Over in the Changable God thread, we got a bit sidetracked onto issues that weren't relevant to what KarlEd was asking when he started the thread. I was feeling uncomfortable about the extent to which the thread had been hijacked, so I decided to start over in a new thread.
Anyone interested in the beginning of this discussion can take a look over there. For my part, I don't intend to discuss this in that thread.
Now then. War and Crime. Both are bad, I think we can all agree. I think that the only kind of war that can ever be acceptable is a defensive war. A war against a party that has essentially launched war against you, and who cannot be stopped in any other way.
On a conceptual level, the difference between war and crime is simply that war is committed by national entities (whether a recognized state or not), and crime is committed by individuals or groups of individuals within a national entity.
For example, if a person robs a bank, that's crime. If a group of angry people blow up an abortion clinic or a religious seminary, that's crime. If that group of angry people declare that they are a separate nation and are acting according to their own rules, it may no longer be crime. It may be war.
When the US landed troops in Grenada, it was committing war. Justified or not, and I really don't know enough about the situation to make an informed judgement on the matter, it was certainly war.
When the US went into Vietnam, it was not a police action. Police are to crime as armed forces are to war. The US had political reasons for not calling it war, but that's political jargon, and doesn't change the basic fact that it was an act of war.
There are acts of war that are widely recognized which do not consist of dropping bombs on people. A blockade in free waters of ships going to a certain place is an act of war. When the UN did this to Iraq, it was committing war. Justified or not, that's war.
Different rules apply to war and to crime. Since war is committed by national entities, it is appropriate to treat those national entities as a whole and unnecessary to distinguish between individual members of the specific national entity. If it is unclear who is actually representing the national entity in question, you can find yourself in a quandary. If, however, you recognize a representative of a country for purposes of diplomacy, it is inappropriate to then claim that they are not really the representatives of that country.
(Yeah, I know I went from national entity to country. Assume that I mean national entity anyway, because the vast majority of them are countries.)
Let's take the Palestinian Arabs as an example, since that's the issue that really sparked this discussion. If the Palestinian Authority is representative of the Palestinian Arabs, then if the Palestinian Authority commits war against Israel, Israel should deal with the Palestinian Arabs as a whole. If the Palestinian Authority is not representative of the Palestinian Arabs, it should not be treated as though it is. Having it both ways is a cheat.
If a Palestinian Arab lives in Chicago, say, and he robs a liquor store. Unlikely, because from what I know, Palestinian Arabs are, outside of national issues, an honorable and law abiding community. But let's say. Should Palestinian Arabs as a group be held responsible for the act?
My answer is "no". Because crime and war are two different things.
Ah, but suppose that instead of robbery, he assassinates an Israeli politician who is visiting the US to give a talk? In that case, it's iffy. It's unclear, and more evidence would need to be seen to determine whether it was an act carried out with support, tacit or otherwise, of Palestinian Arabs in general. The reaction after the fact of the Palestinian Arabs would be a legitimate indicator as well. It could be just one angry person, in which case, it's crime. It might be part of a general plan of war, in which case it goes beyond crime.
Suppose Israel sends a team of assassins out to hunt down and kill all those involved in the Munich Olympic Games massacre in 1972. Not so hypothetical, because to the best of my knowledge, that was exactly what Israel did.
Those killings were not mere crime. They were war. Justified or not, that's what they were. Israel as a whole committed that war, in the same way that the Palestinian Arabs as a whole committed the blowing up of schoolbuses in Israel.
Those who oppose Israel doing things like assassinating terrorist leaders can fight against it publically, or leave. They cannot sit in Israel, have tea and cakes with the assassins, name schools after them, and then say "Our hands are clean of this act." Whether the act is justified or not. And the same goes for the Palestinian Arabs.
That's a start.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, you totally wiggled.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You should become a Warcrimes theorist, I've never seen war and crime so well stated before.
Posted by no. 6 (Member # 7753) on :
What planet is starLisa from?
Certainly not Earth. You're not a Toaster, are you?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
That first post was getting too long. But another issue that was raised was an event that took place before the founding of the State of Israel.
In 1947, the British started hanging Jews who were defending themselves against Arabs, and against the British themselves. Condemned prisoners were kept mostly in the Acre prison.
On May 4, 1947, The Jews launched a major jailbreak against this prison, which was wildly successful. However, some of the participants were captured. Those captured holding weapons, Avshalom Haviv (21), Yaakov Weiss (23) and Meir Nakar (21), were sentenced to die by hanging.
The Irgun (Etzel) took two British sergeants, Clifford Martin (20) and Mervyn Paice (43), hostage, and informed the British that if Haviv, Weiss and Nakar were hanged, Martin and Paice would be hanged as well.
On July 29, the three Jews were hanged. On July 30, the two Brits were hanged. On July 31, British soldiers and policemen opened fired at Tel Aviv civilians indiscriminately, murdering five Jews and wounding 24 in retaliation.
On November 29, the UN voted to partition the land between the Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Arabs.
I maintain that what the Jews in this case did was 100% correct and morally justifiable. Tom argued otherwise.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh, you totally wiggled.
If I did, it wasn't intentional. Point it out to me, and I'll correct it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by no. 6: What planet is starLisa from?
Certainly not Earth. You're not a Toaster, are you?
A Toaster? <raised eyebrow> Maybe a Microwave, but I don't think I'm a Toaster.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You should become a Warcrimes theorist, I've never seen war and crime so well stated before.
Muchos thankos.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
glad to be of service.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
If the two Brits personally did something that justifiies the death penalty (at least according to the Jewish laws), then yes, I believe the Jews were morally justified. However, I have trouble with the idea that just being a member of the opposing side is justification enough to be executed.
How were the two Brits captured? If they were captured while engaging in some act of warfare, then yes, I suppose their execution might be justified.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My understanding of starLisa's argument is that since the British men captured and executed were soldiers of the British government, they became fair targets under what she would call moral rules of warfare at the same time the UK stopped protecting the to-be Israelis, and forbade them from protecting themselves.
To be honest, I do not think that actions taken agaisnt soldiers qualify as terrorism. At least, I don't think I do anyway. An interesting issue, I'll have to think on it further...I'm leaning towards "it's not."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: On a conceptual level, the difference between war and crime is simply that war is committed by national entities (whether a recognized state or not), and crime is committed by individuals or groups of individuals within a national entity.
Hm. I don't agree to these distinctions, actually.
And I'm deeply curious how you would define terrorism within these guidelines without making some completely arbitrary distinctions between military and non-military personnel.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
This is what Elie Wiesel's "Dawn" was about, right? Have you read it? What did you think of it?
I feel personally connected with Elie Wiesel's ordeal as a teenager in the German camps, his loss of faith, and his later change into a militant soldier. Especially I feel a connection to his much later regaining of his faith and his healing as a person.
To him personally, it felt like a crime. He was deeply wounded, of course, by his experiences in the camps, and this act of killing this decent good man in cold blood seemed to wound him even more. I do think you are harmed far more by sin from being the perpetrator than from being the victim.
I was befriended once by an ex-Israeli soldier from whom I was buying a new motherboard on the phone. I asked him about his experiences and he said he had to get out, to quit, because there was just too much blood on his hands.
I don't know the rights and wrongs in the situation, but even political acts, acts of war have personal repercussions. You can tell by the fruits, we are told. Sin is evident by its effect on the spirit. I wonder what the effects on the spirit are to assassins who carry out political assassination? It would seem from reading that story "Dawn" that the effect on Elie Wiesel's spirit was not a good one.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I do not think that actions taken agaisnt soldiers qualify as terrorism
It's hard to draw the line, though, on what constitutes a soldier. Would a cook or a doctor stationed with the rest of the soldiers be considered a soldier? Would the strategist who determines the building to be bombed while sitting back in his comfortable office back home be considered a soldier? Would a person that aids the war effort be considered a soldier? I don't know of a good definition of a soldier, but it seems like there are many ways to interpret that.
quote:Those who oppose Israel doing things like assassinating terrorist leaders can fight against it publically, or leave.
I disagree. That's like saying that if I don't agree with Bush's policies, then I should just leave the U.S. The U.S. has in times past been involved with different assassination efforts, does that make the entire nation fair game for acts of warfare? Are we individually responsible for all the actions of our leaders?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Are we individually responsible for all the actions of our leaders?
Moreover, I don't think Lisa here means to imply that Israel, by assassinating Palestinian leaders, makes those of its citizens who do not choose to leave the country legitimate ethical targets of Palestinian terrorism.
Is that what you mean, Lisa? I doubt it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: If the two Brits personally did something that justifiies the death penalty (at least according to the Jewish laws), then yes, I believe the Jews were morally justified. However, I have trouble with the idea that just being a member of the opposing side is justification enough to be executed.
How were the two Brits captured? If they were captured while engaging in some act of warfare, then yes, I suppose their execution might be justified.
They were grabbed off the street for no reason other than the fact that they were British soldiers.
What would you consider to be a legitimate means of preventing the execution of members of your nation by a foreign power? Note that this actually worked. Very shortly thereafter, the Brits went to the UN and handed the Mandate back. And that none of it would have been necessary had the Brits either defended the lives of the Jews they were presumably ruling or at the very least not executed Jews for trying to defend themselves.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: On a conceptual level, the difference between war and crime is simply that war is committed by national entities (whether a recognized state or not), and crime is committed by individuals or groups of individuals within a national entity.
Hm. I don't agree to these distinctions, actually.
And I'm deeply curious how you would define terrorism within these guidelines without making some completely arbitrary distinctions between military and non-military personnel.
This will probably piss off some of my fellow Israelis, but when the Palestinian Arabs attack an Israeli military installation, or trigger roadside explosives to kill Israeli soldiers, as much as I find those attacks unjustified (because I view the entire Palestinian Arab cause as unjustified), I do not consider them to be terrorist attacks. They are acts of war by the Palestinian Arabs.
The reverse question is more interesting, in my opinion. Since the Palestinian Arabs rarely commit their attacks in uniform, how is Israel supposed to be able to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants? And to what extent is Israel obligated to risk Israeli lives in order to make that determination.
There is a reason why using innocents as human shields is considered abominable by all civilized nations. There is a reason why hospitals and ambulances are generally given free passage wherever they want to go. It's simple humanity.
So what do you do when a nation intentionally places their military locations in the middle of civilian concentrations? What do you do when they use ambulances to transport weapons and explosives and suicide bombers? And what kind of judgement is appropriately passed on a nation that routinely takes advantage of such universal rules of war in order to intentionally attack non-combatants?
Feel free to answer that, Tom. This thread isn't just for you to ask questions and for me to answer.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Those who oppose Israel doing things like assassinating terrorist leaders can fight against it publically, or leave.
I disagree. That's like saying that if I don't agree with Bush's policies, then I should just leave the U.S. The U.S. has in times past been involved with different assassination efforts, does that make the entire nation fair game for acts of warfare? Are we individually responsible for all the actions of our leaders?
War is hell. Sorry, but even though you aren't morally responsible, necessarily, if we are doing something wrong (which I don't think we are, morally speaking, even though I think the land invasion of Iraq was stupid), you can't expect the other side to make a distinction between you and a supporter of Bush.
But let's say I answer otherwise. Let's say that simply living here isn't justification for lumping you into "those Americans". But suppose instead that you got invited to the White House, dined with the President, had your picture taken with him, the two of you smiling, and were a public supporter of the Bush administration. Would you then consider it legitimate for others to view you as a co-actor in Bush's actions and policies? Or would you still insist that since you don't actually carry out those policies, that you deserve to be treated as an individual, distinct from "those Americans"?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:What would you consider to be a legitimate means of preventing the execution of members of your nation by a foreign power? Note that this actually worked
Well, I don't think the end should ever justify the means, regardless of whether it worked or not.
If one nation chooses not to abide by understood rules of warfare, that does not give another nation the right to dismiss those same rules.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Are we individually responsible for all the actions of our leaders?
Moreover, I don't think Lisa here means to imply that Israel, by assassinating Palestinian leaders, makes those of its citizens who do not choose to leave the country legitimate ethical targets of Palestinian terrorism.
Is that what you mean, Lisa? I doubt it.
Absolutely not. Nor do I consider it legitimate to assassinate individual Palestinian Arabs merely because they are supporters of terrorism and friends of terrorists. I do think that such people are owed less in the way of care when it comes to collateral damage, but that's a different issue.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But suppose instead that you got invited to the White House, dined with the President, had your picture taken with him, the two of you smiling, and were a public supporter of the Bush administration. Would you then consider it legitimate for others to view you as a co-actor in Bush's actions and policies? Or would you still insist that since you don't actually carry out those policies, that you deserve to be treated as an individual, distinct from "those Americans"?
Those are valid questions, and that's why I feel that the definition of a soldier is sketchy at best.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:What would you consider to be a legitimate means of preventing the execution of members of your nation by a foreign power? Note that this actually worked
Well, I don't think the end should ever justify the means, regardless of whether it worked or not.
Nor do I. Ever. I was pointing out that it was effective, but that isn't the reason why it was proper.
quote:Originally posted by camus: If one nation chooses not to abide by understood rules of warfare, that does not give another nation the right to dismiss those same rules.
Really? That's quite easy to say when it isn't your head on the chopping block. Remember, the Brits weren't stopping us at checkpoints. They weren't preventing us from working in their factories. They were allowing people who were trying to kill us free reign, and executing those of us who fought back. Calling for binding arbitration, or whatever, isn't exactly available in such a situation.
And note the difference between then and now:
Israel hasn't executed a single prisoner in all the years it has been existence, other than Adolf Eichmann.
No Arabs, no matter what they've done.
Israel has prosecuted and imprisoned Jews who have attacked Arabs.
Arabs have lauded and lionized and celebrated Arabs who have attacked Jews.
Israel has spent the lives of its own troops by going into military concentrations on land, rather than bombing from the air, all in order to avoid unnecessary casualties among the Arabs.
Arabs have deliberately targeted schoolbuses and pizzarias and discos.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I can't comment on your specific example with the British soldiers since I don't know much about that event. But since they were considered soldiers, I would tend to lean toward their deaths being considered casualties of war. But even then there are implications that I'm not comfortable with, namely, what defines a soldier, and what constitutes declaration of war.
In any case, I still stand by my previous statement that if one person/nation does commit an immoral act, that does not give another person/nation license to commit an immoral act.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
But an act requires a context in order to be moral or immoral. Killing someone is a decent example. If someone is running at me with a gun intending to kill me, then killing him is not only not immoral; it is highly moral. If I'm the one running at someone randomly trying to kill them, even the mere attempt is immoral.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Yes, that is why I can't comment on that specific example, I don't know the context.
In your example of someone intending to kill me, I would say that killing that person in self defense would be understandable, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is highly moral. Personally, I don't believe that self defense is a valid justification for murder in the same way that I don't agree with preemptive self defense.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Maybe it's a religious difference. In Judaism, we say ha-ba l'hargecha, hashkem l'hargo. That means "One who comes to kill you, rise up [implying before he gets a chance to] and kill him". It's not permission; it's an obligation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If someone is running at me with a gun intending to kill me, then killing him is not only not immoral; it is highly moral.
Why is this? It strikes me as being morally neutral, at best. Eye for an eye is the baseline, as far as I'm concerned.
----
BTW, for what it's worth, it might make you glad to know Muslims have a very similar scripture.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Yes, I agree this could be considered a religious difference. I understand how people can feel that type of action is obligatory, and perhaps necessary, but it still frightens me a little.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
We don't believe in "an eye for an eye" in a literal sense. See the Torah 101 thread.
But since this isn't a discussion of religion, then for the sake of discussion, let's just call it neutral, bearing in mind that I don't hold that way.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's not about revenge, mind you. If someone is trying to kill my friend, I have to kill them to save my friend as well. If, God forbid, they succeed, I'm no longer allowed to kill the killer.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: What would you consider to be a legitimate means of preventing the execution of members of your nation by a foreign power? Note that this actually worked.
[...] And note the difference between then and now:
Israel hasn't executed a single prisoner in all the years it has been existence, other than Adolf Eichmann.
No Arabs, no matter what they've done.
Israel has prosecuted and imprisoned Jews who have attacked Arabs.
Arabs have lauded and lionized and celebrated Arabs who have attacked Jews.
Israel has spent the lives of its own troops by going into military concentrations on land, rather than bombing from the air, all in order to avoid unnecessary casualties among the Arabs.
Arabs have deliberately targeted schoolbuses and pizzarias and discos.
Israelis have executed/assasinated numerous Arabs, without taking them prisoner. They don't get points for not taking them prisoner and not giving them a trial. edit:(Though granted, they do get points for this:"Israel has prosecuted and imprisoned Jews who have attacked Arabs.")/edit
And they have done so in numerous ways, including using aircraft and helicopters to target specific individuals and small groups, inflicting casualties on other Arabs who were just nearby.
And Israelis have elected as Prime Minister Jews who have attacked Arabs, as soldiers and otherwise.
I think Israel sacrificed the moral high ground long ago. Though giving up Gaza unilaterally was a good step towards peace. Now the ball's in the Palestinians' court.
Also, surely more than the hanging of 2 British soldiers was involved in the British giving up Palestine after holding it since WWI??
[ September 27, 2005, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If someone is trying to kill my friend, I have to kill them to save my friend as well. If, God forbid, they succeed, I'm no longer allowed to kill the killer.
See, I disagree with this in its entirety.
In other words, if someone is trying to kill your friend, it's very likely you can prevent this without killing them. But if they DO kill your friend, then you have a legitimate reason to deprive them of life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think that neither side is blameless, and they've both lost their keys to the pristine ivory tower of moral high ground decades ago. It's sad but generally true that it's almost impossible not to with bloody war going on so long in such close quarters.
I think there is a difference. Realizing that there simply is no way to apprehend someone without losing the lives of many police officers (or soldiers, as the case may be) and the lives of many surrounding civilians in such a gunfight (because that's precisely what would happen if many armed IDF forces entered a Palestinian neighborhood to serve a warrant on a terrorist) is key to that, Morbo. The Israelis are very, very often faced with three choices. Don't pursue terrorists into their own headquarters, and simply wait for them to strike again. Attack with infantry (which is I believe what it should be called, since it would quickly escalate to urban warfare) to apprehend or kill the terrorist, or attack with air power and other long-range methods. Choices one and two are unacceptable. Choice three is...well, frankly it's all they've got.
Palestinians had as their representative Yassir Arafat for decades, Morbo. With or without their consent, they had him. What does that say about the ability of the Palestinians as a whole to do anything with the ball now that it's in their court?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
War and Crime?
It was alright, but I much preferred War and Peace.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think all this talk of killing people is missing something very important. I'm not sure I can explain this very well, but the question I have to ask is where does it end? Whether one kills out of retaliation, self-defense, or "pre-emptively" in a belief that the death of another is warranted in order to save someone else's life, the same justification is then applicable in reverse by the opposing side.
Eventually, what happens?
Option A) Everyone who is able to fight is dead Option A') Option A is true, but more for one side than the other, so there's a clear "winner" and a clear "loser."
Option B) People in general get sick of the bloodshed and decide to stop it by simply failing to engage in the behavior
Option C) Some external force comes in and stops it for them.
I might be missing a few options, of course.
It seems to me that everyone who engages in wars or any kind of organized program of killing believes that Option A' is the one that will result. It also seems to me that the real outcome is more often something like Option B or C. Rarely is it Option A. And Option A' is what people THINK the lesson of history is, but is it really?
Sure, the two World wars and a few historic conflicts have been reported that way. But would it be fair to say that the winners also lost much that they couldn't afford to lose? If a few crucial battles in most of these historic conflicts had gone the other way, would we not be reading histories of how the North, the Allies, or whomever were slowly disintegrated by the victorious South, the Axis powers, etc.?
I'm suggesting that maybe another way to look at the violent death of others, even if they are sworn opponents, is that it has serious costs and consequences for all sides in a conflict.
Perhaps there's a way out of this moral dilemma that does not equate to destruction of other humans, no matter how loathesome their behavior might be to our current sense of justice and morality.
One possibility that I believe is worth exploring is that a failure to retaliate might reduce the overall death toll, and even reduce the deaths on the side that has chosen non-aggression first.
The question is whether we have the potential to implement programs that would assure freedom and life to groups that choose NOT to engage in warfare or retaliation, even when provoked.
I submit that we do, but that it would take some extraordinary international cooperation, and some reduction in sovereign control by various nations for the duration of conflicts.
On part of the solution might be to borrow from an old solution -- hostages to guarantee good conduct. An extreme version might involve, for example, removing all children from war zones to be raised by neutral third parties until the warring sides settle their differences.
Since people say they are fighting to protect their children, surely they would go along with such a radical program, right?
Okay, maybe not.
Another possibility is, of course, massive infusion of peace keeping forces and implementation of something akin to Marshall law -- basically shutting down areas where fighting is taking place. This would offend the sovereignity and self-rule of the countries involved. But, it would save the lives of their civilians and their soldiers. Wouldn't the savings in lives be worth it for all of humanity? Even if it meant that the governments that formerly ruled in these areas were simply dissolved?
I mean, how many examples of THAT would the world leaders need before they learned not to engage in armed conflicts in the first place?
Another possibility, of course, is to simply eliminate all weapons above a certain destructive power. That way, if someone got a wild hair that they wanted to kill some people they didn't like, they wouldn't be able to amass enough weaponry to be very efficient at it.
I know people here aren't going to think much of these ideas. That's okay. Maybe there are others that would be more acceptable. My hope, however, is that we could change the nature of this debate from "when it is morally acceptable to destroy another human life" to "what options could we explore that result in sparing the greatest number of human lives from this cycle of violence?"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: If someone is trying to kill my friend, I have to kill them to save my friend as well. If, God forbid, they succeed, I'm no longer allowed to kill the killer.
See, I disagree with this in its entirety.
In other words, if someone is trying to kill your friend, it's very likely you can prevent this without killing them. But if they DO kill your friend, then you have a legitimate reason to deprive them of life.
If I can save my friend without killing his attacker, that's good. In some cases it may even be preferable. But it would be wrong to risk my friend or myself in an attempt to spare the attacker.
And once the deed is done by the attacker, if I as an individual were to kill him, I'd be committing murder. Unless, of course, he turned from his first victim and started after another one (me or someone else).
Sounds like this is one case where you're a little "less civilized", given that you apparently think vengeance killing is cool.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: removing all children from war zones to be raised by neutral third parties until the warring sides settle their differences.
I think that's a fantastic idea, but will remain science fiction for a long time.
AJ
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think all this talk of killing people is missing something very important. I'm not sure I can explain this very well, but the question I have to ask is where does it end? Whether one kills out of retaliation, self-defense, or "pre-emptively" in a belief that the death of another is warranted in order to save someone else's life, the same justification is then applicable in reverse by the opposing side.
No, it isn't. That doesn't follow at all. You can't just make a bald statement of that sort and expect it to slide by unchallenged, Bob.
Killing in retaliation... well, depends on whether it's an individual or not. The whole point of government is so that individuals don't subjectively decide how and when they should retaliate. It's to have an objective body dealing with that.
Killing in self-defense, well for crying out loud, Bob. If I try to kill someone without it being self-defense, and someone kills me to stop me, no one has any right to go after the person who killed me. He was acting morally.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I might be missing a few options, of course.
Or you could be starting from flawed premises. I think I'm going to go with that.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It seems to me that everyone who engages in wars or any kind of organized program of killing believes that Option A' is the one that will result.
Does it make you feel more in control to be the one deciding what other people believe? I'm just curious about the motivations of someone who does that.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I'm suggesting that maybe another way to look at the violent death of others, even if they are sworn opponents, is that it has serious costs and consequences for all sides in a conflict.
And I'm suggesting something slightly different. I'm suggesting that there is never any excuse for initiating violence against anyone. Not on an individual level, and not on a national level. And that the only reason ever to engage in war is to stop someone who has attacked you from repeating the mistake. And that the full responsibility of what happens to the initiator of war is on the heads of the initiator.
A guy walks into a doctor's office. He says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doctor replies, "So nu, don't do that!"
Same thing here. If you don't want to be hammered to pieces, keep your gun in your pants.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Perhaps there's a way out of this moral dilemma that does not equate to destruction of other humans, no matter how loathesome their behavior might be to our current sense of justice and morality.
Perhaps, but why should I ever feel bound to risk the life of even a single one of my people for the sake of sparing those attacking us?
When the rabbis spoke of the idea that you kill someone who is coming to kill you, one of the rhetorical questions they ask as an explanation of that law is: "Is his blood redder than yours?"
If one person is going to die in that encounter, let it be the person who is less worthy. Let it be the person who could have avoided it by not attacking in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: One possibility that I believe is worth exploring is that a failure to retaliate might reduce the overall death toll, and even reduce the deaths on the side that has chosen non-aggression first.
Sounds good. You want to try that experiment yourself first, before recommending it to people whose lives are actually at risk? I mean, this whole Monday morning quarterbacking stuff is cute and all, but you're not the one who is going to wind up dead if you're wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The question is whether we have the potential to implement programs that would assure freedom and life to groups that choose NOT to engage in warfare or retaliation, even when provoked.
Who is "we"? Are you suggesting that some people arrogate to themselves the right to swoop in like some kind of deus ex machina and settle things from the outside? Given the objectivity <cough, cough> of the US and EU, I'd rather take my chances with the Arabs.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I submit that we do, but that it would take some extraordinary international cooperation, and some reduction in sovereign control by various nations for the duration of conflicts.
Heh. I get it now. You just read Clancy's The Sum of All Fears. I have to tell you, I love Clancy's work. But when I read that book... the first thing I thought, after I managed to get through it, was: "Wow. This was written by someone who is utterly clueless about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'd assumed he knew what he was talking about in his other novels... now I wonder."
What makes you think that surrendering sovereignty to some collection of do-gooders who don't understand the situation would be any more acceptable than surrendering sovereignty to the enemy?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: On part of the solution might be to borrow from an old solution -- hostages to guarantee good conduct. An extreme version might involve, for example, removing all children from war zones to be raised by neutral third parties until the warring sides settle their differences.
You are a very dangerous person. I thank God that you don't have any ability to carry out any of this dreck.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Since people say they are fighting to protect their children, surely they would go along with such a radical program, right?
You misspelled "pogrom".
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Another possibility is, of course, massive infusion of peace keeping forces and implementation of something akin to Marshall law -- basically shutting down areas where fighting is taking place.
The noise is bothering you, so you want to go in, step on everyone, and arbitrarily settle things as you see fit. Like a Dad in a car dealing with two squabbling kids in the back seat.
Except that you aren't anyone's Dad here. And you have no moral superiority that would make what you're suggesting anything more than a war of conquest. A lot of empires deluded themselves into thinking that they were doing it for the benefit of all. You just want to recreate the Pax Romana.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: This would offend the sovereignity and self-rule of the countries involved. But, it would save the lives of their civilians and their soldiers. Wouldn't the savings in lives be worth it for all of humanity? Even if it meant that the governments that formerly ruled in these areas were simply dissolved?
I mean, how many examples of THAT would the world leaders need before they learned not to engage in armed conflicts in the first place?
A good spanking. That's what they need. Put those unruly countries over your knee and swat 'em a few. How about a time out? Send them all to Antarctica until they calm down. Or hell, just kill the damned wogs. The "P" in RIP should suit you, no?
See, I thought the White Man's Burden went out when the sun set on the British Empire. Listening to you gets me all nostalgic feeling...
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Another possibility, of course, is to simply eliminate all weapons above a certain destructive power. That way, if someone got a wild hair that they wanted to kill some people they didn't like, they wouldn't be able to amass enough weaponry to be very efficient at it.
Nukes don't incinerate people; people incinerate people. Can't have war if you don't have people, right? What we need here is a final solution to the fuzzy-wuzzy problem. Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!
I hope you don't mind a bit of mockery. I'm hoping and praying that you posted what you did as satire in the first place. But on the off chance that you're that... well, "off", the only real thing to do is to make fun of you.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
starLisa - while you may not agree with everything (or anything!) Bob wrote, mocking him, using ad hominem attacks, and making straw men do not further your argument, nor do they add anything fruitful to the discussion.
I had thought that was your goal in creating this thread.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
To add my opinion to your definition of war and crime, I believe that to be considered war, the intent of at least one party to engage in warfare must be acknowledged by both parties. In other words, at least one party must communicate to the other party that it is willing to engage in acts of warfare. If that intent is not communicated, I don't see further malicious actions being much different than terrorism.
Going back to your example of the British soldiers...
Can it be said that in some way that war was declared between the Jews and the Brits? If war was in some way declared, then the British soldiers would have to expect to be targeted. However, if war was not declared, then I think that requires you to fall back to your idea that murder is only allowable if it is in self defense. Was the life of the executioner personally threatened by the two British soldiers? I suspect not. In that case, I don't see how the execution of the two British soldiers can be justified. I'm sure some will disagree with my assessment of their involvement and execution, but that's based on my personal feelings regarding the acceptability of murder
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa,
I think the point being missed is that each side in any conflict is bound to think that the other side is not justified in its actions. And each side is bound to view the actions of the other side as (further) justification for its own actions.
It does indeed work both ways.
I think the reason for this is that often when people take what they believe to be a stance on the morality of killing other people, they do so from their own biased perspective and not from any sense of universal truth or universal morality.
And, the fact that the justification is often labeled "self-defense" is just a smoke screen for "I don't trust them" not for actual imminent danger from a particular individual.
The winner writes the history to make it all seem logical and moral.
I think the flawed premise may be in believing that any of it is truly "moral" in a universal sense.
If ones stance on an issue is the truly moral and correct one, why is it so difficult to convince others of that fact without the bloodshed? I think it's too easy an answer to just call the other side monstrous in their thinking or morality. Heck, in every conflict in modern times our former enemies become our trading partners in less than a generation.
If we're going to get that point AFTER the bloodshed, wouldn't it be better if we worked to find ways to get there before the bloodshed?
I don't care if you like my particular example ideas or not. They're just examples. Find some others you like better, if you are so inclined.
All I ask is that peaceful options be explored. Meeting violence with violence seems like a bad strategy if one is committed to a policy of affirming life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Meeting violence with violence seems like a bad strategy if one is committed to a policy of affirming life.
I think you're operating from a premise that she doesn't share, Bob. That's a pretty big "if" you tossed in there.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:An extreme version might involve, for example, removing all children from war zones to be raised by neutral third parties until the warring sides settle their differences.
This really is an extreme example, Bob, and I can't see it being used mercifully/correctly/beneficially in any of today's societies. Who's neutral? And you realize that neutrality may be anathema to the childrens' parents' culture, right? In that case, this action isn't neutral (or helpful) at all-- it exacerbates the war, because now it's about the Superpower trying to impose culture.
And if you're airlifting children out of the warzones simply to take them to safety, why not airlift other non-committed, non-combatants out (mothers, aunts, etc) too, UNLESS your goal is to change the warring factions' culture?
No, no-- not an ethical solution at all. It calls to mind the efforts of the US Government to civilize the American Indian by abducting their children and sending them off to live with white pioneer families.
Do the warring cultures need to be changed? Perhaps, but this isn't the way to go about it.
NOW-- your response to starLisa's ridiculousness was measured, logical and in my opinion, appropriate. I salute you.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: starLisa - while you may not agree with everything (or anything!) Bob wrote, mocking him, using ad hominem attacks, and making straw men do not further your argument, nor do they add anything fruitful to the discussion.
I had thought that was your goal in creating this thread.
I hear you, Jhai, but he sounds like Mohandas Gandhi when he advised the Jews in WWII to go to the gas chambers willingly rather than fight.
quote:Even as late as June 1946, when the extent of the Holocaust had emerged, Gandhi told biographer Louis Fisher: "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
quote:If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers' knives and throw themselves into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for "ages to come." If they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they would leave a "rich heritage to mankind."
This is the kind of thing that Bob is talking about in the first part of his post. In the second part, he's talking about engaging in war of conquest in order to force his morals on others.
Why does that deserve to be taken seriously?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: To add my opinion to your definition of war and crime, I believe that to be considered war, the intent of at least one party to engage in warfare must be acknowledged by both parties. In other words, at least one party must communicate to the other party that it is willing to engage in acts of warfare. If that intent is not communicated, I don't see further malicious actions being much different than terrorism.
It certainly doesn't require any kind of formal declaration. When the Germans moved into Austria, they didn't call it an act of war. Their puppets in Austria didn't call it such either. The Vichy regime didn't consider the Nazis to have committed war against France.
I don't think your qualification holds up in the light of actual events.
quote:Originally posted by camus: Going back to your example of the British soldiers...
Can it be said that in some way that war was declared between the Jews and the Brits?
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by camus: If war was in some way declared, then the British soldiers would have to expect to be targeted. However, if war was not declared,
Like I said, when they started executing us for defending ourselves, that was sufficient. Formal declarations are not a prerequisite for war to exist.
Labels are labels. They describe reality. They do not, themselves, determine of reality. If I choose not to call what I'm typing on a keyboard, it remains, nonetheless, a keyboard.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:One possibility that I believe is worth exploring is that a failure to retaliate might reduce the overall death toll, and even reduce the deaths on the side that has chosen non-aggression first.
Bob, this seems a very radical idea, but does it have the benefit of any history of pratical, successful application?
If we had not retaliated for the strikes on the WTC and Pentagon, what message would that have sent to Al-Quaeda? Does global opinion matter to them? Do they have trading partners that we can influence? Do they have an populace that can be swayed into rebellion by reports of our death?
EDIT: I realize that the civil rights movement in America effected societal change with very little bloodshed. There was very little retaliation from the African American community for the civil rights abuses heaped on them by Anglo Americans. But keep in mind that though the blacks were being repressed, there was not a culture of war-- there was no war meme being built up on either side. Further, American society had channels for civil, public discourse, and a (admitedly, sometimes only nomitive) system for redress.
That does not exist in global society. Al-Queda is not a member of the United Nations. Neither is Hammas, or the Aryan Nation, or the Branch Davidians.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think the point being missed is that each side in any conflict is bound to think that the other side is not justified in its actions. And each side is bound to view the actions of the other side as (further) justification for its own actions.
I've heard atheists use the same "logic" about religion. "Every religion thinks it's right and the others are wrong. They can't all be right, so they're all wrong." It's an inane argument.
And it's a morally frightening one as well. It implies that you don't acknowledge any objective standard of right and wrong. Of course, that contradicts other things you say, so maybe you just don't realize the implications of what you're suggesting here.
Germany in WWII thought it was acting rightly by annexing Austria and invading Poland. It thought being invaded by the Allies was wrong. Their point of view was objectively wrong. It was evil.
There is a right and a wrong in the Middle East as well. You just don't want to accept that because you're afraid people would call you biased if you do.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think the reason for this is that often when people take what they believe to be a stance on the morality of killing other people, they do so from their own biased perspective and not from any sense of universal truth or universal morality.
You may think that, but it's not necessarily so. Some people may. That doesn't mean everyone does. And your unwillingness to even consider that there might be an objective right and wrong, a good side and a bad side, a victim and an aggressor, is a symptom of a world unwilling to stand up for good against evil. It's cowardly, and it's sad to see you embracing it.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And, the fact that the justification is often labeled "self-defense" is just a smoke screen for "I don't trust them" not for actual imminent danger from a particular individual.
Sure. And when people (including me) said that withdrawing from Gaza was going to result in increased attacks against Israel, people like you said that was just unwarranted distrust.
How many times do your predictions have to be wrong and mine right before you start to ask yourself, "Hmm... is there something she understands that I don't?"
Do you know what condition is sometimes defined as "Repeating the same action over and over and expecting different results"? If not, I'm sure others do.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The winner writes the history to make it all seem logical and moral.
So there is no right and wrong, other than what gets written in the history books. There's no real morality except for what we choose to impose.
Well, that certainly explains your idea about imposing your morality on others. Somehow, you think you can do that without killing people, which is a belief so divorced from reality that it's hard to believe someone could think that and be able to string words together into a sentence. But at the same time, you're opposed to Israel preventing the Arabs from killing us. Neat juggling act, there, Bob.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think the flawed premise may be in believing that any of it is truly "moral" in a universal sense.
It's interesting. I generally start replying to a post as soon as I see something I want to reply to. I don't read through posts to the end if I want to reply early on. I figure I'll get to it as I reply. So understand that it was clear to me from what you've already said that you don't accept the idea of anything being moral in a universal (objective) sense.
And yet you're willing to impose your subjective morality on others. And you see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Do you realize how barbaric that is? How divorced from civilization and reason that is?
I'm doing this without mockery this time, not because what you're saying doesn't deserve to be mocked. It does. But only because there are others here, such as Jhai, who got distracted by the mockery to the point where they were unable to focus on the content of the discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If ones stance on an issue is the truly moral and correct one, why is it so difficult to convince others of that fact without the bloodshed?
Umm... because there is such a thing as evil? Because there are people who have chosen, by their own free will, to act irrationally? Because there are cultures that are completely alien from your own, which do not even speak the same language of premises that you do?
Why didn't someone just get up in WWII and tell Uncle Adolf, "Shame on you!" And the answer is, because some people will do what they want so long as they can, and the morality of the situation makes no difference to them.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think it's too easy an answer to just call the other side monstrous in their thinking or morality.
And by thinking that, you make life so much easier. For you. By dismissing the possibility that there are cultural views that are monstrous, you blind yourself to any cultural views that may be monstrous. You create a fantasy world for yourself that is comfortable.
They say justice is blind, Bob, but injustice is as well. Just in a bad way.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Heck, in every conflict in modern times our former enemies become our trading partners in less than a generation.
Because they stopped being monsters. Do you think we'd still be trading partners with Japan if they believed that they were destined by Heaven to rule the world? Do you think we'd be trading partners with Germany if the death camps were still up and running?
If the Arabs stop trying to kill us and just bloody leave us alone, I'll embrace them. I have a lot more in common with them in many ways than I do with you. They just have to stop. And they won't. And why should they, Bob? They can commit the worst atrocities, and you'll continue to squeeze your eyes shut and label both sides equally to blame. Why should they stop when their tactics are working?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Meeting violence with violence seems like a bad strategy if one is committed to a policy of affirming life.
It may seem that way to someone in your safe position. But we're not willing to have our people die for the sake of trying out your social engineering theories.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Meeting violence with violence seems like a bad strategy if one is committed to a policy of affirming life.
I think you're operating from a premise that she doesn't share, Bob. That's a pretty big "if" you tossed in there.
You think wrong, Tom. For a change...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tell me where in this thread or any other you have committed to any policy of "affirming life." That doesn't seem to be a component of your philosophy or your worldview.
-------
quote: There is a right and a wrong in the Middle East as well.
I agree. Where I think you go wrong is in failing to recognize that there are more than two sides, and the one you're on is still wrong.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:It certainly doesn't require any kind of formal declaration. When the Germans moved into Austria, they didn't call it an act of war. Their puppets in Austria didn't call it such either. The Vichy regime didn't consider the Nazis to have committed war against France.
Yes, but at least both sides recognized the fact that at least one side perceived it to be a war and was willing to act accordingly. I'm not saying it needs to be a written document like the Declaration of Independence. I'm saying there needs to a be a mutual understanding that at least one side is willing to engage in certain acts of warfare. I feel this is very important in determining the morality of counter actions.
I think you would be morally bound to at least make sure the other side is aware of your intentions before you go out and capture people solely on the premise that they are on the other side of the conflict.
quote:when they started executing us for defending ourselves, that was sufficient
Based on the information posted above, the Jews were executed for the jailbreak and for possessing weapons, not for an act of self defense. And with the above information, I wouldn't assume that the British believed that the Jews felt the British legal system constitutes as war.
quote:I don't think your qualification holds up in the light of actual events.
It may not reflect reality, but that doesn't make it any more moral.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Tell me where in this thread or any other you have committed to any policy of "affirming life." That doesn't seem to be a component of your philosophy or your worldview.
Preventing people from murdering me and mine is most certainly life affirming. Wanting to end the conflict with the Arabs decisively instead of constantly renewing their hope that they can annihilate us is also life affirming.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There is a right and a wrong in the Middle East as well.
I agree. Where I think you go wrong is in failing to recognize that there are more than two sides, and the one you're on is still wrong.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:It certainly doesn't require any kind of formal declaration. When the Germans moved into Austria, they didn't call it an act of war. Their puppets in Austria didn't call it such either. The Vichy regime didn't consider the Nazis to have committed war against France.
Yes, but at least both sides recognized the fact that at least one side perceived it to be a war and was willing to act accordingly.
<blink> Er... no. Neither side did. That's why I gave those examples of where neither side did. If you think otherwise, could you please elaborate? Which side considered it war?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Can I assume from this that you disagree, and believe there are only two sides to this conflict -- and that you believe yourself to be firmly on the right one?
What evil do you not countenance, Lisa, in defense of the good guys? I'm curious as to where you'd draw the line, since you've already defended murder, assassination, extortion, sabotage, and kidnapping.
--------
I think the point you're missing in the Vichy example, Lisa, is that the "side" with which the Vichy were aligned was not the same side as, say, the side chosen by the rest of France. I think we can make exceptions for puppet governments when drawing up our generalizations, right?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Well, to begin with, I don't think your examples really applied to my assertion in the first place. Wasn't the Vichy regime cooperating with the Germans? What they thought about it is irrelevant to my point.
Let me start over by trying a different approach.
I've agreed that murder in self defense is understandable. The question is whether murder that is not in self defense is acceptable. In your example with the Jews executing the two British soldiers, that would clearly fall into the category of murder that is not in self defense.
So is it justified? This is an important question because typically killing someone that is on the other side of a conflict is a crime and is punishable. Killing someone on the other side of a conflict when at war, however, is not considered a crime.
So is it justified? You say yes, they were 100% morally correct in doing that. I say it is morally wrong to murder someone (even a soldier) if it is not in self defense unless you are at war with the other party.
So what determines war? I say you are morally obligated to at least communicate your intent to engage in acts of warfare before you start kidnapping and executing people. Is that always convenient to do? Probably not, but if it isn't done, I don't see how anyone could justify killing someone outside of self defense.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, camus, I think you're doing an excellent job. I've done the "point things out subtly and somewhat snidely" thing too long to be able to confront people with clear and unambiguous statements -- which is a real weakness of my rhetorical style -- and I believe you've managed to make your case quite effectively.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Well, thank you. I'm just glad I don't have to argue against you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
We won't make you do that.
This week. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Simple solution, I'll just stay away from all threads relating to religion, politics, news, philosophy, advice, relationships, and ethics. That should keep me safe from having to argue with Tom.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder what starLisa would say in response to the interview I read between Time magazine and Perez Musharaff of Pakistan.
He said that they are opening the door to talks with Israel for the first time, this in response to Israel's withdrawel from the West Bank. He also said that the only thing stopping him from recognizing Israel as a state, is waiting for the creation of a Palestinian state.
starLisa has constantly said in many threads that all Arabs are the same, and that all their governments want you dead, and gone, and will never, ever recognize you as a state. So what is this then? a smokescreen?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Pakistanis are not Arabs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Neither are Iranians. But I doubt she'd make that distinction.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Gandhi wrote on Jews in Palestine and Germany in 1938.
One of these sources mentions the quotation previously cited as coming from George Orwell writing about Gandhi, not Gandhi's own words. I think there's room for examining him in his own words and seeing some other perspectives on what non-violence meant in the context he was presenting it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Bob, I love you.
Even when I think you're completely wrong-headed, I love you.
Huzzah for Bob and his indefatigable sense of reason!
starLisa, this passage from Bob's third link seems relevant to answer your concerns:
quote:Non-violent resistance means a willingness to die in the act of resistance, but it is not about committing suicide. The hope is that by resisting with dignity and calling on the opressor's conscience, the latter might eventually be won over without having to sacrifice life on either side.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Scott R.
You've no idea how much that post means to me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: starLisa, this passage from Bob's third link seems relevant to answer your concerns:
quote:Non-violent resistance means a willingness to die in the act of resistance, but it is not about committing suicide. The hope is that by resisting with dignity and calling on the opressor's conscience, the latter might eventually be won over without having to sacrifice life on either side.
Scott, I ask this in all seriousness. Do you think that people who dance with joy when Jews are murdered by suicide bombers are capable of being won over just because their victims stop defending themselves?
It's amazing how ethnocentric some of you are. Everyone must, deep down inside, be just like you. Horrified at violence and unnecessary death.
You honestly can't even imagine the idea that people might be so implacable in their goals that they honestly don't see killing those in their way as anything more significant than swatting flies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Do you think that people who dance with joy when Jews are murdered by suicide bombers are capable of being won over just because their victims stop defending themselves?
Honestly? Yes, I do. But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be a lot of victims first. But there's more to principled non-violence than rolling over and not preventing someone from killing you; we've had plenty of examples of that in recent history, especially in Africa. It's about -- as a matter of principle -- giving someone else the choice to kill you, and making them aware of the fact that they're making that choice. The whole point is to make them conscious of your humanity.
The huge downside, of course, is that some people genuinely are sociopathic and/or conditioned to think of their victims as inherently inhuman. Gandhi himself observed that this strategy would not work against an enemy so ill. On the plus side, very few people are actually that sick; most are just numbed.
People are very able to rationalize monstrosity as "self-defense" or some other necessity; they make excuses for murder all the time. This kind of sacrifice removes any pretense of logic from that excuse, which indeed will pull on some individuals' consciences.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, I ask this in all seriousness. Do you think that people who dance with joy when Jews are murdered by suicide bombers are capable of being won over just because their victims stop defending themselves?
I don't agree with non-violent defensive action in the situation in the Middle East. I think I've stated that before, but maybe you missed it.
My philosophy does not require that Israel engage in non-violent defense in order to win over Palestinians. Gandhi's does, and Bob's might-- you'll have to ask them.
I posted the excerpt from Bob's 3rd link so that you could comment on it. You know, provide a reasonable argument as to why it's an invalid opinion.
Also, it appears that you were at least somewhat mistaken about Gandhi's opinion on the Jewish situation in the Middle East and during WWII. You may want to thank Bob for educating you. Just an idea.
quote:It's amazing how ethnocentric some of you are. Everyone must, deep down inside, be just like you. Horrified at violence and unnecessary death.
Yes. Everyone SHOULD be "horrified at violence and unnecessary death."
I understand that there are some cultures that do not.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I posted the excerpt from Bob's 3rd link so that you could comment on it. You know, provide a reasonable argument as to why it's an invalid opinion.
Also, it appears that you were at least somewhat mistaken about Gandhi's opinion on the Jewish situation in the Middle East and during WWII. You may want to thank Bob for educating you. Just an idea.
quote:Even as late as June 1946, when the extent of the Holocaust had emerged, Gandhi told biographer Louis Fisher: "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
Now, had this said Eric Blair, I would have accepted Tom's claim that it was a figment of George Orwell's imagination. But since it's Louis Fisher, who heard it directly from Gandhi, and since it's consistent with the words that Gandhi wrote himself, I'm going to hold back on thanking Bob for the misinformation. I hope that's okay with you.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:It's amazing how ethnocentric some of you are. Everyone must, deep down inside, be just like you. Horrified at violence and unnecessary death.
Yes. Everyone SHOULD be "horrified at violence and unnecessary death."
I quite agree. "Must" in my post didn't mean that they should. It meant that people can't comprehend that there are those who aren't.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I understand that there are some cultures that do not.
And we're dealing with one of those. You can't expect us to deal with them as we would with people who value life.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:we're dealing with one of those. You can't expect us to deal with them as we would with people who value life.
I hope you recognize that Palestinian Arabs may say the same thing about Israelis. . .
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
By the way, where did you pick up those quotes from Gandhi? Can you link?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Lisa, let me ask you this.
If your life were threatened and the only way that you felt you could defend yourself included methods that resulted in the killing of innocent bystanders, would you view that as morally acceptable?
In other words, if your enemy is one of those types of people that does not value life, does that absolve you of guilt from killing the innocent civilians that are used as shields so that the enemy can be destroyed?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I would have accepted Tom's claim that it was a figment of George Orwell's imagination.
Um. My claim? I'm pretty sure I claimed no such thing.
quote: And we're dealing with one of those. You can't expect us to deal with them as we would with people who value life.
Can we expect you to deal with them as people who could value your lives? I think it's a ramen/varelse thing, and I think you're being awfully quick to write 'em off as varelse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On the contrary, Lyrhawn, I think she would make that distinction. Whatever you may think about her politics, I think it's safe to say she knows basic facts about geography in the region.
I wouldn't trust Musharaf farther than I could throw him, Lyrhawn-would you? This is the man we're allied with (unfortunately) who isn't exactly known for his fair treatment of disputes, after all.
-----
Gandhi's words, as they nearly always are in my experience, are moving and heartfelt. Unfortunately I think he might misunderstand what a Jew's obligation might be when faced with oppression. He says that it would be a brilliant and noble thing if the Jews faced the oppression in Germany (along with gypsies, communists, homosexuals)...but as has been pointed out, he faced no such systematic annihilation.
He says the best solution would have been for Jews to have been welcomed with open arms into their previous homes, accepted and tolerated and loved with equal measure as other neighbors are treated.
I tend to agree, that would be best. But frankly, it doesn't work like that. As a whole, as a race and religion throughout history, Jews don't get a fair shake for very long. Period.
As far as non-violence in response to Nazi German genocide goes...such a thing would be suicide. There is no appealing to the conscience of people who've already got the incinerators warmed up for your corpse.
----------
As for Palestinian Arabs claiming that Israelis don't value human life...I'm sorry, but they have at best suspicions that this is true. Frankly I can empathize with a Palestinian who says that Israelis don't give a damn how many civilians they kill, and go out of their way sometimes to do just that. But the trouble is, that's a guess, it's not a fact.
Whereas the Israelis can say, "The Palestinian Arabs don't care about human life because they gloat about targeting civilian bystanders for murder." And that's not just a guess, we've seen and heard it from the lips of Palestinian Arabs.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Can we expect you to deal with them as people who could value your lives? I think it's a ramen/varelse thing, and I think you're being awfully quick to write 'em off as varelse.
The comparison to the classifications ramen & varelse doesn't hold water, Tom. We can talk to them, they can talk to us. There can be, and there has been, diplomacy attempted.
The Buggers, well, there wasn't any communication at the time of the war. The Descoladores, the same thing. The Piggies, there was some communication, but it was very handicapped.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The comparison to the classifications ramen & varelse doesn't hold water, Tom. We can talk to them, they can talk to us. There can be, and there has been, diplomacy attempted.
That's my POINT, Jeff. They're NOT varelse.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If your life were threatened and the only way that you felt you could defend yourself included methods that resulted in the killing of innocent bystanders, would you view that as morally acceptable?
In other words, if your enemy is one of those types of people that does not value life, does that absolve you of guilt from killing the innocent civilians that are used as shields so that the enemy can be destroyed?
I know you asked Lisa that question, and it is an interesting one so I thought I would put in a response... There are a number of questions in your question that should be answered seperately. The first part is almost like asking someone would you die so that others may live. That is almost a different question than the second part The second part of the question is a lot more complex. I think that the taking of innocent life, even to destroy an enemy, will cause guilty feelings in the aggressor. That does not mean the enemy shouldn't be destroyed because innocent life will lost, and it certainly does not mean that it should be done either. The enemy is using innocent life as a shield so most of the blame would be placed on the enemy. However, if I am the soldier pulling the trigger, there is also blame placed on me. I would have dropped the bomb and I was the one who actually killed the innocents. The deaths of those innocents would be on my conscience as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I understand that part, Tom. But there's another piece that goes along with it. If they're not varelse, and we can talk to them...but they continue to behave as if they are varelse...what then?
Humanity perhaps had an obligation to refrain from xenocide once they had the upper hand against the Buggers, and try diplomacy-or at best communication. But the Palestinians and Israelis started out able to talk to each other, and have been for decades. They've been communicating.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If they're not varelse, and we can talk to them...but they continue to behave as if they are varelse...what then?
Then we're both failing to do our jobs. Because if they're really ramen and not varelse, it IS possible to communicate our existence to them. We just need to find a way to do so. The alternative is for one side or the other to ultimately commit to the other's complete destruction, and I think we can all agree that this is an evil outcome.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I found some links to sources on non-violent resistance movements throughout history and how they panned out.
quote:A British military historian, interviewing German generals after the war, was told that they'd found nonviolent resistance much harder to deal with than armed and violent opposition.
I have written to the folks who put the site together to provide information on who the historian is and the name of the publication or book in which these interviews might appear.
But within Occupied Europe there were well documented victories for nonviolence. In Norway there was a successful teachers’ strike against being forced to teach Nazi ideology. In Denmark the opposition to the Nazis was led by the King, who said that if the Jews had to put on the “Yellow Star of David”, then he, the King, would be the first man in Denmark to put one on. When the Nazis moved to arrest the Danish Jews, members of the Gestapo leaked this news to the Danish authorities and in 48 hours virtually all the Jews in Denmark were gotten to safety in Sweden. In Bulgaria, which had no history of anti-Semitism, spontaneous civil resistance (including crowds sitting on train tracks) prevented the Nazis from shipping any Jews out of the country.
quote: 1. Would nonviolence have worked against the Nazis'? Nonviolence did work against the Nazi regime in February/May of 1943 when housewives protested against the arrest of their Jewish husbands, saving thousands of lives. Nonviolence always works (see question 3.); if the opponent is ruthless and you start late in the game, it requires correspondingly more sacrifice - and correct application. Above all, do not mistake the passivity of many of the Nazis' victims for 'nonviolence.'
and provides a quick overview of successful use of non-violent resistance throughout history here Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Bob, all those examples of non-violent resistance during WWII -- as wonderful as they are, and I have long known how exceptionally the peoples of Scandinavia acted in protecting their Jewish citizens during that time -- were carried out by people the Nazis were NOT attempting to kill.
Don't get me wrong. They were definitely risking their lives, and making themselves targets. But nonetheless, the options open to them were far greater than to those the Nazis were already attempting to kill.
IMO, passivity in the face of someone attempting to kill you is suicide. And absolutely forbidden by Jewish Law.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: IMO, passivity in the face of someone attempting to kill you is suicide. And absolutely forbidden by Jewish Law.
See, I perceive a distinction between killing yourself and permitting someone else to kill you.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
My understanding is that nonviolent resistance is does not equate to "passivity." It is very pointedly not passive in some applications. It just is not violent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's possible Jewish Law does not share your perceptions, Tom & Bob.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And rivka makes another good point as well. It's unfortunate, but the examples given of nonviolent resistance being effective weren't perpetrated directly by the people being threatened with death. I say it's unfortunate because I would love for that not to be the case, for nonviolent resistance to have worked on the part of the Jews in that situation.
But it didn't. And I think we can all agree that it would be deluding ourselves if we choose to believe that it would've worked indefinitely. After all, the 1000 yrs Reich was anything but, remember?
How long would nonviolent resistance have worked if the Nazis weren't fighting a bitterly contested war for their survival on two fronts?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:It's possible Jewish Law does not share your perceptions, Tom & Bob.
I want to make it VERY clear that I'm not commenting on Jewish law or it's precepts. I am pointing out only what its main proponents have to say about what nonviolent resistance is.
I think the people who practiced this solution have said it better than I have, though. They aren't talking about passivity. They are talking very specifically about resisting a stronger foe.
I also hope that we can get some clarification and a source for the supposed statements from German generals about having a harder time dealing with non-violent resistance than with facing armed foes. I think that would be at least an interesting thing to think about in light of the common assumption that non-violence simply "would not have worked" against the Nazis.
At this point, I don't know how credible those statements are, but it'd be interesting to find out, no?
Or would such statements, even if corroborated, not change anyone's mind?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was not commenting on nonviolent resistance in general. I was commenting on what I understand to be a necessary component of nonviolent resistance.
As I understand it, for nonviolent resistance to work, many people have to be willing to give up their lives at the hand of the oppressor. The idea being that doing so will eventually save more lives, yes?
The trouble is, for each of those people making the choice to allow themselves to be killed (and while I do make some distinction between allowing myself to be killed and killing myself, I don't think it is relevant here), they do so not even to save actual specific people, but to save an amorphous group of people who may or may not actually be saved.
I will not debate whether this is noble. (I can see both sides.) What I do consider it to be is wrong. And asking or expecting anyone to do it is, IMO, evil.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Also, I find it deeply and horrifyingly ironic: For 50 years charges have been leveled at the Jews (particularly the religious ones) that they "went like lambs to the slaughter" (there is even a rather ugly epithet in Hebrew that refers to the victims of the Holocaust as "soap," both because of its pliability and because there was some indication that becoming soap was the eventual result of the remains of some of them -- this may have been a hoax). But now I'm hearing that some people feel they should have gone more easily?!?
In any case, there are stories upon stories of Jews that did indeed go to the gas chambers or mass graves while singing God's praises and even dancing. While the occasional individual Nazi may have been affected, there certainly was no measurably reduction in genocide.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bob,
Other questions aside...
quote:I also hope that we can get some clarification and a source for the supposed statements from German generals about having a harder time dealing with non-violent resistance than with facing armed foes.
I'm suggesting it is probably absurd to believe this would work against people like the Nazis in the long run, because we have learned what Nazis did long-term to the people they despised and thought were oppressing them. They killed them in mass-murder camps. Is there any reason we should reasonably expect they would've responded to long-term nonviolent resistance with a lighter, more humane hand?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But now I'm hearing that some people feel they should have gone more easily?!?
I think this represents a misunderstanding of the doctrine of non-violence. You don't go more easily. You go visibly. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, rivka, more easily would be the opposite of non-violent resistance. You're ignoring the second word in the phrase. Sitting down en-masse and refusing to get on the trains would have been an example of non-violent resistance. Yes, many people would have been shot -- but it would have happened in public, not shuffled off to a camp where the majority of the German people could pretend it wasn't happening.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I hear the distinction.
I wonder how many of the people who feel that Holocaust victims should have fought back would. (Suggested reading: The Seventh Million)
And FYI, once word trickled back of what was happening in the camps, there were groups that refused to get on the trains. They were simply shot. And as far as making any impact, almost no one seems to even know that this even happened. And it was every bit as ignored as what was happening in the camps (which were often near population centers, so it took a bit more deliberate blindness than you're implying on the part of the local citizenry).
Some impact.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Lisa, let me ask you this.
If your life were threatened and the only way that you felt you could defend yourself included methods that resulted in the killing of innocent bystanders, would you view that as morally acceptable?
In other words, if your enemy is one of those types of people that does not value life, does that absolve you of guilt from killing the innocent civilians that are used as shields so that the enemy can be destroyed?
When we're talking about supporters of the actual terrorists, we've left "innocent civilians" far behind.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: And we're dealing with one of those. You can't expect us to deal with them as we would with people who value life.
Can we expect you to deal with them as people who could value your lives? I think it's a ramen/varelse thing, and I think you're being awfully quick to write 'em off as varelse.
Thank you. That's exactly it. But they're not predestined to be varelse. They can be ramen if they so choose. Until the day that they do so, they can reap the rewards of being varelse by choice.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Can we expect you to deal with them as people who could value your lives? I think it's a ramen/varelse thing, and I think you're being awfully quick to write 'em off as varelse.
The comparison to the classifications ramen & varelse doesn't hold water, Tom. We can talk to them, they can talk to us. There can be, and there has been, diplomacy attempted.
But I don't think that other than verbiage, there was actual communication going on. All of the underlying premises have been and continue to be so different that I'm not sure "communication" is actually happening.
Peace to some people means finding a way to compromise so that even if no one wins completely, no one loses completely either.
Peace to others means that one side wins and the other loses. Completely.
So if two parties that hold those different views of what peace is come together and talk about peace, is it really communication? Despite the use of language?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:When we're talking about supporters of the actual terrorists, we've left "innocent civilians" far behind
I agree that supporters of the actual terrorists cannot be considered innocent civilians, but I would not assume that all people used as human shields are supporters of terrorists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But they're not predestined to be varelse. They can be ramen if they so choose. Until the day that they do so, they can reap the rewards of being varelse by choice.
One of the observations made in Children of the Mind is that the humans, despite all their desperate attempts to communicate, were ultimately the ones who wound up deciding other species were varelse all the time, attempting genocide at least twice (and considering it a third time). And this led Peter to speculate whether or not the humans themselves, for all their introspection, were not in fact the varelse.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
waaaait.... Ghandi said that in... 1938 BEFORE THE FINAL SOLUTION! At that time is was msotly y'know persecution and stuff.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
They're NOT varelse.