I see you skipped this post, which I believe the strongest against your case:
Would it be "off topic" if by comparing them it might reveal that the definition becomes too wide? — schopenhauer1
Too wide for your narrow mind? It seems to function s a legal definition. I am objecting to the ruling out of language in common use — can you explain your objection to my objection? — unenlightened
But you completely discount the event in which it was coined The Genocide of Armenians which Armenians still refer to it as "the Genocide." — Vaskane
Define something however you want to fit your case, man. — schopenhauer1
I observed that there is a futile argument over the mere words, and sought to resolve it. I wasn't even addressing you particularly. — unenlightened
And Bibi's regime took the bait, so fuck 'em too. — 180 Proof
I guess the Armenians aren't out here flaming down people with the Anti-Armenian League propaganda. — Vaskane
Apparently, you'be not been paying attention — 180 Proof
The genocide — oh, sorry, I mean that very just “war” on innocent children — continues. Eight thousand dead and counting. — Mikie
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
The genocide — oh, sorry, I mean that very just “war” on innocent children — continues. Eight thousand dead and counting.
— Mikie
Boo hoo — Merkwurdichliebe
The genocide — oh, sorry, I mean that very just “war” on innocent children — continues. Eight thousand dead and counting.
— Mikie
Boo hoo — Merkwurdichliebe
What a truly repugnant response. — Mikie
Cite where I "sympathize with Hamas" or retract your slander.you Hamas symps — Merkwurdichliebe
WW2 history must turn you into a quivering wreck. — RogueAI
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. — schopenhauer1
I would say that there is a middle ground where "War is never justified", and "Maximum force is necessary to achieve objective". — schopenhauer1
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. — schopenhauer1
I think every insurgency fought against a foreign occupation can be justified. That doesn't mean the insurgents are the 'good guys', but a foreign occupier has no right to be there in the first place and are by definition in the wrong. — Tzeentch
On what basis can you condemn Hamas for its attacks if you see no problem with what Israel is doing today? They're simply using "maximum force necessary to achieve objectives" as well. — Tzeentch
Hamas actually has a better civilian to combatants killed ratio and they are explicitly terrorist. That says a lot. And just because they antagonized Israel, use human shields, deprive their people of aid, etc., doesn't justify terror or wanton killing on the part of Israel. Clearly. Tit for tat stops at war crimes. — ToothyMaw
any Israeli responses to being attacked, like striking the network of dug-in underground tunnels filled with ammunitions, Hamas fighters, and hostages (purposefully built under densely populated areas) will be decried as wrong for exactly the reasons Hamas built the tunnels under these infrastructures in the first place.. to make it near impossible to get to without killing civilians, enacting world outrage, and purposefully entangling their own civilian's lives into the conflict itself, all the while using children and women as soldiers and shields. — schopenhauer1
Israel thus now has to balance Gazan's civilians with its military goals, but this is the situation that the Hamas-run Gaza has set up. Being that they have no scruples or moral compass other than "jihad" and "fuck the Jews and the Jewish state" — schopenhauer1
That would definitely be antisemitic. — ToothyMaw
That something as repugnant as Hamas would be voted in was a likely consequence of the way Israel treated the Palestinians. They might not have scruples, but they will take up arms against the oppressor fearlessly, and that could be appealing to an oppressed people. — ToothyMaw
They might not have scruples, but they will take up arms against the oppressor fearlessly, and that could be appealing to an oppressed people. — ToothyMaw
Hamas is going to do whatever it takes to win, but we have zero capability to change them — ToothyMaw
This makes absolutely no sense to me. If your insurgency is about setting up something like an Isis or death squads or any pretty much dysfunctional or evil or totalitarian or fundamentalist society, the moral justification for that insurgency becomes suspect or negated. — schopenhauer1
Haha, I don’t know why but this right there is so oddly obvious, in its characterization of Hamas and its rhetoric, it is oddly out of place. Like calling Osama bin Laden only slightly anti-America. What was it that tipped you off? Was it the actions or the rhetoric? — schopenhauer1
That something as repugnant as Hamas would be voted in was a likely consequence of the way Israel treated the Palestinians. They might not have scruples, but they will take up arms against the oppressor fearlessly, and that could be appealing to an oppressed people.
— ToothyMaw
That’s a farce. Hamas was the organizations that killed thousands of Israelis in the 90s and 2000s amidst Oslo peace process not even wanting to give it a chance. They want all of Israel. Then when Sharon pulled Israeli settlements out of Gaza and they held elections, instead of voting in a moderate government, they voted in Hamas and sent rockets to Israel. They also burned down the greenhouses that Israel were left for them to use for their economic benefit. They don’t care about development or a thriving culture for their people. Purely about war. They ran that economy into the ground with all the aid they got. — schopenhauer1
They might not have scruples, but they will take up arms against the oppressor fearlessly, and that could be appealing to an oppressed people.
— ToothyMaw
The first part of your sentence negates the second part. Isis or Boko Harem aren’t righteous SIMPLY because they are fighting a perceived oppressor. That’s an oddly amoral argument for a relation dynamic that doesn’t consider the means and ends of the people involved. — schopenhauer1
But moreover, occupation and oppression breed extremism, and certainly in the case of Hamas it is a direct result of how the Palestinians were treated by Israel over the course of decades. — Tzeentch
If Israel wants to get rid of Hamas, it should end the occupation. Hamas' reason for existence disappears, and moderates will take their place. — Tzeentch
Of course, this is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the Israeli right-wing political establishment, and that is the problem. — Tzeentch
So then I can use that argument for why Israel kept voting in right wing parties. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.