@joe.edwards said:
@anonymous_guy said:Most prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are nothing more and nothing less than scapegoats who suffer for 9/11.
What about Harold and Kumar?
Never watched that movie. Did I miss something?
@joe.edwards said:
@anonymous_guy said:Most prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are nothing more and nothing less than scapegoats who suffer for 9/11.
What about Harold and Kumar?
Never watched that movie. Did I miss something?
@boomzilla said:
@eViLegion said:No other countries have created a similar act about Guantanamo bay, which is clearly not legal in any way, shape or form.Wow. What a stupid statement. What's illegal about it in any way, shape or form?
I honestly don't get why some of you guys are still trying to defend Guantanamo. There is simply no moral justification for keeping those people, many of whom provably neither actively participated in any war nor committed any crime, imprisoned without trial. Yes, there are legal loopholes which allow you to do so, but let's be honest: Most prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are nothing more and nothing less than scapegoats who suffer for 9/11.
@xaade said:
And people continue to bash Bush on the war in Iraq, whereas no one worldwide says a thing against Obama doing much worse.
You obviously haven't read any European newspaper in the past few months. Obama has lost our sympathies a long time ago.
@boomzilla said:
And like I said, it's not our fault that other countries don't value their sovereignty.
Well, we do. That's why a significant part of the European population is unhappy about the development of the EU.
@morbiuswilters said:
but it is the only defensible choice
I agree with you there, but it requires more courage (and suicidal tendency) than almost everyone has, so I'm still proud of the courage he actually had.
@morbiuswilters said:
@anonymous_guy said:I just don't consider a soldier who feels good about killing thousands of civilians (as Paul Tibbets did) honorable.You still haven't explained why it's okay to kill soldiers, but not okay to kill the people supporting the soldiers. In a democratic society like the US, civilians are more responsible for the actions of the military than the military themselves.
You've mentioned one of the important facts: Even if you count the Weimar Republic as a working democracy (which it wasn't), in 1939 Germany had definitely ceased to be one. But more importantly: Even if you assume that in a totalitarian state, about 50% of the population actually supports the dictator and his actions, killing 100,000 civilians means you're killing about 50,000 innocent people. If you think killing them is justified, you're basically arguing that executing a group of people is justified because you suspect half of them to be actual criminals.
@morbiuswilters said:
People who served them, in uniform or not, were targets.
The problem is that you're assuming that everyone who was killed actively served the regime. That's definitely not the case. Just to clarify: If my grandfather would have been killed during the war, I would not judge the soldier who killed him. He served an enemy nation, so he would have been a legitimate target, unlike the average citizen.
@morbiuswilters said:
I honestly don't see why being in a uniform should matter.
Because of the basic principle "in dubio pro reo".
@morbiuswilters said:
Seriously, the dude's just pissed we kicked his Nazi granddad's ass.
Your black-and-white world continues to amaze me.
@morbiuswilters said:
@anonymous_guy said:My grandfather never killed any Jew during WW II...Yeah, he never did it with his own hand, which I guess is the only thing that counts. He wore the uniform of the country that did, he fucking fought for them. His choices were to die with honor or to fight in the name of a psychotic, antisemitic regime and guess which one he chose? Your grandfather is a repulsive coward. If he'd actually had balls, he wouldn't have gone along with Hitler, dude.
Let me get this straight: If a violent dictator rose to power in your country, supported by the majority of the population, you would single-handedly finish him off? You've seen too many movies.
@morbiuswilters said:
Of course, he then turn around and served that evil regime, so...
"Turn around"? Nope.
@morbiuswilters said:
So let's see, you say that your Nazi granddad is more honorable than my country […]
Nope, I said nothing about any country. I just don't consider a soldier who feels good about killing thousands of civilians (as Paul Tibbets did) honorable. And I think that's a valid opinion.
@electronerd said:
@anonymous_guy said:@lushr said:This was a bit of a side comment, actually. My main point is that the US was stuck: Japan wasn't going to surrender (see the Operation Ketsugō part of the wiki article I linked above). The US had 3 options: invade, blockade, or nuke. The first two would have been atrocities, but traditional atrocities, with many millions dead. They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths. Which would you rather do?Call me an idealist, but I'd probably choose an option which does not require me to intentionally kill a large number of civilists, risking a traditional war which may result in more deaths. The end does not justify the means, IMO.
So, the needs of the very many outweigh the needs of the very, very many?
No, but morals sometimes outweigh seemingly more pragmatic solutions.
@morbiuswilters said:
He doesn't really care. His grandfather was a fucking soldier in the Nazi regime, and he's not even sorry for it.
I'm honestly sorry for what happened between 1933-45 and especially for any of my ancestors which may have supported Hitler's regime. (There must be a reason why I don't know what my other grandfather did during the war.)
@morbiuswilters said:
He thinks his grandpa's a hero and ours are the war criminals, because they fought back too well, or something.
Take a look out of the window, the world isn't black and white. Whereby I don't mean to say that there was anything good about Nazi Germany. But you're not responsible for a dictatorship's actions just because you happen to live in it and also happen to be a member of that country's army at the time the dictator rises to power.
@lushr said:
This was a bit of a side comment, actually. My main point is that the US was stuck: Japan wasn't going to surrender (see the Operation Ketsugō part of the wiki article I linked above). The US had 3 options: invade, blockade, or nuke. The first two would have been atrocities, but traditional atrocities, with many millions dead. They saw a neat way out, which allowed them to cause "only" 200-300k deaths. Which would you rather do?
Call me an idealist, but I'd probably choose an option which does not require me to intentionally kill a large number of civilists, risking a traditional war which may result in more deaths. The end does not justify the means, IMO.