ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[Granite]

fool I would like you (in your best honor) to speculate as to why God would normally have His armies NOT kill the women and children but only in these very RARE instances request the "nuclear option"?

Doesn't that demonstrate this was a drastic event?

Please speculate for us.

I don't think the rarity of an atrocity or war crime makes it any better or worse. I mean, Mai Lai wasn't par for the course in Vietnam but it was still horrific. "Drastic event" has nothing to do with the ethics underpining a decision or order. I mean, if a husband "rarely" beats his wife but only goes nuclear when she "drastically" screws up--in his opinion--does the rarity make him any less of an oaf?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It would seem to me that since the genocide was only conducted on the lands that were to become the Hebrews that they wanted to eliminate anyone who could claim a birthright to them.

That wasn't really an answer to the question I asked.

I asked why the difference?

Why destroy one enemy more harshly than another?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

i look at the biblical accounts of the Jericho Genocide, Og, Sihon and Arad and then i look to Sun Tzu and it's clear that the Art of War is superior to the tactics practiced in the Old Testament.

Great! Good for you... now go and worship at the feet of Sun Tzu I really don't care. :hammer:

 

[allsmiles]

Great! Good for you... now go and worship at the feet of Sun Tzu I really don't care. :hammer:

:sigh:

Knight, i've had a lot of questions for you and challenges.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I grant that war is sometimes a necessary evil. There's no way around it, as long as there are evil people in the world who will try to utterly destroy you if you do not defend yourself. But admitting this does not lead to the conclusion that indiscriminate killing of civilians is therefore good and justifiable. Unless you are a trigger-happy jarhead.

And once again you demonstrate your loathing for the military.

I can't help a guy like you.

If you hate the Marines that's your prerogative. Thankfully the Marines and the rest of the US armed forces are brave enough to fight and kill for your right to be an idiot.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:sigh:

Knight, i've had a lot of questions for you and challenges.

About Sun Tzu???? GenuineOriginal has posted some stuff about Sun Tzu that you completely ignore.

Ultimately....

Who gives a rip about Sun Tzu??? :dead:

If you are so infatuted with him start a thread about him. Heck don't stop there start a website about him and you can talk about him all day long.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I don't think the rarity of an atrocity or war crime makes it any better or worse.

What it does show is that this was an extraordinary situation.

 

[allsmiles]

About Sun Tzu???? GenuineOriginal has posted some stuff about Sun Tzu that you completely ignore.

no, i answered him. and it's not about Sun Tzu :nono: it's about his strategy.

Ultimately....

Who gives a rip about Sun Tzu??? :dead:

plenty of people. his strategy has been followed longer than the words of Jesus Christ, at least 2300 years.

If you are so infatuted with him start a thread about him. Heck don't stop there start a website about him and you can talk about him all day long.

i'm not so much infatuated with Sun Tzu himself as i am interested in his strategy.

Knight, do you not see the value of acheiving victory with the least amount of damage and bloodshed?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

plenty of people. his strategy has been followed longer than the words of Jesus Christ, at least 2300 years.

Great, maybe he can save you.

i'm not so much infatuated with Sun Tzu himself as i am interested in his strategy.

Knight, do you not see the value of acheiving victory with the least amount of damage and bloodshed?

Avoiding bloodshed in battle is NOT the number one goal. If it is you will lose. The number one goal should be victory, not at "all costs" but still victory should be the goal.

Different wars, different circumstances take different strategies. My point is that ruling out the nuclear option because it might distasteful to you personally is a bad strategy.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Sun Tzu strategies are superior relative to you (allsmiles). Sun Tzu strategies are not superior to God's strategies relative to me (Knight).

Can you argue you are more "right" than me? :think:

 

[allsmiles]

Great, maybe he can save you.

Knight, that's not what i'm saying at all. i don't want to get banned again, maybe i should disengage now.

Avoiding bloodshed in battle is NOT the number one goal. If it is you will lose. The number one goal should be victory, not at "all costs" but still victory should be the goal.

Sun Tzu never said to avoid blood shed. he said victory with the least amount of bloodshed is the pinnacle or "acme" of skill. you're essentially agreeing with him now, so i guess you do see the value in his strategy.

Different wars, different circumstances take different strategies.

and i do see your point about drastic times requiring drastic measures.

My point is that ruling out the nuclear option because it might distasteful to you personally is a bad strategy.

it is distasteful Knight. wholesale slaughter should leave a bad taste in our mouths and we should question whoever gives the order to carry it out.

i'm not talking about ruling out the nuclear option, what i'm saying is that strategically, morally and practically, it is inferior to what Sun Tzu speaks of.

as you said, drastic times call for drastic measures, but i wouldn't blame the use of the nuclear option on the resolve of the enemy so much as i would blame it on a failure to utilize superior tactics to begin with.

 

[Balder]

And once again you demonstrate your loathing for the military.

I can't help a guy like you.

If you hate the Marines that's your prerogative. Thankfully the Marines and the rest of the US armed forces are brave enough to fight and kill for your right to be an idiot.

Knight, your response is uncalled for. And it is off the mark. You are reacting emotionally and defensively, not addressing the issues.

I have loathing for anyone who is trigger happy, not for the military in itself.

 

[Granite]

What it does show is that this was an extraordinary situation.

Extraordinary, yes. Extraordinarily horrible, maybe, or simply extraordinary in its occurrence...but that doesn't change the ethics behind it or the nature of the order.

 

[allsmiles]

Sun Tzu strategies are superior relative to you (allsmiles). Sun Tzu strategies are not superior to God's strategies relative to me (Knight).

these are opinions Knight, personal opinions. yours are based on a subjective presupposition that your god's strategy must be superior to Sun Tzu's. my opinion is based on a comparison of the two strategies.

Can you argue you are more "right" than me? :think:

i'm not relying on my opinion Knight, i'm relying on Sun Tzu's.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

i'm not talking about ruling out the nuclear option, what i'm saying is that strategically, morally and practically, it is inferior to what Sun Tzu speaks of.

as you said, drastic times call for drastic measures, but i wouldn't blame the use of the nuclear option on the resolve of the enemy so much as i would blame it on a failure to utilize superior tactics to begin with.

In some circumstances yes, and in others no.

But since you acknowledge the nuclear option is at times a viable option there is logical reason you should second guess God's determination to use it in a given situation.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have loathing for anyone who is trigger happy, not for the military in itself.

And you insinuated the Marines are "trigger happy".

Unless you are a trigger-happy jarhead.

Do try and keep up.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Extraordinary, yes. Extraordinarily horrible, maybe, or simply extraordinary in its occurrence...but that doesn't change the ethics behind it or the nature of the order.

If the nuclear option is viable, then its viable. Who are you to question God's judgement to use it.

 

[Balder]

No, that is not true, Knight. That's how you read it, but that's not what I meant. The adjective applies to whoever it applies to, individually, not to the military itself.

I can keep up perfectly well with my arguments, but it appears you can only see in black and white and have trouble with subtlety. For instance, you think that anyone who protests against massacreing children and women is a total idiot who finds no place or justification for war at all, not allowing for the possibility that there may be more or less humane and moral ways to conduct war. You seem to want to check moral considerations at the door whenever war is declared. And then it's anything goes.

Why don't you try to keep up and read what is being said more closely, instead of resorting to insults and emotional blanket judgments.

 

[allsmiles]

In some circumstances yes, and in others no.

But since you acknowledge the nuclear option is at times a viable option there is logical reason you should second guess God's determination to use it in a given situation.

did you mean to say that there is no reason i should second guess God?

at any rate, i have read the story and the massacre begins after the city has been taken.

victory was acheived and then the city and it's contents were "devoted" to the Lord and they killed everyone.

the used the nuclear option after they had beaten their enemy.

that would have been like Japan surrendering, putting down their weapons and their leaders stepping down from office... and then we nuked 'em.

i don't see how the nuclear option was a viable option in this scenario. and i would never argue that the nuclear option is the morally just decision. i would argue that if it were necessary, we better be pretty damn sure and we better have exhausted every single option to acheive victory.

would you say those are reasonable concerns?

 

[Granite]

If the nuclear option is viable, then its viable. Who are you to question God's judgement to use it.

Who am I? I am Granite!:devil:

Jesus I know, and Paul I know...but who are you?:think:

On topic, I do not believe such an "option" is ever a "viable" option.