The Allies umdoubtedly killed some children during the liberation of France. It was worth it to save the rest of the people from Nazi rule, just like liberating Gaza is worth it to save the people from Hamas.
Of course, we’ve already established that under your worldview you’re supposed to be a kitchen slave in the mansion of some Japanese duke, so I don’t expect you to agree that the French were worth saving either.
Liberating Gaza would be great! Call me when that happens. Right now, the Israeli government is mostly just helping Hamas.
…you didn’t answer my question. Was it the 40 or was it the 13,000?
But Israel isn’t liberating Gaza from Hamas.
They are killing Gazans.
They are destroying their homes.
Israel have destroyed Mosques, and libraries, and schools and universities. They are erasing Gaza’s cultural heritage. Centuries-old buildings and documents gone.
This isn’t a liberation. Its a genocide. This doesn’t end with a “free Palestine.” It ends with either Palestinians managing to escape from Gaza, those that remain either living under brutal occupation, or they will die.
What in the Bleeding Gums Murphy is this supposed to mean?
I was going to ask the exactly the same question, although with slightly less colorful language.
Or to quote from an unnamed American Major on the Battle of Bến Tre during the Tet Offensive of the Vietnam War, as reported by journalist Peter Arnett, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” and if that means killing 13,000 children, well… it just sucks to be them. Am I right Smapti?
My best guess (offered with zero confidence, because the remark was indeed bafflingly bizarre) is that it was a reference to Banquet_Bear’s Samoan/Maori heritage?
As in, something something WWII Imperial Japan something something Operation FS invasion of Samoa something something you’re either with us or you’re against us and criticizing Israel’s massive slaughter of Palestinians is tantamount to endorsing the projected Imperial Japanese enslavement of Pacific indigenes? Sorry, I got nothin’.
Among the Japanese Empire’s long-term goals was the invasion, occupation, and eventual colonization of Banquet_Bear’s country. This did not happen, because after the 12/7 attack America went to war with Japan and defeated it. Per Banquet_Bear’s Big Book of Rules, however, America was wrong to defeat Japan. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, including children, died in that war, which is both never justifiable and proof that the Americans were committing genocide against the Japanese race, and after all, this didn’t start on 12/7; Japan was only responding to America’s illegal and immoral embargo, which was itself an attempt at genocide.
Thus, America was equally as bad as Japan, if not more so, since the Japanese casualties were disproportionate to the 16 children the Japanese killed on 12/7, and America should have stood down and attempted to resolve its issues with Japan diplomatically while leaving Japan free to conquer the south Pacific and subject his countrymen to the same treatment as the Chinese and Koreans whose territory they occupied at the time.
Col. Jessup Smapti: Banquet_Bear, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Banquet_Bear? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for those Palestinian children and you curse the Israelis. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know; that those children’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.
'Course Smapti says that from the luxury of not actually being on either side of that proverbial wall . . . but he does wear that nifty mask!
Hey hey, looks like I’m better at sight-translating Nutty Denunciation than I realized!
To be fair, can’t claim too much credit for that personally; the way things are going in the US these days, Nutty Denunciation is turning out to be basically a national lingua franca for communicating across rationality lines.
…this is the stupidest thing I’ve read today.
…you got it in one. I never would have guessed this in a hundred years.
Well, like I said, we Yanks have some natural advantages over you Kiwi/Pasifika folks when it comes to immersion study of Nutty Denunciation.
I’m just applying the same standards to America that you expect Israel to abide by. If hearing your own arguments repeated back to you is the stupidest thing you’ve heard all day, that’s a you problem.
…no you aren’t.
I was wrong. This was actually the stupidest thing I’ve read today.
We were having a discussion about morality, and I still don’t know if you think that after eight months of war, one party has killed 40 children, the other party over 13,000, which one of those parties you think were morally justifiable.
Because you can’t bring yourself to say it.
If you did, then you would have to justify it.
And you can’t.
There is no one-to-one comparison with what happened in WW2 because you can’t ignore the Nakba or the occupation or the decades long siege or the settlements. You can’t ignore the context.
You wanted to make this about morality? Then lets just make it about that. I’ll give you my answer.
Neither are justified.
The Hamas slaughter of innocent children was not morally justified. It was an atrocity. And those responsible should pay the price.
And the eight-month campaign on Gaza that has resulted in over 13,000 dead children, is also not morally justified. Not in the way it has been conducted. It isn’t a liberation and you should stop pretending that it is.
So that’s my answer. Will you give me yours?
I’ve given you my answer; Israel’s cause is just, therefore the ends justify the means.
Japan killed 16 children - in response, America killed 800,000 Japanese civilians, an unknown number of which were children. Which of those numbers is justifiable?
We have your answer to that already, of course;
Fighting against evil, according to you, is exactly as bad as being evil, because civilian deaths are never justifiable. Therefore, the only moral thing to do is to allow fascism to conquer the world unchecked, because there is no moral way to defeat it since civilian casualties are an inevitable result of all war.
What an interesting take on the cause of the US’s entry into WW2.
I mean it’s not like Japan declared war on the US or anything,
On December 7, 1941, two hours after the Japanese attack on American military installations at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Japan declared war on the United States and Great Britain, marking America’s entry into World War II. The Japanese government had originally intended to deliver the declaration thirty minutes before the attack, but the Japanese embassy in Washington took too long to decode the 5,000-word document.
Banquet_Bear is the one who wanted to frame everything in terms of numbers of dead children. I’m just following his logic to its inevitable conclusion that it is immoral to oppose fascism.
And the logical conclusion to your take is that Rape of Nanjing was justified to further Japan’s war on China according to Imperial Japan.
Quick on the edit with that one you were.
I do not hold that Japan’s cause was just, no.
Again, stupidest thing so far. He’s still going.