foolish question

[koban]

Are you talking about justice or murder? A society killing a rapist for committing rape is justice. An individual killing his neighbor because he wants to sleep with his wife is murder.

And an army killing non-combatants, old men, women, children, infants, the unborn - because they want their territory?

What would you call that?

Never mind Joshua - what would you call a modern army that performed that action in order to benefit materially from it?

 

[paulpeterson83]

So, genuineoriginal, from what I've been reading in your posts you would have no problem with an invading army coming to your home after defeating the troops, raping and brutalizing your wife, daughters, sons, and who ever else is in the area and then killing you all because you were there and are thusly a threat to them. You would have no problem with that what so ever? Because thats what your defending.

How is that the actions of a just or moral general? We have a name for those things, war crimes. You sir are an advocate of war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. Which is exactly what the Hebrews were doing. You must have been asleep during the whole Bosnia thing. So, in your view was Po Pot fully justified in what he did? Or Mao? Or Stalin? You are a mad man who advocates the wanton slaughter of men women and children. Let me guess your great great grandfather was with Custer and his crusade to slaughter the Native Americans. Was our government justified in what we did to those people?

Wait let me guess, its only okay if "gods people" are doing it? Well what does that make your god? A mad "god", a creature on a power trip, something greater then man in stature, but lacking base and simple morals. So is it great then us in power or just in its ability to throw off the morals that even the basest of humans have.

 

[Stripe]

GO, it seems perfectly clear to me that the only reasonable way to survive this thread (if one is silly enough to get sucked into it in the first place) is to admit i have no defence for any situation that involves the killing of unarmed people in a wartime scenario. also i feel it is important to add that trying to come up with such a defence is a morally bankrupt exercise as well.

my suggestion?.. let it go.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So, genuineoriginal, from what I've been reading in your posts you would have no problem with an invading army coming to your home after defeating the troops, raping and brutalizing your wife, daughters, sons, and who ever else is in the area and then killing you all because you were there and are thusly a threat to them. You would have no problem with that what so ever? Because thats what your defending.

Actually, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect this from any invading army. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue about what armies do, despite the massive amount of literature about what is done in war. I am only trying to defend the facts about what armies do in war. I think it is just fine for me to defend myself, my home, and anyone near me to the extent of my abilities from an invading army, but I won't fool myself into thinking that they will not rape, pillage, and burn everything in their path.

How is that the actions of a just or moral general? We have a name for those things, war crimes. You sir are an advocate of war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. Which is exactly what the Hebrews were doing. You must have been asleep during the whole Bosnia thing. So, in your view was Po Pot fully justified in what he did? Or Mao? Or Stalin? You are a mad man who advocates the wanton slaughter of men women and children. Let me guess your great great grandfather was with Custer and his crusade to slaughter the Native Americans. Was our government justified in what we did to those people?

Wait let me guess, its only okay if "gods people" are doing it? Well what does that make your god? A mad "god", a creature on a power trip, something greater then man in stature, but lacking base and simple morals. So is it great then us in power or just in its ability to throw off the morals that even the basest of humans have.

I have noticed that you (plural) seem to have a name for a lot of things. You call the normal wartime actions "war crimes" as if there is some human court that has jurisdiction over the acts of nations. You call abortion a woman's "choice" as if it was not murder. You call homosexuality an "alternative lifestyle" as if it was not a violent, disease ridden, perversion.
I am not a mad man who advocates killing, I am a realist who understands that people will kill men, women, and children during war. You gave some powerfull examples of my point, but left out Hitler, Gengis Kahn, Mao Tse Tung, Alexander the Great, and Napolean.
As far as I can trace, my ancesters were in other countries until after the Civil War. We had no part of the American territorial expansion, but I am a Native American because I was born here.
My God is a righteous God. He created the Heavens and the Earth, and all that is in them. If you have any problem with what He does with His creation, talk to Him about it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

GO, it seems perfectly clear to me that the only reasonable way to survive this thread (if one is silly enough to get sucked into it in the first place) is to admit i have no defence for any situation that involves the killing of unarmed people in a wartime scenario. also i feel it is important to add that trying to come up with such a defence is a morally bankrupt exercise as well.

my suggestion?.. let it go.

Stipe, thank you. I had started out trying to point out that war consists of killing, raping, pillaging, and burning, and got sucked into trying to justify these actions. You are right. I do not have to defend what happens in war. If other people want to believe that war is painting flowers on their minivans and having sex with strangers:kookoo:, then who am I to try to tell them they are wrong? I have read enough history to know what really happens in war.

I will let it go.

 

[paulpeterson83]

Actually, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect this from any invading army. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue about what armies do, despite the massive amount of literature about what is done in war. I am only trying to defend the facts about what armies do in war. I think it is just fine for me to defend myself, my home, and anyone near me to the extent of my abilities from an invading army, but I won't fool myself into thinking that they will not rape, pillage, and burn everything in their path.

You must not have studied war very well. You show your ignorance of it. And invading army doesnt destroy the civilian population, it subdues the people and makes them its citizens. It doesnt wipe every one out. You must have only studied the Hebrew way to make war. If you really had studied war at all you would know that the last thing you want to do is destroy the civilian population. Would you mind citeing the sources that you've learned this from? Maybe you would like to take a look at tactics of the Romans and the Greeks. The last thing they did was destroy the whole population, or bring destruction down on them. You have to have some one to rule.

I have noticed that you (plural) seem to have a name for a lot of things. You call the normal wartime actions "war crimes" as if there is some human court that has jurisdiction over the acts of nations. You call abortion a woman's "choice" as if it was not murder. You call homosexuality an "alternative lifestyle" as if it was not a violent, disease ridden, perversion.

And your a psychopath. One more person I'm glad will never have any real power.

I am not a mad man who advocates killing, I am a realist who understands that people will kill men, women, and children during war. You gave some powerfull examples of my point, but left out Hitler, Gengis Kahn, Mao Tse Tung, Alexander the Great, and Napolean.

If you knew anything about what you were talking about then you would know different. Alexander the Great defeated his enemies on the battle field but brought the wisdom of Grece to the people he conqured, he didnt rape and pillage the civilian populations. Mao was a communist dictator that turned his eye against his own people and killed those who opposed him. Napolean also didnt attack the civilian population, he beat the armies and ruled over the land he conqured. You obviously know nothing of history or of war. Shut up child and go read a book. Or how about this, you cite your vast amount of data showing the contrary. But wait, it isnt there. Allsmile cited the most recognized source of military knowledge on the planet, what have you got?

As far as I can trace, my ancesters were in other countries until after the Civil War. We had no part of the American territorial expansion, but I am a Native American because I was born here.

So you didnt answer my question. Right on.

My God is a righteous God. He created the Heavens and the Earth, and all that is in them. If you have any problem with what He does with His creation, talk to Him about it.

Your god is nothing more then a man on a power trip. I would but he isnt there, so kind of makes it hard. I'm not a fan of talking to myself, then again, talking to you is a lot like talking to a wall.

 

[koban]

You must not have studied war very well. You show your ignorance of it. And invading army doesnt destroy the civilian population, it subdues the people and makes them its citizens. It doesnt wipe every one out. You must have only studied the Hebrew way to make war. If you really had studied war at all you would know that the last thing you want to do is destroy the civilian population. Would you mind citeing the sources that you've learned this from? Maybe you would like to take a look at tactics of the Romans and the Greeks. The last thing they did was destroy the whole population, or bring destruction down on them. You have to have some one to rule.



And your a psychopath. One more person I'm glad will never have any real power.



If you knew anything about what you were talking about then you would know different. Alexander the Great defeated his enemies on the battle field but brought the wisdom of Grece to the people he conqured, he didnt rape and pillage the civilian populations. Mao was a communist dictator that turned his eye against his own people and killed those who opposed him. Napolean also didnt attack the civilian population, he beat the armies and ruled over the land he conqured. You obviously know nothing of history or of war. Shut up child and go read a book. Or how about this, you cite your vast amount of data showing the contrary. But wait, it isnt there. Allsmile cited the most recognized source of military knowledge on the planet, what have you got?



So you didnt answer my question. Right on.



Your god is nothing more then a man on a power trip. I would but he isnt there, so kind of makes it hard. I'm not a fan of talking to myself, then again, talking to you is a lot like talking to a wall.

Paul!

Are we a little cranky today?

Didn't get our nappy in the afternoon? :chuckle:

 

[paulpeterson83]

Paul!

Are we a little cranky today?

Didn't get our nappy in the afternoon? :chuckle:

Well, seeing as its 1:30 in the morning, no I'm fine. I'm just sick of people preaching their blood thirsty rhetoric. Some times you gotta truthsmack some one.

 

[On Fire]

i've been eating him for breakfast for like a week now and i'm sick of leftovers

Learn to recognize your own vomit. :chew:

 

[On Fire]

Paul!

Are we a little cranky today?

Didn't get our nappy in the afternoon? :chuckle:

I'm guessing he's still unemployed (sleeps all day, chats and surfs for p0rn all night). Maybe his mom forgot to bring him dinner?

 

[Granite]

And an army killing non-combatants, old men, women, children, infants, the unborn - because they want their territory?

What would you call that?

Never mind Joshua - what would you call a modern army that performed that action in order to benefit materially from it?

"War criminals" is the usual phrase.

 

[allsmiles]

Stipe, thank you. I had started out trying to point out that war consists of killing, raping, pillaging, and burning, and got sucked into trying to justify these actions. You are right. I do not have to defend what happens in war. If other people want to believe that war is painting flowers on their minivans and having sex with strangers:kookoo:, then who am I to try to tell them they are wrong? I have read enough history to know what really happens in war.

I will let it go.

:rotfl:

for the love of the gods, this guy is a moron!!!

:rotfl:

 

[Stripe]

love god

through my binoculars i can see .. a long way away ... a great big line of people.

do us a favour AS?

 

[allsmiles]

through my binoculars i can see .. a long way away ... a great big line of people.

do us a favour AS?

what?

 

[Granite]

Yeah, I didn't get it either.

 

[Stripe]

thats probably for the best ...

 

[logos_x]

This kind of "reasoning" never fails to amaze me. We're an odd bunch, us humans.

Killing a squatter and all his kids is murder, short and simple.

But the situation isn't really so simple. It's people killing other people over land, and justifying their brutality with appeals to the "authority" of their tribal wargod.

Like Allah?

No...clearly in our world today there is no place for "tribal wargods".

And, I view the incident in question to be God the Father saying the same thing thousands of years ago.

To me that's obvious. But that, I suppose, is because I believe the God of the Bible is the One God above all others...which were monsterous, fickle, and irrational "wargods" that demanded human sacrifice of children to "gain" their favor.

Their error needed to be done away with. And it needed to be done in a way that no one would dare repeat it.

Today...terrorist groups have their wargod they call Allah. They sacifice their children in homicide bombings. What will it take to put this away?

In a bad situation, where war is the only vaible recourse because the enemy leaves no other option, history shows that fighting fire with fire leads to actions which will be hard to explain later on.

That is just reality.

 

[Balder]

Yes, I think the fundamentalist Muslims are a good example of an Abrahamic people who relate to God primarily as a wargod. I believe the early Hebrews related to God in a similar way. In fact, I suspect that in these fundamentalist, militaristic Muslims -- killing unbelievers, stoning sinners, blowing up Buddha statues -- we "glimpse" something of the world of the ancient Hebrews. I don't think what was going on with them is really that different from what is going on with these Muslims now, in terms of the types of activities they engage in and the "holy justification" in which such actions are dressed.

 

[Yorzhik]

This thread is too big. Fool, can you give your answer in a nutshell as to why Knight's and Bob's answers were different initially?

 

[Stripe]

you think THIS thread is big?