posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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"?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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??
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?"
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
