Wall Street Journal Argument that Gazan Civilians Aren’t Innocent Is the Exact Same One Bin Laden Used To Justify 9/11
and;
Netanyahu’s ‘Telegenically Dead’ Comment Is Grotesque but Not Original
If it walks and talks like a duck it is a duck. In all honesty then a duck is a duck. The analysis of the two links is upsetting in its honest conclusion. Something is terribly wrong when a duck on one hand is not a duck on the other but is whatever we choose to call it.
From the first link:
"For both Rosenbaum and Bin Laden, the situation is straightforward: Because a majority of Gazans/Americans voted for leaders who used violence or waged war against Israelis/Muslims, both have forfeited their claim to noncombatant status. After all, if they wanted to avoid conflict, they wouldn’t have elected those people in the first place.***
If you recoil from this logic, your head is in the right place. By any standard, it’s perverse and morally wrong—a justification for the worst atrocities. [And it's a war crime. And see this.]"
From the second link:
Benjamin Netanyahu, yesterday, on CNN, addressing worldwide sympathy for the civilian victims of Israeli violence in Gaza:They want to pile up as many civilian dead as they can. They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause. They want the more dead, the better.Joseph Goebbels, November 16, 1941, essay in Das Reich, addressing Germany sympathy for German Jews forced to wear yellow stars:
"The Jews gradually are having to depend more and more on themselves, and have recently found a new trick. They knew the good-natured German Michael in us, always ready to shed sentimental tears for the injustice done to them. One suddenly has the impression that the Berlin Jewish population consists only of little babies whose childish helplessness might move us, or else fragile old ladies. The Jews send out the pitiable. They may confuse some harmless souls for a while, but not us. We know exactly what the situation is."
Read both links to get the full context but what it boils down to is that if the citizens of a nation elect a government that commits crimes against humanity then those civilians are responsible for the crimes and therefore not non-combatants in any war justified by those crimes. Civilians are therefore soldiers in civilian clothes. Fair game.
My prior post looked at the nature of Algorithmic Regulation as a universal operating system on which any application programs can be run. The fundamental Algorithm Regulation seems to be that collective punishment of a population for existence and actions defined as unacceptable or otherwise criminal and attributed to or imposed upon a given population.
WTF? We can do it to them for the same reasons they cannot do it to us? Where is logic reason and justice in all of this argument?
What about "Do unto others"
When a population is doing unto others......what is expected in return? What is justified in return?
Ghandi?
Oh.....but there is a difference.........isn't there always a difference. That is why Algorithmic Regulation does not work like an operating system.
Some claim the bible as an Algorithmic Regulation Operating System.
Some claim the Apple IOS as an Algorithmic Regulation Operating System.
Can a just social Algorithmic Regulation Operating system built on collective objective intelligent logic and reason that best serves global society be possible?
We in fact have such a System today. It is what it is and it needs to be restructured in accordance with the best models we have created so far for universal systems. The Information Age has given us the tools to create an a system and it is only the beginning of its creation if we use our heads. If we do not then systems crash.
Sand Creek Massacre:
"Damn any man who sympathizes with Indians! ... I have come to kill Indians, and believe it is right and honorable to use any means under God's heaven to kill Indians. ... Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.
No comments:
Post a Comment