Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
It was not a systematic killing due to those things defined. It was a action of self defense/survival from a group of people the group or ethnic attributes had nothing to do with it.
Upvote
0
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.
It was not a systematic killing due to those things defined. It was a action of self defense/survival from a group of people the group or ethnic attributes had nothing to do with it.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.
I think I get your confusion. You think "based on" means "because". That isn't so either. It means that you identify members of the group based on their race, political affiliations, or culture.No. They killed part of a group based on self-defense.
This is a clarifying statement by the government: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.
The "group or ethnicities" is how they identified who to kill. Not the reason for it.It was a action of self defense/survival from a group of people the group or ethnic attributes had nothing to do with it.
What?!? Then ISIS aren't terrorists because the USA is not a non-combatant target!Japan was not a non-combatant target.
Then God isn't good. He isn't bad either. He's neither, as all actions are permissible for him.God does not need our approval before He takes life.
Then God isn't good. He isn't bad either. He's neither, as all actions are permissible for him.
Then if I do anything that God has done, I am good.All that God does is good because God is good.
I have repeatedly told you that you got it wrong, but you insisted on adding stuff that I neither said nor implied, nor that followed from what I said.That is the meaning I got.
Is that a serious question?How does being in the majority make you fortunate?
The way you insisted and repeated those claims even after I had repeatedly told you that these weren´t my claims or positions makes that hard a little hard to believe.I may have misunderstood but I don't think misrepresenting is accurate.
Non-sequitur.Then if I do anything that God has done, I am good.
Neither do we need his approval - obviously. Or else people wouldn´t be murdered.God does not need our approval before He takes life.
Then we need a new word for God's morality. Nothing I can morally do applies to God, and nothing God can morally do applies to me, then "good" cannot be used in both situations.Non-sequitur.
You have not created life. Therefore you cannot take it of your own accord.
Would you be free? Then surrender to God, be cleansed, and conform to His will for your life.
Saying it´s a gift and at the same time saying that God can take it as he sees fit reveals an odd understanding of "gift".Genocide has been defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
If men take it upon themselves to do this, it is wrong. If God takes life, He has done nothing wrong because He is the Author of life. He gives and takes as He will.
God could cause us all to die right now without our permission and without doing anything wrong.
Our life is a gift. Every beat of our heart is a gift, every breath also.
As you have described above, it isn´t any different from destroying an ant hill in your view. It just depends on who does the killing. Life, particularly from the divine perspective, is meaningless.But if naturalism is true, then the killing of a bunch of people is really no different than destroying an ant hill.
Saying it´s a gift and at the same time saying that God can take it as he sees fit reveals an odd understanding of "gift".
As you have described above, it isn´t any different from destroying an ant hill in your view.
It just depends on who does the killing. Life, particularly from the divine perspective, is meaningless.
On another note, do not have faith that nobody notices your false dichotomy "either my God or naturalism".
All you have to do, is claim god commanded you, just like the ISIS dudes.
Check! It took planning....premeditated...
Check! What is war without politics?...politically-motivated...
Check! Nukes are mighty violent....violence...
Check! It happened, we didn't just think about it....perpetrated...
Check! Don't tell me all the women, children, babies, pregnant women (can't forget abortion!), elderly, sick, mentally disabled, physically disabled, and other non-soldiers that we specifically targeted were not non-combatants....against non-combatant targets...
Uh oh! The one part that says it wasn't terrorism! Of course the government would write the definition of terrorism to not include themselves as ever being the possible perpetrator though....by sub-national groups or clandestine agents...
Check! We influenced the bajeebers outta them!...usually intended to influence an audience
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?