10/7/23 Anniversary Hamas Attacked Israel

[Pepperdoodle]

As much as I think this topic can be worthwhile to discuss in nuance, that's not going to happen here.
In this particular instance, however, I feel that this is an attempt to deflect.
So for our purposes here: I oppose abortion as morally wrong. Which I also stated already in my previous statement.

Yes. Obviously so.
Let's explore this topic more.
If Israeli soldiers attacked Palestinians and kidnapped Palestinian families, held them hostage, and if Hamas responded by bombing Israeli towns and villages (including civilian buildings like hospitals, schools, and synagogues) would your position be the same as the one you hold?
More specifically: Is your position, morally speaking, that killing innocents is wrong (no matter who does it); or is your position, morally speaking, that Hamas is wrong? Does the religion, ethnicity, nationality, or identity of the people involved change your position morally? Or do you maintain a universal moral rubric?
Do you believe that the life of a Palestinian is of equal value as the life of an Israeli? Do you believe the life of a Muslim is of equal value to a Jewish person?

Since it's my post and I brought it in, it's fine to discuss abortion.
Not a deflection.

First, hamas attacked Israel on 10/7/23.
So would you expect them to just dust off the dead people hamas murdered, bury them and go on with life without any retaliation?
It was an act of war on innocent people just going about their day. Children having fun with their families.
Should they have turned a blind eye to it and invite hamas over for tea after the funerals?
Killing innocent ones world wide is wrong...and hamas is evil.
All innocent life is of value, even innocent ones growing in the womb. Is your moral rubric just for those you can see outside the womb, but not the innocent growing ones you can't see in the womb?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Since it's my post and I brought it in, it's fine to discuss abortion.
Not a deflection.

First, hamas attacked Israel on 10/7/23.
So would you expect them to just dust off the dead people hamas murdered, bury them and go on with life without any retaliation?
It was an act of war on innocent people just going about their day. Children having fun with their families.
Should they have turned a blind eye to it and invite hamas over for tea after the funerals?
Killing innocent ones world wide is wrong...and hamas is evil.
All innocent life is of value, even innocent ones growing in the womb. Is your moral rubric just for those you can see outside the womb, but not the innocent growing ones you can't see in the womb?

Please answer the question I asked.

Are Palestinians of equal value as Israelis?
Are Muslims of equal value as Jews (and Christians)?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

You’re missing the point brother. The issue here is war. Hamas attacked Israel which premeditated the war. This is fact. Hamas did not return the hostages which extended the war. Hamas hid themselves and their weapons among the people which created casualties. The root cause of the death in Gaza is Hamas not Israel.

As far as the US war with Japan there are many parallels here. But what is not there is the media reports blaming the US for the destruction in Japan and inflaming the weak minded against the US. Many people in the US has drank the kool aid with regards to Hamas propaganda machine which includes quite a few of the liberal media outlets in the US. In many cases there is no independent source of casualties in Gaza other than the Health ministry controlled by Hamas. The liberal folks in the US have been caught on that lure.

I don’t think that, as a nation, Israel had much option in not attacking Hamas in Gaza just like the US did not have much option in attacking Japan in Japan. I think the condemnation of Israel is not warranted but perpetuated by those of the liberal persuasion that hate the conservative government of Netanyahu.

Does war justify the intentional killing of non-combatants?

Is UNICEF Hamas propaganda?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hentenza]

Please answer the question I asked.

Are Palestinians of equal value as Israelis?
Are Muslims of equal value as Jews (and Christians)?

-CryptoLutheran

He did answer your question. He said that all innocent life has value. But I think your argument must center in a particular definition of value. Maybe you could clarify.

 

[Hentenza]

Does war justify the intentional killing of non-combatants?

Is UNICEF Hamas propaganda?

-CryptoLutheran

All wars intentionally kill non-combatants. Since the beginning of written history and the accounts of war this has been evident. In fact, a known war tactic is to attack cities to force the opponent to loose their desire to continue the war. As I stated before wars are horrible because people die. You can’t use this war to claim that it is unique as far as death toll or any intentional killing. Hamas was the aggressor. Israel attacked their aggressor on their land, Gaza. Non combatants died. Hamas did not surrender but continued the war so the war continued and more non combatants died.

 

[ViaCrucis]

He did answer your question. He said that all innocent life has value. But I think your argument must center in a particular definition of value. Maybe you could clarify.

Does he consider Palestinians and Muslims innocent life? Or is mentioning innocent life, without directly addressing Palestinians and Muslims, a way to avoid answering the question as asked? Without a specific and direct response, I have no way of knowing.

When people responded to the statement that "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" it was nebulous enough that it could foster probable deniability--they could deny the claim that they thought black lives didn't matter, or didn't matter as much; but that nebulousness went away when those same folks would also said "blue lives matter"---clearly indicating that the problem they have with the affirmation that "black lives matter" is "black lives". If all lives matter (and they do), then it shouldn't be difficult to affirm that black lives matter, since black lives are part of "all lives". But the argument went that saying "black lives matter" implied non-black lives didn't matter (a false claim), and out of the same mouth proceeded "blue lives matter"---do blue lives matter but black lives don't? This was all very telling, and all pointed to the conclusion that the "All lives matter" folk were, in fact, arguing that black lives don't matter, or matter less.

This level of coy avoidance has become common. My suspicion is that many people recognize that they hold views and attitudes that are wrong (or at least, not socially acceptable), and so they are being coy--to avoid stigmatization.

It shouldn't be hard: Palestinian lives matter. Muslim lives matter. Black lives matter. If one believes, truly, in the full dignity and limitless value of all human life, then candidly say so. Don't be coy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hentenza]

Does he consider Palestinians and Muslims innocent life? Or is mentioning innocent life, without directly addressing Palestinians and Muslims, a way to avoid answering the question as asked? Without a specific and direct response, I have no way of knowing.

He said all innocent life has value. The word “all” encompasses all lives.

When people responded to the statement that "black lives matter" with "all lives matter" it was nebulous enough that it could foster probable deniability--they could deny the claim that they thought black lives didn't matter, or didn't matter as much; but that nebulousness went away when those same folks would also said "blue lives matter"---clearly indicating that the problem they have with the affirmation that "black lives matter" is "black lives". If all lives matter (and they do), then it shouldn't be difficult to affirm that black lives matter, since black lives are part of "all lives". But the argument went that saying "black lives matter" implied non-black lives didn't matter (a false claim), and out of the same mouth proceeded "blue lives matter"---do blue lives matter but black lives don't? This was all very telling, and all pointed to the conclusion that the "All lives matter" folk were, in fact, arguing that black lives don't matter, or matter less.

All lives matter. To shout one only is inherently racist. The BLM movement is one of the most racist movements that ever existed.

This level of coy avoidance has become common. My suspicion is that many people recognize that they hold views and attitudes that are wrong (or at least, not socially acceptable), and so they are being coy--to avoid stigmatization.

It shouldn't be hard: Palestinian lives matter. Muslim lives matter. Black lives matter. If one believes, truly, in the full dignity and limitless value of all human life, then candidly say so. Don't be coy.

-CryptoLutheran

All lives have value encompasses all life. No reason for discrimination. And talking about views, you might want to consider how your hatred of Netanyahu and Israel clouds your opinion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

All wars intentionally kill non-combatants. Since the beginning of written history and the accounts of war this has been evident. In fact, a known war tactic is to attack cities to force the opponent to loose their desire to continue the war. As I stated before wars are horrible because people die. You can’t use this war to claim that it is unique as far as death toll or any intentional killing. Hamas was the aggressor. Israel attacked their aggressor on their land, Gaza. Non combatants died. Hamas did not surrender but continued the war so the war continued and more non combatants died.

Are there international rules of war that are in place? Do violations of those rules constitute war crimes?

Should we regard all conduct, in the name of war, valid regardless of what it is? That "war is war" means anything goes in war? Or should we hold nations, governments, and people accountable for their conduct. That there are licit acts of war and illicit acts of war? Does Just War Theory mean anything?

If a war broke out between two villages, a village raiding party comes and kidnaps some people from the other village. The other village, justifiably meets the other village to reclaim those who were taken, and also to mete out retaliation; but if that other village rounds up every man, woman, and child, kills them, burns the village to the ground, and the leaders say the point isn't to rescue the stolen villagers but to destroy the village that attacked in the first place. Clearly we are not talking about a justifiable response.

It is justifiable to retaliate and rescue those who were taken, and mete punishment on those who committed the violent act.
It is not justifiable exterminate the other village, to torch everything to the ground, and admit that rescuing the kidnapped villagers isn't the point--but the point is hurting the enemy and destroying them.

And, yes, I am bringing up the "the point is not rescuing the kidnapped villagers" because it is directly connected to the Gaza conflict.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-says-returning-hostages-not-the-most-important-thing-sparking-fierce-backlash/

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

He said all innocent life has value. The word “all” encompasses all lives.

All lives matter. To shout one only is inherently racist. The BLM movement is one of the most racist movements that ever existed.

All lives have value encompasses all life. No reason for discrimination.

So the phrase "blue lives matter" is wrong?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hentenza]

Are there international rules of war that are in place? Do violations of those rules constitute war crimes?

Yes and historically those accused of crimes are from the aggressor side.

Should we regard all conduct, in the name of war, valid regardless of what it is? That "war is war" means anything goes in war? Or should we hold nations, governments, and people accountable for their conduct. That there are licit acts of war and illicit acts of war? Does Just War Theory mean anything?

No. So eliminate war. But good luck with that since humans have been at war with one another for over 90% of known history.

If a war broke out between two villages, a village raiding party comes and kidnaps some people from the other village. The other village, justifiably meets the other village to reclaim those who were taken, and also to mete out retaliation; but if that other village rounds up every man, woman, and child, kills them, burns the village to the ground, and the leaders say the point isn't to rescue the stolen villagers but to destroy the village that attacked in the first place. Clearly we are not talking about a justifiable response.

It is justifiable to retaliate and rescue those who were taken, and mete punishment on those who committed the violent act.
It is not justifiable exterminate the other village, to torch everything to the ground, and admit that rescuing the kidnapped villagers isn't the point--but the point is hurting the enemy and destroying them.

And, yes, I am bringing up the "the point is not rescuing the kidnapped villagers" because it is directly connected to the Gaza conflict.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-says-returning-hostages-not-the-most-important-thing-sparking-fierce-backlash/

-CryptoLutheran

Now your argument is flirting with emotional fallacy. Not all men, women, and children have been killed in this war. Since your argument is based on a fallacy then your conclusion is in error. If the aggressor, Hamas, would have returned the hostages and stopped the war then many lives would have been saved.

 

[Hentenza]

So the phrase "blue lives matter" is wrong?

-CryptoLutheran

All phrases that single out one race or groups of individuals is wrong in my opinion. The scriptures are clear that God wants to save all people so by default God values all life. We need to strive to go in that direction rather than continue to highlight what makes us different.

 

[Pepperdoodle]

Please answer the question I asked.
Are Palestinians of equal value as Israelis?
Are Muslims of equal value as Jews (and Christians)?

I did when I said...
Killing innocent ones world wide is wrong...and hamas is evil.
All innocent life is of value, even innocent ones growing in the womb.

Is your moral rubric just for those you can see outside the womb, but not the innocent growing ones you can't see in the womb?