Posted on 11/04/2023 11:36:27 AM PDT by ConservativeInPA
Quick 42 second video.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.youtube.com ...
I am unable to make that argument, but I have zero problems with leveling all of Gaza and solving this problem once and for all.
I have always tried to answer the question of morality by using the concept that the side with the least morality determines the level of morality both side may use.
Very Old Testament of you. (Not a criticism)
That’s not a good argument because, mainly, it’s not true.
Yup.
Sorry, pro-Palestinian Oxford students never become embarrassed
However, I remember Sir Shawcross was asked about the bombings of Germany and the massive civilian losses. His argument, which I felt then was very compelling and I still do, was based on individual responsibility.
As an individual you are responsible for what your government does. Even if you live under a dictatorship you cannot shirk that responsibility. Either you decide to live under the dictatorship, or you fight it, or you leave the country. You cannot expect members of another nation to protect you from the fallout of a war that the leaders of your country started, whether you condoned it or not.
Now, that does not mean that the Laws of War should be broken. Civilians must be protected as well as possible from military actions, but as we all know, in a real war there will always be civilian casualties (I dislike the term “collateral damage”).
PS: I found an older interview (1976) with Lord Shawcross. At the end of the interview he does address this question. In this interview he is talking of collective responsibility. I think he had allowed his views to mature in the years between the two interviews since I distinctly remember him talking about individual responsibility.
“You can’t, ‘cause they’re dead.” Great response.
Leftists, Islamofascistnazis, etc cannot become, be embarrassed. Without a conscience or a soul, you can savagely kill infants, and then blame it on the infants you just massacred.
One of the more recent videos reveals that as Hamas was entering Israel, Israeli soldiers were not shooting at the Hamas who had no gun. Very soon after, these same Hamas ‘with no guns’ took out knives and machetes to kill infants, women and children.
Religion of peace??
Wouldn’t even work. Millions of people ha e already left. Do you just assumr they’re going to forget?
the student tries to recover from the skepticism generated in the audience from her assertion that more palestinians killed than israelis constitutes Palestinians having the moral upper hand. However, the clip cuts off before she enunciates her response. I would be interested to hear her response.
That’s close to how I see it. Hamas is the duly elected government of Gaza. The people support Hamas in word, deed and money. I also take my responsibility as a citizen seriously too, particularly when our government abuses our rights at home and we have so many foreign misadventures without any real need.
On the other hand they do not understand individual responsibility for any actions at all, so what's the difference?
:-(
Ayn Rand: “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
Shapiro likes debating students but won’t debate any heavyweight competition .
It is always an interesting argument and I largely agree with your summary, but I still cannot buy the argument.
Abortion might be the best example. Half (or more) of our nation is completely against abortion of any kind yet our government is the largest promoter of abortion around the world (the amount of “money” involved is staggering).
I don’t support that but my tax money is indisputably used for it. I don’t support endless welfare for the able-bodied, social security disability not pegged to contributions, or public health care for people who refuse to take care of themselves, but those things are done with my tax money ruining the economic future of our nation in the current system.
It is an interesting debate and all of us (if we are being honest) fall on both sides of the equation depending on the specific question.
The aerial bombardment of Europe and Japan represented a concept of “total war” (aka complete destruction). One argument that is rarely seen, but it deserves full consideration, is how many lives were saved by “total war” versus a much more protracted war that would have resulted without aerial bombardment.
We will never know, but good arguments can be made on both sides. It is inarguable that Japan and Germany were both actively killing civilians and prisoners of war when the war ended and they had countless more who would have certainly died had the war(s) lasted longer with more “prisoners” guaranteed to enter the pipeline.
The argument against aerial bombardment is largely driven by academics who hate the West in most respects and they categorically ignore the lethal nature of the Axis powers who were quite brutal AND the likely casualty numbers among the Allies in both conflicts.
You make some good points.
I am of the opinion that as long as I live in a country with democratic (true) elections I will have to abide by the electoral results. If there are questions that I feel very strongly about then I will have to work to win that argument. But if there are things that go totally against all my moral convictions, then I will have to decide if I really can continue to live in a country like that.
As always we hope that we will never have to make such a decision, and in my case I have been lucky enough to not have had to do it - but, as you correctly point out, my tax money have often gone to uses which I have found reprehensible. Should I have lived up to my convictions and moved somewhere else? Or refused to pay taxes, with the legal effects that would have entailed? At least it has never amounted to questions of war or peace.
I think the argument about lives saved has been heard when discussing the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However,gruesome the effects were, it seems quite clear that a full scale invasion off Japan would have cost many many more lives - and then the continuing barbarities of the Japanese in mainland Asia, which would have continued for another year, have as far as I know never been added to that equation.
The crowd was skeptical of her historically ignorant claim that the British didn’t bomb civilians in WW2.
Colleg kids are so poorly educated these days that they get trounced by the speakers like Shapiro, because they actually know things.
They declared war. IMO, I think limited warfare is a losing game for them. I understand completely the moral dilemma you are pondering.
I think we all are.
We have dumbass Leftists in this country who define someone like Donald Trump as an “existential threat” to our country, which is absolute idiotic stupidity. All it does is tell me that they have no idea what an “existential threat” is.
The Arab world, in this case Hamas and soon Hezbollah, are, and have been, real “existential threats” to Israel.
I support them in whatever they have to do to survive. They have shown repeatedly they can live in peace, but we have also been shown repeatedly, Arabs cannot.
Here is the full video: https://youtu.be/-1NFirxhXWE?si=RbfB6p31AdQP2PoZ
The part of the discussion we are talking about begins at about 13 minutes
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.