Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Huh? In the case of the Amalakites, did the Israelites set out to systematically destroy that entire group based on either their race, political association, or culture?How? The motivation for retaliation is not the same as racial, political or cultural group is.
Not sure about this particular case, should look it up, but more often than not it is about ridding the area of 'giants' and or their descendants.Huh? In the case of the Amalakites, did the Israelites set out to systematically destroy that entire group based on either their race, political association, or culture?
Here's me quoting myself. You stopped responding to me after this:I thought I did. I'll take a look again when I have time. I believe it was an answer to terrorism.
The Japanese definitely weren't terrorists. Pearl Harbor assuredly had civilians present, but they were attacking a military installation to weaken our armed forces so that we would be less capable of fighting them.Definition from the FBI here:
"Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law"
Nukes are definitely dangerous, no debate there. Violation of federal and state laws is only there because this is actual legal code for someone who would be prosecuted by us.
"Appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;"
Scare the Japanese populace to not back the war effort.
"(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or"
Scare the Japanese politicians to not back the war effort.
"(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;"
Going to war is part of the conduct of a government, and it definitely qualifies as mass destruction.
There is more to the definition you can read as to whether it is domestic or international (this would of course be international) but there is nothing that is part of the definition that says it has to be an individual, or private organization, or government that is acting.
There is also nothing about "who started it". That has nothing to do with whether something is a terrorist act or not.
And your definition fits as well until you call it self defense, which is has nothing to do with whether it is terrorism or not. I'm not saying the Japanese were good guys at all, not in the slightest. What I say about our conduct has no bearing whatsoever on what I think of their conduct. But we didn't bomb a military installation did we?
Here's a head start: 1 Samuel 15:1-3Not sure about this particular case, should look it up, but more often than not it is about ridding the area of 'giants' and or their descendants.
Yes, a quick Google search points to them being giants or descendants of giants.Here's a head start: 1 Samuel 15:1-3
If they were giants, then it was the systematic destruction of a race.Yes, a quick Google search points to them being giants or descendants of giants.
Hence also the children had to be slain.
Should look deeper into it though...
No. They also didn't systematically destroy them. Their motivation was self survival, the Amalekites attacked the Jews as they were coming out of Egypt. They attacked the old, weak and young. There were Amalakites that were not killed too. If it was a genocide then it would have been systematic and all would have been targets, that is not the case.Huh? In the case of the Amalakites, did the Israelites set out to systematically destroy that entire group based on either their race, political association, or culture?
What was their intent if they were successful in weakening our armed forces?Here's me quoting myself. You stopped responding to me after this:
The Japanese definitely weren't terrorists. Pearl Harbor assuredly had civilians present, but they were attacking a military installation to weaken our armed forces so that we would be less capable of fighting them.
We bombed major metropolitan centers containing almost exclusively a civilian population to show them our technological/military might to make them fear us.
...but not exactly a human race, but indeed genocide...If they were giants, then it was the systematic destruction of a race.
That is the meaning I got.It follows from your assumptions, not from what I wrote.
How does being in the majority make you fortunate?Yes, it is not. It´s the very opposite: it´s fortunate that I find myself in the majority. There is not mentioning nor implication of superiority, and being fortunate to be part of the majority does not imply superiority.
(Besides, that´s not exactly what I wrote)
I may have misunderstood but I don't think misrepresenting is accurate.I find it quite fortunate. What I actually wrote is there for everyone to read, and so are your misrepresentations.
So then Hitler didn't commit genocide because he didn't kill all of the Jews?There were Amalakites that were not killed too. If it was a genocide then it would have been systematic and all would have been targets, that is not the case.
To conquer probably. But not through fear, through attempting to be actually superior in strength. Why does that matter? You still aren't answering to the fact that our actions fall under the definition of terrorism.What was their intent if they were successful in weakening our armed forces?
Motivation has absolutely not one iota of an impact on whether something is genocide or not. The definition does not in any way shape or form contain the word "because" or any synonym thereof. This is an objective fact.Their motivation was self survival
Motivation has absolutely not one iota of an impact on whether something is genocide or not. The definition does not in any way shape or form contain the word "because" or any synonym thereof. This is an objective fact.
He didn't kill them all because he was stopped. It was who they were that motivated him, that is not the motivation of the Jews towards the Amalekites.So then Hitler didn't commit genocide because he didn't kill all of the Jews?
No, God said to kill some and to drive some out.EDIT: "ALL" of them were targets and they were punished for failing to accomplish what God told them to do.
Ugh... 1 Samuel 15:1-3No, God said to kill some and to drive some out.
Motivation has absolutely not one iota of an impact on whether something is genocide or not. The definition does not in any way shape or form contain the word "because" or any synonym thereof. This is an objective fact.
No. They killed part of a group based on self-defense.Huh? In the case of the Amalakites, did the Israelites set out to systematically destroy that entire group based on either their race, political association, or culture?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?