5 ms·

Indiscriminate killing of civilians? Like when the French opened fire on crowds marching for Syrian independence in 1945 (like the French did in Algeria and el

by obrero 11y ago

Indiscriminate killing of civilians? Like when the French opened fire on crowds marching for Syrian independence in 1945 (like the French did in Algeria and elsewhere?) Like the French bomb and kill people on Greenpeace boats?

Karunamon 11y ago
I see, in your morality it's acceptable to kill innocents (rather than, yknow, the people responsible, which would be at least logical) in response to killing innocents 70 years ago?
- tinco 11y ago
  What are you talking about? Where does he say it's acceptable to kill innocents? It's obviously never, so why not point out that France has no clean slate? Just that it happened 70 years ago (other events like the Greenpeace bomb are much more recent) doesn't make it right. You can't just say just because France was attacked two days ago now they're suddenly holy. The attacks on France were despicable, as were the actions of France in the past. As were many actions of many if not most of the countries currently in existance. Countries usually are wrought from blood. But it's not the blood of countries that is spilt, it's the blood of civilians, individual human beings whose part in the operations of the countries is indirect at best. That doesn't mean the people should not be held accountable for the actions of their elected governments, I think they definitely should. I think it's perfectly acceptable to be angry at the average frenchmen for their indifference at the Greenpeace bombing, as it is acceptable to be angry at them for taking part in the bombing of IS targets in Syria. But no one in their right mind is suggesting that children at a concert should suffer horrific death for it..
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Where does he say it's acceptable to kill innocents? Oh, i dunno, right about here? Now the Syrians are doing to their "former" colonial masters what the French have been doing to them for the past month - bombing them. The implication is absolutely disgusting.
    - tinco 11y ago
      He is making an observation. Perhaps you should ask him if it he thinks it is right that those innocent people died, or if he thinks those people were not innocent then we know what sort of ethics he's applying. These sorts of discussions work better if you ask directly instead of filling in gaps yourself. edit: The whole situation is disgusting, the war is certainly as disgusting as this bombing. But perhaps if not for (our taking part in) the war things would've been even more disgusting out there, I don't know.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        Which, you'll note, I did. And then he doubled down in the very next post: Indiscriminate killing of civilians? Like when the French opened fire on crowds marching for Syrian independence in 1945 (like the French did in Algeria and elsewhere?) Like the French bomb and kill people on Greenpeace boats? Again, the implication is crystal clear: France killed Syrian civilians, so Syrians are justified in killing French civilians.
        tinco 11y ago
        I guess you're right, in my reading he more dodged the question than offering a direct judgement, though it certainly could be that implication. I read it more as "France killed Syrian civilians, so Syrians are killing French civilians", i.e. minus the "are justified in". Just as an aside, I think it's more likely the perpetrators were actually French civilians or perhaps Iraqi civilians, with an interest in conquering Syria for establishing the (Iraqi) IS caliphate. So perhaps the whole "revenge for syrians" angle doesn't work at all in any case.
    - dang 11y ago
      > Oh, i dunno [...] absolutely disgusting Any comment that begins with snark and ends with rage has clearly moved the needle into flamewar red, what we most seek to avoid here. Please don't post any more like this, regardless of the provocation.

by obrero 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago

I see, in your morality it's acceptable to kill innocents (rather than, yknow, the people responsible, which would be at least logical) in response to killing innocents 70 years ago?

tinco 11y ago
What are you talking about? Where does he say it's acceptable to kill innocents? It's obviously never, so why not point out that France has no clean slate? Just that it happened 70 years ago (other events like the Greenpeace bomb are much more recent) doesn't make it right. You can't just say just because France was attacked two days ago now they're suddenly holy. The attacks on France were despicable, as were the actions of France in the past. As were many actions of many if not most of the countries currently in existance. Countries usually are wrought from blood. But it's not the blood of countries that is spilt, it's the blood of civilians, individual human beings whose part in the operations of the countries is indirect at best. That doesn't mean the people should not be held accountable for the actions of their elected governments, I think they definitely should. I think it's perfectly acceptable to be angry at the average frenchmen for their indifference at the Greenpeace bombing, as it is acceptable to be angry at them for taking part in the bombing of IS targets in Syria. But no one in their right mind is suggesting that children at a concert should suffer horrific death for it..
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Where does he say it's acceptable to kill innocents? Oh, i dunno, right about here? Now the Syrians are doing to their "former" colonial masters what the French have been doing to them for the past month - bombing them. The implication is absolutely disgusting.
  - tinco 11y ago
    He is making an observation. Perhaps you should ask him if it he thinks it is right that those innocent people died, or if he thinks those people were not innocent then we know what sort of ethics he's applying. These sorts of discussions work better if you ask directly instead of filling in gaps yourself. edit: The whole situation is disgusting, the war is certainly as disgusting as this bombing. But perhaps if not for (our taking part in) the war things would've been even more disgusting out there, I don't know.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Which, you'll note, I did. And then he doubled down in the very next post: Indiscriminate killing of civilians? Like when the French opened fire on crowds marching for Syrian independence in 1945 (like the French did in Algeria and elsewhere?) Like the French bomb and kill people on Greenpeace boats? Again, the implication is crystal clear: France killed Syrian civilians, so Syrians are justified in killing French civilians.
      - tinco 11y ago
        I guess you're right, in my reading he more dodged the question than offering a direct judgement, though it certainly could be that implication. I read it more as "France killed Syrian civilians, so Syrians are killing French civilians", i.e. minus the "are justified in". Just as an aside, I think it's more likely the perpetrators were actually French civilians or perhaps Iraqi civilians, with an interest in conquering Syria for establishing the (Iraqi) IS caliphate. So perhaps the whole "revenge for syrians" angle doesn't work at all in any case.
  - dang 11y ago
    > Oh, i dunno [...] absolutely disgusting Any comment that begins with snark and ends with rage has clearly moved the needle into flamewar red, what we most seek to avoid here. Please don't post any more like this, regardless of the provocation.