one side wants to kill minorities and other groups while the other wants to kill people who want to kill minorities.
Both sides want to kill millions, without trial, on the basis of perceived danger. There’s no moral high ground. No rules of war, no official oversight, just civilians murdering their countrymen in large numbers. Even the people pushing violence are pushing the idea that “if they want to kill then we’ll kill them first”.
GrymEdm@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I wouldn’t say that, but I understand why you’d ask. The Nazis weren’t opposed by sending any civilian angry enough into Germany to shoot people they thought were fascists. When Germany invaded Poland, other countries declared war (although they several months before they actually engaged in combat.) In another comment I wrote why I think formal war with rules of war is different than vigilante killing. In a 2nd, I said that if it comes down to army vs. army civil war I’d say fight hard. In yet another, I told someone they were trying to be the WW2 Allies without the army or mandate.
absentbird@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
Ah, so you aren’t opposed to killing fascists, you just want it to be done on the orders of a military.
GrymEdm@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Yes if it comes to that, and within the bounds of rules of war. Accepting surrender, treatment of POWs, avoiding civilian casualties, rules of engagement and so on. The nation isn’t there yet, and there are serious legal and administrative attempts being made to block the worst of Trump’s policies. But if the US does in fact have a civil war, I am cheering for those opposing fascists.
absentbird@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
Personally I’m antiwar, but to each their own. The way I see it, a civil war becomes more likely through the tolerance of fascism, but I suppose if you have a just war mindset it could make more sense to let it boil over to the point that generals match in with a list of rules to make the carnage appear civilized.