Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
So, you’re proposing that we should have committed war crimes, because your belief is that the Muslim faith is incompatible with what you perceive to be the state religion of the United States?
No. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not war crimes.
Pacifists think war is a crime. It's certainly a moral crime against the innocents who want no part of it. If there were a legitimate reason to start a war, then the defenders against it would ipso facto be criminals. If there were no legitimate reason to start a war, then the attackers would thus be criminals. The idea that you can come to some gentleman's agreement about what is allowed in war and what is not allowed and calling what is supposedly not allowed a crime supposes that there is actually an agreeable world community in which everybody operates under the same law. We do not have such a community. Telling the losers that they committed crimes and condemning them in some world court (or the winner's court) is a kind of ridiculous grim humor.
Hey! . . . the winner can do what ever it wishes to the loser. If the winners hate what their adversaries did, they can deal out whatever "just" vengeance they want. Hiding behind some righteous sounding trial by a supposedly impartial Court is some kind of dark humor. I would have no compunction against executing Putin without much of a trial over his invading Ukraine, killing thousands, uprooting millions, destroying the country. There was great rejoicing when Ceaușescu and his wife were shot after a very brief phony predetermined "trial."
because your belief is that the Muslim faith is incompatible with what you perceive to be the state religion of the United States?
I don't perceive it that way, but if you believe that secular rule of law is a state religion, then, yes, you could put it that way. Islam is not compatible with the "religion" called secular rule of law. Islam firmly, unbendingly, functions under its religious laws. Islam is, indeed, a state religion. It is an absolute theocracy.
So then, just how are you rationalizing Putin’s tactics or motives?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I'm not. I made a comparison (no comparison is perfect). Putin is asking for something that is not being given and he is responding in a manner that he thinks is legitimate on his stage of what is ethical in war. Perhaps he is telling NATO and Ukraine that their romance is reneging on the agreement that Ukraine would not be welcomed into joining NATO. Perhaps he is broadcasting how he will react if the romance spreads to other countries that were not allowed to join NATO.
Or, perhaps, he's a bloodthirsty criminal.