| | | Let's have a go at it: <
| I know no one will defend what he said. Because it is indefensible. |
| |
>
Collective punishment is done in schools and all over the place. So it has a very good traditional use. For example, one person might drive too quickly through a residential street, so the government digs up the road and builds stupid speed bumps all over the place, slowing traffic, damaging vehicles, causing increased wear and tear, more fuel consumption, more air pollution, and noise for the people living beside the speed bumps as vehicles decelerate and accelerate again. With some effort, and not much effort at all, you should be able to think of swarms of examples of collective punishment, right up to and including death - it being better to cause the death of some people as collateral damage to attempt to achieve some socialist collectivist "for the greater good" ideology. Big Brother statists have that as their default setting.
So the principle is very well established.
But how about highly targeted murder of the families of terrorists? Since the families are vastly more likely to share the same convictions as the terrorists, it makes much more sense to collectively punish them than to punish me because somebody speeds through a neighbourhood. I can't have an effect on speedsters but families can report family members who are overly enthusiastic about jihad and seem likely to go along with what the Koran demands they do to be a good Moslem. Also, the jihadist will think twice before doing it if they know all their family will be gone with them. If parents, wives and children, siblings, uncles and aunts were all guilty of the same crime, there would be a lot of incentive to stop the miscreant family member BEFORE they put the whole family in danger.
From an ethical point of view, the Moslems are already doing collective punishment by mass murdering infidels for being infidels, so doing the same in return is quite logical using tit for tat theory of good relations with others.
From a numbers point of view, it might make more sense to make it 100 of the closest family members for each victim, because some terrorists might have no close family to do the collective punishment on. In such cases, the numbers could be made up of random Moslems from the same town or neighbourhood or something. As there are only a few million Jews but over a billion Moslems, the ratio would need to be something like 100 to 1 to achieve a winning and persuasive ratio. If a mass murderer kills 10 or even only 1, and only loses their own life, then suicide bombing/knifing/shooting/poisoning would make sense as the Moslems could kill all the Jews and still have a billion people to take on the rest of the world.
There you are. Easy. If Moslems stop murdering people, then people will stop murdering them. The problem is their ideology which they should think about and rewrite.
Do you recall how well collective punishment worked in Japan? Two atomic bombs as collective punishment with a demand for unconditional surrender and the horrors were over and are now fading into history. Pearl Harbour attack: <<In total, 2,403 Americans died and 1,178 were wounded. Eighteen ships were sunk or run aground, including five battleships.>> There were more than that killed in the 911 attacks by Saudis with Saudi Arabian backing so from a numbers point of view, 911 was worse than Pearl Harbour, as well as 4 airliners
But memories are short. Even now when the battle of the Somme is being commemorated and the commemorations of WWI horrors "lest we forget" blah blah blah are only a year old, the USA with a few hangers-on is trying to get WWIII going and will probably succeed if Hillary Clinton is elected. The USA has caused carnage in Ukraine, with an airliner being shot down in the process and is now lining up tanks in the Baltic states and playing war games ready for a re-enactment of Napoleon's 1812 Overture and Operation Barbarossa, not to mention the Charge of the Light Brigade into Crimea, all of which where horrific failures.
Russia has explained that in return, collective punishment by way of atomic bombs will be used. While the USA might be able to stop a good number of mirved ICBMs and submarine launches, and Bear bombers, it wouldn't need many to get through to make the missing New York, Los Angeles, Washington and a lot more besides be a matter for regret and commemorations for a century to come "lest we forget" blah blah blah once again.
Laughably, and to show their complete lack of perspective if not actual insanity, the many manic marauders ruling the USA compare Putin to Hitler. As evidence, they cite his resisting the Georgian effort and now they cite his reluctance to allow Crimea and eastern Ukraine to be taken over by NATO, with eviction of Russian military and his wish to NOT have nukes lined up across Ukraine just south of Moscow. Maybe they didn't read anything about what Hitler and Germany did so they are confused.
Donald Trump is far less likely to cause WWIII and that's enough reason to vote for him. He has already said that Putin is okay and is just looking after Russia's security as he should do and as Trump intends to do for the USA. I doubt that Zbigniew will get much traction in the White House with Trump as the Decider.
Russia nuking Washington would be collective punishment in return. You should expect it. New York too. And more. After all, the USA did it to Japan and no war crime proceedings were issued, so it should be okay for Russia in self-defence against American/NATO attacks.
There you go, case made. "Daddy" made a reasonable point about collective punishment being persuasive.
Mqurice |
|
