ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

FreeDuck wrote:

It's not that, really. It's the obscenely illogical assertion that a civilian must take up arms in order to protect their civilian status, when the very reason we differentiate between civilians and combatants is because they are not actively involved in the hostilities.

The principal reason civilians in the American colonies took up arms in 1776 was to prevent another government from killing them or taxing them. The reason why US civilians took up arms in subsequent US efforts to defend US civilians, is because they rationally concluded that to not do so would lose them a lot more than their civilian status.

The civilians in a nation whose government deliberately kills non-killers, lose their civilian status by their failure to stop their government from doing that, because they thereby become implicit supporters of deliberate killers of non-killers.

0 Replies

Sez you.

When civilians take up arms they become combatants. Just ask the Bush administration. But if the last paragraph of your post were actually true it would not bode well for the un-armed civilians of this country, Israel, or just about any other. Luckily for all of us, it isn't true anywhere except in your mind, and in the minds of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and the Third Sunday In July When the Moon is Full Movement.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Repeating something forcefully doesn't make it the truth. The fact is that civilians do not lose their civilian status by refusing to participate in the conflict. In fact, were they to participate in the conflict they would then lose their civilian status. You are trying desperately to justify something with logic that, were it turned in the other direction, would not fall favorably on your supported party. It is the logic that terrorists use to justify killing civilians, and here you use if for the same purpose.

Terrorists are deliberate killers of non-killers. Terrorists are killed by deliberate killers of killers. People decide to be terrorists, because they want something other than their lives from other people that the other people do not want to give them.

A government that hosts deliberate killers of non-killers is culpable for the non-killers that are deliberately killed by those deliberate killers of non-killers. The people who are governed by such a government are also culpable for the non-killers that are deliberately killed by those deliberate killers of non-killers. Furthermore, any civilians killed by those deliberate killers of non-killers are thereby permanently deprived of any and all status other than the dead status.

0 Replies

So, if you kill a non-killer who's government supports the deliberate killing of non-killers, is the non-killer still a non-killer? Or is it ok to kill non-killers if their government or some other group in their country is guilty of killing non-killers but they didn't stop it? And should they try to stop it at all when they don't know whether that non-killer killed by their government/neighbor/whoever might have supported said non-killer's own government actions to deliberately kill non-killers, rendering them no longer innocent? Oh my.

It sounds like you are saying that there are no innocents, in which case, there are no terrorists. In the end, though, it doesn't matter since what you're saying has no basis in fact.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Sez you.

When civilians take up arms they become combatants. Just ask the Bush administration. But if the last paragraph of your post were actually true it would not bode well for the un-armed civilians of this country, Israel, or just about any other.
...

The US governent and the Israeli governent are not deliberate killers of non-killers. Therefore, US civilians and Israeli civilians are not supporters of deliberate killer of non-killers.

It is true, that many gangsters in our midst and in Israel's midst are deliberate killers of non-killers, but our government and Israel's government does not host deliberate killers of non-killers. Rather our government and Israel's governent seek to and do remove deliberate killers of non-killers from their midsts.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

The US governent and the Israeli governent are not deliberate killers of non-killers. Therefore, US civilians and Israeli civilians are not supporters of deliberate killer of non-killers.

Why don't you give some criteria on what makes someone or something a deliberate killers of non-killers.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

So, if you kill a non-killer who's government supports the deliberate killing of non-killers, is the non-killer still a non-killer? Or is it ok to kill non-killers if their government or some other group in their country is guilty of killing non-killers but they didn't stop it? And should they try to stop it at all when they don't know whether that non-killer killed by their government/neighbor/whoever might have supported said non-killer's own government actions to deliberately kill non-killers, rendering them no longer innocent? Oh my.

It sounds like you are saying that there are no innocents, in which case, there are no terrorists. In the end, though, it doesn't matter since what you're saying has no basis in fact.

Those people, who support a government that supports (e.g., hosts) the deliberate killing of non-killers, are themselves supporters of deliberate killing of non-killers. Such people do not qualify as non-killers, since they are in fact culpable of the deliberate killing of non-killers.

People who are NOT supporters of deliberate killers of non-killers, AND who are NOT deliberate killers of non-killers, are innocent of deliberate killing of non-killers.

People who are either B]supporters of deliberate killers of non-killers[/B], OR are deliberate killers of non-killers are NOT innocent of deliberate killing of non-killers.

0 Replies

This is all a lot of fun, really, but in the end none of it matters. Nothing you are saying has any basis in fact. I mean, it's nice that you put it in bold and all, and it really is fun going round and round and pointing out how the logic doesn't hold up and then watching the modification to ican's rules of war that evolve, but really, we have rules and you didn't write them. They say that a person who is not involved in hostilities is not to be targeted. There are no real exceptions for people who might be sympathetic to the actions of people deemed to be terrorists but who are outside of said civilian's control. And your rules will fall apart when applied to real world examples as all governments, at one time or another have deliberately killed non-combatants.

But again, none of this matters, and all the bold you put around it won't make it true. Even though you want it to be true in order to excuse targeting of civilians by your supported party in these (which one are we talking about again) conflicts, it still isn't. Non-combatants and civilian infrastructure are not to be targeted, no matter who they sympathize with. And the targeting of non-comabatants is repulsive, no matter who is doing it.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

The US governent and the Israeli governent are not deliberate killers of non-killers. Therefore, US civilians and Israeli civilians are not supporters of deliberate killer of non-killers.

Why don't you give some criteria on what makes someone or something a deliberate killers of non-killers.

OK!

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/supporter
Main Entry: sup·port·er
Pronunciation: s&-'por-t&r
Function: noun
: one that supports or acts as a support : as a : ADHERENT, PARTISAN b : one of two figures (as of men or animals) placed one on each side of an escutcheon and exterior to it c : GARTER 1 d : ATHLETIC SUPPORTER
[supporter illustration]

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/deliberate
Main Entry: 1de·lib·er·ate
Pronunciation: di-'li-b&-"rAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
intransitive verb : to think about or discuss issues and decisions carefully
transitive verb : to think about deliberately and often with formal discussion before reaching a decision
synonym see THINK

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/killer
Main Entry: 1kill·er
Pronunciation: 'ki-l&r
Function: noun
1 : one that kills
2 : KILLER WHALE
3 a : one that has a forceful, violent, or striking impact b : one that is extremely difficult to deal with

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Main Entry: non-
Pronunciation: (')nän also "n&n or 'n&n before '-stressed syllable, "nän also "n&n before "-stressed or unstressed syllable; the variant with & is also to be understood at pronounced entries, though not shown
Function: prefix
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin non not, from Old Latin noenum, from ne- not + oinom, neuter of oinos one -- more at NO, ONE
1 : not : other than : reverse of : absence of

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/kill
Main Entry: 1kill
Pronunciation: 'kil
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, perhaps from Old English *cyllan; akin to Old English cwellan to kill -- more at QUELL
transitive verb
1 a : to deprive of life : cause the death of b (1) : to slaughter (as a hog) for food (2) : to convert a food animal into (a kind of meat) by slaughtering
2 a : to put an end to <kill> b : DEFEAT, VETO <killed> c : to mark for omission; also : DELETE d : ANNIHILATE, DESTROY <kill>
3 a : to destroy the vital or essential quality of <killed> b : to cause to stop <kill> c : to check the flow of current through
4 : to make a markedly favorable impression on <she>
5 : to get through uneventfully <kill>; also : to get through (the time of a penalty) without being scored on <kill>
6 a : to cause extreme pain to b : to tire almost to the point of collapse
7 : to hit (a shot) so hard in various games that a return is impossible
8 : to consume (as a drink) totally
intransitive verb
1 : to deprive one of life
2 : to make a markedly favorable impression <was>
synonyms KILL, SLAY, MURDER, ASSASSINATE, DISPATCH, EXECUTE mean to deprive of life. KILL merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner <killed> <frost>. SLAY is a chiefly literary term implying deliberateness and violence but not necessarily motive <slew>. MURDER specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility <convicted>. ASSASSINATE applies to deliberate killing openly or secretly often for political motives <terrorists>. DISPATCH stresses quickness and directness in putting to death <dispatched>. EXECUTE stresses putting to death as a legal penalty <executed>.

0 Replies

This is interesting. People, who support a government that supports people that deliberately kill non-killers, huh? Let me think about that for a second. The US government supported the Saddam regime during the Iran-Iraq War, didn't it? And the Saddam regime could, even back then, be characterized as deliberately killing non-killers, right? Like in the Halabja poison gas attack, right?

So, did you support the US government back then, or did you, personally, rather try to stop the US government? Because if you didn't try to stop your government, if you supported your government, then you yourself are a supporter of deliberate killing of non-killers. Right?

So you don't qualify as a non-killer. Right?

So you're culpable of the deliberate killing of non-killers. Right?

But I doubt that you see where your logic leads you....

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

This is all a lot of fun, really, but in the end none of it matters. Nothing you are saying has any basis in fact.
...

What are your criteria for something said or written NOT having any basis in fact?

These are my criteria for having a basis in fact.

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/basis
Main Entry: ba·sis
Pronunciation: 'bA-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ba·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Latin -- more at BASE
1 : the bottom of something considered as its foundation
2 : the principal component of something
3 a : something on which something else is established or based b : an underlying condition or state of affairs <hired> <on>
4 : the basic principle
5 : a set of linearly independent vectors in a vector space such that any vector in the vector space can be expressed as a linear combination of them with appropriately chosen coefficients

Quote:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fact
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space> b : an actual occurrence <prove>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

This is interesting. People, who support a government that supports people that deliberately kill non-killers, huh? Let me think about that for a second. The US government supported the Saddam regime during the Iran-Iraq War, didn't it? And the Saddam regime could, even back then, be characterized as deliberately killing non-killers, right? Like in the Halabja poison gas attack, right?

YES!

So, did you support the US government back then, or did you, personally, rather try to stop the US government? Because if you didn't try to stop your government, if you supported your government, then you yourself are a supporter of deliberate killing of non-killers. Right?

Good questions! At that time, I did not know that the US government was supporting Iraq against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war. Nor did I know of Iraq's deliberate killing of non-killers. However, if I had known, I would NOT have supported it; I would have tried in whatever manner acceptable to me to stop US government support of Iraq. Because of that and other lacks of knowlege on my part regarding subsequent events, I have since made a much greater effort to learn what is actually going on as opposed to what the popular media says is going on.

So you don't qualify as a non-killer. Right?

Wrong! I think I do qualify as a non-killer of non-killers, since I did not & do not support deliberate killing of non-killers and did not & do not deliberately kill non-killers.

So you're culpable of the deliberate killing of non-killers. Right?

Wrong!

But I doubt that you see where your logic leads you....

Wrong! I think it is you who do not see where my logic leads you.

However, suppose I had supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. Then I would have been culpable for that. But suppose I subsequently realized my error and thereafter stopped support of deliberate killing of non-killers and did not & do not deliberately kill non-killers. Obviously, thereafter, I would not be culpable for doing any of that.

0 Replies

Ican just simply lives in his own little world where he makes up the rules and labels to suit his own warped views, the trouble is that it seems long ago he has lost sight of the imaginary of his world and reality of the real world.

In legal terms the Lebanese citizens are civilians unless they belong to a militant group such as Hizbollah even if they do nothing to stop Hizbollah. Ican has no authority to change their status as civilians.That is simply a fact.

0 Replies

Ican at least can formulate an opinion, provide a rationale for it, and back it up with collaborating evidence all without needing to insult other members.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Ican at least can formulate an opinion, provide a rationale for it, and back it up with collaborating evidence all without needing to insult other members.

All that, and he manages to be completely wrong and an advocate of genocidal butchery at the same time. Impressive

Cycloptichorn

ps. you aren't exactly a competent judge of what makes a quality argument, btw

0 Replies

What the hell is collaborating evidence? Ican't consistently spams threads with his opinions, for which he provides no evidence, and which he makes surreal with his blanket definitions of Muslims, out of which he produces idiotic acronyms. I can think of few members here, even including yourself, Fox, who have less of a grip on reality.

*********************************************

With regard to a very "to-the-point" matter, i find it encouraging that the failed hawk PM of Israel is now attempting to negotiate a cease-fire with the Palestinians. If Hamas and Fatah can resolve their differences, and negotiate as a good faith representative of the Palestinian people, there may be some hope after all.

0 Replies

Case closed. And my point is well made. Thanks.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

However, suppose I had supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war. Then I would have been culpable for that. But suppose I subsequently realized my error and thereafter stopped support of deliberate killing of non-killers and did not & do not deliberately kill non-killers. Obviously, thereafter, I would not be culpable for doing any of that.

But you said a failure to do anything to stop them makes civilians culpable. You didn't do anything to stop them.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

However, if I had known, I would NOT have supported it; I would have tried in whatever manner acceptable to me to stop US government support of Iraq.

I'm curious about this bit here. What exactly does "whatever manner acceptable to you" stand for.

Does it mean you would have organized an armed revolt and marched on Washington? Does it mean you would have organized a demonstration and held up signs in front of the White House? Or does it mean you would have voted for the opposition party and candidates?

Likewise, what can the Lebanese do to stop Hezbollah? What is acceptable for them? Should they take up arms and shoot everyone who claims allegiance with Hezbollah? Or should they go out on the street and organize a demonstration against Hezbollah? Or would it be sufficient to vote for someone other than Hezbollah in the parliamentary elections?

I think we should be able to expect the same "manner of resistance" from you that you expect from the Lebanese civilians, don't you think so?

0 Replies

You haven't closed a case in the entire time you've been at this site, Fox. But coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between the words corroborative and collaborative, i'm not surprised to see you delude yourself in that manner.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know