Yes. Muslims tended to kick ass. But since the 2nd generation Muslims were Iranians, @BitconnectCarlos was spouting bullshit about how Arab Muslims were great colonizers. They weren't. And complaining about Arab Muslims from 1200 freaking years ago adjacent to some bullshit about Hamas, gives the appearance of bigotry.

Let's complain about the Hebrew invasion of the "promised land" and then immediately talk about what we all know about what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. That bullshit would be anti-Semitism.

Dammit why can't anybody on this forum read the posts they're responding to? :groan:

Let's complain about the Hebrew invasion of the "promised land" and then immediately talk about what we all know about what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. That bullshit would be anti-Semitism.

Dammit why can't anybody on this forum read the posts they're responding to? :groan: — frank

I mean dude, these are the terms the people actually fighting often think in, so stop being so dismissive. The far right in Israel think in terms of regaining "Samaria and Judea".. that is ancient. The Muslims think in terms of clearing the ancient Muslim Empire of any group having political control of once Muslim controlled lands. That is how Jihadists think. This isn't ancient history, even if it should be.

In fact, I don't even know your point. Muslims/Arabs "colonized" the Middle East by conquering the other empires there! You can't get more "colonizing" than that! Whether or not the inhabitants converted peacefully over time is another matter.

Let me explain this again.

To complain about Hebrews from the Bronze Age, and then immediately bring up what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians is antisemitism. This is because all Jews are being lumped together and accused to being violent invaders.

That's what @BitconnectCarlos was doing, except he was doing it to Muslims.

Is there any part of that which seems confusing to you?

Ok, can you send me the link the post?

8000 children murdered, and apologists are outraged over…the accuracy of “genocide” and “concentration camp.”

8000 children murdered, and apologists are outraged over…the accuracy of “genocide” and “concentration camp.” — Mikie

over 2,000+ people were killed at Pearl Harbor. It ended with the dropping of two atomic bombs, and now a prosperous Japan. What's your point? Am I justifying any of the violence, no. But it does matter because there is a HUGE difference between WAR and GENOCIDE.

thanks for saving me the time and aggravation.

But I also think there is a sort of naivete of how warfare manifests. — schopenhauer1

For example, destroying Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan probably needed massive amounts of force. — schopenhauer1

It did, but despite not a single German city being left standing, the Germans fought on until the bitter end. The mass killing of civilians did not cause a surrender or a breaking of the will of the population. It was military action, taking place overwhelmingly on the eastern front, that decided that war.

Similarly for Japan, Japanese resistance was not broken by bombing but by their political leadership understanding the futility in carrying on the fight. They were ready to sue for peace before the Allies nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Strategic bombing as a means to a decisive victory is understood to be wrong in military academic circles. Given that fact, I think the intentional mass murder of civilians can't be justified even in these wars in which much was at stake, thus I view them all as war crimes and morally abject.

What Western countries have always had a hard time figuring out is how to conduct asymmetrical warfare whereby the enemy hides amidst the population, uses tunnels, and in the case of groups like Isis and Hamas, use a variety of barbaric terrorist methods, no matter the cost to their own people. — schopenhauer1

Certainly. However, there is a crucial element that shouldn't be overlooked.

An insurgency can only be undertaken against an occupier.

So when Western countries are facing stubborn insurgencies that don't allow themselves to be rooted out, the first question should be: why are we there as the occupier in the first place?

:up:

But it does matter because there is a HUGE difference between WAR and GENOCIDE. — schopenhauer1

Of course there is. Scratch a hyperbolist, find a useful idiot.

I could share photos of Nazi concentration camps, but I'll do my ancestors the respect not to trot those out. — Hanover

I love this one. Your ancestors are rolling around in their graves for you defending what the Nazis did to them.

, I guess it's customary to discuss the context from world war 2 onwards.

Both parties lay claim to religio-historical areas (+ there's a contemporary geo-context) ... Both parties have exhibited sort of genocidal tendencies if you will ... The badness on both sides has been re-repeated throughout the threat...err...thread many times (often by loud partisans) ...

What am I missing? :) What would be some good stuff, suggestions toward peace stability prosperity, forward-looking, something like that? (assuming there are any)

It was military action, taking place overwhelmingly on the eastern front, that decided that war. — Tzeentch

I would quibble over this, as after the Invasion of Normandy, the Western front became overwhelmingly successful. But yes, the turning point were the battles on the Eastern front.

Similarly for Japan, Japanese resistance was not broken by bombing but by their political leadership understanding the futility in carrying on the fight. They were ready to sue for peace before the Allies nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. — Tzeentch

Perhaps. And it is this is why I bring it up. The arguments should be made for how hard one should use military force, not other issues that are not the case, like "this is a genocide", which again given the history of actual genocides, seems like a cynical ploy. I think the inaccuracy of that framing, means it should be dropped for a more apt argument about how war is to be conducted.

Strategic bombing as a means to a decisive victory is understood to be wrong in military academic circles. Given that fact, I think the intentional mass murder of civilians can't be justified even in these wars in which much was at stake, thus I view them all as war crimes and morally abject. — Tzeentch

Okay, but you see that is a different argument. That is saying "War, what is it good for?". War can never be justified. But again, different type of argument. Now that the argument has become properly framed, the debate can in good faith continue. I would say that there is a middle ground where "War is never justified", and "Maximum force is necessary to achieve objective". I think it is indeed the case that most generals tend towards the maximal. However, I think you should always allow the enemy to have ways of standing down. I think in this case, it could be argued that Israel can propose ideas for Hamas to stand down, even if Hamas (for whatever reason) does not do this themselves. I noticed in your examples, you provided ways in which indeed the enemy did sue for peace by standing down. Well, that is not the case right now with Hamas. If the objective is to get rid of Hamas, there are only a few ways that could go. But as Friedman points out, perhaps a worse fate for Hamas would have to live amongst the people they dragged into this mess. But it wouldn't be just "leave them be to reform with new batch of terrorists". Rather, it would have to be an international force, including Israel supervising the area until they commit to peaceful political parties. I do not think it would be responsible for Israel to just leave, nor do I think it responsible for them to simply take it over with no plan. So we can agree on it there.

Certainly. However, there is a crucial element that shouldn't be overlooked.

An insurgency can only be undertaken against an occupier.

So when Western countries are facing stubborn insurgencies that don't allow themselves to be rooted out, the first question should be: why are we there as the occupier in the first place? — Tzeentch

But this again assumes EVERY insurgency is morally justified. That is a ridiculous notion. "You represent the underdog, and are willing to fight for a cause, and do so using terrorism, therefore your cause is right". That doesn't make sense. Just because, for example, Isis, or the Lord's Resistance Party, or Islamist insurgency in the Sahel, or the Sandinistas, or Contras, or the Shining Path, or the represents an "insurgency" or some "underdog" doesn't mean they are morally justified to carry on with their operations.

And you too join the group who rant and rave, but for reasons I do not understand will not address or engage with, much less attempt any rational or reasonable answer to the question that amounts to, what should the Israelis do?

???

But it does matter because there is a HUGE difference between WAR and GENOCIDE. — schopenhauer1

Right. And this is genocide. Sorry you can’t get your mind around it. Too bad.

Again, Vaskane joins the group of people unable to comprehend the notion that the Israelis might just feel a need to respond to the Oct. 7th attack, and to express an opinion as to what they might do, or that they think the Israelis ought to do in response, being themselves content to just rant that it's all the Jew's fault. For what? For existing? The right of defense, we suppose, is primordial. But I guess the Jew's don't have that right. Right? Yes? No?

My apologies to you for not recognizing that your use of the term "genocide" is the bureaucratic definition used by the UN. I consider their definition far too broad and sweeping because it results in 'genocide' becoming an ambiguous 'basket term' covering too many hateful and destructive events and acts directed at groups being classified as "genocide".

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe the acts of the Nazi regime in Europe. He also applied it to the extensive destruction of the Armenian people by Turkey in 1915. Those two events set a high bar for an event to qualify as a genocide.

Please note, moderator, that I didn't find it necessary to describe your response in derogatory terms.

↪BC What's good BC whatcha need help with? — Vaskane

↪Hanover I didn't know 1.8 million Jews have been slaughtered since the 1960's In Europe ... Oh wait they haven't, because that post is a statistical fallacy nightmare. — Vaskane

Post WWII emigration has resulted in a decline of the Jewish population in Europe. What is the statistical fallacy nightmare you are talking about?

On this tendentious use of language.

The Nazi atrocity against the Jewish population has a unique name : the Holocaust. This term should not be used of other slaughters.

However, 'concentration camp' was used already of the internment carried out by Britain during the Boer War.

'Genocide' has been defined by international treaty, and legitimately used of events in various places such as Bosnia, Rwanda, and Myanmar.

So to the language police, "Do not exceed your remit!"

It does matter, because now you are making someone "defend a genocide" rather than a war, and being this is a philosophy forum, people are just going to "rest their case" because "genocide". All done, now we can go home... You must be a genocide-supporter see! What did I tell ya! Yeah, it is a tactic to make the debate about defending genocide, but what if I do not agree those are the terms of this debate? Then you will point to whatever person wrote this or that article which has supported your case. And then we are at a standstill. Okay, and then what? Well, one person will say, "At least I'm not for genocide?!" But then I can just turn it around and say Hamas supports genocide, or is committing genocide in whatever way they have capacity to do so. Okay, now what? It's a straw man debate and moves the substantive questions of how force should be used in war to a realm of something else.

It does matter, because now you are making someone "defend a genocide" — schopenhauer1

I didn't say it doesn't matter, I said one cannot rule it out on principle, but one has to look at what is happening and what is being justified by what rhetoric. If a genocide is happening, then either one tries to defend it or one condemns it. One cannot look at some other event and claim that because the death toll was higher there, this event cannot be counted.

I didn't say it doesn't matter, I said one cannot rule it out on principle, but one has to look at what is happening and what is being justified by what rhetoric. If a genocide is happening, then either one tries to defend it or one condemns it. One cannot look at some other event and claim that because the death toll was higher there, this event cannot be counted. — unenlightened

When I looked back, my basic argument was already made here, and in more detail, so I just defer to this, as to what I am trying to convey here:

My apologies to you for not recognizing that your use of the term "genocide" is the bureaucratic definition used by the UN. I consider their definition far too broad and sweeping because it results in 'genocide' becoming an ambiguous 'basket term' covering too many hateful and destructive events and acts directed at groups being classified as "genocide".

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe the acts of the Nazi regime in Europe. He also applied it to the extensive destruction of the Armenian people by Turkey in 1915. Those two events set a high bar for an event to qualify as a genocide.

Please note, moderator, that I didn't find it necessary to describe your response in derogatory terms. — BC

\
Also, I brought up to another poster that in WW2, 2000+ (mostly military) personnel were killed in Pearl Harbor. At the end of the conflict, two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan.

Now possibly, this can be considered a "genocide". What I'm saying is, if it's used in such a wide scope, then genocide loses meaning or just becomes another term that is bandied about like "war crime". So yeah, pile it on if you must, but that isn't the substantive issue of the case. For example, all those terms and pointing to this or that definition is hiding the actual philosophical/moral dilemma which is how you conduct a conflict against an enemy polity.

In the moral case of Japan, the issue was often put in terms of how many people would die in a ground invasion versus two large bombs that were relatively unknown. Now, perhaps that was not the right decision. I certainly wouldn't want to make it. Possibly the biggest moral dilemma any political person ever faced in modern times. But it's about war and how much force to use and when, etc. That is the debate.

my basic argument was already made here, — schopenhauer1

What is your argument though, that current usage is wrong because we need lots of words to uniquely ly describe the Holocaust? It's a very weak argument, given that genocide has an agreed definition in international law, and the unique term already exists for what the Nazis did. I describe how these terms are used; no one talks of "The Genocide". So you are simply wrong, the English speaking community including international bodies and common parlance do not follow your preferred usage. you don't get to dictate the language.

Whatever rules you have for your restrictions on language are your our rules that don't mean much to me. I'll continue to use the word to describe the Palestinian situation if I wish. — Vaskane

You can talk gobbledegook if you like, as far as I'm concerned mate; I'm describing common usage and objecting to those who wish to rule it out of bounds.

Ok so under this definition:

with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. — BC

Almost every war in the 20th and 21st century constitutes a genocide.

Possibly. But it would be off topic to discuss them all here. But Note the magic word "intent". This is why attention to the rhetoric of the belligerents is important. One can look for both a disregard in practice between combatants and civilians and a corresponding disregard in political rhetoric. But it is a legitimate suggestion whenever there is widespread conflict and large civilian casualties.

Those are your rules for word usage. Not mine. — Vaskane

They're not rules of mine, but my understanding of polite careful speech. You say what you like and the site owner will let you know what his rules are. My writ does not run here, I merely opine.

I see you skipped this post, which I believe the strongest against your case:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/866645

Would it be "off topic" if by comparing them it might reveal that the definition becomes too wide? But anyways, indeed, in this case, it is about the methods for which are employed to "defeat Hamas". What does that take, what are the alternatives, what might work better, etc.

If you are just going to say, "War itself is genocide" I just won't take it seriously as an argument. Often war ends up being two ethnically different group, but when one ethnic group's polity goes to war against another, and even if they use maximum force, that doesn't mean "genocide".