Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

diffrence between NATO and genocides?!

Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 7:56:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
..between many actions of NATO and genocides.

in calculation, there is a diffrence, but on purpose and reason?! now, let us talk about genocides first:

for ex: God of the bible orders to kill everybody except virgin girls, in the eyes of commander(god of the bible), they are somebody who are wrong.

or anyway, Hitler slaughtered the jews, in his eyes, being a jew may have been something wrong and he killed them.

what about the wars of NATO?! why did they attack IRAQ?! because they thought that IRAQ's having a nuclear bomb is something wrong, it was wrong in their eyes. and they attacked.

or the USA(with france) tried to attack SYRIA for Asad's regime, what ASSAD was doing was something wrong in the eyes of the government.

<strong>in both cases, all were done because it was something wrong in the eyes of DOER

why is it ok for NATO/USA to kill/invade others for something wrong in their eyes while others are being blamed for killing people for something wrong in their eyes? I am not trying to say "that genocides were ok" or I am not asking you to accept that genocides as something OK, I also do not support genocides. what I want to say is: I can not find a diffrence.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 5:37:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 7:56:13 AM, Artur wrote:
..between many actions of NATO and genocides.

in calculation, there is a diffrence, but on purpose and reason?! now, let us talk about genocides first:

for ex: God of the bible orders to kill everybody except virgin girls, in the eyes of commander(god of the bible), they are somebody who are wrong.

or anyway, Hitler slaughtered the jews, in his eyes, being a jew may have been something wrong and he killed them.

what about the wars of NATO?! why did they attack IRAQ?! because they thought that IRAQ's having a nuclear bomb is something wrong, it was wrong in their eyes. and they attacked.

or the USA(with france) tried to attack SYRIA for Asad's regime, what ASSAD was doing was something wrong in the eyes of the government.

<strong>in both cases, all were done because it was something wrong in the eyes of DOER

why is it ok for NATO/USA to kill/invade others for something wrong in their eyes while others are being blamed for killing people for something wrong in their eyes? I am not trying to say "that genocides were ok" or I am not asking you to accept that genocides as something OK, I also do not support genocides. what I want to say is: I can not find a diffrence.

Just wanted to add that, imho, NATO knew there wasn't any nuclear bombs on IRAQ, but they attacked anyway. And I don't think a lot of people would say "it is ok" for NATO/US to invade other countries.

Overall I would say US is a horrible country, with a horrible history that can only be compared with, well, Nazi Germany.
Artur
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:08:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 5:37:56 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 10/23/2014 7:56:13 AM, Artur wrote:
..between many actions of NATO and genocides.

in calculation, there is a diffrence, but on purpose and reason?! now, let us talk about genocides first:

for ex: God of the bible orders to kill everybody except virgin girls, in the eyes of commander(god of the bible), they are somebody who are wrong.

or anyway, Hitler slaughtered the jews, in his eyes, being a jew may have been something wrong and he killed them.

what about the wars of NATO?! why did they attack IRAQ?! because they thought that IRAQ's having a nuclear bomb is something wrong, it was wrong in their eyes. and they attacked.

or the USA(with france) tried to attack SYRIA for Asad's regime, what ASSAD was doing was something wrong in the eyes of the government.

<strong>in both cases, all were done because it was something wrong in the eyes of DOER

why is it ok for NATO/USA to kill/invade others for something wrong in their eyes while others are being blamed for killing people for something wrong in their eyes? I am not trying to say "that genocides were ok" or I am not asking you to accept that genocides as something OK, I also do not support genocides. what I want to say is: I can not find a diffrence.

Just wanted to add that, imho, NATO knew there wasn't any nuclear bombs on IRAQ, but they attacked anyway. And I don't think a lot of people would say "it is ok" for NATO/US to invade other countries.

Overall I would say US is a horrible country, with a horrible history that can only be compared with, well, Nazi Germany.

point is not "was nato right/wrong" let us assume: there was a nuclear bomb in Iraq. NaTO found it succesfully. Let us assume in this way.

But does it form a diffrence than genocide? NATO invaded to Iraq because in the eyes of Nate, Iraq's having a bomb was something wrong.

So were the genocides. Being a jew was something wrong in the eyes of Hitler. I really fail to see a diffrence. If there is, illuminate me please.
(talking to public, not one person)
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer