mojomonkey Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Innocent civilians are not apartheid. I know you like being deliberately obtuse but even you must understand the point being made. Apartheid claimed the lives of innocent civilians on both sides but it was right that Apartheid was opposed and fought against. Can you agree that Apartheid was the antithesis of liberty? Killing innocent civilians is no better than apartheid. Two evils don't make a right. I'm fairly sure I've managed to avoid name calling in all my time as a member of this forum but you don't half test a person's will power. One more try, many opposed and fought against Apartheid in a non-violent way (harming no civilians). Can you agree that Apartheid was the antithesis of liberty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Innocent civilians are not apartheid. I know you like being deliberately obtuse but even you must understand the point being made. Apartheid claimed the lives of innocent civilians on both sides but it was right that Apartheid was opposed and fought against. Can you agree that Apartheid was the antithesis of liberty? Killing innocent civilians is no better than apartheid. Two evils don't make a right. I'm fairly sure I've managed to avoid name calling in all my time as a member of this forum but you don't half test a person's will power. One more try, many opposed and fought against Apartheid in a non-violent way (harming no civilians). Can you agree that Apartheid was the antithesis of liberty? I thought I made myself clear when I said "two EVILS"; Apartheid was and is evil. Yes, it's contrary to human liberty - the foremost liberty being the right to LIFE. Killing innocent civilians is a violation of liberty, just as Apartheid was and is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Whilst I don't condone senseless killing, do you not consider they were fighting for liberty? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and all that. An organisation which kills innocent civilians is not going to be much of a defender of individual liberty, is it? It's a contradiction in terms. So the massacres at King David Hotel [22/07 1946], and Deir Yassin where 250 or so men, women and children were massacred [10/04/1948] - organised by luminaries such as Menachem Begin - were not justified - even though Ben Gurion said that "without Deir Yassin there would be no Israel"? Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 TJ - If all peaceful means have failed to bring about change what would you do? Does the end not sometimes justify the means? Would you take arms to defend your freedom and rights if there was no other way? I would like to know your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 TJ - If all peaceful means have failed to bring about change what would you do? Does the end not sometimes justify the means? Would you take arms to defend your freedom and rights if there was no other way? I would like to know your thoughts. Of course I would take up arms but not against civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Of course I would take up arms but not against civilians. The people doing the oppressing are surely civilians as well though? They would view 'you' as a terrorist and would view such use of force as acting against their civilisation (whether you or I agree with their values or not). How do you identify a civilian anyway? A lack of uniform? It all seems rather simplistic to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Of course I would take up arms but not against civilians. The people doing the oppressing are surely civilians as well though? They would view 'you' as a terrorist and would view such use of force as acting against their civilisation (whether you or I agree with their values or not). How do you identify a civilian anyway? A lack of uniform? It all seems rather simplistic to me. No, I have to disagree. How would you know that those civilians were involved in oppression? That's nothing more than applying collective guilt to an entire group of people, which is wrong. For all you know, individuals you're targetting could be sympathetic to the anti-apartheid movement. For all you know, they could be tourists from another country. Only the individuals you know to be oppressors would be a valid target. Women and children should be out of the equation. You don't generate public support for your cause by arbitrarily blowing up your intended support base. If you really believe in individual liberty, you wouldn't be violating other individual's right to life. You'd seek peaceful routes for change, which are ultimately what did end apartheid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 No, I have to disagree. How would you know that those civilians were involved in oppression? That's nothing more than applying collective guilt to an entire group of people, which is wrong. For all you know, individuals you're targetting could be sympathetic to the anti-apartheid movement. For all you know, they could be tourists from another country. Only the individuals you know to be oppressors would be a valid target. Women and children should be out of the equation. You don't generate public support for your cause by arbitrarily blowing up your intended support base. If you really believe in individual liberty, you wouldn't be violating other individual's right to life. You'd seek peaceful routes for change, which are ultimately what did end apartheid. That is the problem with this type of scenario. When you are there and involved, making those decisions, facing people who may or may not support of fight you, these things become so much harder. It is not often in life that situations are black and white (yes, I know) and in any struggle there will sadly be innocent people who lose their lives. I am not saying it is right to target 'civilians' or the innocent but if you have to resort to violence as a last resort you need to be prepared that your actions and inactions could well lead to innocent people losing their lives. That is a decision that Mandela had to make and live with, once released from imprisonment he showed the world the way by accepting his imprisonment and his gaolers and working for the benefit of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Well I'm afraid I don't have the luxury of your moral relativism. For me, I go by the law of God: something is either right or wrong. Killing innocent people is wrong in every possible scenario. It is an ineffective way to bring about change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFK Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Respect. I especially liked him in the "Mr Monk joins a cult" episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Respect. I especially liked him in the "Mr Monk joins a cult" episode. Maybe you should meet up with TJ, I know he's a big Monk fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Respect. I especially liked him in the "Mr Monk joins a cult" episode. Just because someone else has a presidential name doesn't mean they're me. And, Lonan, I already told you I don't believe in any of that stuff. That's not the God I believe in. Maybe you should meet up with TJ, I know he's a big Monk fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 TJ - That was a quick response but I was only pointing out something you have highlighted before. You have posted videos of the show before, you are a big Monk fan aren't you? I'm not sure what else you think I was suggesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 People have previously accused me and JFK of being the same person and it's simply not the case. Just as I'm not LDV, even though people accused me (the offline me) of being him/her months before I'd even joined the forum. Yes, I'm a Monk fan. He's hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.