Hacker News Reader

You say this as if the side you're advocating for didn't start the war by killing over a thousand civilians.

Just in general, asserting that everyone will agree with your side in the future is such a bizarre rhetorical tactic. Do you honestly think this convinces anybody to reconsider their position?

View on HN

My point equally applies to everyone who condones violence to achieve some end goal. Jeanette Rankin was vilified for her lone dissenting vote against war, yet decades later she is among the few of her contemporaries to have a statue in the Capitol to honor her dedication to pacifism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin

Something to keep in mind, though, was that she was clearly wrong.

You are effectively saying that the indiscriminate slaughter of the Japanese civilian population was justified, due to the actions of a few Japanese leaders. In my opinion, there is no justification for violence against civilians.

Notice that we have a holiday for MLK, and Indians have a holiday to celebrate Gandhi. Something deep inside all of us knows that pacifism is “correct”.

All the violence in the region stems from the Zionist invasion, land theft and genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

Reply on news.ycombinator.com