Thanks! u/Graphenium:
The worldview expressed in the Law of One/“Ra Material” and the Hidden Hand interview
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018
The way I see things, these two sources explain existence, the state of our world, and the meaning of life far more accurately than any other. One is a “channeled” work, and the other is a long series of Questions and Answers between a conspiracy forum (RiP ATS) and a self-proclaimed world-controller. I see them as complimentary, showing a deeper reality by showing two sides of the same coin. One side being that of Service-to-Others, and the other being Service-to-Self
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASG9Vy4Tl/round-table-suggestion-thread/c
Thread will stay open for 3-4 weeks thanks to a very helpful suggestion.
Well, as Jesus says, “let he who is without sin cast the first” accusation of sub-humanity.
That sounds insane dude. In fact, “render unto Caesar” may even include the “right” to war. Just as you give up your “right” to (personal-)Justice by living in a society with a Justice system, you likewise give up your right to “War” by living in a country with an army. Even the so-called “Islamic state”, or the “confederate states of America”. Basically by definition when someone “declares war”, they likewise “declare self-governorship”.
Of course individuals have the right to self defense, and of course that right extends to the innocents around them.
It’s hard to make out if you actually got my “hypothetical” - (it wasn’t really, it was more of an “empathetical”, I was trying to get you to empathize with the guy who’s wife and kids were blown up because they happened to be on the same street as “a terrorist”.
But just to make it super clear: imagine your wife and kids got blown up because they were in the vicinity of some “bad guy”. They got blown up by the “good guys” who were “fighting a Just War” against a target “deemed subhuman by the highest court in the land”. And you know what, maybe you are of such upstanding moral integrity that you wouldn’t let it get to you. But I think the vast majority of people would react violently to such a scenario. I thus don’t see murdering innocent civilians to pursue “legitimate targets” as justifiable.
Now does that mean a madman can “take a hostage” and then do anything he wants? Uhh no, are you retarded? All the individuals involved still have their individual right to self defense, including the right of people nearby to defend the hostage (by, potentially, killing the hostage-taker). But what no one has the right to do, is say “alright, you, flood the room with lethal gas. We can’t let this madman escape! He could go on to take more hostages!”
I wonder if you see the difference, or if im going to get a novella of cope about how “someone’s gotta make the hard calls!”. Nope. No one has the right to tell someone else to murder an innocent. Sorry, end of story. Does it happen? Well by golly it happens a whole helluva lot! Probably the majority in recent times coming right from israel itself!
That would be an idealist reading. If you want to take that extreme, you can try starting an anarchist community that is totally pacifist, like others have. But then you also would presumably be peaceful enough that you'd accept other Christians who tell you that their consciences affirm just war (instead of your calling them dehumanizing names ...). If nobody can do capital punishment but Jesus, it's a consistent position, but it doesn't allow the group to get up in arms about the views of others who also affirm Jesus's other words (such as I've listed). If one is seeking the whole teaching it'll all reconcile the same basic way for any truth seeker.
If you are so enamored of modern states that you accept their claims on a monopoly as to warmaking, that's quite a different view than pacifism, I call it statism. I'm a sovereign citizen who has, first by birth and then by volition, deigned to delegate certain warmaking rights to my servant representatives, who don't always serve me that well. I don't give up my right to justice either, I delegate it, but I reserve the right to disagree with any court and govern myself accordingly; and there are procedures by which people take laws into their own hands (not so much anymore). This covers most cases of life and death, but you're asking about the special exceptions so I work from your hypotheticals. The fact is, though, if I or my club decides another race is subhuman, we have put ourselves in a state of war with them (conflict), and we have responsibility for that decision.
Well, yes.
C'mon, Graph, get specific if you have particulars, without inventing a case. Since you made me aware of it, I've been for years empathizing with the family and church of Nahida and Samar Anton, just as I seek to empathize with all victims of violence and warfare. To whataboutery, Jesus says, unless you repent you will likewise perish. But there are still the same two cases, either they were sniped unjustly while they were taking reasonable precautions, or the sniper didn't intend to kill innocents and was using reasonable (but mistaken) determination about the shooting. Case basis determines what was just and unjust about the war plan (and in this case history will likely favor the nascent martyrs). But by calling something "murder" you've already judged the case rather than recognizing the difficulty, and you've avoided dealing with the hard calls. I empathize with the LPJ who promotes them as martyrs, and I empathize with the IDF who proclaimed innocent error and may have much they can't say about it for their own reasons. And I leave the case open even as I lean one direction because it's not my job to judge it.
Your rewording hasn't changed the scenario much. If the war was declared under law of nations and is active in my region then my family is already known to be at risk of death just as if a hurricane was approaching. We take precautions. If we're poor or negligent and can't prevent the death, then people die, in fact people are kinda used to that happening around the world. Of course the survivors are tempted to be violent, and they too are subject to the same law of humanity as everyone else; a mistake under severe provocation is not punished the same as one under minimal provocation, but they're both mistakes. But what, of the two states, should I tell the state that hasn't taken precautions to protect its citizens and may be committing war crimes against them that it's my job to protect their citizens, but the state that takes precautions not to kill innocents but knows that some might be killed anyway is to be judged as murderers? That doesn't necessarily follow. Your conclusion (again prejudging the case as "murder) doesn't deal with the issue. If it were "murder" i.e. intentional killing of an innocent, of course it's wrong. The question is when it's unintended and collateral, and you haven't answered that question.
In the hostage situation, the problem is that we're talking about people powerful enough to be surrounded by many effective slaves and to have sycophants all around them who are interested in protecting the leaders' lives. Apologies if you pivoted to a different case. But even hostage rescue teams recognize the risk of hostages dying, and they proceed anyway. So (not to ask who is retarded), such teams use creative means to take down the aggressors without intentionally killing the hostages.
Do you understand that by going through the motions of ordinary life, there's a slight mathematical risk that an innocent person might die by your actions? I suggested that risk be 1 in 100k per day. Is that risk acceptable to you, seeing as there's no way to get it to zero short of eschatology? If that risk is acceptable, would it also be acceptable that a military, or a rescue team, could engage activities if they reasonably judge that the risk of innocent death is equal to the same number? Because if you see that much logic, then at least we're putting a number on it instead of the problem of acting like it's totally zero. I do believe that God always gives an option to anyone at any time where conscience would not be betrayed on any point, but I don't believe that we should strain out gnats and swallow camels; we should deal with the weight of mercy and justice at all times, and deal with matters that have the weight of a pinch of spice only at liberty. The type of anarchism you're proposing leaves nobody free to deal with the powerful who surround themselves with innocents who would suffer if their horrendous abuses were forcibly stopped. And that abuse is worldwide, well-known, and weighty. If a nation goes in and makes every effort to prevent collateral casualties and in all their efforts a single lapse in judgment leads to a civilian death, it's a death but it's still a lot less weight by comparison. If we're letting the camel destroy the whole house while we're objecting that the homeowner let in a gnat, that's sinful.
So I've answered your questions. Mine remains. I'm framing it in terms of zero tolerance versus the ordinary tolerance of the unforeseen that we accept getting in cars every day. You do get in a car most every day, correct?
Well, Jesus strikes me as an idealist. Not the case for you?
First of all im not sure you have the right to decide another race is subhuman. You’re such a hypocrite anyway - anytime someone on this site mentions “the jews” or “talmudists” you cry and shit yourself over “mUh group judgements”. But when the topic changes to slaughtering arabs BOY are you GUNG-HO about their “right” to blow up toddlers.
Are you retarded dude? I did get specific, I named a specific event where your team specifically murdered over 100 toddlers in a daycare, because it was attached to a “valid target”. Blow it out your ass. Over 50,000 innocents were killed by israel since Oct 7th ‘23, that right there has created more “terrorists” than anything else.
Is that what you think is happening? Israel is “unintentionally” murdering all these Christians in Lebanon and Syria and Palestine? Lmfao. All the little kids getting doubled tapped in the head and genitals by snipers.
Let me know when thats the scenario being discussed. Because I’ve never seen a war that went like that. The wars you’re so set on conducting seem to leave mountains of innocent corpses. Infact, invariably far more innocents are slaughtered than combatants. What’s the limit for you? How many innocent lives are too many to lose, for one valid target? Would you firebomb Dresden if you heard hitler was visiting?
Yeah, Jesus is both idealist and pragmatic. We're talking the pragmatic side right now though. I thought about it, and the Amish are doing pretty well so maybe you should join them. However, it still applies that then you don't act warlike about people who disagree with you, and you'd have to lay off the calls for Israel to be prosecuted too because no ideal pacifist claims the right to punish anyone else by force. I talk to these zero-aggression people often, and so if you want to go that way consistently you get to lay off the verbal attacks and the calls for the destruction of the destroyers.
If nobody has the right to determine if another party has committed crimes against humanity (i.e. to judge them unworthy of continuing to have their own human rights), except Jesus, then the criminals continue apace and you don't have the right to stop them. If you do have the right to call for them (e.g. Israel) to be punished by force, then you do believe in the right to judge them unworthy of human rights. Two ways, pick one, you can't pick both and be consistent. (What I tell people is that if you want to judge a whole race including children, you need to have the case heard that the children are contributing to belligerence, and nobody here tries to meet that bar at all; the closest argument is that Jewish, or Arab, children are indoctrinated to the lifestyle, but that is hardly proof of choice.) There is a time to judge, and it's only for very serious cases, and that's a consistent standard. It's not consistent to say never to judge and then to judge, which is what I see you doing.
I picked a case where there's been relative agreement on the analysis. You're picking cases where there's wild disagreement on the fog of war, and you're (apparently) gravitating only to one side of the sourcing without any critical review (that's called bias). I told you, the girls' school has many competing interpretations right now, and seeing as this is Conspiracies and I don't believe in Sandy Hook either this has all the marks of a bigger Sandy Hook. It's likely it'll remain unsolved officially, while the theorists put together the best solution. But you have judged it already and called it my team. Well, even in the worst case, since I'm an American and some blame America, what should I do to fill up the suffering of Christ about this event? Should I be appointed to forfeit my life to Iranis because they claim my club took innocent lives? I do believe some people are called to similar ministry, but I don't think the call stems from another anon who has an axe to grind about the issue. If I've offended you I could make it up, but when I've asked you what I could do in good conscience we haven't gotten that answered either. You keep attributing motive with words like murder and charges about my intent, and that's not logical. I write because I have hope that you'll come to answer the questions I ask, but if you devolve to the illogic then nothing proceeds of it.
If your Israel figure is correct (and I hear the Iran figures are similar incidentally), even though it's only based on one side and for the sake of argument we'll say neither side is trustworthy, then what do you want done? We can say "big if true", and we can say "bad optics", and then, well, it's happened and it's in the ICJ. You could take the law into your own hands, but oh you don't believe in that. But the amount of ranting you do does amount to warfare because it's dehumanization of your enemy, and Jesus amplifies "do not murder" to "do not call your brother retarded" (that's an accurate translation).
That's not anywhere near 50,000 and, based on the evidence you've presented so far, isn't above 0. Present your evidence and then tell us what to do about it. If "what to do" means "call them murderers", you've declared war on them by abridging their human rights. I point out, you're free to, but your rulings can be reviewed by other humans too. In particular, when you call them murderers but you don't allow them the right to call other humans murderers, Golden Rule fail.
If there are intentional war crimes, of course they should be punished. Who do you trust to make that determination, Graph? Only yourself? Is this a case where the judge should be without sin? (The ICJ is plenty sinful but I trust them as having general accord as being authorized to proceed; if they blow it then Jesus will come after them at the right time.)
I can't comment on Dresden not knowing the facts. If you mean it as an example of the general question, I'll answer after you do because I asked you the same. We might both finesse it the same way by agreeing it's a tough call for the warrior to make on the field on a case basis, but you don't seem to accept that. Now, I still can't approve your phrasing because of the bias issue, but I'll try to give a guideline answer. One intentional civilian death is too many, because as you pointed out it's a war crime and the army should punish such a person, and if they don't then the nations at large may agree to punish; but those that are judged unintentional deaths are not war crimes and are not to be numbered (unless the numbering itself is taken as circumstantial evidence that some were intentional; though courts don't usually rule that way). However, all modern armies already know that and, like modern police forces, admittedly protect themselves with paper trails and brother coverage to claim that every such situation (with very rare exceptions) is indeed "provably" (i.e. documentedly) unintentional. So maybe we do need to move the question further, since you don't pick up on intentionality but assume it (as if the aggressor is always intentional and of course the proposed "civilian" is always unintentional in his baiting; but many nations also admittedly train people to pose as innocent solely to paint another as the aggressor). The question is quis custodiet ipsos custodes, in this case, Who Judges? You've judged one side as murderers, the other side as innocents among a vanishing number of (also judged by you) valid targets. The point of the war is that both sides disagree on the valuations, and you're taking one of the two sides on most of these reflexively. And, oh look, the side is always against Israel and America, but that's not important right now.
So the framing, as if it creates a dilemma, is not problematic if unpacked. Ultimately, does your standard by which you judge murder admit of any colloquy with other sovereigns, or are you dogmatic about it whether or not others might charge it with illogic? Because if it's impossible for you to change, there's no point in my going on. It's possible for me to change, because for me everything is on the table except the One who holds me. But I don't see you being open to discussion, seeing as you continue to use bias and prejudice in your allegedly unbiased framing. In my judgment. Once we've gotten an understanding on whether we are dialoguing to create a joint answer, or whether there's no swaying for you, then we can talk about how that standard (murder) should be applied in reviewing partisan evidence. But you don't seem to be interested in reviewing all evidence based on your conclusive language. So ultimately my second question might be: What else is there to discuss? If my purpose is not to convince you because you've convinced me you don't want to be convinced, I would indicate that by bowing out. But so far I remain doggedly convinced, against the evidence, that you are open to being convinced.