quote:It's another to say that those who disagree with us about the possibility of removing them without having a de facto genocide desire that de facto genocide to happen, which is essentially what Tom has done.
Not quite. I don't for a minute think that Lisa desires that a genocide occur. I think she is willing to keep genocide on the table as a possible solution, however, should all else fail.
Then you're an imbecile. Because only an imbecile would attribute such an intent to someone who is right there and who can be asked what her intent is.
No, I would not keep genocide on the table. Nor could I, because it never was on the table to begin with. Maybe it would be for you. In fact, the more I hear you attributing that view to me, the more I'm put in mind of the rabbinic maxim that one who libels someone is generally doing so because the libel is true of himself.
Maybe you're enough of a moral viper to consider such a thing. I'm not. Nor is anyone I know, and believe me, I know a lot of people who are further to the right than I am. None of them would consider such a thing.
It isn't necessary. It will never be necessary. Even with well meaning idiots like yourself dragging out the conflict by rejecting reasonable solutions to it, it will still never be necessary.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't necessary. It will never be necessary.
This may be a difference in definitions. How many Palestinians do you think you'll need to kill before the others agree to run away?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, here are some statements of yours that I take issue with. I can't speak for anybody else but maybe by looking at the issues I take with you some of your attitudes we can focus the discussion on what you are saying that causes people to perceive that you support genocide (a flaky claim imo) and/or relatively indiscriminate killing of Palestinians (an impression that I have gotten).
For example, you said:
quote:The Palestinian Arabs have brought all of their misfortunes upon themselves. If they weren't engaged in war against the very existence of Israel, Israel wouldn't have to take steps to keep them from doing so. They'd have their precious infrastructure. It is their own fault. It is their own responsibility.
So the Palestinians are responsible for the consequences of Israeli attacks? That type of attitude basically absolves Israel of any responsibility for their actions against the Palestinians. The consequences of Israel's actions are the fault of the Palestinians and, therefore, Israel can do whatever they want as long as they can blame the Palestinians for provoking them (assuming you statements to be true). "Blame the victim" attitudes are dangerous in general because they can be used to justify almost anything.
quote:Those who actually commit acts of violence against Israel, or attempt to do so, should be killed. Yes. Without exception. Fire a rocket at us, you die. Carry arms or munitions into Israel, you die. Kidnap or attack an Israeli, with firearms, molotov cocktails, or so much as a rock, and you die.[/qb]
Many people would view the implementation of the death penalty for smuggling and assault as barbaric. Supporting such a practice suggests a blatant disregard for the value of human life.
[quote]Our responsibility is to protect our people. If protecting one of our lives costs one hundred of theirs, that's cheap. Our lives are of inestimable value to us. The lives of people who are committing war against us are not and should not be worth anything at all.
I completely disagree with this attitude. If I were given the option of killing 300,000 American-hating Muslims to stop another 9/11 then I would refuse.
quote:Israel doesn't target civilians, period. Israel has, time and again, sent ground troops into hotbeds of terrorist activity, going door to door and taking massive casualties, when carpet bombing the area would have spared our own boys. It's sickening, but the Israeli government actually thinks that's either the moral thing to do, or at the very least the politically prudent thing to do. I can guarantee you that I'd do otherwise.
It's statements like this that make me think that you could really care less how many Palestinians die as a result of this conflict.
Overall, I think the issue is that there does not appear to be any ethical code by which you believe Israel is obligated to obey. You don't support genocide but your viewpoints do not exclude the possibility.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Israel doesn't target civilians, period. Israel has, time and again, sent ground troops into hotbeds of terrorist activity, going door to door and taking massive casualties, when carpet bombing the area would have spared our own boys. It's sickening, but the Israeli government actually thinks that's either the moral thing to do, or at the very least the politically prudent thing to do. I can guarantee you that I'd do otherwise.
It's statements like this that make me think that you could really care less how many Palestinians die as a result of this conflict.
I may point out that that particular statement does not seem *particularly* crazy. The same sentiment was expressed at the end of WWII in regards to an invasion of Japan. The decision was maid that dropping the two nuclear bombs and killing roughly 200k civilians was preferable to sending in the troops to go "door to door" and take casualties.
Granted, you could disapprove of both carpet bombing and the Nagasaki/Hiroshima decision, but I'm just trying to point out she's not completely out of the ballpark.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In case anyone is curious, here are some past statements by Lisa which demonstrate how she feels about the value of Arab/Muslim/Other life. I know that she'd want me to be specific:
quote:For the record, and as a matter of full disclosure, if Muslims want to butcher one another because of their religion, that's just fine and dandy with me. It's when their blood-lust is directed at everyone else that we have a serious problem.
quote:You mean the Canaanites? Sure I will. I'm proud of it. God told us to destroy them, and we did. The only thing we did wrong was in not completing the job fast enough, and we paid the price for that.
quote:Nine Israeli soldiers died today in house-to-house fighting. Note: The purpose of house-to-house fighting, when it'd be easier just to drop a bomb on the neighborhood, is to avoid civilian casualties.
That's nine more boys we sacrificed for the sake of saving Arab lives.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: So the Palestinians are responsible for the consequences of Israeli attacks?
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Those who actually commit acts of violence against Israel, or attempt to do so, should be killed. Yes. Without exception. Fire a rocket at us, you die. Carry arms or munitions into Israel, you die. Kidnap or attack an Israeli, with firearms, molotov cocktails, or so much as a rock, and you die.
Many people would view the implementation of the death penalty for smuggling and assault as barbaric.
Well, good thing I wasn't talking about the death penalty. The death penalty is a judicial procedure carried out against convicted criminals. Killing enemy combatants during war is a very different thing.
And I don't give half a damn if you think it's barbaric. Nothing else stops them from committing their atrocities against us. I guarantee you that no one killed while doing it will repeat the crime.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Supporting such a practice suggests a blatant disregard for the value of human life.
In your opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Our responsibility is to protect our people. If protecting one of our lives costs one hundred of theirs, that's cheap. Our lives are of inestimable value to us. The lives of people who are committing war against us are not and should not be worth anything at all.
I completely disagree with this attitude.
Um... good for you?
quote:Originally posted by Threads: If I were given the option of killing 300,000 American-hating Muslims to stop another 9/11 then I would refuse.
And yet, we aren't talking about setting out to kill people, even for a positive purpose. We're talking about the fact that we aren't responsible for them getting hurt during the process of our stopping them.
It's really easy. They stop trying to kill us, all violence stops. It is that friggin' easy.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Israel doesn't target civilians, period. Israel has, time and again, sent ground troops into hotbeds of terrorist activity, going door to door and taking massive casualties, when carpet bombing the area would have spared our own boys. It's sickening, but the Israeli government actually thinks that's either the moral thing to do, or at the very least the politically prudent thing to do. I can guarantee you that I'd do otherwise.
It's statements like this that make me think that you could really care less how many Palestinians die as a result of this conflict.
I've been explicit throughout this thread. For you to try and interpret me like this demonstrates that you either have piss-poor reading comprehension skills, or that you're a pig. I'm not sure which. Would you care to enlighten us?
If I can save lives on our side by killing either 100 of the enemy or 1000, I'll choose the 100. Because I do care. But if the cost of sparing those 100 is the loss of even one of my people, the price is far too high.
They're the ones perpetrating this war. If we stop, they keep killing us. If they stop, the violence stops. Period.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Overall, I think the issue is that there does not appear to be any ethical code by which you believe Israel is obligated to obey. You don't support genocide but your viewpoints do not exclude the possibility.
Bullshit. Are you that stupid? Really? When I say that I exclude the possibility from consideration, you can still claim that my viewpoints don't exclude the possibility? Moron.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: In case anyone is curious, here are some past statements by Lisa which demonstrate how she feels about the value of Arab/Muslim/Other life. I know that she'd want me to be specific:
quote:For the record, and as a matter of full disclosure, if Muslims want to butcher one another because of their religion, that's just fine and dandy with me. It's when their blood-lust is directed at everyone else that we have a serious problem.
quote:You mean the Canaanites? Sure I will. I'm proud of it. God told us to destroy them, and we did. The only thing we did wrong was in not completing the job fast enough, and we paid the price for that.
quote:Nine Israeli soldiers died today in house-to-house fighting. Note: The purpose of house-to-house fighting, when it'd be easier just to drop a bomb on the neighborhood, is to avoid civilian casualties.
That's nine more boys we sacrificed for the sake of saving Arab lives.
It wasn't worth it.
How long did that take you, Lyrhawn? I have no problem with any of those quotes. I could probably find you more, if you like. So you think it's a good thing that we essentially murdered nine of our own boys in order to spare Arab lives. Or that I should be horrified by inter-Muslim violence.
Poor Lyrhawn. All that time searching, and you still can't find anything to back up your lies. God, it must really suck to be you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And yet, we aren't talking about setting out to kill people, even for a positive purpose. We're talking about the fact that we aren't responsible for them getting hurt during the process of our stopping them.
It's really easy. They stop trying to kill us, all violence stops. It is that friggin' easy.
I'm imagining Lisa walking through Palestine, swinging her fists in the air saying, "I'm just punching the air, if anyone gets in my way, I'm not responsible for them getting punched."
It's like the Simpsons Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could probably find you more, if you like.
Lisa on Palestinians:
"One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined."
Yep. That's certainly true. Certainly to us. As it should be to any sane people facing an enemy perpetrating war against them. Do you have a problem with it?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How long did that take you, Lyrhawn? I have no problem with any of those quotes. I could probably find you more, if you like. So you think it's a good thing that we essentially murdered nine of our own boys in order to spare Arab lives. Or that I should be horrified by inter-Muslim violence.
Poor Lyrhawn. All that time searching, and you still can't find anything to back up your lies. God, it must really suck to be you.
Actually being me is pretty awesome 95% of the time.
Didn't really take me that long, I just put your name in with a search for "blatent disregard for human life" and all sorts of interesting stuff popped up. And duh, of course you aren't bothered by those quotes, you said those things.
I think anyone should be horrified, or at least sad, about Muslim on Muslim violence, or any violence wherein innocent people are killed. I'm sort of sad for you that you don't care about people dying, and that on the contrary, you're kind of happy about it. And yeah, I think it's a good thing that the IDF cared enough about people not involved with the fighting to spare their lives at the cost of the lives of soldiers. I know you don't agree, because you think they're all complicit in the actions of the terrorists, and they deserve what they get, but not everyone has as little regard for non-Jewish human life as you do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I searched for "Lisa" and "genocide". And I just wanted to verify that as far back as... I think it was 2005... there are instances of people accusing her of supporting genocide, and her denying that.
It seems disingenuous to me for people to continue to accuse her of supporting genocide.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Bullshit. Are you that stupid? Really? When I say that I exclude the possibility from consideration, you can still claim that my viewpoints don't exclude the possibility? Moron.
If you live with a world view in which you believe your god can come down and tell you to commit genocide at any point (because he's done it before, according to you), is any possibility really excluded from consideration?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Lyrhawn, I searched for "Lisa" and "genocide". And I just wanted to verify that as far back as... I think it was 2005... there are instances of people accusing her of supporting genocide, and her denying that.
It seems disingenuous to me for people to continue to accuse her of supporting genocide.
The problem is that although Lisa repeatedly denies supporting genocide, she also continually supports policies and expresses attitudes that many people see as genocidal. As long as she keeps saying things like
"One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined."
People are likely to keep accusing her of supporting genocide.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: not everyone has as little regard for non-Jewish human life as you do.
Amen.
Wrong. It isn't non-Jewish human life. It's the lives of those who are trying to kill us. What a shame you can't distinguish between the two.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Lyrhawn, I searched for "Lisa" and "genocide". And I just wanted to verify that as far back as... I think it was 2005... there are instances of people accusing her of supporting genocide, and her denying that.
It seems disingenuous to me for people to continue to accuse her of supporting genocide.
The problem is that although Lisa repeatedly denies supporting genocide, she also continually supports policies and expresses attitudes that many people see as genocidal. As long as she keeps saying things like
"One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined."
People are likely to keep accusing her of supporting genocide.
Only idiots who think that making things up is a good way to win an argument.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if someone went along with your contention that people who have not raised a hand in violence against you 'are trying to kill' you and deserve to die because they have not been as vociferous as you would like in opposing those have engaged in violence, are you including the children who do die and would die more given the indiscriminate Israeli policy you advocate as among those you have little regard for?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't -- and shouldn't -- target civilians. To say nothing of children. But neither should we risk our own lives to save them.
You know, if there's any justice in this world, you will some day learn what it is to be on the receiving end of a war. I suspect your misplaced compassion won't survive it. That, or you won't.
What I advocate is removing them from a place where they refuse to stop being violent.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But neither should we risk our own lives to save them.
And you have previously defined "risking our own lives" as "sending individual soldiers into danger instead of carpet-bombing a section of the city." Right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I think anyone should be horrified, or at least sad, about Muslim on Muslim violence, or any violence wherein innocent people are killed.
Seriously, you haven't heard of "divide and conquer"? Even now I occasionally run across news reports that people in favour of the Iraq occupation bring up the point that at least its provoked "them" (i.e. Muslims) into fighting each other there instead of bringing the fight to our shores.
Its easy to claim that every innocent life is worth the lives of many soldiers when you're riding high and not really risking all that much. (which, if it is not clear, is "now") The real test comes when you really do have to risk big or when you're really fighting for your nation's survival rather than just on foreign shores.
I would't bet against the possibility that the US, indeed any nation, would take just such a hard-line if their nation's survival was actually at stake.
Indeed, AKAIK I would note that the US has never ruled out using nuclear weapons in a "declarative, unqualified, unconditional no-first-use polic[y]." The conclusion that one can draw is that there ARE circumstances where the US would consider using the indiscriminate power of a nuclear weapon (probably killing civilians in the process) rather than take the risk of sustaining casualties on its side.
In short, while I agree that such an attitude as you've quoted is unfortunate and should be minimized, it is probably also a part of human nature and will probably be staying with us for a while yet.
Or even shorter, while I suspect that we would both be horrified, I am not naive enough to assume that that attitude would be shared by anything near approaching "anyone."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Wrong. It isn't non-Jewish human life. It's the lives of those who are trying to kill us. What a shame you can't distinguish between the two."
Above you were quoted as saying "One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined," and you stated that you still agree with this.
Innocent people are also innocent of trying to kill "us," however "us" happens to be defined.
You are placing near infinitely different values on equally innocent human lives.
The talmud tells us, and yes its cliched, that whoever saves a life has saved the entire world, that each human life has infinite value.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're funny. I guess you don't consider it an insult for other posters to accuse me of advocating genocide.
For what it's worth, I'm not accusing you of advocating genocide. I'm accusing you of countenancing it. I believe that you are sincere when you say you'd prefer that they all pack up and leave without having to be killed first.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're funny. I guess you don't consider it an insult for other posters to accuse me of advocating genocide.
For what it's worth, I'm not accusing you of advocating genocide. I'm accusing you of countenancing it. I believe that you are sincere when you say you'd prefer that they all pack up and leave without having to be killed first.
And I say I don't countenance it. But you'll continue to lie about it anyway.
And incidentally, yes, you did accuse me of advocating it. Tell the truth, for once.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you explain to me, Lisa, what you consider to be the distinction between your actual position and a tolerance of genocide/ethnic cleansing? You issue a lot of flat denials, but the rest of your words seem to contradict 'em.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lisa, stop insulting other posters.
You're funny. I guess you don't consider it an insult for other posters to accuse me of advocating genocide.
Go away.
It's apparent people misunderstand your posts.
I don't think you communicate your point of view very well.
If you combine the two elements-- general dislike of the immoral and horrific position you take, and a seeming inability on your part to help yourself be understood through civil discussion (or uncivil discussion, as it turns out)-- you get a concoction of misstatement and hard-headedness.
I give the others in this discussion more leeway, because of those mitigating circumstances. They apparently misunderstand you, for good reason.
There's really no excuse for name-calling, though.
posted
I freely admit that I think your support of ethnic cleansing and your consideration that the lives of non-Jews are of lesser value than those of Jews is evil.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Can you explain to me, Lisa, what you consider to be the distinction between your actual position and a tolerance of genocide/ethnic cleansing? You issue a lot of flat denials, but the rest of your words seem to contradict 'em.
Interesting technique.
1. Start with the phrase "ethnic cleansing".
2. Define it to mean any removal of a population from one place to another.
3. Dismiss any and all context, so that moving the population because they're Jewish or Muslim or gay or redheaded or lefthanded or just because you don't like them is morally equivalent to moving them because they're engaged in a bloody war against you.
4. Morph the phrase to "genocide/ethnic cleansing", conflating the two even when no genocide is involved.
5. Presto! You've managed to redefine moving a hostile and violent population that's engaged in non-stop atrocities as genocide.
Congratulations, Tom. By being without any moral sense whatsoever, you've managed to define black as white. Up as down. Good as bad.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lisa, stop insulting other posters.
You're funny. I guess you don't consider it an insult for other posters to accuse me of advocating genocide.
Go away.
It's apparent people misunderstand your posts.
No. It's possible that they misunderstood my posts. I've been as crystal clear as an unsullied stream about correcting them. When they continue to insist that I said something I did not, it can no longer, even by the most charitable measure, be considered "misunderstanding". It's flat out lying.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't think you communicate your point of view very well.
Oh, I think I do. I think there have been several people on this thread, even people who don't like me and usually argue with everything I have to say, who have put their two cents in here about the dishonest crap that's going on. Even people who disagree with me on this issue have voiced their opinion that people who keep accusing me of advocating genocide are being dishonest.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If you combine the two elements-- general dislike of the immoral and horrific position you take,
Screw you, too. My position is neither immoral nor horrific. Well... horrific is subjective. If you're horrified at the prospect of doing something productive to end the bloodshed, then I suppose you could use the word horrific. But it doesn't speak well to your personal set of values.
Immoral, on the other hand, is not a subjective term. And my position is anything but immoral.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: and a seeming inability on your part to help yourself be understood through civil discussion (or uncivil discussion, as it turns out)-- you get a concoction of misstatement and hard-headedness.
So you're admitting that they're misstating what I said, and being hardheaded about admitting that they're wrong. And yet you're still blaming me for it. Like I said, you're funny.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I give the others in this discussion more leeway, because of those mitigating circumstances. They apparently misunderstand you, for good reason.
No. Even if they could be excused for misunderstanding me to begin with, which I don't think they can, because I am extremely clear about my positions, there is no way to excuse them once they were corrected.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: There's really no excuse for name-calling, though.
Please stop insulting people.
Boy, this really is a lot like the middle east, isn't it. Tom insults me. Lyrhawn insults me. I insult them back and you tell me to stop insulting people.
Actually, you really aren't that funny. You're sick.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I freely admit that I think your support of ethnic cleansing and your consideration that the lives of non-Jews are of lesser value than those of Jews is evil.
Crap. The lives of anyone trying to wipe me and mine out are of lesser value than our lives. The fact that they're non-Jews has nothing to do with it.
Though why I'm bothering to respond to you escapes me. You aren't even interested in the subject. Like I said before, if I was on the other side, you'd be attacking me just the same. Grow up, kat.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Tom has accurately expressed that there continues to be a misunderstanding about your position on genocide. I believe his reasoning is sound, and that you have not been clear on this issue.
Regardless of whether you feel you have been clear or not, please stop insulting other people.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The lives of anyone trying to wipe me and mine out are of lesser value than our lives.
Lisa, I think the disconnect people are having is your inclusion of those you've described as innocent (as in their innocents are worth less than one of ours) in the group of those trying to wipe you out.
I myself am confused as to what your meaning is in this regard.
quote:My position is neither immoral nor horrific. Well... horrific is subjective. If you're horrified at the prospect of doing something productive to end the bloodshed, then I suppose you could use the word horrific. But it doesn't speak well to your personal set of values.
I, for one, am horrified at what I see as the likely outcome of the forced removal you advocated. I consider that likely outcome to be either abandonment of the plan (in which case I would not be horrified, but your plan would not really have been put into effect) or an immoral result (literally hundreds of thousand or millions of deaths if it were not abandoned early on). And the result is immoral even taking into account the fact that many Palestinians support the destruction of Israel, either expressly or through their support of Hamas.
Therefore I think it would be immoral for Israel to forcibly remove the Palestinians. That's different from saying that your position is immoral.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. And I disagree with you. But I respect the way you've expressed yourself.
But we're going to have to do it eventually. And trust me, the longer it gets put off, the more "horrific" it's going to be.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I think anyone should be horrified, or at least sad, about Muslim on Muslim violence, or any violence wherein innocent people are killed.
Seriously, you haven't heard of "divide and conquer"? Even now I occasionally run across news reports that people in favour of the Iraq occupation bring up the point that at least its provoked "them" (i.e. Muslims) into fighting each other there instead of bringing the fight to our shores.
Its easy to claim that every innocent life is worth the lives of many soldiers when you're riding high and not really risking all that much. (which, if it is not clear, is "now") The real test comes when you really do have to risk big or when you're really fighting for your nation's survival rather than just on foreign shores.
I would't bet against the possibility that the US, indeed any nation, would take just such a hard-line if their nation's survival was actually at stake.
Indeed, AKAIK I would note that the US has never ruled out using nuclear weapons in a "declarative, unqualified, unconditional no-first-use polic[y]." The conclusion that one can draw is that there ARE circumstances where the US would consider using the indiscriminate power of a nuclear weapon (probably killing civilians in the process) rather than take the risk of sustaining casualties on its side.
In short, while I agree that such an attitude as you've quoted is unfortunate and should be minimized, it is probably also a part of human nature and will probably be staying with us for a while yet.
Or even shorter, while I suspect that we would both be horrified, I am not naive enough to assume that that attitude would be shared by anything near approaching "anyone."
You're certainly welcome to you're opinion. We have a precedent. I can't tell if you're taking a position or playing devil's advocate/defending someone else's position but, how do you feel about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I do believe that, despite how horrible the effects of those weapons were, they ended a war that would have cost millions more innocent lives. The difference I guess here is how you feel about it. While I still might think it was necessary to do it, I'm not happy about all those innocents who died, or the thousands who suffered the lingering aftereffects of the bombs and suffered horribly. Despite the horrible things done to Americans by the Japanese, I still don't wish that on them, and yeah, I'm saddened by those who suffered as a result.
Lisa,
Maybe it isn't fair that people keep accusing you of supporting genocide. I think the problem people are having is with your rather casual attitude towards the suffering and death of innocents. And in your disputing of who is and isn't an innocent. You keep saying you don't support genocide, and I don't think you support genocide in general as a policy, but I think that in this specific case, if a hand swooped down from heaven and crushed every Arab Palestinian, you'd be "just fine and dandy" with it. And I get that impression from continual statements you make that make Arabs seem like a lesser people than yours, and statements you make where you clearly state that lives on your side have at least a thousand times greater value than lives on theirs. When you say so many times and in so many ways (and there's plenty of evidence of such statements in this thread alone) that you either care less or not at all about them, it's easy to surmise that all their deaths put together wouldn't bother you.
Now add to that your continual advocacy for a policy that many here believe would be tantamount to genocide - forced removal from their homes to an undisclosed location - and you get the icing on the cake. I think that policy would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, I think it would be genocide by the time it was over. If you don't want to argue on that point, then fine. I do note however your past inclusion in this policy of payment to those who voluntarily leave, which I think would make such a policy viable, possibly, but it'd depend on how many took you up on it, and what happens to everyone else. I think I saw polling data a couple years ago from the Palestinian territories that said something like 40% of the people there would take a similar deal. 60% is still a big number, and it's impossible to say what they'd do. The result could still be catastrophic.
Can you at least see why some people think what they think about you and your position, and why it's possible we aren't all liars out to get you?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The lives of anyone trying to wipe me and mine out are of lesser value than our lives.
Lisa, I think the disconnect people are having is your inclusion of those you've described as innocent (as in their innocents are worth less than one of ours) in the group of those trying to wipe you out.
I myself am confused as to what your meaning is in this regard.
What I mean is very simple. It is an individual's obligation to protect himself against someone trying to harm him. It is a nations obligation to protect itself against a nation trying to destroy it.
War sucks. War is a very bad idea. Someone who perpetrates war against someone else should be rendered incapable of doing it again. It's not a game. It's not a contest. War should never happen, and if someone commits it, they should be crushed.
We are responsible for the well-being of our people. They are responsible for the well-being of theirs. We are not responsible for the well-being of theirs. We have no moral obligation, as the victims of their assault, to make sure that we don't harm any innocents that might exist on their side. That's one of the sucky things about war. It's one of the things that makes war qualitatively different than crime.
Crime is an act of individuals. War is an act of nations. A criminal is responsible for his own actions. But a nation is responsible for its own actions as well.
If a person is the member of a nation committing war against others and does not want to get hurt when their nation is opposed, they need to leave. Or they need to stop their nation from committing the war. They can't have it both ways. They can't sit there and engage in social commerce with the very people who are trying to murder others and say, "Well, I didn't actually lift a gun myself".
The non-combatants of a nation committing war are entitled to expect that they not be targeted. They are not entitled to expect that the victims of their nation's aggression should risk themselves to save them.
It's pretty simple. The lives of our innocents are precious to us, and should be. The lives of anyone who is part of a nation committing war against us are not our problem. We don't target them, and should not target them. We should, and do, choose the lesser path when it comes to actions which could take their lives, but only when all other things are equal.
I know that there's an ethos in our Christian dominated society that says the life of another, even someone trying to kill you, is no less of value than your own. I find that frighteningly immoral.
There was a period of time when movies and TV reflected the idea that killing, even in self-defense, was immoral. That it was actually more moral to allow yourself to die than to take the life of someone trying to kill you. Thank God this idea has become less prevalent over the past 15-20 years, because it's a really bad and really wrong idea.
To go back to the issue of our responsibility for their non-combatants, there is a reason why international law forbids using medical emergency vehicles to transport weapons. Yet the Palestinian Arabs do it all the time. They use our mercy and compassion against us, and laugh at the idea that we think they should be bound by such rules. And when we stop ambulances now to check them for weapons and bombs (which we find with distressing -- but no longer surprising -- regularity), we get accused of harming the passengers in the ambulances. Delaying medical care.
See, we can't win with people who play by no rules themselves. We have to keep to moral rules, because that's who we are. But we can't afford to keep to rules that really aren't moral at all. Not when the people aggressing against us recognize no rules whatsoever.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You're certainly welcome to you're opinion. We have a precedent. I can't tell if you're taking a position or playing devil's advocate/defending someone else's position but, how do you feel about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I do believe that, despite how horrible the effects of those weapons were, they ended a war that would have cost millions more innocent lives. The difference I guess here is how you feel about it. While I still might think it was necessary to do it, I'm not happy about all those innocents who died, or the thousands who suffered the lingering aftereffects of the bombs and suffered horribly. Despite the horrible things done to Americans by the Japanese, I still don't wish that on them, and yeah, I'm saddened by those who suffered as a result.
I'm not actually taking a position, at least not on Lisa's side or the "other" side.
I'm observing that there are a fair number of posters who seem to be implying that they would never do something similar. Ex:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I completely disagree with this attitude. If I were given the option of killing 300,000 American-hating Muslims to stop another 9/11 then I would refuse.
or the disapproval of
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Nine Israeli soldiers died today in house-to-house fighting. Note: The purpose of house-to-house fighting, when it'd be easier just to drop a bomb on the neighborhood, is to avoid civilian casualties.
That's nine more boys we sacrificed for the sake of saving Arab lives.
It wasn't worth it.
In response, I'm formally noting that "I doubt it." If positions were reversed, if the US was the one surrounded by enemies, fighting for its very existence. If the US was practically at war one way or another for decades. If the US was the one that relatively suffered a Holocaust, then I really doubt that a fair number of the people of the United States would still *not* consider some of these sentiments and sacrifices of enemy lives acceptable.
Consider that with only a 9/11 incident which killed only a small fraction of the American population, we have already started two invasions, compromised freedoms with approval of wiretapping and military prisons of a dubious nature. How much further would be go if a 9/11 incident killed 10% of the American population? How about 60%?
Some posters seem to be labelling her views as "evil." I think this is unhelpful, I see her views as a potentially pretty inevitable consequence of being human.
I'm not making a moral statement, at least not yet. I'm making a prediction that most humans are not *that* different.
In the end, you've already claimed that you would drop the nuclear bombs again, but you would feel "bad" about it. From the POV of those that died, does it really make a huge difference whether the person making the decision is someone that feels "very" sorry about it or someone that "kinda" sorry about it?
*shrug*
(To make it clear, my position isn't approval of Lisa's attitudes, it is just that her attitudes are somewhat human)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's sad is that the entire post could have been written by a member of Hamas, with only minor changes to account for "side," and different facts highlighted.
Whether the Hamas post, or the Lisa post, is more accurate, almost doesn't matter. As long as people believe "We are responsible for the well-being of our people. They are responsible for the well-being of theirs. We are not responsible for the well-being of theirs. We have no moral obligation, as the victims of their assault, to make sure that we don't harm any innocents that might exist on their side," as long as people believe that "My family has more moral worth then your family," then this type of conflict will continue to exist, and end only in either ethnic cleansing or genocide.
Ethnic cleansing is what both Lisa, and Hamas advocate... the removal of the other group from land they are currently living on, based on ethnic grouping.
Lisa responded to my above post, and then deleted it. One of the things she said in the post was that the section of talmud I referenced refers only to Israelites. This is true. What is also true is that any "moral" system that puts greater inherent moral worth on one person then on another is an evil moral system, and promotes exactly the kind of thinking Lisa demonstrates. The Talmud is frozen in time, but our understanding of it is not, and all sane people recognize that as long as one group believes they are worth more then all other groups, their group will be at war with all other groups.
I suspect if you asked rabbi's "I can either save the life of one jew, or 100 non-jews, but I can't do both. Which should I do?" the, possibly vast, majority would not say to save the jew because the jew has greater inherent worth.
Moral thinking in Judaism continues to evolve past what is laid out in the Talmud... and this is a good thing.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In the end, you've already claimed that you would drop the nuclear bombs again, but you would feel "bad" about it. From the POV of those that died, does it really make a huge difference whether the person making the decision is someone that feels "very" sorry about it or someone that "kinda" sorry about it?
Well, the difference is between feeling bad about it, feeling it was horrible but necesssary, and feeling like it was just "fine and dandy." That's a much bigger difference than degrees of badness. And it might not matter to them, but it makes all the difference to me.
quote:Consider that with only a 9/11 incident which killed only a small fraction of the American population, we have already started two invasions, compromised freedoms with approval of wiretapping and military prisons of a dubious nature. How much further would be go if a 9/11 incident killed 10% of the American population? How about 60%?
And millions upon millions of people think that the consequences of those attacks are a grave error. We aren't all lockstep together on that one.
Our humanity, the morality of things, these sort of philosophical debates, as often as not are about why we do things rather than the thing itself. Killing isn't black and white obviously. Killing in self defense, killing for fun, these things aren't the same on the moral scale, they aren't the same in the eyes of the law either. Why we do something has always mattered and it always will matter, and how we feel about doing it matters too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I suspect if you asked rabbi's "I can either save the life of one jew, or 100 non-jews, but I can't do both. Which should I do?" the, possibly vast, majority would not say to save the jew because the jew has greater inherent worth.
I suspect that if you had to save either your child or 100 skinheads, you wouldn't think twice about letting the skinheads twist in the wind. Bloody hypocrite.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
