The post was not a defense of the use of nuclear weapons during a war, it was a suggestion that an entire people be eliminated (genocide) with nuclear weapons happening to be the method of carrying out that action.
There was some other guy banned when he advocated wiping out all Palestinians, even the children because “nits make lice.” (That was especially creepy)
As far as I can tell, that’s not quite correct. My Googling shows that was Clint in Wichita and that he was never banned, but was warned.
Of course, none of this was said or even implied in the post in question; this is your extrapolation. And even if North Korea did commit an attack, genocide against the civilian population would not be justified. The post was not talking about a few strategic nuclear strikes against military targets or even cities, but complete extermination.
Among civilized nations, they are supposed to be.
Again, this is a misrepresentation of the post in question, which was not proposing limited strategic bombing. If someone had said that all Japanese should have been exterminated after WWII, yes, that would probably merit a mod note.
Guest note
This is extremely inappropriate. Do not compare a country’s population with the eggs in your fridge in this forum again.
No warning issued.
I didn’t want to hijack this thread so I’ve created a thread about this Guest Note that was, in my view, unfounded.
The link doesn’t lead to a thread. It just leads to the ATMB forum.
Welcome to whoosh-ville, good sir.
D’oh! :smack:
But doesn’t genocide require war? Correct me if I’m wrong, but one of the names given to the international laws / covenants banning genocide are the “laws of war”.
Because civilized nations have ostensibly outlawed and banned genocide does not, to me, divorce genocide from war. It’s a tactic we no longer engage in, yes, but that doesn’t seem sufficient to me to claim the two ideas are mutually exclusive. I think we have clear evidence around the world that genocide is still a problem today.
Or is war now defined only as those methods of exercising physical force as permitted by international law?
“No warning was issued so it’s all cool.”
This poster obviously hasn’t spent a lot of time in ATMB.
I based my call on the suggestion of wiping an entire country and all its people off the map. If the subject Germany during WWII I would have objected similarly to the idea of using the country as nuclear target practice; but if someone had directed the same sentiment specifically towards the leaders I would have been fine with that. Most of the people in NK are themselves victims.
And I’m changing the thread title to better state the content.
And yet we had a guy here not so long ago that started a thread wanting either all religious people, all Christians, or maybe all conservatives killed, and I had to raise seven kinds of hell to get it moved to the Pit. Don’t think the OP even drew a mod note–though the poster that started the thread may have eventually been banned or otherwise moderated. How was that relatively OK, and the incident in question here not OK?
Germany didn’t have to go to war with the Jews to start the Holocaust.
And on further review, “seven kinds of hell” meant starting an ATMB thread slightly before Marley moved the thread to the Pit. Still, the Pit thread went some 10 pages, and seems as genocidal as anything about nuking all North Koreans–but no such “don’t do this again” smackdown was issued.
Of course not, unless you declare the act of killing defenseless people to be warfare. Genocide has often been committed against a defenseless population, e.g. Rwanda. And although the Holocaust was committed during a war, it was not itself warfare.
And they forbid genocide.
In any case, this is entirely irrelevant to the main issue, which is that advocating genocide is a jerkish thing to do.
And don’t forget Cambodia. The couple million people were rounded up and killed after the Khmer Rouge won the war and sealed off the country.
Point of order, Mr. Ghost of Java Man. I am not the one complaining about your actions. Ogre was the one who started this thread, and others have voiced their criticism for either side (mostly mine, if my mathematics is correct.) I myself have no opinion to express, because it’s not a problem for me – there are more pressing matters that demand my attention at this point in time.
The same applies to the Germans & Japanese during WWII, but nobody today complains about the conventional bombings of Dresden & Tokyo, which massacred over 250,000 people combined. Sure, nuclear weapons have a strong stigma attached to them, but why should that make any difference?
As for “genocide” (sheesh) it’s almost always performed by a nation against it’s own citizens (Sudan, Iraq, Turkey, etc.) or against a very weak nation who lives on real estate they wish to possess for themselves (USA vs. the Native Americans, Ancient Israel vs. the Amalekites, etc.) Beyond that, all is fair in love and war.
I know you aren’t one of the ones complaining, and I wasn’t implying that you are. All I was pointing out was that the notation “no warning issued” usually doesn’t get us off the hook if someone doesn’t like the call.