In theory, I agree. If Israel can make Hamas stand down and not kill civilians, that would make total sense. After what they did, and so close to it, the fact that you think Hamas should just be invited for a handshake and a side-eye and what, a "noogie", "Eh, you got us!.. You guys..", that's just insane to me. — schopenhauer1

What's insane is that you on the one hand claim to be against killing civilians but think my idea that Israel stop killing massive amounts of civilians is insane. The other stuff you wrote is a frankly idiotic strawman. Are the only two choices you can think of here 1) destroy an entire city of 1.5 million people committing multiple war crimes in the process 2) invite your enemy for a handshake and a side eye? Did I anywhere suggest those were the only two options? Or have you decided to join the kindergartners again? You get one more chance and then you don't get any more of my time.

What's insane is that you on the one hand claim to be against killing civilians but think my idea that Israel stop killing massive amounts of civilians is insane. — Baden

Which is why I brought up WW2 and Britain fighting German and not being only defensive. Was that legitimate, yes or no? As I stated previously:

Also, a tangential but Irish-related question. Strategically, Ireland didn't enter WW2 because they were not fans of Britain and remained somewhat neutral (with some help at various times to Allies). Was that the right decision simply because Ireland's hands were "clean" of being involved in a war? If Britain remained defensive only and did not attack German positions, would they have been the "better" for it?

I'm just trying to get the scope of your notion of legitimacy in conflict. I am also testing to see if you are using various historical scenarios when it suits your argument and then retreating when they don't. It will just be a game of "That was different!" on both sides, you see. — schopenhauer1

What's insane is that you on the one hand claim to be against killing civilians but think my idea that Israel stop killing massive amounts of civilians is insane. The other stuff you wrote is a frankly idiotic strawman. Are the only two choices you can think of here 1) destroy an entire city of 1.5 million people committing multiple war crimes in the process 2) invite your enemy for a handshake and a side eye? Did I any where suggest those were the only two options. Or have you decided to join the kindergartners again? You get one more chance and then you don't get any more of my time., — Baden

Again, in theory, if Hamas can stand down without any civilian casualties, obviously, that is the best option. What is the options in between? What Israel is not going to do have the UN involved, and I don't blame them based on the fact that they can't even condemn various Hamas activities. So if we take the UN off the table as not representing a fair "objective" body for both sides, I would say the best option is to make the war more targeted. I'd say Biden's notion of limited warfare (though he's not holding them to it), is so far the most moral. Not causing massive death is indeed a good goal and I'd agree with that.

Just take the UN off the table :lol: . The UN represents world opinion, you know, the whole world. But let's just take that off the table because the whole world wants Israel to stop committing war crimes. No, you don't get to dismiss the entire world (which have condemned Hamas btw.) because you don't like what they have to say.

Which is why I brought up WW2 and Britain fighting German and not being only defensive. Was that legitimate, yes or no? As I stated previously: — schopenhauer1

Of course it was legitimate. Germany had probably the most powerful military in the world and could easily have defeated and subjugated Britain. It's mind boggling that you think you are making any kind of relevant point here.

Not causing massive death is indeed a good goal and I'd agree with that. — schopenhauer1

Ok, we do agree on something at least. :up:

The UN represents world opinion, you know, the whole world. — Baden

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, if you think that is "the opinion" you are crazy. The UN lost the thread of this conflict right at the beginning. They are nothing but a complaint forum. The humanitarian branches are the main use of it. As for the "political" aspect. It legitimizes all sorts of crazy opinions, and whatever it represents, it isn't "the truth", "objectivity", or even "the world". It has no power, and whatever it was, it's function has ceased to be useful from the start. Is it useful for countries to "decry" American hegemony as they defund their own militaries, sure.

No, you don't get to dismiss the entire world (which have condemned Hamas btw.) because you don't like what they have to say — Baden

Nah, you don't get to call the UN as representative of "the World" either, so we can agree to disagree. The UN is sidelined in practice, and in principle it has become what I said above- a sounding board against US interests mainly. Okie dokie.. Great forum. What comes out of it? Nothing. Rhetoric. Talk. Ways for people in a philosophy forum to point to something else to make it seem their point must be objectively correct.

Of course it was legitimate. Germany was one of the most powerful militaries in the world and could easily have defeated and subjugated Britain. It's mind boggling that you think you are making any kind of relevant point here. — Baden

I don't give a shit about your rhetoric of "mind-boggling"- adds nothing to the case. What is relevant is that sometimes civilian deaths are a tragic part of warfare. It should be minimized as much as possible agree, but it will happen, even in legitimate conflicts. Germany thought they were right too. Tell a die hard Nazi that they shouldn't rule Britain, they would disagree. We can all say, that it is mind-boggingly ridiculous. But that only worked itself out when there was a large bloody conflict where the Allies had to kill a lot of civilians in Germany.

one tribe says that it wants to stand down and recognize the other but the other has to give up some things, and the other refuses, what of it? Who is in the right there? Take out the names and it just looks like who is willing to compromise and who isn't. — schopenhauer1

If we buy into the nonsense that it’s been the Palestinians refusing peace all these years, would this justify supporting the apartheid state that establishes concentration camps?

I don’t think Israel citizens should be killed or punished for having an extreme right wing government— do you agree? If so, we should also agree that the Palestinian people should not be killed or punished for their government’s actions.

If we buy into the nonsense that it’s been the Palestinians refusing peace all these years, would this justify supporting the apartheid state that establishes concentration camps? — Mikie

It wouldn't "justify" it, but it would explain it, and put less of that onus on "That is Israel's failure" and instead of giving no agency or responsibility to Pals (who had a shaky history of moderation in negotiations if any).

I don’t think Israel citizens should be killed or punished for having an extreme right wing government— do you agree? If so, we should also agree that the Palestinian people should not be killed or punished for their government’s actions. — Mikie

I think Israel's rightwing government should call for a vote of no-confidence and Likud should lose. But if Netanyahu had the army do to Palestinians what Hamas did, I would say that it should be dismantled. I don't think bulldozing homes or all the articles you want to send my way amount to what Hamas did, so you can save the copy-pastes. We know the difference.

I don't think bulldozing homes or all the articles you want to send my way amount to what Hamas did, so you can save the copy-pastes. We know the difference. — schopenhauer1

Yes, we know that killing THOUSANDS of children and killing DOZENS of children is indeed a difference.

Yes, we know that killing THOUSANDS of children and killing DOZENS of children is indeed a difference. — Mikie

I am for them being more targeted. I said as such. What else can I say? I want Netanyahu gone. I want a moderate approach to their war in Gaza.

How about saying that you’re against Israel’s concentration camp?

How about saying that you’re against Israel’s concentration camp? — Mikie

Nah, I am not buying to that rhetoric, and I told you the reasons in the last post.

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. — Hanover

:100:

but because the Palestinians are poor and lacking powerful allies and because they diverge from us ethnically and culturally, so they can more easily be dismissed as expendable. — Baden

As a famous American once observed, elections have consequences. Choosing to be ruled by Hamas has led to some disastrous consequences for the Palestinians. Perhaps they will make better choices in the future. Germany and Japan also had to learn this lesson the hard way.

I don't expect anything of you but I think one day Hanover is going to wake up and have a serious D'Oh! moment over that comment.

I don't think so. All societies are not created equal. The United States was superior to the Confederacy. Churchill's Britain was superior to Hitler's Germany. Roosevelt's America was superior to Hirohito's Japan. And so on. Netanyahu's Israel, as bad as it is, is vastly superior to Hamas.

It must feel amazing to feel superior in every way to every one who's not Western, morally and in every way possible all the time every day, like I guess in your choice of ice cream and how you move your fat privileged butt down the street. Yes, amazing. Ly stupid. Expect to be mocked incessantly from now on as you deserve.

All societies are not created equal — RogueAI

No one said they were. Have fun with your irrelevant comments before looking at the words you actually endorsed.

It's amazingly amazing for example how superior and more civilized American politics is to, say, Japanese politics. Trump is probably the best example of this. Americans also live longer and are more intelligent than the Japanese. Yes, indeedie. Superior in every possible way...

I'm just going to keep doing this until you both realize how amazing (ly stupid) you are being and withdraw the comment / endorsement thereof. And no that doesn't mean I don't believe Sweden isn't (in most senses) better than Saudi Arabia. It means you're going to get held to those words until they burn you so bad in shame and embarrassment that you can't stand it any longer.

That doesn't absolve Israel of agency though. — Baden

I remember Blair saying that, by Saddam's actions, Saddam chose to be invaded.

What is the argument now?

But I don't accept a sweeping Western superiority — Baden

Western countries are superior to Middle East countries. You wouldn't choose to live in Iran, or Iraq, or Egypt over Israel for obvious reasons. Few people here would, especially women or LGBTQ.

and I definitely don't accept a sweeping Western superiority as a cover for war crimes.

The Palestinians thought it would be a good idea to put Hamas in charge. Hamas decided to commit mass rape, and kill a bunch of babies, old people and civilians. What did Hamas and the Palestinians think would happen when they went down this road? Did they think it would end well? Did they learn nothing from history? You call it "war-crimes". :roll: I call it the inevitable ass-kicking that happens after something like Oct. 7th.

The Palestinians thought it would be a good idea to put Hamas in charge. Hamas decided to commit mass rape, and kill a bunch of babies, old people and civilians. What did Hamas and the Palestinians think would happen when they went down this road? Did they think it would end well? Did they learn nothing from history? You call it "war-crimes". :roll: I call it the inevitable ass-kicking that happens after something like Oct. 7th. — RogueAI

Why did they do all that then if it's so stupid?

It's amazingly amazing for example how superior and more civilized American politics is to, say, Japanese politics. Trump is probably the best example of this. Americans also live longer and are more intelligent than the Japanese. Yes, indeedie. Superior in every possible way... — Baden

And so we now are talking about the civility of poltics? American politics is more civil than Palestinian politics, at least to the extent there has been an election in the past 20 years in Palestine, with almost half of their population never having actually lived through one. And what a civil leadership they have. Instead of using their money on schools, medicine, or hope of any kind, they spend it on subterranean rat holes designed to funnel homemade rockets so they can launch them onto the unsuspecting party goers next door. Their politics is built only around their hate for their neighbors.

Of course not every politician is wonderful, and not every nation outside the West (like Japan, as you've pointed out) is morally bankrupt, but I have no problem claiming that Western democracies are protective of the rights you hold most dear, and I can say that recognizing that there are other societies outside the west that adhere to the same values, but also recongnizing that we should not promote those that do not.

Why did they do all that then if it's so stupid? — bert1

Good question. Why did the 9/11 hijackers commit suicide to kill American civilians?

"Abu Mohammed picked up his rifle, said farewell to his wife and six children and went out to face the Israeli tanks, helicopter gunships and missile-firing airborne drones.

"Being unable to defeat Israel is no reason to surrender," the Hamas fighter said with a smile as he headed to the Gaza Strip's front line last Saturday, ignoring pleas from his family to stay.

"My children and wife are very dear to me," he said. "But reward in Heaven and the homeland are dearer."

The 38-year-old furniture salesman says he is not afraid to die for the cause of destroying Israel and forging a Palestinian state on all Israel's territory, the West Bank and Gaza Strip."
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-palestinians-israel-fighter/hamas-fighters-battle-on-inspired-by-god-idUKL0312451520080303/

Religious brainwashing has a lot to do with this.

Lol. You know what you wrote is amazingly stupid at best and now you're just going to try to babble it away. Withdraw the comment and get it over with. Or be held to the utterly moronic idea that Western societies are superior "in every way possible"--your words--to non-Western societies.

What is being argued? Are arguing whether Western societies are "superior"? And can we switch out "societies" with "values"? Can we also throw in there, that "Western" leaders can also discard those values just as easily as anyone else?

Just read @Hanover's post.

Can you give me the post? I just got the mention.

This is the quote under scrutiny:

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. — Hanover

The sweeping nature of which makes it obviously false. But I still want it admitted so and withdrawn without any BS attempts to pretend he never said that.