Read carefully: he advised to use chemical weapons. — ssu

But he never did use it, are we discussing the OP or actually history?

And no, chemical weapons were not used in Iraq by the British forces (or else it would be part of the academic curriculum now days in the UK with all the neocolonialism etc). — ssu

OK, no idea what this has to do with the discussion though.

Some might argue thus that genocide is a defensive weapon: if the enemy hostile to your people are multiple times larger, isn't it then good to erase the threat? — ssu

Are we still discussing the OP? I am pretty sure that if Churchill had declared his desire to kill every single German, he would have gotten a lot of support for the idea.

There has to be some grain of reality even in a hypothetical, hence why think that "the only viable weapon" would an ineffective weapon system especially when all German soldiers have gas masks? — ssu

Of course there does, but in hypothetical questions one has to decide what part is reality.
In the OP it states that there is a good chance of success, that means that hypothetically someone must have done his hypothetical homework and reached that hypothetical conclusion. It is hypothetically possible that these particular invaders were to loaded down with admonitions to be able to carry gas masks. It is also hypothetically possible that the Germans thought that the British were to moral to use gas and eliminated them in favor of a couple of bottles of beer.
My point is that we are discussing the hypothetical question in the OP and not reality.

Or to put it another way: if some weapons system is really a game changer on the battlefield, in this World it surely isn't going to be banned. — ssu

This actually highlights the fact that gas being banned is just as ridiculous as banning swords and pikes. There are bigger and better ways to kill of a bunch of people nowadays which really makes both irrelevant.

I have many thoughts on the topic, and some historical data which I'm not prepared to share since they're available to anyone interested enough to bother. — Vera Mont

I asked what you thought, not what is available on the internet.
Could you send me a link to your brain so that i can look for myself.

The most straightforward causes of what is called terrorism ...................... is a people's sense of oppression, repression, and impending existential threat. — Vera Mont

Who oppressed ISIS, al-Qaeda?

This is all irrelevant because they don't have a just cause. If you really want to argue that war crimes are permitted then Hamas did the right thing since everybody is equating them with Palestinians which are an oppressed group. — Benkei

Have the Palestinians denied the claims that hamas represents them and their fight for freedom yet?

I thought this the most salient passage because I think it the crux of the debate on the whole current conflict. — schopenhauer1

Me too. I think that if the bad guys in any situation put noncombatants in danger, then I am not responsible for their safety. And I would not risk my people lives to try and solve that problem.

Israel fails on 4 and 6 for decades already. It is also illegally occupying land and had Gaza turned into an open air prison. — Benkei

How so, their intention is to get rid of a political party called hamas. They did not decide to eradicate hamas until the attack. They tried to live with them before that.

#6 they might have gone too far, but we are sitting far away from the fishbowl and cannot see the complete picture they have. Would you walk into a place were there are a lot of dangerous people trying to kill you while hiding amongst women and children?
If, from their point of view, this is the only way left to put an end to the evils of hamas, then who am I to say that they are wrong.

Its leadership had expressed genocidal intent again and again. — Benkei

I think that after such an attack it would be a normal response. The USA went after ISIS I believe after the attacks. There were fewer cases of lateral damage because the people from ISIS did not hide in peoples houses and hospitals.

Suppose on what evidence? — Vera Mont

In THIS hypothetical question, you use the evidence given in the OP.

I could. But it would take too long and you would never be convinced anyway, so it seems like a futile effort. — Vera Mont

All I asked for is what you think the reasons are for terrorist actions that have happened recently. I suppose that if you do not have any thoughts on the topic you brought up it says a lot about the things you have said so far.

Honestly, I am quite skeptical of how much of this is true, given by how many parallels there are. And if it is true, I would imagine that the story comes from contact with Christian missionaries.

It may seem like I am playing hard to catch but I studied a bit of anthropology and some red flags are being raised for me. — Lionino

There are many reasons not to be certain about it. When did the Genesis version of creation get written down and when christian missionaries go there?

The fact that their DNA remains without external influence for so long seems to indicate lack of contact with the outside world. I think that the Egyptians had a better chance of influencing them long before the christians ever got there, but there is little sign of influence from them.

You wouldn't even have to target N. Korean population centers. In the event of an invasion, tactical nukes against their invading forces would be sufficient. China would object, but they're not going to commit suicide to come to an invading N. Korea's aid. — RogueAI

I am sure that they have lots of other weapons that are just as effective but less damaging. But if not, let the bad birds fly.
On second thoughts, they will need to send at least one to nail the boss man, and he will probably have a lot of people around him. Let em rip, or is it R.I.P.?

Who started the peasants' rebellion? Might the trouble have begun with people with a degree of wealth and education who riled up the peasants? — Athena

The people with a degree of wealth and education had the most to lose from it actually. They were at least responsible for the peasants being able to enact the revolt. Because the lords having were to busy fighting or partying the estates were left for the peasants to run. With the help of the church some of them learned to read and they found out how the legal system worked. They used this to their advantage to try and get things like servitude and land laws changed. Unfortunately there were too few of them and the lords killed all of the ringleaders after the king promised to look into making the changes.

Might that rebellion have begun with Scholasticism? — Athena

Nope, it started well before Scholasticism reached maturity.

Is transubstantiated bread and wine real? :chin: — Athena

What has that got to do with the price of Polish cod? But I have no idea and I doubt you do either.

Well, let's look at one of those lines on a map. If North Korea invades South Korea and has killed hundreds of thousands of citizens in Seoul using gas weapons, and is poised to overrun South Korea, would the U.S. be justified in nuking North Korea to save South Korea? — RogueAI

Oh dear, don't you think that maybe it would be unreasonable and immoral to do something like that? Just think of all of the prisoners innocent people that live in North Korea, it is not their fault that their leader is an ugly twat.

But there again, I have not heard about how they have tried to get rid of him by staging mass revolution or just shooting the ugly mother. So maybe it would be justifiable to do it to get rid of one more dictator. Just make it is small enough that it does the minimum amount of damage possible.

Disclaimer: To the north Korean hackers; the writing contained in this post is for the enjoyment of the readers and in no way is meant as an insult to any world leaders.

Kill 'em all!
But for the sake of all that's unholy, do not, ever address the situations that give rise to terrorism. — Vera Mont

I would suppose that methods of doing this had already been tried, obviously without success.

Maybe you could enlighten us on what you think might be the causes of some of the terroristsy things that have happened recently and give us some advice about prevent them from happening in the future.

As one of the best know acts of terrorism, maybe you could start with 9/11.

After this brief survey of the Just War Tradition we can conclude the following six criteria regarding Ius ad Bellum:

1) right authority; meaning the supreme authority, which cannot turn to a higher authority
2) just cause; of which are identifiable, self-defence, defence of a friend or ally, wars of recovery both immediate and after some time, self-determination and finally humanitarian intervention; no punitive wars are allowed
3) right intention; an authority should have as its aim the common good of all involved although the particular good of its own community may outweigh such considerations; the intention to kill is lawful for a public authority
4) last resort; all other means to solve the conflict must have been tried and failed
5) reasonable chance of success; before waging a war an authority must surmise whether a war will be successful for otherwise he will waste the lives of its citizens
6) proportionality; the evils let loose by war should be proportionate to the evil avoided or the better peace attained — Benkei

Let us suppose the the objective of Israel is to rid the world of a terrorist group that defines itself as representatives of a country.
1. Who can get rid of Hamas? I have not heard of any other authority including the ones in the country they claim to represent offering to do the job.
2. I can think of a couple of things on that list that would cover the situation.
3. Getting rid of the terrorist group would be of benefit to even the people they claim to represent.
4. I am sure that they have tried other means of stopping people killing their people
5. Unless third parties actually intervene I see no reason why success is not a sure thing. And I do not see to many rushing to aid the terrorists.
6. If this method eliminates the terrorists and allows for peace then I am sure other groups will fear the same methods being used against them. The world could actually become a nice place.

Now lets apply it to the OP
1. Churchill was the highest authority, there was no one else he could have passed the decisions on to.
2. Again there are several options here.
3. Defeating the nazi war machine at any cost would benefit the whole world, except those that started the action.
4. No way out of the hole they were in. The bad guys did not want anything but war.
5. As stated in the OP, there was a good chance of success.
6. Again, ridding the world of the bad guys at that moment would halt further evil and make it easier to obtain peace.

I like this idea.

Well, if all the Palestinians have to die in order to stop one terrorist organization out of the sixty or so designated by the CIA, why should we question that moral choice? — Vera Mont

As it says in the article, the Palestinians are the ones that have the responsibility to stop the terrorist that are supposedly acting on their behalf.
Is no one in Gaza telling them to stop being terrorists or is it that no one is listening to their pleas to stop?

Many of the countries that host terrorist groups have corrupt governments that are unwilling to stop them because of the financial gains involved.

So how do you know they are older than the Jews? — Lionino

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-book-of-genesis?lang=eng

Who wrote this book?

Moses is the author of Genesis. Moses was a prophet who was called by God to lead the children of Israel out of bondage from Egypt, through the wilderness, to the promised land of Canaan. Because the events in Genesis occurred before Moses’s time, he did not learn about them firsthand. They were made known to him through revelation (see Moses 1:40; 2:1), and he may also have relied on historical sources available to him (see Abraham 1:31).

Depending on your beliefs, you might think that an all powerful and knowing god wold actually tell his most important person something like this.
The only historical sources available to him that were from before his times were oral histories

I found again the story I was looking for earlier from the Efé Pygmies, it is called the Forbidden Fruit.
The Efé Pygmies have been shown to be one of the oldest intact cultures on Earth by dNA studies.

Pretty sure the Yoruba had no contact with the Egyptians. — Lionino

That was in answer to a comment from someone else that suggested that the stories moved out of Egypt along the trade routes.

Very interesting, I am in total agreement with him.

Spoken like a true nationalist. — Benkei

Me, a nationalist. :rofl: :rofl:
I have not been near my country of birth in 50 years, and I am not even politically minded.

the nation is a specific power structure leveraging a national (often ethnic or cultural) identity to generate loyalty in accordance with that identity — Benkei

And while saying this you keep repeating that the nation is not the people? Who makes up the ethnic or cultural groups if it is not the people? Who are they going to be loyal to if not the people that make up the nation?

None of that proves that the Hebrew creation myth comes from Africa. — Lionino

However, it is impossible to say that African versions of this story are the originals. There is no written material coming out of SSA that is as old as the Mesopotamian sources. The Yeruba people didn't emerge until millennia later and the Asante are a good deal later than them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Nothing proves that the Hebrew creation myth is anything more than a story made up by a bunch of old men with nothing better to do while waiting for an animal to fall into a trap.
But there are a few old African stories, possibly including that of the Yoruba, that were passed by word of mouth from generation to generation well before the Jews existed and contain elements of the creation story related in the bible. We only know about them from when they were made contact with so we have no idea how old their stories are.

Maybe they did copy some ideas from the Egyptians, but I cannot imagine that the old wise men would take kindly to changes being made in the centuries or millennium years old chants that had had to be recited for years to be remembered. Adding a new beginning to oral history I think would tend to screw things up a bit.

He says "Biblical story of creation", not that the story of creation was invented by Christians. Obviously not, since Genesis is in the Torah. — Lionino

My mistake, we were talking about the middle ages which were christian and most bibles contain the old testament.

Source? Businessinsider articles don't count. — Lionino

This is an Asian myth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

There are many creation stories from Africa that have parts similar to the bible. This one contains an all knowing, all seeing god and a snake giving sex ed classes.

https://www.gateway-africa.com/stories/Ashanti_on_procreation.html

This one has gods making people out of clay and a flood

https://www.gateway-africa.com/stories/Yoruba_Creation_Myth.html

When Rome fell the Biblical story of creation remained. Some call this period the Dark Ages. What changed the direction Europe was going? — Athena

The story of creation was not actually a christian idea, it came from African tribes and was already ancient when the christians adopted it.

The western part of the Roman empire was broken down into many little kingdoms that over centuries became larger with only one king and developed the feudal system of government.
Christianity expanded and became the major religion in western Europe and separated for the Orthodox church in the east.

Over the centuries both the church and the lords eventually became so corrupt that the peasants revolted against both.

During the Early and High Middle ages, most advancements came about through the inventiveness of the peasants, better farming methods and tool technology, the use of wind and water power.

The Late Middle Ages was when the started to re-discover the ideas of the ancient Greeks and that started the renaissance.

No. The people, collectively, exist to serve the nation. — Vera Mont

Were do you live? The nation is the people that form it, as a political idea it is there to serve the people. That is why people get elected to be national leaders, so that the nation can serve the people.

Nationalism doesn't exist, and we're just one big happy family? — Tzeentch

I never said that, I am just trying to make it clear what his motivation was.

You're starting to bend yourself in fascinating angles. — Tzeentch

[snark]I must be learning from you![/smark]

But one thing I will bet with you about. If Churchill had used gas to stop the Germans crossing the channel, the people would have loved him for it.

it was the nation and the empire he served, not the people. — Vera Mont

EErr, and just who are the nation and the empire? Surely they are the people?

That's my main point: the idea that in some hypothetical situation usually should mean that this has something to do with reality. — ssu

Churchill never used gas as a weapon so that part is not about reality. We are discussing the possibility of him using it under certain specific conditions.
One of those conditions is the one I specified as its use being the ONLY possible method, in which I stated that I consider that he would be justified in using it.

There are many other possible scenarios, but here I am not making any statements about them.

War crimes and terror are usually done as method of control of the civilian populace: strike so much fear that they won't lift a finger up. Or at worst, having genocide and/or ethnic cleansing as the ultimate objective. — ssu

I think that this does not work in favor of your case, we were using gas as a defensive weapon.

Otherwise it would be like asking if "the only viable method" to continue the existence of humanity would be to rape women, is then forced sex then OK? It's quite a bizarre and loaded question itself which tells something about the person that would ask something like that, because having children and child rearing has been usually done in a consensual manner. — ssu

It is in no way a similar question to the justification of using gas as a weapon.

If it is actually the ONLY method, then there is no other option. Key word ONLY.
If the world, due to some natural disaster, reached a point where there were few people left and the only way to continue the human race was to force people to breed as much as possible even if they were against the idea. Should the human race be allowed to become extinct? Or would it be immoral to force women to have babies?
Please remember that morality is a social construct based on the needs of the society it serves.

Which is clearly a nationalist sentiment, and Churchill was clearly a nationalist.

I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

You seem to be unaware of the nature of the things you're arguing and now you're trying to compensate with snark. — Tzeentch

So when a christian does what he considers the best he can do to protect his family and kills the people attacking them it is a religious sentiment. No it is animal survival instinct, look after the pack, herd, tribe.
Just because Churchill had a bigger family does not make it a nationalist sentiment, he did not make the decisions he made just because he was British but as the person responsible for the people he was in charge of.

Incredible! The thought-experiment gets less plausible by the minute. — Vera Mont

It started as an implausible situation and has continued throughout as one. What if questions usually have that characteristic.

Then how would it stop the enemy, who would presumably be more prepared for gas attack than the local peasants? — Vera Mont

If, in this imaginary scenario, Churchill's intelligence agencies had told him that gas was the best weapon to use, on would presume that they did so because they knew that the nazi invaders were not prepared for its use.

How do you use poison gas on an enemy incursion by sea and air, without affecting a large portion of your own civilian population? You can't. Just have to write off the casualties as collateral damage - which puts — Vera Mont

My dad told me that nearly all of the people in England had gas masks, so I doubt there there would be too much collateral damage.
And the reason everyone had them was that there was amply evidence that the nazis had gas and were prepared to use it. After all all they really needed was the territory and a lot of the people would have been exterminated or used as slave labor until they died.

If committing war crimes against people that use war crimes as an everyday weapon is the only viable method of stopping them from continuing their evil ways, then fucking well stop them. — Sir2u

Hence there's the error of thinking that warcrimes would be "the only viable method". — ssu

But I clearly stated that it is the main condition under consideration. I made no statement at all about the possibility of there being other methods even though they might exist in other scenarios.

All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make. — Sir2u

Morality isn't about Britain. — Tzeentch

I have no idea how you got from what I said to your reply, absolutely nonsensical.

Who knows what would have happened?

Perhaps the world would have become a better place with so many people wisening up and taking the high road. — Tzeentch

So you think a NAZI Europe should be considered as the high road? I have to think about that for a while.

Morality is nationalism? What a profoundly silly opinion. That's probably why he stayed in politics. — Tzeentch

You are confused and confusing what I said. Let me write it slowly for you.

Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country.

As we have already mentioned, moral reasoning comes in many version. Churchill considered the different possible out comes of his actions and did what he thought best in REAL life. What he thought best to protect the millions of people under his charge.

So lets go back to the OP.

Suppose Germany had won the Battle of Britain and then launched an invasion of England. Churchill authorizes the use of poison gas and it becomes a decisive factor in repelling the Nazi invasion. — RogueAI

As in real life, in this imaginary scene he has a hard decision to make. If the use of gas is considered to be a deciding factor to stop the invasion then he must have been reasonable sure of losing the battle if he did not use it. That outcome would not have been morally acceptable to him therefore he would probable not doubt in using it.

But this is all speculation, because no one here actually knew the gentleman.

While the powerful villain "forcing" one to act is a common concept, I think we should remain critical about whether there is actually any forcing going on.

Winston for example is perfectly free to leave office. He's not forced to do anything.

There's a perfectly moral option available to him: extract himself from this rotten game of states, and search for greener, less homicidal pastures. — Tzeentch

This is silly.

All this would have done is caused a reshuffle and Anthony Eden would have had the same decisions to make.
Question: What would have happened if all of the people in line for his job with exactly the same circumstance bowed out saying "I don't want to get my hands dirty and I don't want to be responsible for losing the war"?
Answer: The world would probably now be trading in Deutsche Marks instead of dollars.

As for there not being any forces applied, you are wrong. Circumstances are a major force in world affairs since mankind started to flourish.
Morality according to Churchill was doing the best he could for his country, just because you disagree with his type of morality does not make him the bad guy.

I agree. The worst thing is the loss of imagination. If you read a book, you have to imagine the story, the people and the events yourself. Listening is different, you have to concentrate on the listening. And watching a movie and you don't have to use your imagination at all. — ssu

Here I have to disagree, at least for me.
I had to stop doing so much reading years ago because of eye problems. I spend a lot of time on a computer for work and the strain was getting too much to sit around and read after work or while traveling. So I found a source of audio books.

Depending on how much free time I have I used to read two to four paperback books a week. As you say, part of the enjoyment of reading is putting the faces and scenes in place while reading, but I still do it even when listening to stories.
Maybe it is because I learned to do it while reading from a book that I continue to do it now, but I am sure that it can still be done even if you have only ever listened to stories.

I think much has to do with the method used to teach understanding of the words, it must be difficult to try and teach someone the sense on a sentence without being able to point to it and show how it works.
I only ever used audio-books as a compliment in reading classes. In bilingual teaching it is much easier for the students to listen to the words being pronounced as they read them in the book.

Did that plague lead to the weakening of the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism? — Athena

It might have had some effect on it but plain ordinary greed and corruption were the biggest problem with the church back then. Abbots with private armies and whore houses can be a kings worst enemy.

The anarchy following the weakening of Catholic power and control is a lesson for us, isn't it? — Athena

The only ones that really behaved themselves while the church had power were the poor peasants. And even they got to the point where enough was enough and revolted against the church.

Thanks. I think we agree on most things.

We now have people trying to convince people who are categorically opposed to certain immoral actions because they seem to be incapable of grasping that for some people certain aspects of morality are immutable. — Benkei

An idea I have had running through my head for a while, not exact on this topic but not too far from it either.
One of the things that for Muslims is supposed to be immutable is the behavior of women.

I have been watching the protests around the world of the Gaza supporters.
Right alongside the Arab women,(many of which fled their homelands because of laws forbidding them education and basic rights) in typical head scarfs are local women in shorts and crop tops with their heads uncovered.

I wonder if the extremists are sitting around watching the news and saying "Look, Allah has blessed us, even the western whores are protesting for us"

I am not try to be racist or even provoke ire amongst the people in the forum. It is just an honest thought.

I am listing to a professor's lectures on the Renaissance and Reformation, times of big changes. I think we come to another period of big changes. Is there anything from the past that might help us today? — Athena

I am going to be giving classes on those topics next term, Could you send me the info the give you. :lol: Just joking about the info.

I think that you have touched upon a topic here that is current in society today when you ask if we can learn anything from the past. We can learn lots of things, but unfortunately much of the past that we need to learn from is being erased under the pretext of racism.

Fantasies are helpful in creating the future. What would have happened if there was no Renaissance? What if Martin Luther had not caused the loss of Catholic authority and a new way of seeing the Bible? — Athena

Fantasies are the base of future realities, but they must be based in reality to be of any use. As has been mentioned, I am a hard science fiction person.
The Renaissance was a long process that came about because of curiosity and the unwillingness of people to keep on blaming god for everything, not because of peoples fantasies.
If Martin Luther had not caused the loss of Catholic authority someone else would have, the situation was ripe for the things that happened. And there were already different ways of seeing the bible, the Jews and the Orthodox amongst others church disagreed with the Catholics on many things.

IHL is based in law, ergo, a set of rules that have agreed upon should be followed.

It is underpinned by, among other things, morality, but pointing at IHL is not a moral argument. It's a legal argument. — Tzeentch

Whose morality? On what is that morality based?

That would be a matter for criminal law, not IHL. — Tzeentch

Not necessarily.

In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
Taking of hostages;
The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable. — Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

I will let you figure out how it applies to gang warfare. Oh, hang on. Maybe you have never experienced driveby's with bullets flying in all direction trying to hit the members that are stealing the drug customer of the guys in the car.

A moral justification is (or should be) based on an exhaustive argument, preferably all the way down to first principles, as to why a certain action is good.

A "plain ordinary justification" is a fancy word for an opinion. — Tzeentch

Is there any FIRST PRINICLE that is not an opinion?

Killing animals, not a moral choice. :brow:

Ok then... — Tzeentch

OK, you win.
I just hope that when you are assaulted in the street your possible life saver does not just walk away thinking that he will not be justified in assisting you by hitting the criminal on the head with a big stick.

Can you expound on the difference you're thinking about between "morally justified" and "justification"? — Benkei

Sorry about that.
The original question is about justifying a person's acts, then morality pops its head up, then justice appears, then law.

While it is obvious that there are connections between these concepts it is difficult to get them into a clear picture.

Justifying ones acts means having facts, motives or reasons for them. But there is no specific reason for them to be morally acceptable.
Morality has to be based on sort of guiding concept, but not all morality is equally acceptable by everyone.
Justice is about judgement of actions and usually is after the fact, therefore not being part of the decision to take a particular action.
Laws would be the method of application of justices. Whilst probably being known before the action to be judged have nothing to do with morality. Many laws have been immoral in the past and some are still today, depending on ones version of morality.

Is there a real difference between moral justification and plain justification, or is it all just word play?

Poison gas only becomes a war crime in the 1920s due to international agreement, so presumably before that it was acceptable. — BitconnectCarlos

Since then they have invent so many weapons that make gas look like a water pistol.

You're confusing law with morality. — Benkei

Again the question, is morality implicit in justification? Or is there a difference between morally justified and plane old justification?

And this is what you would term "justice"? :chin: — Tzeentch

I never mentioned justice, only that I could justify my actions because it helped you.
NOTE TO SELF: I must remember not to help you if your dog bites you so as not to anger your sensibilities.

The term "war crime" refers to international humanitarian law. — Tzeentch

Is that based on MORALITY or convenience? If morality, which version of it, whose morality? Also many gangs around the world should therefore be tried under these rules, do you think they will ever do that.

If you're asking me whether war of any kind can be morally justified, my answer would be no. — Tzeentch

Is there a difference between moral justification and plain ordinary justification?
I ask these questions because if I had to kick your dog to death to save you I would not consider it a moral choice but one of convenience. If the dog killed you I would probably have to wait until the cops arrived to give evidence. If the dog died I could just walk away and let you clean up the mess.

If this isn't a moral question to you, then I'm afraid there might not be enough common ground to have a constructive discussion. — Tzeentch

I would have thought that having completely different ideas about a topic would make for an even more interesting topic. A discussion between two like minds rarely leads to new thoughts for either. :chin:

Justification:

• Something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary
• A statement in explanation of some action or belief
• The act of defending, explaining or making excuses for by reasoning

As for the question of reasonableness: there are many things some people at some point thought to be reasonable. Considering how unreasonable mankind tends to be (especially when it comes to conflict) such a label bears little substance to me. — Tzeentch

Reasonableness:

• Goodness of reason and judgment
• The quality of being plausible or acceptable to a reasonable person

Yes, well mankind is not famous for being the most reasonable of creatures or using his reasoning skills in adequate ways. His actions throughout history are ample proof of this. And as I already mentioned, anyone can find a version of morality that can allow them to sleep peacefully after their horrific actions. There are plenty of moral systems out there and you can always invent your own.

Justifying something is not about moral correctness but about having reasons and motives for ones actions. Whether those actions are morally admissible or reprehensible has nothing to do with the actual reasoning behind the actions.
For example, it is immoral from my point of view to kick a dog, but I can justify my kicking the shit out of your dog when it attacks you. And I doubt that you would bitch about me doing it if the action saved you from harm.

Let us ask another question.
Instead of Churchill using gas to repel the invaders, he fills the water where they will cross with thousands of mines and steel cables to tangle the propellers and rudders of the boats. Then he sends all of the planes they have to bomb the boats and submarines to torpedo them. Then he has miles of machine guns, land mines, spiked pits, moats filled with electrified water, barbed wire and little old ladies with umbrellas waiting for them on the beach.
Thousands end up dead,maimed or missing. About the same amount of enemies that would have died using gas, but thousands more on the side of the defenders died as well.

Were Churchill's actions justified? Or were the systematic methods he used against the enemy war crimes.