RZehr wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 11:23 pm
I don’t know if it is cynicism or callousness. Maybe hopeless. Maybe acceptance.
It's a decision to not hunger and thirst for righteousness, a decision to not mourn what really should be mourned, a decision to justify truly horrible things and let one side off the hook - but not the other side. I don't think that's what the Kingdom of God does.
Is this response because I mentioned 10/7 as an example of what I was talking about? No one is saying what Israel is doing is a good thing. I could have given another example, but this thread is about this war.
Do you think the invention of “rules of war” have reduced casualties? Or do you think that they have served as an umbrella, as a license for war, as long as “the rules” are followed, thus possibly contributing to even more war than otherwise might happen if there were no rules, only total war? Giving a veneer of respectability to war making, a facade of honor that allows the countries civilians to believe that every war they are a part of is justified as long as the rules apply to everyone and they are followed; that cheating is worse morally than killing the enemy. War is not a child’s board game, a sport, or tiddlywinks, where rules are followed to play, and cheating ruins the play. There used to be a saying that said, all is fair in love and war, which sort of captures the true essence of war.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:09 pm
I'm not in any way referring to the treatment of German POWs. I'm referring to Allied policy regarding Germany as a whole.
I don't have time to write an extensive report, but when General Clay writes about the importance of making sure that the Germans suffer hunger and cold so that they understand the seriousness of starting wars, and when official policy sets nutritional goals of 1550 calories per day with full knowledge that an adult needs more than 2,000 calories per day, and when Allied policy was to export coal and food from Germany despite some areas having sufficient food for only an average of less than 1,200 calories per person per day - I guarantee you if Israel did that to the inhabitants of the Gaza strip after hostilities were ended there would be an international outcry (as there should be).
I found this from the May 17, 1945 New York Times:
Gen. Clay Holds Congress and People Must Decide How Far Oerman Hunger Will Go
PARIS, May 16-The question of how close to starvation the German people -- whose food resources are stringently limited -- may be allowed to come is up to "the American Congress and the Amerian people," Lieut. Gen. Lucius D.Clay, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower's deputy in the American Military Government in Germany, said today.
"The food supply is going to be a very tight squeeze and we will be lucky if the current stocks last until harvest time," but no food is going to be shipped from the United States merely on the assumption that some Germans are going to starve, he said at a press conference at which he and Brig.
Gen. Frank McSherry, SRAEF Military Government director, reported on German conditions.
The Military Government director in the British area reported recently that, with the facilities now in sight, 4,000,000 Germans face starvation this winter in the Ruhr alone.
"We may bring in food if the Germans start starving, General Clay said. "I would not say the policy on this has been decided. The American Congress and the American people have got to make the decision. No money has so far been appropriated."
The basic occupation ration for the Germans is 1,150 calories, about half of what doctors consider a good diet. The Germans, at the time of their surrender, were regularly getting twice as much meat as Britons got throughout the war, living reasonably well off the stocks in stores and warehouses, which are being doled out by the Military Government pretty much in a continuance of the German rationing system.
However, the lack of industry and transport for replenishing these supplies makes the future grim. The Germans are being urged to plant and are receiving seed, but this is far from a full answer to the problem. General Clay disclosed that suitable prisoners of war, screened for harmlessness,
will be released as soon as possible to work on farms.
0 x
“It’s easy to make everything a conspiracy when you don’t know how anything works.” — Brandon L. Bradford
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 4:04 pm
Perhaps we could use examples like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden to make Ken's point. These are all widely condemned actions by the United States. We killed LOTS of civilians. 70,000 in Hiroshima, 40,000 in Nagasaki, 25,000 in Dresden.
Israel killing 30,000+ people in Gaza is on this same scale. A really big deal. Ukranian casualties in the war with Russia are also about 30,000+, FWIW.
Creation is groaning and longing to be released.
I object to any insinuation that "I" had anything to do with the wholesale death and destruction perpetuated by the United States and its allies. But that sort of thing is what I am referring to when I say that most of the nations condemning Israel's actions today would do the same in a heartbeat in the right circumstances. In fact, no need to go back to WWII - look at what's been done to Iraq and Afghanistan!
But then, really, is it somehow better for a country to kill 30,000 enemy soldiers than for it to kill 30,000 civilians? If so, why?
Here's an academic article on the topic of the Allied response to German hunger after World War II. I don't have access to JSTOR -- https://www.jstor.org/stable/41410721
0 x
“It’s easy to make everything a conspiracy when you don’t know how anything works.” — Brandon L. Bradford
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:09 pm
I'm not in any way referring to the treatment of German POWs. I'm referring to Allied policy regarding Germany as a whole.
I don't have time to write an extensive report, but when General Clay writes about the importance of making sure that the Germans suffer hunger and cold so that they understand the seriousness of starting wars, and when official policy sets nutritional goals of 1550 calories per day with full knowledge that an adult needs more than 2,000 calories per day, and when Allied policy was to export coal and food from Germany despite some areas having sufficient food for only an average of less than 1,200 calories per person per day - I guarantee you if Israel did that to the inhabitants of the Gaza strip after hostilities were ended there would be an international outcry (as there should be).
I found this from the May 17, 1945 New York Times:
Gen. Clay Holds Congress and People Must Decide How Far Oerman Hunger Will Go
PARIS, May 16-The question of how close to starvation the German people -- whose food resources are stringently limited -- may be allowed to come is up to "the American Congress and the Amerian people," Lieut. Gen. Lucius D.Clay, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower's deputy in the American Military Government in Germany, said today.
"The food supply is going to be a very tight squeeze and we will be lucky if the current stocks last until harvest time," but no food is going to be shipped from the United States merely on the assumption that some Germans are going to starve, he said at a press conference at which he and Brig.
Gen. Frank McSherry, SRAEF Military Government director, reported on German conditions.
The Military Government director in the British area reported recently that, with the facilities now in sight, 4,000,000 Germans face starvation this winter in the Ruhr alone.
"We may bring in food if the Germans start starving, General Clay said. "I would not say the policy on this has been decided. The American Congress and the American people have got to make the decision. No money has so far been appropriated."
The basic occupation ration for the Germans is 1,150 calories, about half of what doctors consider a good diet. The Germans, at the time of their surrender, were regularly getting twice as much meat as Britons got throughout the war, living reasonably well off the stocks in stores and warehouses, which are being doled out by the Military Government pretty much in a continuance of the German rationing system.
However, the lack of industry and transport for replenishing these supplies makes the future grim. The Germans are being urged to plant and are receiving seed, but this is far from a full answer to the problem. General Clay disclosed that suitable prisoners of war, screened for harmlessness,
will be released as soon as possible to work on farms.
Exactly - aside from the fact that whoever wrote this piece has a, well, interesting way of describing starvation rations. "About half of what doctors consider a good diet" caused thousands or even millions of Germans to starve to death.
Combined with Allied policy of looting whatever was left of German manufacturing equipment to ensure that Germany could not produce and export manufactured goods in order to buy food - it was a recipe for starvation.
Allied policies prevented the Germans from trading for food - so the Dutch were destroying excess crops of vegetables because Allied policy wouldn't let the Germans have them. The US occupation forces were under strict orders to destroy leftovers or excess food rather than allow it to fall into the hands of German civilians.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:55 pmBut then, really, is it somehow better for a country to kill 30,000 enemy soldiers than for it to kill 30,000 civilians? If so, why?
Yes, I think so. But I make the distinction between those who use and support the use of the sword, vs. those who do not.
God has instituted the sword and civil government for the punishment of evil doers. But, in a general way, those who take the sword perish with the sword. Some perish as a result of guns and swords. Others perish with PTSD.
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:55 pmBut then, really, is it somehow better for a country to kill 30,000 enemy soldiers than for it to kill 30,000 civilians? If so, why?
Yes, I think so. But I make the distinction between those who use and support the use of the sword, vs. those who do not.
God has instituted the sword and civil government for the punishment of evil doers. But, in a general way, those who take the sword perish with the sword. Some perish as a result of guns and swords. Others perish with PTSD.
Are you also answering the "why" question in your post? And if not, would you be willing to expound on why you would say it's better to kill soldiers than to kill civilians?
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:55 pmBut then, really, is it somehow better for a country to kill 30,000 enemy soldiers than for it to kill 30,000 civilians? If so, why?
Yes, I think so. But I make the distinction between those who use and support the use of the sword, vs. those who do not.
God has instituted the sword and civil government for the punishment of evil doers. But, in a general way, those who take the sword perish with the sword. Some perish as a result of guns and swords. Others perish with PTSD.
Are you also answering the "why" question in your post? And if not, would you be willing to expound on why you would say it's better to kill soldiers than to kill civilians?
I think Hamas folks who want to destroy Jews and hide behind their own civilians are evil.
I think Jewish people who starve innocent people are evil.
But I make the distinction between those who use and support the use of the sword, vs. those who do not. (Not between civilians and soldiers.)
Civilians vs. soldiers is the normal categories people use but I nuance it more.
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:55 pmBut then, really, is it somehow better for a country to kill 30,000 enemy soldiers than for it to kill 30,000 civilians? If so, why?
Yes, I think so. But I make the distinction between those who use and support the use of the sword, vs. those who do not.
God has instituted the sword and civil government for the punishment of evil doers. But, in a general way, those who take the sword perish with the sword. Some perish as a result of guns and swords. Others perish with PTSD.
Are you also answering the "why" question in your post? And if not, would you be willing to expound on why you would say it's better to kill soldiers than to kill civilians?
Militaries shouldn't be killing anyone gratuitously. They should be engaging in military operations (war) in the manner that results in the least loss of life and destruction on both sides while achieving the military objective. Killing soldiers sometimes has a place in that calculation if that is what is necessary to achieve the military objective. Sometimes it doesn't (for example killing prisoners). But killing civilians has no place in war.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 7:59 pm
Yes, I think so. But I make the distinction between those who use and support the use of the sword, vs. those who do not.
God has instituted the sword and civil government for the punishment of evil doers. But, in a general way, those who take the sword perish with the sword. Some perish as a result of guns and swords. Others perish with PTSD.
Are you also answering the "why" question in your post? And if not, would you be willing to expound on why you would say it's better to kill soldiers than to kill civilians?
I think Hamas folks who want to destroy Jews and hide behind their own civilians are evil.
I think Jewish people who starve innocent people are evil.
But I make the distinction between those who use and support the use of the sword, vs. those who do not. (Not between civilians and soldiers.)
Civilians vs. soldiers is the normal categories people use but I nuance it more.
Do you support the use of the sword to kill evil people who want to destroy the enemy while hiding behind their own civilians?
What about Jewish soldiers who want to kill Hamas soldiers without harming the rest of the population - or vice versa? Are they evil?