IDF General Sued For "Targeted Killings"

[CapelDodger]

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.

Shamir was a terrorist. Begin was a terrorist. What's the problem with people electing terrorists?

Islamism has only become an issue in Palestine because Israel refused to make an accommodation with Palestinian nationalism. Because to do so would be to forego the Land of Israel, to retreat when advance seemed so easy. Zionists - whose own justification is nationalism - can now claim that the conflict is a religious one. No need to argue an atavistic nationalism against a nascent one, but instead the rational, secular, democratic Israel against primitive zealotry, and what about 9/11, eh?

But the conflict hasn't gone away. It's just following new pathways.

Israel, of course, has nothing to do with religion. It's about race. Very modern.

 

[Orwell]

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.

Says the partisan hack... Sorry, Israeli nationalist.

 

[webfusion]

Nattering... more feeble nattering.

=========================

What's the problem with people electing terrorists?

None whatsoever. I encourage you to continue supporting them.
The more insane and violent, the better.
Sheesh!

 

[Skeptic]

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.

If the IDF didn't give toss about Palestinian lives, there would be a lot more dead Palestinians.

Just imagine what would be the case if we were looking at an ARAB Army trying to fight jewish civilians in a jewish intifada--that is, an army who REALLY doesn't give a toss about the other side's innocent lives.

How long would there even be any jews left alive?

A week? Two weeks?

Unless the political situation demands it, of course, in which case, best the dead not be Jewish.

Imagine that. An army caring more about the lives of its slodiers and citizens than about those of the enemy.

What horror.

Israel is, after all, supposed to be about the safety of Jews, which they can hope for nowhere else.

This is, of course, a crude misunderstanding of what israel is all about, not that I expected more from CD.

I never understood this argument, which is, in effect, that if israel failed in one of its goals--safety for the jews--due to the Arab genocidal war against it, then this somehow makes israel less in the right and makes israel have less of a right to exist.

If any other country was attacked merely for existing, it would prove for CD that it is in the right and the agressor is in the wrong. But not when it comes to israel: there, the fact that it is attacked for existing proves it is wrong.

Go figure.

 

[Skeptic]

Shamir was a terrorist. Begin was a terrorist. What's the problem with people electing terrorists?

Nothing. Go ahead. Support Hamas.

There is, after all no moral difference Between Hamas and Begin/Shamir, which we can see from the fact, for example, that all israeli Arabs were butchered and/or expelled during their Tenure as PMs, just like Hamas wishes to do to all jews it can find.

Oh wait.

 

[WildCat]

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.

I'll take you at your word, and I have no reason to feel otherwise. I'm not calling you an anti-semite, and I'm sorry if it appeared I did!

My only complain is the criticism w/o an alternative, really! If it's not ok for Israel to bomb the location where rockets and mortars were fired into Israeli territory in response, then what do you think is an appropriate response? That's all I'm asking.

FWIW, I think the Israeli settlements in the West Bank was a bad move, but it's water under the bridge at this point.

 

[Giz]

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.

Really, is that what the fighting in Jenin showed? Didn't it actually show the opposite? (Rather than Assad style oblieration of a troublesome urban area via bombardment, a house by house clearance using infantry, i.e. putting IDF personall at risk in order to minimise Palestinain non-combatent casualties).

 

[Giz]

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.

OK, take a deep breath and then say what should be done instead. Here are some of the options I can think of, (with my thoughts):

1) do nothing
2) send in israeli police to arrest them (police get lynched?)
3) send in the IDF to arrest/clobber them (running urban battle erupts?)
4) ask the PA to arrest them (see option 1)
5) air strike as accurately as possible, but knowing there may well be civilian casualties (probably fewer than 3 though?)

 

[webfusion]

Mob

While looking through the news today, I came across this fascinating photo.
It illustrates the view as seen from an IDF patrol jeep, driving along the street in a Palestinian town. The jeep is moving away from the crowds, and the photographer takes the picture of what IDF soldiers typically face when on routine duty.

Now, let's say you are the sergeant-in-command of that IDF jeep, and have been ordered to hold that crossroads position and keep it clear, not allowing the mob to advance and close this key traffic intersection, travelled by Jewish and Arab civilians alike.

What would you do?

 

[Orwell]

While looking through the news today, I came across this fascinating photo.
It illustrates the view as seen from an IDF patrol jeep, driving along the street in a Palestinian town. The jeep is moving away from the crowds, and the photographer takes the picture of what IDF soldiers typically face when on routine duty.

Now, let's say you are the sergeant-in-command of that IDF jeep, and have been ordered to hold that crossroads position and keep it clear, not allowing the mob to advance and close this key traffic intersection, travelled by Jewish and Arab civilians alike.

What would you do?

I would disobey orders. I'd rather face a court martial than shoot at kids armed with rocks. I would be a terrible soldier wouldn't I?

Now what would you do, Webbie?

 

[Skeptic]

I would disobey orders. I'd rather face a court martial than shoot at kids armed with rocks. I would be a terrible soldier wouldn't I?

Yes, you would be a terrible soldier. But the real reason for being oh-so-moral is that you would not care a hoot WHAT that mob is going to do to those you are supposed to protect if you ran away. You're dressing your cowardice as moral superiority, but it ain't washing.

 

[Chaos]

Yes, you would be a terrible soldier. But the real reason for being oh-so-moral is that you would not care a hoot WHAT that mob is going to do to those you are supposed to protect if you ran away. You're dressing your cowardice as moral superiority, but it ain't washing.

So what? You are dressing your genocidal hatred of Germans as a desrie for justice. You´re hardly in a position to look down on Orwell.

 

[gnome]

Double post.

 

[gnome]

I would disobey orders. I'd rather face a court martial than shoot at kids armed with rocks. I would be a terrible soldier wouldn't I?

Now what would you do, Webbie?

I used to feel that way about rocks vs. soldiers... but after some thinking I concluded that if enough rocks are thrown with intent, they can be quite dangerous indeed. As unfair as it may seem, throwing rocks is an armed attack--it is the attackers that have chosen inferior weaponry--and if I am protecting lives, to withdraw could be deadly to anyone I'm protecting.

I could only hope that I was armed with less lethal weaponry. Especially if it were kids.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, you would be a terrible soldier. But the real reason for being oh-so-moral is that you would not care a hoot WHAT that mob is going to do to those you are supposed to protect if you ran away. You're dressing your cowardice as moral superiority, but it ain't washing.

There's something to be said for a soldier having the *courage* to face court martial and dihonorable discharge, or worse, for recognizing that the moral accountability for their actions cannot be foisted off on the enemy, or upwards to authority. There's also something to be said for trusting in that authority, and "sticking to your guns". It's a tough moral dilema, and I think anyone who pretends to have a quick answer isn't considering the situation.

Whatever the soldier choses to do, the fact that the soldier is in that position indicates a failing in the repsonabilites of their authorities. The leaders of both sides have to do everything they can to resolve the conflict, so the civilians and soldiers stop paying the price of blood for their leaders' dithering.

 

[Orwell]

Yes, you would be a terrible soldier. But the real reason for being oh-so-moral is that you would not care a hoot WHAT that mob is going to do to those you are supposed to protect if you ran away. You're dressing your cowardice as moral superiority, but it ain't washing.

So what would you do, Skeptic? Would you shoot at kids armed with rocks?

You're assuming that the mob will go on and kill or maim someone, but you don't know that. While shooting at kids will almost certainly result in deaths and injuries.

I'm responsible for my actions. I would not shoot kids armed with rocks and sticks.

 

[gnome]

So what would you do, Skeptic? Would you would shoot at kids armed with rocks?

You're assuming that the mob will go on and kill or maim someone, but you don't know that. While shooting at kids will almost certainly result in deaths and injuries.

I'm responsible for my actions. I would not shoot kids armed with rocks and sticks.

I wish it were that easy... what if they hit one of your men in the head and he fell, and they continued to pelt him? I would not be quick to order the soldiers to open fire, but after several warnings and injured men, would I have a choice?

 

[Orwell]

Well, to tell you the truth, I wouldn't be caught in that situation anyway, simply because I would refuse to serve in the occupied territories. How's that for simplicity?

 

[Dan Beaird]

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.

The decision to bomb Dresden was made to prevent the movement of German forces from the Western front to the Eastern front (both rapidly closing in on Germany). Talks between Russian and Allied commanders resulted in a decision that the Western Allies could aid the Soviets to bring the war to an earlier conclusion. Germany at this point was hoping to stave off defeat in the east while it negotiated surrender with the West. The movement of up to half a million troops to the Eastern front would prolong the war and result in more deaths for everyone.

The powers that be in charge of the strategic bombing campaign decided that they would try to prevent that troop movement by massive bombing of major communication centers and oil production facilities specifically targetting Berlin, Leipzig and Dresden. Dresden was bombed several times between February 13th and 15th 1945. Cooperation between Soviet and British planners resulted in some mis-identified targets (resulting in the targeting of trains filled with refugees from the East) but the overall goal was to disrupt communications through Dresden to prevent large-scale troop movements. Read the records...it was an attack on a military target that happened to be situated smack-dab in the middle of a large population...the attack was not planned in retaliation and the practice of not bombing populated areas ended during the blitz.

 

[gnome]

Well, to tell you the truth, I wouldn't be caught in that situation anyway, simply because I would refuse to serve in the occupied territories. How's that for simplicity?

It helps, but doesn't really answer the dilemma... what if that happened outside the occupied territories?