Are massacres ever justified?

My answer would be NO, but obviously not everyone agrees.

Those who planned the Fallujah massacre would be some apparently who would disagree with me.

The New York Times has an article about Benny Morris who wrote a controversial book that defends the Israeli massacre of the Palestinians in 1948. In a previous book he had condemned it (people didn't like that either) - but has since changed his mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/17/arts/17MORR.html?pagewanted=1&th

I guess people are just not supposed to talk about it (or call it what it is). And I suppose MOST people who think massacres (of other people, obviously) can be positive thing would not want to say so.

I would consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be massacres, and people do defend THEM - preferring to refer to them differently.


BONUS QUESTIONS:

If the media came out and said how happy they were about the current massacres, what would people do? OR do they do that and I just missed it?

massacre

\Mas"sa*cre\, n. itan.] 1. The killing of a considerable number of human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people; as, the massacre on St. Bartholomew's Day.



No, to me, they're not justified.


on edit: clarification

that nobody would actually call something a massacre and seem to be happy about it. That seems really sick.

I was wondering if some people, however, get a whole different message than what I got. That if you don't call it a massacre, then it's OK. But that the basic premise that is a massacre is OK.

Benny Morris went outside the box when he called the thing a massacre and said it was justified. "Ethnic cleansing has a bad name, and rightly so, but in 1948 it was justified because the 650,000 Jews who lived here were under existential threat...It was the only way to win that war."

The article mentioned that the citizens of Israel are not taught of the Israeli role which seems to be the rule in most countries. In the US, at least when I was growing up, it was the Native Americans who were vicious and bad, NOT the "cowboys" or settlers.

Seems like the way of most civilizations. They usually don't like to admit or own up to their massacres. And yet, many seem to justify them, nonetheless.

The ease with which we can accept the killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians is heartbreaking. The extreme hypocrisy of those who advocate their twisted brand of Christianity in allowing this to happen without protest defies any understanding.

How do they reconcile the killing and maiming of thousands with the words, "What you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me also"?
(Matthew 25:40)

They continue to go to extremes to protect unborn saying they are pro life, yet they are killers both here and abroad.

They say they are pro life, could have fooled me

like when the Cowboys are playing the Redskins, then a massacre is justified.

It's especially justified if the Yankees are playing the Red Sox in October :D (meaning the Yankees can, and will, massacre the Sox)

but in terms of killing humans, never.

I heard someone justify the killing of civilians in Hiroshima & Nagasaki, because the Japanese (military) were "monsters." I asked about the civilians, he said that the majority of the Japanese at that time were "crazy." People can be so blind to their own racism.

be considered a massacre? i suppose i am asking because last week's (or 2 weeks ago) thread about dropping nukes on japan had a lot of people saying it was okay. and that adds to you statement that not everyone agrees. as for me i am against massacres of any group of people.

and yes - quite a few people "justify" them - even around here.

yeah I forgot about that, definately dropping the a-bombs on Japan were justified.

.
.
.
Just because they don't actually surround a city, walk in and shoot every woman, child and baby in person, a massacre is a massacre.

Dropping bombs, nuclear or not, on or in an area known to have civilians, is just an impersonal and "efficient" way to conduct a massacre.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were massacres, killing innocent civilians, including women children and babies, because the Japanese military didn't do what the American military wanted them to(surrender).

The USA was threatening genocide basically if the Japanese did not capitulate.

Nuking Japan is where the USA lost it's soul and conscience.

SURE, the war ended in a hurry,

but it was blackmail, plain and simple, threatening to kill MORE women, children and babies if their soldiers didn't surrender.

And they are doing it again,

only THIS time,

it's to FREE them? :shrug:

(sigh)

like rounding up a bunch of child molesters, rapists, and other misc violent criminals and executing them.

However in actually something like that is usually very unlikely.

Most massacres are not justified.

A massacre is indiscriminately killing everyone in a place you have conducted a battle in. That means you go in and kill everyone, the elderly, the children, the women and every non-combatant as well as the combatants.

Only mobsters were killed. :shrug:

because that is really what happened.

But I am looking into history now about why these massacres happen. In ancient times war was frankly about raiding and taking booty, so tribe or nation would raid one another. The losers would be massacred except sometimes the women and children who could make good slaves. The reason behind it was so there wouldn't be a bunch of pissed off relatives coming after you for revenge.

Armies often killed everyone rather than take prisoners of war, a big messy 'we have to feed them' problem. However, today, in our times, I can really only call it genocide and truly evil.

But then nobody would make money from the war machine!!!
We can but pray that the abramic religions will one day adhere to their commandment "thou shalt not kill" and pay attention to "vengance is mine sayeth the Lord."

If you're calling it a massacre, you either don't think its justified, or you aren't using the word properly.

Hence the debate about whether or not something is a massacre generally hinges on whether or not the people in question feel it is justified or not.

One would need to justify a massacre to a group of people to have it done in the first place. So from that point of view it they would all be justified.

If you are asking, from the standpoint of "has any group of people ever deserved to be massacred", of course not. Six million Jews did not deserve to get massacred by Nazi Germany, but it happened (regardless of what Mel "passion" Gibson's father says), and it was justified. It was justified by a mass propaganda, and dehumanizing campaign, started by the government, and filtered down to the people, where they were assigned "sub-human status" from everyone. And they did not invent this themselves. The slaughter of the Native Americans by our country, the slaughter of women and children during the crusades. The burning of witches in Salem. All horrendous acts, all justified in equally cold and similar ways.

Most were hanged; others died in jail, and Giles Corey was pressed to death. In terms of European witch hunts, the Salem one was quite small. The relatively low numbers of those killed, however, does not detract from its ghastliness.

The Salem example is a little different than the others, in that it was a case of mass hysteria that wore off soon (some of the accusing girls even apolgized for their role). Such was seen again in the 1980s with the 'ritual abuse of children' hysteria with many prosecuted on what was eerily similar to the 'spectral' evidence allowed in Salem. That too ran its course, and only a few will still defend the actions taken - just as with Salem.