Is Sheikh Nasrallah done and buried?

[Cosmic Yak]

I don't hate Israel or all Israelis. But I do hate ALL fascists and racists. Including Israeli fascists and racists, which you believe do not exist cause it's anti-Semitic to suggest so. And I do hate Israel's apartheid policies and war crimes which always continue during every single cease fire.

Wow. Really?
Do please quote me as saying that, or indeed anything like it.
Alternatively, stop lying about what those who disagree with you are saying. Lying is wrong: you do know that, right?

 

[Stout]

The "put more of your troops in danger" solution. Have you given any thought to why Israel might not favor that one? Or given any thought as to why Hamas built that extensive system of tunnels in Gaza?

And of course Arab states are always amenable to pressure from Israel.

Perhaps GlennB's question should have been "Have you proposed a realistic mechanism for bringing Hamas leaders to justice?"

This course of action is usually described as sending in a force of ninja like assassins with the assertion that the Mossad is supposed to be the best in the world at this sort of thing.

 

[Myriad]

Y'all seem to be underestimating the technical sophistication of IDF weapons. From what I read in the news, their bombs only fall on schools, hospitals, and orphanages. Their bullets only hit paramedics, hostages, and journalists. If only they would flip the Uno Reverse switch on all those incredibly sophisticated and selective targeting systems, they wouldn't all be such war criminals.

 

[webfusion]

Y'all seem to be underestimating the technical sophistication of IDF weapons. From what I read in the news, their bombs only fall on schools, hospitals, and orphanages. Their bullets only hit paramedics, hostages, and journalists. If only they would flip the Uno Reverse switch on all those incredibly sophisticated and selective targeting systems, they wouldn't all be such war criminals.

Saracsm is fine, until the reality of what's happening in Lebanon emerges and becomes a counterpoint to your effort to paint Israeli troops as 'war criminals'

For instance, https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-823095
Israel Air Force aircraft targeted Hezbollah's Intelligence Headquarters in Beirut, the IDF reported on Thursday.

Sucks to be at the receiving end of this onslaught.
Hopefully Lebanese leadership is getting the proper message.
Hope springs eternal.

 

[Chanakya]

Y'all seem to be underestimating the technical sophistication of IDF weapons. From what I read in the news, their bombs only fall on schools, hospitals, and orphanages. Their bullets only hit paramedics, hostages, and journalists. If only they would flip the Uno Reverse switch on all those incredibly sophisticated and selective targeting systems, they wouldn't all be such war criminals.

I'm not going to attempt talking about empathy, and about lack of empathy amounting to psychopathy, and in general terms how that translates into evil as opposed to merely differences (even differences violently expressed), with those apparently so far gone as to have become impervious to human abhorrence at human suffering: but I don't much frequent these war-politics threads, not overly much anyway, and don't remember seeing you or your views are. And, given I've found you usually reasonable, then maybe I can get across to you why I think Netanyahu is nothing less than evil, and under him IDF as well, no less than was the H-man back when and his henchmen. In a word: Daenerys Targaryen.

Another analogy, if I may: If one day I find my neighborhood taken over by a gang of criminals, who're holding women and children hostage. So what I do is grab my bazooka, and boom boom boom, I kill of all of these villains, and half of the women and children hostages as well. And while people do all kinds of things in the heat of the moment, but no, this was done coolly and calculatedly, and I keep on doubling and tripling down on what I did. ...And even though the villains are villains, and certainly my own predicament when up against that kind of thing does merit sympathy, but nevertheless that makes me a psychopath and evil as well, even if not quite black and white but with shades of gray.

The only way this might perhaps be kind-of justified is if I may have 'sacrificed', say, one or two innocents in order to save the imminent destruction of literally thousands ---- I've no precise arithmetic on this, but overwhelmingly smaller numbers sacrificed in order to save overwhelmingly larger numbers of deaths ---- then, maybe, that might offer some kind of justification. ...But here that's not the case. Literally tens of thousands of innocents are being "sacrificed". Literally hundreds of thousands of lives of innocents are being completely utterly destroyed. (And no, their political views don't stop making them innocents.)_ And yet people remain perfectly unmoved. ...I submit that the only way this is even possible is if women and children (and men as well, of course) of other religions and other ethnicities and other affiliations are considered as somehow 'less' than are our kinds of folks, or at least the kinds of folks that we're supporting.

Doesn't matter if they've got those tunnel things. Doesn't matter if it'll take much more time, and cost more lives of soldiers, to root them out of there. Doesn't matter if even so it can't be done perfectly. This mass bombing was and is still not justified. It's evil.

I think the Game of Thrones argument sums this up.



eta: Oh, just saw Stout's comment, describing your post as sarcastic. I mean, obviously it's sarcastic, but Stout's post about yours indicates it's sarcastic in the opposite sense than I read it. My bad, if that's the case: like I said, I wasn't aware of your position on this, and just responded to that single post of yours. It looks like I was maybe trying to do the preaching to the choir thing, if that's the case.

 

[webfusion]

Chanakya -- "Blah Blah Blah ... Bombing in war is not justified, it's evil .. Blah Blah Blah"

You might consider the words of the IDF Chief of Staff:
"We have the capabilities to reach and strike any point in the Middle East. And those of our enemies who have not yet understood this, will soon understand"

 

[Chanakya]

Chanakya -- "Blah Blah Blah ... Bombing in war is not justified, it's evil .. Blah Blah Blah"

You might consider the words of the IDF Chief of Staff:
"We have the capabilities to reach and strike any point in the Middle East. And those of our enemies who have not yet understood this, will soon understand"

Thank you for at least not lobbing holy Jews cows at me, like the last one I attempted talking about this with did.

No offense, I don't mean to imply you personally are a psychopath for supporting this nonsense. I was talking about Netanyahu and those that are doing his bidding. We all hold all kinds of views, often many of them mistaken, and none of them necessarily reflects on us personally, but only on our understanding.

Anyway, bowing out. Will continue to read the thread, though.

 

[Ziggurat]

Another analogy, if I may

You may not.

Analogies can be useful to explain something someone is trying to learn for the first time. But they are not effective ways of persuading someone over a disagreement. And this is a disagreement.

When you use analogies to argue disagreements, you are substituting a different problem for the actual problem because you think you can win the argument about the different problem even though you aren't winning the argument about the actual problem (and to be clear, by "win" I mean convince your opponent, we don't need to get into whether you're right or wrong). But the analogy and the actual problem are never the same, and the only reason you could ever win on the analogy problem but not the actual problem is precisely because they are different. And precisely because they are different, you can't translate that win on a different problem back to the original problem. If they weren't actually different, then you could win the argument on the original problem just as easily.

So don't argue a different problem, argue the actual problem. Don't use analogies to settle disputes, it doesn't work.

 

[Chanakya]

You may not.

Your arrogance and presumption are amusing.

Analogies can be useful to explain something someone is trying to learn for the first time. But they are not effective ways of persuading someone over a disagreement. And this is a disagreement.

On the contrary. When intended in good faith, and taken in that spirit by the other as well, then they can sometimes telegraph an argument effectively.

When you use analogies to argue disagreements, you are substituting a different problem for the actual problem because you think you can win the argument about the different problem even though you aren't winning the argument about the actual problem (and to be clear, by "win" I mean convince your opponent, we don't need to get into whether you're right or wrong). But the analogy and the actual problem are never the same, and the only reason you could ever win on the analogy problem but not the actual problem is precisely because they are different. And precisely because they are different, you can't translate that win on a different problem back to the original problem. If they weren't actually different, then you could win the argument on the original problem just as easily.

I've also presented my argument directly here.

The tunnel thing is no justification for flattening the Palestinian populace. To say that is not to support Hamas. To say that is not to think Jews eat babies. To consider acceptable the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent non-combatants, and the complete uprooting the destruction of lives of many times that number: that is simply not acceptable to any sane way of thinking. (Again, referring to Netanyahu, not you. You make free with snidely calling people monsters if they think this that and the other, and snidely implying they've got a thing for Jews, but I don't, I actually don't think that of you, I only think you're blinkered, is all.)

So don't argue a different problem, argue the actual problem. Don't use analogies to settle disputes, it doesn't work.

Does sometimes, when both take the analogy in good faith.

Agreed, when the disagreement is so far gone that either (or neither) is doing this in good faith, then it won't. Not even if the analogy is spot on. (And of course, agreed, it won't ever work, if the analogy isn't spot on.)


eta: heh, that either-neither construct in that last paragraph came out all messed up, didn't it? anyway, i guess my meaning's clear. if read in good faith. just like the meaning of analogies can sometimes be crystal clear, if the analogy's an apt one, and if it's engaged with in good faith.

 

[webfusion]

Chanakya, you might want to revise your statement that Palestinians (Gaza Branch) were 'flattened' -- the Gaza Strip has not been depopulated, the Gaza Strip is still viable and functioning, as the population has been largely spared death from above (due to IDF diligence and effort to avoid that) and Gaza is being 'reworked' to allow a better future for the people therein.

That's where we're at.
Get with this program.
Or continue to whine and hand-wring.
Your choice.

This is a thread about Lebanon, anyway, but I'll go with the flow, since you posted here.

 

[Chanakya]

Chanakya, you might want to revise your statement that Palestinians (Gaza Branch) were 'flattened' -- the Gaza Strip has not been depopulated, the Gaza Strip is still viable and functioning, as the population has been largely spared death from above (due to IDF diligence and effort to avoid that) and Gaza is being 'reworked' to allow a better future for the people therein.

That's where we're at.
Get with this program.
Or continue to whine and hand-wring.
Your choice.

This is a thread about Lebanon, anyway, but I'll go with the flow, since you posted here.

Fair, completely off-topic, agreed. Also, I really don't think I've got much more, or indeed anything, to add beyond what I've said. So, like I said, bowing out. Will continue to read this thread, though.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your arrogance and presumption are amusing.

You asked. So I answered.

On the contrary. When intended in good faith, and taken in that spirit by the other as well, then they can sometimes telegraph an argument effectively.

I have never found that to be the case here.

The tunnel thing is no justification for flattening the Palestinian populace.

You can't flatten a populace, unless you mean kill them all, which didn't happen. You can flatten buildings, and that has happened, but the justification for that isn't simply tunnels. It's that Hamas combatants took up positions in buildings, and the most effective way of dealing with those combatants was to strike the building. Hamas combatants taking up positions in those buildings is what justified striking them. Tunnels have some relevance in terms of making ground assaults riskier, but the basic problem remains regardless of tunnels, and it's because of Hamas fighting from inside civilian buildings. It's acceptable for the IDF to prioritize the lives of its own soldiers over Gazan buildings. That isn't immoral.

And if innocent Palestinians were caught in the crossfire, Hamas is to blame, because Hamas is the one who put them in the crossfire. And that didn't happen by accident, that was an intentional choice by Hamas. Do not blame Israel for Hamas's evils.

To consider acceptable the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent non-combatants

Where are you getting this number from? It comes from Hamas, doesn't it?

As for the acceptability of that many deaths, that depends very much on the military objective achieved. We have certainly done that before during war. And we have justified doing it, because the military objective was sufficiently important. This may sound cruel, but war is always cruel. You cannot fight a truly clean war, especially against an opponent that wants it to be dirty. Your only options are to fight it dirty anyways, or don't fight, which often just means you lose. When the consequences of losing are worse than the consequences of fighting a dirty war, then the moral choice is still to fight the dirty war.

So without appealing to any analogies, and directly addressing the actual problem, will Hamas let Israel fight clean? No, they will not. What are the consequences of not fighting? Endless attacks from Hamas. It is not monstrous for Israel to conclude that fighting is preferable to not fighting.

Does sometimes, when both take the analogy in good faith.

I have never seen that happen on this forum.

 

[webfusion]

Ziggurat, the tactics of HAMAS in Gaza are similar to those being employed in Lebanon.
Hide in tunnels, pop up to attack, ambush and snipe.
Conceal rocket launchers in school compounds, mosques, and private homes.
Israel has lost 8 troops already to those efforts of the cowardly Islamists in Lebanon.

And by the way, Israel avoided the infiltration (and hostage-taking) that was being planned for the Galilee.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-h...se-after-oct-7-we-covertly-raided-1000-sites/

 

[webfusion]

REPORT: 78 tons of ordnance dropped into Beirut by IAF in effort to eliminate more Hezbollah leadership in aftermath of Nasrallah's execution.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/skmzl7tra#autoplay

No word yet on who lies under all the rubble. (Developing story during Rosh Hashana/Shabbat weekend, as many Israelis are incommunicado).

Also, a 3.5-km tunnel system under the Lebanese/Syrian border was destroyed.
There are several Spectacular photos, if this is the kind of thing you appreciate.
Which I do.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Another analogy, if I may: If one day I find my neighborhood taken over by a gang of criminals, who're holding women and children hostage. So what I do is grab my bazooka, and boom boom boom, I kill of all of these villains, and half of the women and children hostages as well. And while people do all kinds of things in the heat of the moment, but no, this was done coolly and calculatedly, and I keep on doubling and tripling down on what I did. ...And even though the villains are villains, and certainly my own predicament when up against that kind of thing does merit sympathy, but nevertheless that makes me a psychopath and evil as well, even if not quite black and white but with shades of gray.

Where this analogy fails is that it's not your neighborhood, you aren't you, and it's not a bazooka...

 

[theprestige]

Where this analogy fails is that it's not your neighborhood, you aren't you, and it's not a bazooka...

Ah, but he has depicted you as the soyjack, and himself as the chad, so his argument is automatically valid. /s

 

[Roboramma]

It's a weirdly vague analogy, and I don't really see the purpose of it. The ways in which it's different from the actual situation seem to make it difficult to use as a comparison. We see the actions of individuals as different from those of institutions. It's generally seen as illegitimate for a vigilante to apprehend and punish criminals, even murderers, but the state can legitimately imprison them for decades or even execute them. If your analogy is meant to blur that distinction, that seems less than useful.

Perhaps the idea is that this distinction isn't legitimate, that state actions should be seen as no more legitimate than the same sorts of actions made by individuals, but if that's the argument being made it should be much more explicit.

More generally, the way that analogy is presented, the ways in which it differs from the actual thing make the issue less rather than more clear. So it's not clear why we're talking about a vigilante fighting neighborhood villains rather than Israel fighting Hamas. I do think that analogies can sometimes be useful and clarifying, but in this case I just don't see it.

 

[Chanakya]

Where this analogy fails is that it's not your neighborhood, you aren't you, and it's not a bazooka...

Sorry, what? Didn't get that.

Also, what about the shorter GoT analogy? (Shorter in the rendering of it, at any rate?)

Ah, but he has depicted you as the soyjack, and himself as the chad, so his argument is automatically valid. /s

No, he hasn't. He hasn't depicted "you" at all. Nor does he think he's a chad, in fact what you refer to as "chad" is in his rendering a psycho, and he doesn't fancy himself as either.

 

[Chanakya]

It's a weirdly vague analogy, and I don't really see the purpose of it. The ways in which it's different from the actual situation seem to make it difficult to use as a comparison. We see the actions of individuals as different from those of institutions. It's generally seen as illegitimate for a vigilante to apprehend and punish criminals, even murderers, but the state can legitimately imprison them for decades or even execute them. If your analogy is meant to blur that distinction, that seems less than useful.

Perhaps the idea is that this distinction isn't legitimate, that state actions should be seen as no more legitimate than the same sorts of actions made by individuals, but if that's the argument being made it should be much more explicit.

More generally, the way that analogy is presented, the ways in which it differs from the actual thing make the issue less rather than more clear. So it's not clear why we're talking about a vigilante fighting neighborhood villains rather than Israel fighting Hamas. I do think that analogies can sometimes be useful and clarifying, but in this case I just don't see it.

Or a homeowner fighting invaders who're holding his family hostage, if that detail is what's the deal breaker. And he's doing the equivalent of shooting them all dead, including half the hostages as well.

The question then becomes: Does he regard the darker-hued of his family, that pray to different gods than he, as also his family, and whose lives count?

 

[theprestige]

No, he hasn't. He hasn't depicted "you" at all. Nor does he think he's a chad, in fact what you refer to as "chad" is in his rendering a psycho, and he doesn't fancy himself as either.

It's a figure of speech. You've crafted your scenario so that your preferred answer is the correct answer. It's one of the main reasons I find the use of analogies in debate so odious.

If you want to talk about the problems and ethics of collateral damage in anti-insurgent and counter-terrorist operations, talk about it in its own terms.