nazi) Germans. There were plenty of good people trapped in Germany with the Nazis, and the Allied bombs shredded them all equally.

Should we save the thousands or should we save millions?

Sort of like the early Israelis wanting a large swathe of real estate smack in the center of the Arab Mid-East, no? (Sorry, I couldn't resist. )

Sure only the Israelis finally returned from where they came from.

I disagree. Did we win the Spanish-American war by invading Spain and waging war on nuns and schoolchildren? No, we won it by defeating the Spanish military in Cuba. Wars are won through warfare, not genocide.

Not every war is the same. You can't compare the two scenarios.

I'll rephrase my question as you keep avoiding it.
There is a terrorist shooting at a school and slaughtering children. You have a shot at him, but the problem is there is a child in the way and your only option is to kill them both. What would you do? Kill both the child and the terrorist and save dozens of other children or let the child live so dozens of other children will be slaughtered. If you only had those two options.

The Nazis used that same excuse when they threw Jews into the gas chambers: "How do you know they're innocent? Someone who would stab Germany in the back if they had a chance, are they innocent?"

No matter how you cut it, it's demonic to slaughter thousands of civilians "because they might not be innocent."

No they did not they just said they were cleaning the race.

[mroof]

You are really blurring the term terrorist. Americans went to world war to stop Hitler. Arabs want to kill Israelis period. Why would you even compare the two?

This is historically inaccurate: Hitler was not the reason we entered WWII and the United States was aware of what was happening overseas. Despite our turmoil with Germany, Hitler tried to appease friction with the United States and had hoped to gain an alliance with the country. Our entry into WWII was because of the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Our entry into WWI however, WAS in response to Germany. Prior to the attack on the Lusitania, we were claiming neutrality and secretly smuggling weapons overseas to various countries. The Germans were aware of this, but made a grave mistake by taking it upon themselves to attack a civilian ship. The Zimmermann Telegram was also part of the reason we enacted war with Germany, since it provided Wilson with a good excuse.

Sort of like the early Israelis wanting a large swathe of real estate smack in the center of the Arab Mid-East, no? (Sorry, I couldn't resist. )

I don't know who said this, but it is a completely B/S statement if coming from any American. Especially given the fact that we as a country did this to the Native Americans. The Native Americans who weren't killed for land, ended up dying from the diseases we brought into the country. Later, we instituted Reservations, but the system is extremely broken and people are still without a fair amount of basic necessities like water in some places.

We as Americans, practically wrote the "how-to" book, so it is nothing short of hypocrisy to use this as a point against the conflicts in the Middle East.

[mroof]

You really don't have a clue. First of all, Hitler's election was hardly a fair Democratic process by any standard, as Hitler cheated extensively --- using Nazi party thugs to menace, attack, and terrorize his political opponents on both the left and right, and effectively disenfranchising millions of Germans.

This makes no sense: People revered Hitler because he played on the psyche of the general public. Germans were resentful of their treatment after their loss in WWI and felt that by embarking on WWII they would restore glory to the country. Hitler promised the people an achievement of such goals and most Germans were more than happy to join Hitler's cause.

For instance, members of the German military brass attempted to assassinate Hitler at least once, (http://en.wikipedia....ration_Valkyrie) and the Gestapo arrested thousands of "disloyal" (anti-Nazi) Germans. There were plenty of good people trapped in Germany with the Nazis, and the Allied bombs shredded them all equally.

The assassination attempts were also further down the war: The "good" people of Germany, just didn't want to start a new war so they attempted to overthrow Hitler's reign. It says nothing about disapproving the actions of the Holocaust, so your point is moot.

[ijs]

You are really blurring the term terrorist.

Proponents of terrorism do this all the time, in order to justify blowing up schoolchildren.

Not every war is the same.

They all bring up “genocide” as though Jews are the ones doing this. To my knowledge, Jews have never – and certainly not in the last 100 years – ever committed a genocide. Yes, people have died, but that's not the same thing. Jews have never sought the eradication of a whole other people, to the best of my knowledge. The suggestion to the contrary is itself antisemitic, and it is absurd that we should have to defend against such a blatantly dishonest charge.

There is a terrorist shooting at a school and slaughtering children. You have a shot at him, but the problem is there is a child in the way.

A further clarification of this example is that, oftentimes, the terrorist is using the child as a human shield, and then accusing the anti-terrorist of being a terrorist who murders children – or, if he doesn't shoot, then he's a dead Jew. Which just means that, to those people, the only Jews who aren't terrorists are dead – just how they like us.

--------------------------------------------------

Our entry into WWI however, WAS in response to Germany. Prior to the attack on the Lusitania, we were claiming neutrality and secretly smuggling weapons overseas to various countries. The Germans were aware of this, but made a grave mistake by taking it upon themselves to attack a civilian ship. The Zimmermann Telegram was also part of the reason we enacted war with Germany, since it provided Wilson with a good excuse.

Actually, the Zimmerman Telegram – combined with Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917 – had much more to do with it than the Lusitania, the sinking of which occurred two years before America's official entry into WWI.

[The quoted statement] is a completely B/S statement if coming from any American. Especially given the fact that we as a country did this to the Native Americans.

Um, what? How does U.S. historical treatment of native Americans – of which I do not approve – deprive all Americans for all time of the ability to make certain statements? Not to approve or disapprove of the statement to which you were responding, but your statement makes no sense.

[mroof]

Actually, the Zimmerman Telegram – combined with Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917 – had much more to do with it than the Lusitania, the sinking of which occurred two years before America's official entry into WWI.

I did not fail to include the Zimmerman Telegram in my post: I stated that it was a combination of such things, but the attack on the Lusitania was something seen as a turning point for more anti-German attitudes in the US: http://books.google.... cunard&f=false.

Um, what? How does U.S. historical treatment of native Americans – of which I do not approve – deprive all Americans for all time of the ability to make certain statements? Not to approve or disapprove of the statement to which you were responding, but your statement makes no sense.

I do not believe I stated that there was any sort of time line, nor did I imply that one could not 'make' such statements: I stated that it was a hypocritical and B/S statement given the knowledge of our history as Americans. To cry 'foul' on another country for doing something we have previously done in the past, whether we contributed to it or not (one could argue that not every American attributed to such problems and as such not every Israeli has) is being hypocritical. Time is irrelevant because it does not take away from the fact that these events did occur.

Make more sense?

[Templar]

.

[Templar]

You are really blurring the term terrorist. Americans went to world war to stop Hitler.?

No they didn't. They went to war because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

Should we save the thousands or should we save millions?

You'd be hard pressed to prove that "saving millions" of Allied civilians required the deaths of German and Japanese civilians. Despite the horrific bombings of Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo, millions of Axis civilians did survive--- and the war ended nontheless. Thus it would appear that eradicating the civilian population was not neccesary to win the war.

Not every war is the same. You can't compare the two scenarios.

The fact remains that Americans have won the majority of their wars without resorting to genocide; thus I refuse to believe that it suddenly became "the only option" in WW2.

I'll rephrase my question as you keep avoiding it.
There is a terrorist shooting at a school and slaughtering children. You have a shot at him, but the problem is there is a child in the way and your only option is to kill them both. What would you do? Kill both the child and the terrorist and save dozens of other children or let the child live so dozens of other children will be slaughtered. If you only had those two options.

You're creating a dilemma where one doesn't exist. The defeat of the Axis military did not really require the annhilation of civilian populations.

This case is more akin to if I saw an Arab terrorist slaughtering Jewish schoolchildren and, instead of going after him, I picked up a gun and started shooting Arab schoolchildren---it won't stop the terrorist, but trades an atrocity for an atrocity.

No they did not they just said they were cleaning the race.

So you think it's immoral to slaughter civilians because of their race, but it's not immoral to slaughter civilians because of their politics? I'm sorry, but if it was wrong for the German Government to kill Jewish civilians, then it was wrong for the Allied Governments to kill German civilians. The magnitude of a crime does not change with the nationality of the perpetrator.

[Templar]

I did not fail to include the Zimmerman Telegram in my post: I stated that it was a combination of such things, but the attack on the Lusitania was something seen as a turning point for more anti-German attitudes in the US: [/font]http://books.google.... cunard&f=false.



I do not believe I stated that there was any sort of time line, nor did I imply that one could not 'make' such statements: I stated that it was a hypocritical and B/S statement given the knowledge of our history as Americans. To cry 'foul' on another country for doing something we have previously done in the past, whether we contributed to it or not (one could argue that not every American attributed to such problems and as such not every Israeli has) is being hypocritical. Time is irrelevant because it does not take away from the fact that these events did occur.

Make more sense?

Did anyone say that "every Israeli" contributed to the problem? I seem to recall that only confirmed terrorist groups such as Irgun were specifically mentioned.

[Templar]

They all bring up “genocide” as though Jews are the ones doing this. To my knowledge, Jews have never – and certainly not in the last 100 years – ever committed a genocide. Yes, people have died, but that's not the same thing. Jews have never sought the eradication of a whole other people, to the best of my knowledge. The suggestion to the contrary is itself antisemitic, and it is absurd that we should have to defend against such a blatantly dishonest charge.

Who said that Jews comitted genocide?

[33948]

I do believe that there are organized Jewish groups attempting to "break the back" of most native populations and replace them with a Jewish ruling elite and a racially mixed underclass. This is done primarily through psychological warfare. This is mostly done through an elite group that includes people with a lot of money and clout.

To the Native European: "race doesn't exist. There is no such thing as race. There are no "Aryans" it's all made up"

To his own Jewish People "race is the most important thing in the world. Let no one kid you. Jewish racial purity and racial dominance is our number one priority"

And to the the Native Palestenian "race doesn't exist. There is no such thing. There are no "Palestinian" people. It's all made up. A fabrication."

It is genocide because there will be no healthy, cohesive population left. There might be some mixed race people left with little of the original culture still in tact, delegated to second class citizen status etc.

In the short term some disruptive groups, such as blacks, may be promoted simply to create division. Over time all non-Jewish groups are to be victimized under the system and Jewish Supremacism promoted. Under the system regular Jews are also sacrificed for the goals of Zionism. Many Jews are left to die or be victimized in order to justify the zionist elite "fighting anti-semitism" through despotic leadership, unquestioning obedience, shaky morality etc. Regardless of whether an individual Jew is aware of this, he or she still indirectly supports it. Zionist groups encourage Jews to support Israel and the collective Jewish community without criticism and without regard toward non-Jews. It is no different than what Hitler demanded. If Israel rounds people up and puts them in death camps, then zionist groups would consider it anti-Semitic to criticize this action. Despotic leadership is not typically successful.

Also most nations behave themselves because they face international criticism. Israel, being largely immune to criticism, is free to act in ways that no other nation on earth would attempt to do (other than perhaps temporary dictators in Africa). Likewise the media will usually not report much news that is unfavorable to Israel (which in the United States I believe 95% or so of the media is controlled by the same six companies). Again this encourages immoral behavior. If you give a group of people absolute power, then they are more likely to act badly. This is why we have separation of powers, free press etc.

[mroof]

Did anyone say that "every Israeli" contributed to the problem? I seem to recall that only confirmed terrorist groups such as Irgun were specifically mentioned.

Pay attention: I stated that "one could argue" such points.

[sal]

No they didn't. They went to war because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
You'd be hard pressed to prove that "saving millions" of Allied civilians required the deaths of German and Japanese civilians. Despite the horrific bombings of Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo, millions of Axis civilians did survive--- and the war ended nontheless. Thus it would appear that eradicating the civilian population was not neccesary to win the war.

The burden of proof lies with you. You want to claim the Americans are guilty of killing the innocent. We have a policy innocent until proven guilty.

The fact remains that Americans have won the majority of their wars without resorting to genocide; thus I refuse to believe that it suddenly became "the only option" in WW2.

You are comparing different situations. How many world wars did america win with out destroying civilians.

You're creating a dilemma where one doesn't exist. The defeat of the Axis military did not really require the annhilation of civilian populations.

That is not relevant to my question which you refuse to answer. I created that specific scenario on purpose. I know that it did not necessarily happen, but what would you do.

This case is more akin to if I saw an Arab terrorist slaughtering Jewish schoolchildren and, instead of going after him, I picked up a gun and started shooting Arab schoolchildren---it won't stop the terrorist, but trades an atrocity for an atrocity.

My question was not killing other innocent as payback. I have no idea why you refuse to answer my question it is a question with only two possibilities.
Please answer this specific question.
There is a terrorist shooting at a school and slaughtering children. You have a shot at him, but the problem is there is a child in the way and your only option is to kill them both. What would you do? Kill both the child and the terrorist and save dozens of other children or let the child live so dozens of other children will be slaughtered. If you only had those two options.
This is the scenario I'm asking about. Is there a reason you refuse to answer?

So you think it's immoral to slaughter civilians because of their race, but it's not immoral to slaughter civilians because of their politics? I'm sorry, but if it was wrong for the German Government to kill Jewish civilians, then it was wrong for the Allied Governments to kill German civilians. The magnitude of a crime does not change with the nationality of the perpetrator.

Immorality is not measured on the action it is measured on the human intention. The exact same action can be either immoral on not. A person drives over someone and kills him. If it was an accident that doesn't make him evil. If it was intentional that is evil. You can't compare every case, you must first look at the intention. If one is intending to defend himself is not the same as someone who is intending to murder someone. It doesn't matter that the end result is that someone died. The persons intention is the factor.

To his own Jewish People "race is the most important thing in the world. Let no one kid you. Jewish racial purity and racial dominance is our number one priority"

Which respected jewish leader said that?

[mroof]

I do believe that there are organized Jewish groups attempting to "break the back" of most native populations and replace them with a Jewish ruling elite and a racially mixed underclass. This is done primarily through psychological warfare. This is mostly done through an elite group that includes people with a lot of money and clout.

To the Native European: "race doesn't exist. There is no such thing as race. There are no "Aryans" it's all made up"

To his own Jewish People "race is the most important thing in the world. Let no one kid you. Jewish racial purity and racial dominance is our number one priority"

And to the the Native Palestenian "race doesn't exist. There is no such thing. There are no "Palestinian" people. It's all made up. A fabrication."

It is genocide because there will be no healthy, cohesive population left. There might be some mixed race people left with little of the original culture still in tact, delegated to second class citizen status etc.

In the short term some disruptive groups, such as blacks, may be promoted simply to create division. Over time all non-Jewish groups are to be victimized under the system and Jewish Supremacism promoted. Under the system regular Jews are also sacrificed for the goals of Zionism. Many Jews are left to die or be victimized in order to justify the zionist elite "fighting anti-semitism" through despotic leadership, unquestioning obedience, shaky morality etc. Regardless of whether an individual Jew is aware of this, he or she still indirectly supports it. Zionist groups encourage Jews to support Israel and the collective Jewish community without criticism and without regard toward non-Jews. It is no different than what Hitler demanded. If Israel rounds people up and puts them in death camps, then zionist groups would consider it anti-Semitic to criticize this action. Despotic leadership is not typically successful.

Also most nations behave themselves because they face international criticism. Israel, being largely immune to criticism, is free to act in ways that no other nation on earth would attempt to do (other than perhaps temporary dictators in Africa). Likewise the media will usually not report much news that is unfavorable to Israel (which in the United States I believe 95% or so of the media is controlled by the same six companies). Again this encourages immoral behavior. If you give a group of people absolute power, then they are more likely to act badly. This is why we have separation of powers, free press etc.

I'm sorry: Were you trying to get a point across?

All I heard was ...blah blah blah .. Jews are a race (it's not: race is a social construct)...blah blah blah...propaganda...blah blah blah .. UFOS are real and probing you every chance you get blah blah blah..

[Templar]

The burden of proof lies with you. You want to claim the Americans are guilty of killing the innocent. We have a policy innocent until proven guilty.

Okay, let's use the notorious Tokyo Firebombing as an example: (From alternateperspective.com)
"The night of March 9, 1945, began typically enough for war-weary Tokyo residents. They went to bed hungry, the distant wailing of air-raid sirens lulling them to sleep.

But World War II was about to rouse them violently from their fitful dreams into a waking nightmare. Before the new day dawned, a United States air-raid killed or injured as many as 200,000 people. It obliterated a quarter of all Tokyo's buildings, leaving more than a million people homeless.

The Americans dispatched the first wave of more than 300 bombers from Guam, Saipan and the Tinian Islands, 2,500 kilometres south of Tokyo. Each plane dropped 180 oil-gel sticks, less than a metre long, on the tightly knit neighbourhoods of wooden houses. Then two waves of planes emptied their bays of a lethal cargo: napalm. The resulting inferno unleashed hell on earth.

Kiyoko Kawasaki, then a 36-year-old mother, remembers running into the street with two buckets on her head for protection, walking into a sea of fire and seeing burning bodies floating in the Sumida River. "The prostitutes who hung out by the riverbank jumped into a nearby pond," she recalled. "But the pond was boiling so they all died."

Kyoko Arai was just a middle-school student when she witnessed her neighbourhood burn to the ground in the firebombing. She watched people perish when dancing fireballs set their hair alight. Worse, she remembers mothers running into the air-raid shelters with babies in their arms. "They would try to breast-feed the babies, but actually the babies were dead," Arai said. "Some of the mothers went insane from the shock."

For survivors, the misery was just beginning. Takae Fujiki, then a 15-year-old high-school student, recalls being "chased" by the bombers. She says they hunted down fleeing civilians to deliberately drop bombs on them. And they napalmed the rivers to cut off an escape route, Fujiki says. "It was obvious they were trying to kill as many of us as possible."

The US AirForce dumped oil and napalm on what was then the most densely populated industrial city on earth, and you don't think that they intended to kill innocents?

u are comparing different situations. How many World Wars did america win with out destroying civilians.

World War I. (We've only been in two, you know.)

That is not relevant to my question which you refuse to answer. I created that specific scenario on purpose. I know that it did not necessarily happen, but what would you do.

My question was not killing other innocent as payback. I have no idea why you refuse to answer my question it is a question with only two possibilities.
Please answer this specific question.
There is a terrorist shooting at a school and slaughtering children. You have a shot at him, but the problem is there is a child in the way and your only option is to kill them both. What would you do? Kill both the child and the terrorist and save dozens of other children or let the child live so dozens of other children will be slaughtered. If you only had those two options.
This is the scenario I'm asking about. Is there a reason you refuse to answer?

Yes, there is a reason---it is totally irrelevant to what we're talking about. In your scenario, it is absolutely necessary to kill the child to save the others; in real life, it is not absolutely necessary to kill civilians in order to defeat a hostile military---or, if you wish to argue that it is, that is something you'll have to demonstrate as a certainy. The burden of proof is on you this time, bub.

If one is intending to defend himself is not the same as someone who is intending to murder someone. It doesn't matter that the end result is that someone died. The persons intention is the factor.

That cuts both ways, Sal. Hitler and his Nazis sincerely believed that the Jews were trying to covertly conquer Germany---they saw the Holocaust as self-defense. Does that excuse absolve them from the heinousness of their crimes? Hell no. The idea of slaughtering helpless civiliians as "self-defense" is depraved on the face of it, no matter the intention behind it is.

[ijs]

I stated that it was a hypocritical and B/S statement given the knowledge of our history as Americans. To cry 'foul' on another country for doing something we have previously done in the past, whether we contributed to it or not (one could argue that not every American attributed to such problems and as such not every Israeli has) is being hypocritical. Time is irrelevant because it does not take away from the fact that these events did occur.

Make more sense?

No. If anything, it makes less sense. A person is not responsible for the wrongdoing of others. This principle is addressed in the U.S. Constitution, albeit in a limited context: “[N]o Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 3, cl. 2.

“We” did not do anything; our country did, but not us. We are not responsible for it (except insofar as we have to deal with the mess, of course). It is not hypocritical for me to say a thing is wrong even if a direct ancestor did it.

Time is indeed relevant, because while the events did occur, this does not thereby transmit responsibility for it from some persons to other persons. Strictly speaking, of course, it’s not “time” that is relevant, but rather the fact that someone else did it. Were the same people alive today, they would continue to hold that responsibility, but they don’t transmit it to someone else. The general constitutional principle expounded above – if expanded to other contexts – is that we do not punish children for the crimes of their ancestors.

Finally, it is not only not hypocritical, but whether or not responsibility is transmitted, it puts us in the position of knowing something is wrong from personal experience. Just because I hypothetically speaking did something wrong does not make it right for you to do it, nor am I a hypocrite for telling you it’s wrong, because if it’s wrong it’s wrong, irrespective of who says it. Your argument utilizes the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, or argument against the person, because you disavow a position based on a characteristic of a proponent of that position. The characteristic of the person is irrelevant as to whether the thing is true. It may or may not be, but the proponent’s personal characteristics are irrelevant.

This principle is even more so if an ancestor of mine did it. You have no just cause (and remember, I’m speaking in the hypothetical) to punish me because of something my grandfather may have done to you, and I am not being hypocritical for saying so. That makes no sense whatsoever.

--------------------------------------------------

The fact remains that Americans have won the majority of their wars without resorting to genocide.

Do you have an example of a war the U.S. won by resorting to genocide? WWII certainly was not one.

Who said that Jews comitted genocide?

I hear it all the time ... that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in their concentration camps.

[sal]

Okay, let's use the notorious Tokyo Firebombing as an example: (From alternateperspective.com)
"The night of March 9, 1945, began typically enough for war-weary Tokyo residents. They went to bed hungry, the distant wailing of air-raid sirens lulling them to sleep.

But World War II was about to rouse them violently from their fitful dreams into a waking nightmare. Before the new day dawned, a United States air-raid killed or injured as many as 200,000 people. It obliterated a quarter of all Tokyo's buildings, leaving more than a million people homeless.

The Americans dispatched the first wave of more than 300 bombers from Guam, Saipan and the Tinian Islands, 2,500 kilometres south of Tokyo. Each plane dropped 180 oil-gel sticks, less than a metre long, on the tightly knit neighbourhoods of wooden houses. Then two waves of planes emptied their bays of a lethal cargo: napalm. The resulting inferno unleashed hell on earth.

Kiyoko Kawasaki, then a 36-year-old mother, remembers running into the street with two buckets on her head for protection, walking into a sea of fire and seeing burning bodies floating in the Sumida River. "The prostitutes who hung out by the riverbank jumped into a nearby pond," she recalled. "But the pond was boiling so they all died."

Kyoko Arai was just a middle-school student when she witnessed her neighbourhood burn to the ground in the firebombing. She watched people perish when dancing fireballs set their hair alight. Worse, she remembers mothers running into the air-raid shelters with babies in their arms. "They would try to breast-feed the babies, but actually the babies were dead," Arai said. "Some of the mothers went insane from the shock."

For survivors, the misery was just beginning. Takae Fujiki, then a 15-year-old high-school student, recalls being "chased" by the bombers. She says they hunted down fleeing civilians to deliberately drop bombs on them. And they napalmed the rivers to cut off an escape route, Fujiki says. "It was obvious they were trying to kill as many of us as possible."

The US AirForce dumped oil and napalm on what was then the most densely populated industrial city on earth, and you don't think that they intended to kill innocents?

You failed to give an alternative method of winning the war. Hence you failed prove that what the americans did was immoral.

World War I. (We've only been in two, you know.)

Are you kidding millions of civilians died in ww 1.
Of course there were only 2. That was my point you can't compare all wars. Just because they were able to win smaller wars without hurting civilians does not follow that they can do the same for bigger ones.

Yes, there is a reason---it is totally irrelevant to what we're talking about. In your scenario, it is absolutely necessary to kill the child to save the others; in real life, it is not absolutely necessary to kill civilians in order to defeat a hostile military---or, if you wish to argue that it is, that is something you'll have to demonstrate as a certainy. The burden of proof is on you this time, bub.

Exactly my point. Life is not black and white. white would be when there is no choice but to kill the innocent child and black is purposely killing an innocent civilian because and for no other reason than killing a civilian.
Everything else falls somewhere in between. Sometimes it is possible to avoid killing other civilians but that would mean taking more risk. How much risk one must take to avoid civilian casualties?

That cuts both ways, Sal. Hitler and his Nazis sincerely believed that the Jews were trying to covertly conquer Germany---they saw the Holocaust as self-defense. Does that excuse absolve them from the heinousness of their crimes? Hell no. The idea of slaughtering helpless civiliians as "self-defense" is depraved on the face of it, no matter the intention behind it is.

I'm sure you understand the difference with subjectivity vs. objectivity.

[Templar]

You failed to give an alternative method of winning the war. Hence you failed prove that what the americans did was immoral.

Okay, even though I thought this one should be rather obvious... engage their military. The Japanese only capitulated after their military was defeated, so it would appear to have been unnecessary to slaughter their civilians. And, according to Gen. Douglas MacArthur's aide, Brigadier Gen. Bonner Fellers, the Tokyo Bombings were "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all history."

Are you kidding millions of civilians died in ww 1.

Yes, but there weren't Government-organized allied missions specifically dedicated to eradicating them.

Exactly my point. Life is not black and white. white would be when there is no choice but to kill the innocent child and black is purposely killing an innocent civilian because and for no other reason than killing a civilian.

Everything else falls somewhere in between. Sometimes it is possible to avoid killing other civilians but that would mean taking more risk. How much risk one must take to avoid civilian casualties?

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your point. But I disagree with the idea that it is somehow 'necessary' to take the lives of ordinary people, non-combatants, to defeat a rival military. I concede that many civilians will die in any major war, but I personally think its immoral to target them specifically---especially in cases where it's only of arguable tactical advantage.

I'm sure you understand the difference with subjectivity vs. objectivity.

Of course. But you're not talking about that; you're talking about "intentions."

[sal]

Okay, even though I thought this one should be rather obvious... engage their military. We had pushed them back to Japan by the time of the firebombing in 1945, so it would appear to have been unnecessary to slaughter their civilians. And, according to Gen. Douglas MacArthur's aide, Brigadier Gen. Bonner Fellers, the Tokyo Bombings were "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all history."

You still did not provide an alternative method. The tomahawk cruise missile had not yet been invented.

Yes, but there weren't Government-organized allied missions specifically dedicated to eradicating them.

Agreed. So just by pointing out civilian casualties does not mean terrorist.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your point. But I disagree with the idea that it is somehow 'necessary' to take the lives of ordinary people, non-combatants, to defeat a rival military. I concede that many civilians will die in any major war, but I personally think its immoral to target them specifically---especially in cases where it's only of arguable tactical advantage.

That falls in grey area.

Of course. But you're not talking about that; you're talking about "intentions."

I'm talking about morality and everything that determines it from intention to objectivity and all other factors that matter.

[Templar]

You still did not provide an alternative method. The tomahawk cruise missile had not yet been invented.

So you're saying that it was impossible not to deliberately eradicate civilians before the invention of tomahawk cruise missles? I don't think that one would hold in a court of law!

That falls in grey area.

To quote you, 'you decided that'.

I'm talking about morality and everything that determines it from intention to objectivity and all other factors that matter.

Now you're singing a different tune altogether. Before you were simply talking about intentions, but have now shifted gears by tacking on moralism--- pardon me if I find that a little ironic, considering that you're trying to justify the mass-killing of civilians.

[sal]

So you're saying that it was impossible not to deliberately eradicate civilians before the invention of tomahawk cruise missles? I don't think that one would hold in a court of law!

I don't think the US would be held accountable in a court of law for the methods they used to win WWII.

Now you're singing a different tune altogether. Before you were simply talking about intentions, but have now shifted gears by tacking on moralism--- pardon me if I find that a little ironic, considering that you're trying to justify the mass-killing of civilians.

Isn't the whole topic about morality? Is the death justified or not.
I thought is was obvious to you that the claim of self defense must be based on objective facts. You can't say I thought he would kill me by the looks he gave me and therefore I killed him first.