User
Lecturer In Regular Oration(Lvl 4)
His Wholeyness The Caterpillaric Popo
Posts: 146
|
Post by User on May 28, 2012 16:25:07 GMT -5
Wow. I wasn't expecting any serious replies
|
|
|
Post by bigwillybear on May 28, 2012 17:09:06 GMT -5
In war anything goes. The idea of some sort of moral code that warring parties abide by is a fools fantasy. Suicide bombing, poison gas, anthrax, kidnapping , torture, flying civil airliners into skyscrapers and anything else you can think of are all preferable to accepting defeat, torture and subjugation by an invading force. In war every type of atrocity is inevitable, predictable and precedented. As such the aggressor should be held accountable for the war crimes committed by all parties.
|
|
|
Post by StormInateacup on May 28, 2012 21:09:08 GMT -5
Storm, you're not going to be able to convince me that years of deprivation is going to make one more form of tyranny ok. It's a false premise that things done to other innocents are "better" because the person doing them is under extreme duress. Period. I'm married to a Muslim--I have swallowed whole cloth the problem that Palestinians face and the RANK persecution they face with Israeli tyranny over their heads. BE THAT AS IT MAY--you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It would be oh-ho-so convenient to do so. But no, you don't do that. Otherwise, justifying a myriad of crimes against others, simply for being BORN into where they are, would be turn about and fair play. And do you honestly want that? I don't think so, or at least, I know I hope so. Also, I know you talk of being an anarchist--but have you really lived among the lawless? You talk often of how harsh the "lawful" powerful can be against the weak (I'm thinking that's your premise for why you think anarchy is warranted)--but have you truly lived among the lawless? And what it means to be truly lawless, at the mercy of the have and have-not's?Again, my Afghan husband has a picture for you that when painted, does not surmise a glowing picture of freedom, liberty and joy. Rather, it's fear, PTSD, madness and seclusion. Paranoia, hunger and strife. Easy pickin's for the folks that can come along and take advantage. Body parts strewn in the streets, and lack of education and health care to the point that an eye for an eye, indeed, and the one eyed man is king. Fight fire with fire, and you definitely end up with bbq, but it's not necessarily your meal that gets cooked. It's usually your own ass. Well this is the second time this month I have been challenged to a debate on the anarchy with my opponent proceeding to utterly to misdefine and misrepresent anarchy and then claim to have shown why it is evil and unworkable. Let's get this straight Anarchy is NOT lawlessness. It has sweet fuck all to do with bands of competing warlords each seeking to override the authority and territoriality of one another. Afghanistan is no more an anarchic society that Somalia (the last example I was required to defend in this scenario) is. Both those societies are composed of a myriad of highly stratified and dictatorial authoritarian regimes looking to gain hegemony over the entire community by the use of violence and punitive judicial edicts. They are in fact the ANATHEMA of anarchy. So when you actually want to come back and show me you know what an anarchic society might look like, how it might be structured and what paradigms might operate within it, I just cant engage in the discussion with you. Because at present it's fairly obvious that we're talking at cross purposes. An anarchic society is one which is governed by the people who live within it. The regulations and practices which encompass it are decided by those who contribute To it and punitive measures taken against those who transgress against those guidelines are generally speaking limited to banishment FROM it or a return to the accepted practices. Anarchy is NOT the rule of the powerful over the weak for the enrichment of the former , but the co-operative and mutually beneficial sharing of the resources of a community and the burdens of labouring to extract the value from them for the benefit of ALL of those who live in the society - especially the weak, the infirm and the otherwise powerless. It is a rejection of all forms of external coercive control and authority: Not an armed, no holds barred shit fight where might equals right and the punishment for rejecting that paradigm is death. Because the terms within which you are trying to base the argument on is not so much like comparing oranges and apples as comparing oranges and dog turds. We have two American flags always: one for the rich and one for the poor. When the rich fly it means that things are under control; when the poor fly it means danger, revolution, anarchy. Henry Miller
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Hatter on May 28, 2012 21:10:47 GMT -5
Wow. I wasn't expecting any serious replies We can turn ANY topic into a meaningful conversation.
|
|
|
Post by StormInateacup on May 28, 2012 21:14:42 GMT -5
In war anything goes. The idea of some sort of moral code that warring parties abide by is a fools fantasy. Suicide bombing, poison gas, anthrax, kidnapping , torture, flying civil airliners into skyscrapers and anything else you can think of are all preferable to accepting defeat, torture and subjugation by an invading force. In war every type of atrocity is inevitable, predictable and precedented. As such the aggressor should be held accountable for the war crimes committed by all parties.Re: Bolded text. Precisely. No Palestinian as I said earlier committed an atrocity against an Israeli until their entire nation was hijacked from under their noses. When you're defending yourself against an armed, ruthless and unprincipled aggressor, you do what you have to do in order to survive. Simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by StormInateacup on May 28, 2012 21:15:28 GMT -5
Wow. I wasn't expecting any serious replies Then you didn't know your audience very well.
|
|
firesong
Lecturer In Regular Oration(Lvl 4)
Posts: 136
|
Post by firesong on Jun 21, 2012 16:50:30 GMT -5
In war anything goes. The idea of some sort of moral code that warring parties abide by is a fools fantasy. Suicide bombing, poison gas, anthrax, kidnapping , torture, flying civil airliners into skyscrapers and anything else you can think of are all preferable to accepting defeat, torture and subjugation by an invading force. In war every type of atrocity is inevitable, predictable and precedented. As such the aggressor should be held accountable for the war crimes committed by all parties.Re: Bolded text. Precisely. No Palestinian as I said earlier committed an atrocity against an Israeli until their entire nation was hijacked from under their noses. When you're defending yourself against an armed, ruthless and unprincipled aggressor, you do what you have to do in order to survive. Simple as that. Palestine wasn't a country; it was a British Crown protectorate. Until the formation of Israel, they were ALL technically Palestinians, even Jordan(Trans Jordan). The Palestinian Arabs committed many atrocities against Palestinian Jews, who merely wanted to live in peace, work in their Kibbutz, and improve their land. They bought swamps for inflated prices and turned them into productive agricultural property. Directly in response to Arab hostilities, they formed paramilitary groups, including the Macabees, who were admittedly pretty bloodthirsty. When Israel declared it's independence, the UAL advised all the Arabs inside the border of Israel to evacuate their properties, to make it easier for the united Arab army to push the Jews into the sea, and promising them increased holdings when it was all over. The Jews advised them that they were free to stay, and would be treated as equals and live in Israel in peace, but if they left they could never return. They left... their choice.
|
|
|
Post by watershield on Jun 21, 2012 23:02:00 GMT -5
May not be a popular stance, but I have no use for Isreal and would have preferred that it had never been created. But it was and the Jews have been pushing hard to expand it ever since. One of these days they will get pushed into the sea.
|
|
|
Post by StormInateacup on Jun 22, 2012 0:21:50 GMT -5
May not be a popular stance, but I have no use for Isreal and would have preferred that it had never been created. But it was and the Jews have been pushing hard to expand it ever since. One of these days they will get pushed into the sea.Once can only hope.
|
|
|
Post by rscott on Jun 22, 2012 1:44:02 GMT -5
trash
|
|