IDF General Sued For "Targeted Killings"

[WildCat]

Israel doesn´t have the luxury of resorting to the "bomb them, and let god sort them out" strategy exclusively, either, since that one will make the problem worse, not better. Besides, if you never try anything else, you can´t claim everything else is worse.

Could you suggest an "anything else"? It seems to me you can't, and are pset that Israel has the nerve to protect herself.

Your pathetic, thinly veiled attempt at labelling me an anti-semite is noted. If I had still believed, after two years on the receiving end of the hate-mongering, lies and character assassination that you and your kind prefer over rational argument, that you are interested in honest discussion, I´d be cured now.

BS, I never labeled you any such thing, veiled or otherwise. And you don't have the slightest idea what "me and my kind" is.

You claim that there is another, more appropriate response to having rockets and mortars shot into Israeli territory and cities than shooting back. Yet, you won't say what it is. If you have none in mind, then you're just engaging in knee-jerk criticism which isn't at all constructive.

 

[WildCat]

But residential areas - that´s exactly the kind of atrocity that the nazis have commited. And whatever you think - just because the nazis did it, that does not make it right for the Allies to do it, too.

No, if the Allies had rounded up millions of civilians and systematically slaughtered them it would be just "the kinds of atrocities that the Nazis have committed".

And it was by no means clear that Germany was defeated prior to Dresden - in fact Germany was still able to launch a major offensive (Battle of the Bulge) afterwards. Of course, surrender would have avoided the whole thing...

 

[Chaos]

So, to summarize, Skeptic thinks it was just and necessary to kill hundred of thousands of people, a large part of which had not been involved in any crimes, and mostly couldn´t have done anything against them (children, for example), as punishment for Germany´s crimes.

Oh, and once again, Skeptic, since you obviously didn´t read my post thoroughly: I was NOT talking about attacks that hindered the German war effort. I was talking about attacks deliberately targeted at residential areas without industrial or strategecial value.

Strange. I thought nowadays punishment is considered just only if it is inflicted on the perpetrator only. Killing civilians by incinerating whole neighborhoods is not punishment.


Wildcat, you cannot deny it. You did ascribe to me an "Anti-Israeli" stance (which I do not take), which - since none of you guys has ever been able to see any difference between anti-Israeli and anti-semitic - is an accusation of anti-semitism.

 

[Skeptic]

So, to summarize, Skeptic thinks it was just and necessary to kill hundred of thousands of people, a large part of which had not been involved in any crimes, and mostly couldn´t have done anything against them (children, for example), as punishment for Germany´s crimes.

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!

Got it in one, Chaos.

This--and far worse--is what Germany deserved.

Oh, and once again, Skeptic, since you obviously didn´t read my post thoroughly: I was NOT talking about attacks that hindered the German war effort. I was talking about attacks deliberately targeted at residential areas without industrial or strategecial value.

Damn right, Chaos. Exactly. It was punishment, not military necessity.

I'm sorry, but I am not willing to hear from the children and grandchildren of Hitler's murderers what an awful, barbaric action Dresden was, even if they first said they are very sorry and all about the holocaust.

Strange. I thought nowadays punishment is considered just only if it is inflicted on the perpetrator only.

The perpetrator was Germany, Chaos. It was Germany that started the war, Germany that wanted to rule the world. It acted as one as was punished as one. The BS, post-war rationalization that it was "just" a few evil Nazis who somehow duped all those poor, innocent Germans is just that--BS.

What happened to the jews in Dresden during Nazi rule, Chaos? To the Communists there? The Jehovah's witnesses? Homosexuals? How many Soviet slave workers, servants, and beasts of burden (according to the Nazi view) walked its streets? Had Germany won the war, would the people of Dresden refuse their new role as the masters of the jew-free, Slav-enslaved world?

When I look at Germany's crimes, both in actuality and the even greater ones it had planned, I sometimes honestly don't think that the burning to death of every single German would have been exagerrated punishment. That as it may be, the burning of this one city was certainly the absolute minimum that should have been done.

 

[LW]

BS, I never labeled you any such thing, veiled or otherwise.

I don't know what was your intention when you wrote about "some other reason" but it sounded quite a lot like an accusation for anti-Semitism for me too. If this wasn't your purpose, you might perhaps want to elaborate your point a bit.

And it was by no means clear that Germany was defeated prior to Dresden - in fact Germany was still able to launch a major offensive (Battle of the Bulge) afterwards.

Firebombing of Dresden: February 13, 1945.

Start of the Ardennes offensive: December 17, 1944.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Firebombing of Dresden: February 13, 1945.

Start of the Ardennes offensive: December 17, 1944.

Thank you, LW. The perfect way to point out that firebombing Dresden to win the war is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Before you jump on that Skeptic, I am well aware of your feelings on the subject. I am aware that this logical fallacy is irrelevant to your opnions on the subject. Your opnions are revolting. They perfectly mirror the sentiments of Dictators and terrorists everywhere. "They all deserve to die."

 

[WildCat]

I don't know what was your intention when you wrote about "some other reason" but it sounded quite a lot like an accusation for anti-Semitism for me too. If this wasn't your purpose, you might perhaps want to elaborate your point a bit.

Upset at the settlements perhaps? I can't read Chaos's mind, and he isn't telling. I'm not one of those who thinks anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic.

There's lots of reasons possible, but if it was this one issue alone Chaos would have an alternative strategy, IMHO.

Firebombing of Dresden: February 13, 1945.

Start of the Ardennes offensive: December 17, 1944.

This is what I get for posting while trying to watch football...

But there was no reason for the Allies to be so cock-sure Germany had nothing left so soon after the BoB (which caught the Allies completely by surprise), was there? The US alone had 81,000 casualties in that battle, 19,000 of those were killed. Hardly the results one would expect from a country that was no longer a threat, or to conclude that she had no more surprises in store.

 

[WildCat]

Thank you, LW. THe perfect way to point out that firebombing Dresden to win the war is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Only if you assume the allies knew that Germany had no more offensive capability. They made that mistake a few months before, and weren't going to risk another. Got any fancy latin names for the fallacy you just posted?

eta: The last German V2 landed on London on March 27, 1945.

 

[gnome]

I have given the Dresden issue much consideration--war on that scale was unprecedented... and it seems to me the allied commanders may (right or wrong) have felt that attacking cities was necessary to win. The moral implications of such wholesale destruction had not really been a question before, as I don't believe war machines of the past were capable of such. It is easy to look back in horror at it, but not so easy to judge those that did not have the same perspective.

Regarding civilians killed as "collateral damage" in massive attacks on Palestinian targets... I have mixed feelings. Part of me agrees with the idea that we can't ignore a target just because it's hiding among civilians... and while there are methods that are less deadly to the civilians, they are more difficult, more expensive in material and lives, and more likely to fail. In my gut, I feel like Israel has made the wrong choice in some of those cases, but I am not charged with protecting Israeli citizens. By trying to get a target the "hard way" and not kill civilians, what if they escape and kill more than I "saved" by ordering a surgical rather than massive attack? These are not decisions easily made or judged. Where I disagree with Israel (and I do often) for me it's considering it a bad judgment call... that in one case or another the massive response was not necessary... but at no time do I feel that any Israeli commanders are wringing their hands with glee at the thought of killing palestinians that haven't taken up arms themselves.

 

[davefoc]

Hello Skeptic,
I think in some ways this is an area where we might share a common view with respect to the Palestine/Israelis situation.

I think we disagree about the basic wisdom of the founding of Israel. I think it was a bad idea, I am pretty sure you disagree with this.

I think the expanision of Israel beyond the 1967 borders has had terrible results for Palestinians, Israelis, the middle east and for the Americans who have largely bankrolled the expansion. I think you disagree with this also.

But I think we both agree that Israel is now a fact of life and if it is to survive it needs to take steps like any other country to defend itself.

So when a rocket is fired at Israel from a territory that Israel is not occupying extreme measures are a reasonable response. A rocket fired from the Gaza strip at Israel is an act of war and the people responsible for civilian casualties are first the terrorists, secondly the Palestine governing authority and perhaps if they are responsible at all, the Israeli government if reasonable efforts are not made to restrict collateral damage.

The problem I see is with Israeli responses in areas where Israel seeks to make the issue of borders ambiguous and where Israel funds continued expansion often by extremist settlers that seek to precipitate hostilities. Israel is essentially the civil governing body in these areas. As such, Israel has similar responsibilities to any other civil authority with respect to the use of military and/or police powers. It is in this kind of situation that scrutiny of Israeli military actions is most important. Israel has conflicting motives with regard to this situation. Obviously Israel wants peace and it wants to govern with justice, of this I have no doubt. Israel also wants to expand its territory, and the best way to accomplish this is to piss off the people in the areas it occupies, thereby maintaining a state of hostility that leads to terrorist attacks, which leads to increased funding from the US for the Israeli military.

The best way to end this problem is for Israel to make its intentions with its borders clear cut, get Israeli citizens out of the areas that Israel will not seek to annex and to stop occupying Palestinian territory. This will be no short term panacea, there is no short term panacea, but it will begin the very long process where Israel and the Palestinians can begin to accept each other so that in the distant future something resembling peaceful stable relations between the Palestinians and Israelis can happen.

 

[Chaos]

Upset at the settlements perhaps? I can't read Chaos's mind, and he isn't telling. I'm not one of those who thinks anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic.

There's lots of reasons possible, but if it was this one issue alone Chaos would have an alternative strategy, IMHO.
*snip*

Okay, although you appear not to read what I post, judging from your replies, I just explain it another time.

I AM NOT ANTI-ISRAEL. I AM NOT ANTI-SEMITE. I HARBOR NO NEGATIVE FEELINGS TOWARDS EITHER ISRAELIS OR JEWS IN GENERAL.

Got that?

Fine. Then you might want to read this: I criticize Israel - CRITICIZE, NOT HATE, DAMN IT - because it is obvious that the current Israeli policy hurts Israeli just as much as it hurts the Palestinians.

 

[Orwell]

I AM NOT ANTI-ISRAEL. I AM NOT ANTI-SEMITE. I HARBOR NO NEGATIVE FEELINGS TOWARDS EITHER ISRAELIS OR JEWS IN GENERAL.

Got that?

Fine. Then you might want to read this: I criticize Israel - CRITICIZE, NOT HATE, DAMN IT - because it is obvious that the current Israeli policy hurts Israeli just as much as it hurts the Palestinians.

Bof, don't bother. That,s too much nuance for the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd. You're either with them or against them, you know, the same old crap.

 

[webfusion]

for the record.

Orwell has been the one posting cr@p consistently, not the 'Israel-right-or-wrong crowd'. That dismal record of his stands for anyone who wishes to read it.

Gnome mentions: "... at no time do I feel that any Israeli commanders are wringing their hands with glee at the thought of killing palestinians that haven't taken up arms themselves."

Far from glee, the IDF maintains a posture of extreme restraint, and often place their own troops at much higher risk of getting killed, so as to minimize casualties among the Palestinian population, in virtually all cases when they go into situations of engagement.

There is no IDF routine of killing civilians (targeting them) and we've been all over that in a rather lengthy thread elsewhere here.

The lawsuits mentioned in the OP have no merit, and I would like to believe they will be dismissed, rather than be prosecuted.

 

[CapelDodger]

Only if you assume the allies knew that Germany had no more offensive capability. They made that mistake a few months before, and weren't going to risk another. Got any fancy latin names for the fallacy you just posted?

eta: The last German V2 landed on London on March 27, 1945.

They did know that Germany had no more offensive capability. Bombing Dresden didn't stop one V2 from being built or launched. The mistake that allowed the Bulge was not allied, it was specifically a US mistake, and even so all that battle demonstrated was that Germany didn't really have a serious offensive capability. Their Carpathian equivalent in the East just emphasised the point.

Dresden was bombed to create an example of Western Allied military coordination with the Soviets - the other ally. That was deemed politically useful, and may have been. Doubtful, but we can't re-run the experiment with that particular parameter varied.

 

[CapelDodger]

Far from glee, the IDF maintains a posture of extreme restraint, and often place their own troops at much higher risk of getting killed, so as to minimize casualties among the Palestinian population, in virtually all cases when they go into situations of engagement.

They go into "situations of engagement" by firing rockets from gunships into crowded streets, or in tanks. Or dropping bombs on apartment blocks. The IDF doesn't give a toss about dead Palestinians. What it cares about is avoiding dead Israeli soldiers. Unless the political situation demands it, of course, in which case, best the dead not be Jewish. Israel is, after all, supposed to be about the safety of Jews, which they can hope for nowhere else.

 

[demon]

webbie:
"Far from glee, the IDF maintains a posture of extreme restraint, and often place their own troops at much higher risk of getting killed, so as to minimize casualties among the Palestinian population, in virtually all cases when they go into situations of engagement.

There is no IDF routine of killing civilians (targeting them) and we've been all over that in a rather lengthy thread elsewhere here."



"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
- Alice in Wonderland.

 

[CapelDodger]

... Israel is now a fact of life and if it is to survive it needs to take steps like any other country to defend itself.

Israel is not like any other country (and most Israelis would agree with me on that). The steps Israel has to take to defend itself are against counter-attack, not attack, which is the norm. Israel is a fact of life now, but it won't survive. It has no function other than to create itself, and if the creation is ever completed - by expansion or retrenchment - it will vanish in a flash of obsolescence.

IMO.

 

[webfusion]

Lie.

CD mistakenly says:The IDF doesn't give a toss about dead Palestinians.

Four Palestinians were wounded in at least nine raids on Sunday, including three policemen and an infant. Two missiles struck near a residential area in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya, shattering windows and damaging houses.

Nine air raids. No Palestinian fatatlities.

How is that possible, if the IDF doesn't give a toss about dead Palestinians?
There should be bodies lined up in the morgues in Gaza by now, if the above statement were even remotely true.

Disgusting post. Just disgusting, CD. You should be ashamed.

 

[demon]

webbie:
"My camp is the State of Israel, of which I am a citizen.

So long as the Palestinians pursue WAR, they will get WAR, in spades, and all that it involves."



There are millions of Palestinians who are not terrorists and have no say over Palestinian factions and their actions. So what you are inciting is Israel's right to collective punishment: that is, terrorism. That's what you are inciting. Someone please contact the Home Secretary!
Palestinian terrorists have no right to kill non-combattant civilians - but the Palestinians resisting the IDF and armed settlers are not terrorists, except in the cloud of the bewildered, the cloud you inhabit. The IDF is the terrorist organisation by law and by action.

Likewise Israel's killing of over THREE TIMES the number of civilians that Palestinian terrorists kill is also terrorism along with its ethnic cleansing, its collective punishment and its lock down of the population. Note also that Israeli leaders receive the complicit vote of Israel's population, so they have bought into this policy unlike the Palestinians re Palestinian terrorists.

Germany in 1933 is an apt comparison - well prior to any genocide, where German behaviour was very similar to Israeli behaviour now or when Palestinians were ethnically cleansed and massacred having done nothing to the Israelis in 1947/48.

Ok, the Jews did not blow up civilians in Germany, but we in the West did and I presume you support this? We did it for reasons largely unrelated to Nazi genocide. Now was this wrong? And if it wasn't, then you have to ask yourself whether you actually agree with the small number of Palestinian terrorists' policy of killing civilians, but that you only agree with it when we do it - against Germany or Japan or Iraq or - when Zionists did it in 1947/48 without Palestinian provocation and when Israelis do it now.

Israel's killing of civilians, its ethnic cleansing have brought it stupendous success by some measures. The same could be said for US killings of civilians. We've set the example par excellence.

 

[webfusion]

Ethnic cleansing?

Where has there been ethnic cleansing? The Arabs have lost nothing. The Palestinians can go about their dream of Statehood with full Israeli assistance and cooperation tomorrow, if they lay down their arms and cease their support of terrorists.

As of right now, most Arabs and most Palestinians are supporters of the Islamic Jihad and their ilk, especially HAMAS (see the "Electing Terrorists" thread).

They will pay dearly for this decision to pursue their goal of Islamic Jihad.
They might even be cast into the four corners of the world for generations to come, if they persist in their Islamic Jihad.

Watch and see.