How readily can political opinions change?

[Art Vandelay]

Okay, here you're having a problem deciding whether it's okay to shoot through a crowd of innocent civilians who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis (your words) in order to kill a group of terrorists.

My point is that they are not innocent. They are participating in an attack.

Then you have the audacity to say this? A few lines above you were willing to mow down a crowd of innocents.

No, I was willing to mow down accessories to murder.

Well, Mrs. Vandalay should be VERY suspicious if you invite her on a trip to the Holy Land.

Why?

I don't think you read it very well.

How so?

Are you saying that if someone has a tank and you've got rocks that the person throwing rocks is responsible?

I'm saying that who's got rocks and who's got tanks is not determative. Are you going to answer my question? Do you think it is? If an Israeli soldier is on patrol, and out of nowhere a Palestinian throws a rock at him and kills him, is the Israeli authomatically at fault simply because he's at fault? And how are the Israelis supposed to know that they're rocks, and not grenades?

 

[Mephisto]

My point is that they are not innocent. They are participating in an attack.

But you're changing the parameters of your own example. You said (emphasis mine):

Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis. The other comprises a few hundred terrorists who carry rifles, rockets, and other weapons, and intend to kill the Israelis. Is the first group really "innocent civilians"? Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?

Now, I don't know what part of what you wrote you don't understand, but you can't set the example then the innocent people are magically changed into terrorists just so you can shoot them. You said they had no weapons and no intentions of engaging the Israelis.

No, I was willing to mow down accessories to murder.

Again, you said they were innocent, unarmed people with no intentions of engage the Israelis, how are they accessories to murder?

Why?

I suggested that Mrs. Vandelay be careful if you take her to the Holy Land because of how you answered this question.

Since you like playing, "what if," let's try this; You and Mrs. Vandalay take a trip to the Holy Land. You're taking in the beautiful sights and the culture and the history when suddenly a bulky-looking middle-easterner stands up and screams something then . . . nothing happens. To your amazement, you realize it's a suicide bombing gone wrong. Several Israeli policemen and some soldiers start running your way shouldering their weapons as they run. The big, burley would-be "suicider" bitch slaps you out of the way and grabs Mrs. Vandalay, and holding a knife to her throat takes her hostage.

Are the Israeli's justified in shooting?

You said:

Are the Israeli's what justifiied in shooting?

If shooting a hostage is necessary to protect others, then of course it's justified.

Poor Mrs. Vandalay - sacrificed without a second thought.

I'm saying that who's got rocks and who's got tanks is not determative. Are you going to answer my question? Do you think it is? If an Israeli soldier is on patrol, and out of nowhere a Palestinian throws a rock at him and kills him, is the Israeli authomatically at fault simply because he's at fault? And how are the Israelis supposed to know that they're rocks, and not grenades?

(emphasis mine)

Now read what I've emphasized and tell me that makes sense? As for the rest of your questions - how are the Israelis supposed to know if a kid is carrying a toy car (it could be a Desert Eagle)? How are the Israelis supposed to know that the lady on her back porch is really sweeping (that COULD be a sniper rifle)? How are the Israelis supposed to know if that really just a baby (it could have been given an explosive enema that's set to go off now)? Restraint, that's how.

 

[Art Vandelay]

But you're changing the parameters of your own example.

What parameter am I changing?

Now, I don't know what part of what you wrote you don't understand, but you can't set the example then the innocent people are magically changed into terrorists just so you can shoot them.

YBut they aren't innocent. Which I already said. Which you ignored.

You said they had no weapons and no intentions of engaging the Israelis.

Again, you said they were innocent, unarmed people with no intentions of engage the Israelis, how are they accessories to murder?

Because they interfere with the Israelis killing the people who are attempting murder.

I suggested that Mrs. Vandelay be careful if you take her to the Holy Land because of how you answered this question.

Yes, I got that part. But why?

Poor Mrs. Vandalay - sacrificed without a second thought.

Hmm, you asked your question at 11:41. I answered at 2:21. Are you trying to imply that only one thought would fit in that time?

Furthermore, there is a difference between accepting that it's justified, and actually sacrificing her.

Now read what I've emphasized and tell me that makes sense?

Yeah, you got me. My post didn't have my full attention. Obviously, that should be "is the Israeli authomatically at fault simply because he's in a tank?"

Now, are you going to answer this question, or any of the other ones you've dodged?

As for the rest of your questions - how are the Israelis supposed to know if a kid is carrying a toy car (it could be a Desert Eagle)?

That's just disingenuous. If you say that you can't tell the difference, you're either lying or an idiot.

If you're honestly flummoxed, here just one obvious difference: all the examples you give are things that people have legitimate reasons for. To expect people to not, for instance, carry babies just to make sure soldiers don't think they're bombs is quite an imposition. Do you honestly believe that expecting people to not EMPLOY LETHAL FORCE is comparable to expecting them to not carry babies? Do you think that it's important to ensure that people are free to ATTACK ISRAELIS WITH LETHAL WEAPONS without fear of being killed?

 

[.13.]

And what did the rest vote for? Fatah?

I think one could make a really strong argument that the other 45% voted for Fatah, which is another terrorist organization.

Such a person, however, would be a hard-core cynic. It can be said in defense of the Palestinian people that they didn't have a moderate choice to choose.

Good point. I have to agree with you on that. Though saying it's the entire population is still exaggerating but it might be more than 55% of the voters.

And are we really assured that those who voted for non-terrorist parties did so out of opposition to terrorism, rather than other motives? Everyone who votes for a terrorist party can be considered to be supporting terrorism, but the converse is not true.

But since we are supposed to be thinking rationally I would say we should consider people who voted a party that does not support terrorism as people who do not support terrorism. Unless ofcourse there is some other evidence to indicate their support for terrorism. I am unsure though if there were any such parties that didn't support terrorism participating in the elections.

I'm not aware of anyone stating, in 1943, that we were at war with only a third of Germany, since that's how many votes Hitler got.

Ofcourse legally Germany was at war as a nation but that doesn't mean every German supported the war.

 

[.13.]

If someone wants to criticize firing a rocket and killing "innocent" civilians, then they should back up the claim that they are, indeed, "innocent".

You are asking here to prove a negative. That the people in question have not done anything criminal.

So, the question is, are the Palestinians really taking all reasonable steps to avoid being near a terrorist when an Israeli rocket strikes? If not, then the responsibility for the deaths lies with the Palestinians.

It comes down to what you consider reasonable. People hiding the terrorists are cleary not innocent civilians. Though their children might be considered as such. In that case the responsibility lies on the person hiding the terrorists aswell as partly on IDF.

Also if the neighbourhood is unaware of the hiding terrorists they should be considered civilians expect those that are terrorists themselves. But in this case also the responsibility is shared between the terrorists, the people hiding them and IDF.

Ofcourse this issue is not straight forward and every case should be examined individually before coming to conclusions who's responsible to what extent.

 

[Mephisto]

Which administration is that?

C'mon Mycroft, who holds the dubious honor of being in charge of the only administration in the U.S. to invade a sovereign country, unrelated to the largest attack on American soil?

 

[Mephisto]

My point is that they are not innocent. They are participating in an attack.

Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis. The other comprises a few hundred terrorists who carry rifles, rockets, and other weapons, and intend to kill the Israelis. Is the first group really "innocent civilians"? Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?

No, I was willing to mow down accessories to murder.

Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis. The other comprises a few hundred terrorists who carry rifles, rockets, and other weapons, and intend to kill the Israelis. Is the first group really "innocent civilians"? Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?

Again, you said they were innocent, unarmed people with no intentions of engaging the Israelis, how are they accessories to murder?



Who can argue with this logic? What can you expect from someone willing to use a tank to shoot children throwing rocks?

 

[Mephisto]

Sorry for the delay in contributing Mephisto. Sadly, I can't post from work, and so have to grab moments at home when all the other demands on my time quieten down.

It's no problem, Cynric. I think you started an excellent thread (in spite of the derailings . . . is that a mixed metaphor, BPSCG? ). I hope to keep it going to glean input from as many JREFers as possible.

My inclinations are quite lefty - I think that taxing the rich to help the poor is fine, and I pay my share of tax, considering myself lucky enough to have the wits and skills to get a job that pays OK, and therefore willing to help others that are struggling. I know that the lazy and feckless will exploit that goodwill, but [rule8] them. Who cares as long as I'm comfortable and the really desperate are not abandoned?

I think that universal free healthcare is an admirable thing.

I think that the excesses of capitalism bring out the worst in human nature (greed, devaluation of human life), and I favour some regulation of business practices to moderate those excess (such as labour laws).

Well, your score is a big fat ZERO if you think you're turning Conservative. All those assertions are directly in line with my thinking, and you know what people think of me.

So far, so socialist/utilitarian utopia. The fly in the ointment, of course, is human nature.

Specifically, I've recently got to a stage where a big streak of pragmatism has started creeping into my opinions. It can be summed up best by the following, which I have been mentally screaming at various social/political commentators: "STOP MAKING EXCUSES! YOUR STRATEGY DIDN'T WORK!"

Not that we've seen that anywhere here, right?

I agree 100% which is why I'm always a big advocate of empathy. The simple act of seeing through the eyes of another can open your mind to the wonderous fact that we are all more alike than we are different. It is those institutions that we point at as proof that we are civilized that give us rationalization to kill other humans beings.


Sorry for the essay. Hopefully we can all disagree with some of the above, and have a good old debate.

Beautifully written and the only part I could disagree with is that you're moving "left to right." Of course, the view from the "right" in the U.S. usually includes a view of Calvary and a mandate from heaven.

 

[Cynric]

It's no problem, Cynric. I think you started an excellent thread (in spite of the derailings . . . is that a mixed metaphor, BPSCG? ). I hope to keep it going to glean input from as many JREFers as possible.

Thanks for the support!
I guess it was a bit misguided to use Israel/Palestine as the basis of the argument, what with the strength of feeling on both sides (and the history between various posters). It just struck me most forcefully as the event that helped solidify my growing irritation with what some here would call the far left.
The cartoon row was another one. I mean, wow. There comes a point where you have to stop trying to find reasons for the rage and just say "it's wrong, and we must oppose it." I really wanted the leaders of Europe to stand up and say "we believe in freedom of expression." Instead we got variations on "it was a bit insensitive".

Back to the subject, I really would like to hear from anyone who used to think that free market economies were great and gun control was bad, but now think that a bit of government regulation and restrictions on firearms would be welcome. Anyone...?

[tumbleweed blows past]

 

[Cynric]

Of course, the view from the "right" in the U.S. usually includes a view of Calvary and a mandate from heaven.

Yes, there is a bit of a definition problem. I realize I'm only moving right economically/fiscally. I'm still a social liberal wuss

It does seem to be one of the most bizarre aspects of the US far right, this "Christian" fervour. War and hate and avarice. The trinity of Christ's ideals.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I agree 100% which is why I'm always a big advocate of empathy. The simple act of seeing through the eyes of another can open your mind to the wonderous fact that we are all more alike than we are different.

Then why do you refuse to try to see through my eyes? Or through Israelis'?

Imagine you're a new IDF recruit. Just a kid, really. You're out on patrol, trying to get through your day knowing that at any moment you can be killed. Suddenly your buddy goes down, blood pouring out of his head. You don't know whether he's alive or dead. Adrenaline is coursing through body, as are all sorts of emotions, from rage to terror. Objects are flying through the air all around you, and one can hit you any time. What do you do? Do you call out that we're all just people, and we should all get together and sing Kumbaya? Or do you put your rifle on full auto and blast away? Which do you think is a more reasonable reaction?

Anyone who throws rocks at the IDF is asking for a Darwin's Award nomination, and has no right to complain if they get one.

You are asking here to prove a negative. That the people in question have not done anything criminal.

A negative has been asserted. I don't think that it is reasonable for someone to make a claim, then, when someone challenges it, say "You're asking me to prove a negative". Mephisto claimed they're innocent. I think that I am justified in asking him support that claim.

In that case the responsibility lies on the person hiding the terrorists aswell as partly on IDF.

If by "responsibility", you mean "blame", then no. If, during WWII, the Germans had put children on their warships, the allies would not share in the blame for their deaths.

Also if the neighbourhood is unaware of the hiding terrorists they should be considered civilians expect [except?] those that are terrorists themselves.

What if they're deliberately ignorant of their presence? What if Palestinians have an established tendency to protect terrorists when their presence is known? Then don't Palestinians have an affirmative duty to seek out terrorists?

C'mon Mycroft, who holds the dubious honor of being in charge of the only administration in the U.S. to invade a sovereign country, unrelated to the largest attack on American soil?

Wow, no crap is too absurd for you to post, is it? Do you really believe this BS?

Again, you said they were innocent, unarmed people with no intentions of engaging the Israelis, how are they accessories to murder?

No, I didn't. Do you not understand the concept of a scare quote?

What can you expect from someone willing to use a tank to shoot children throwing rocks?

I never said I'm willing. I just don't see that it's a huge tragedy, and there are situations where it is justified.

 

[.13.]

A negative has been asserted. I don't think that it is reasonable for someone to make a claim, then, when someone challenges it, say "You're asking me to prove a negative". Mephisto claimed they're innocent. I think that I am justified in asking him support that claim.

If you ask that you are asking to prove a negative. If you say they are infact not innocent civilians then you are making a positive claim that the people in question have done something criminal. The onus is on you. (Innocent until proven guilty.)

If by "responsibility", you mean "blame", then no. If, during WWII, the Germans had put children on their warships, the allies would not share in the blame for their deaths.

What if they're deliberately ignorant of their presence? What if Palestinians have an established tendency to protect terrorists when their presence is known? Then don't Palestinians have an affirmative duty to seek out terrorists?

But you can't disable a warship with a rifle. But a hiding terrorist potentially could be killed with a rifle and a competent marksman instead of using a rocket. Or the rocket could be used when the children are at school. But now we are going too deep into hypothetical scenarios in my opinion.

What does deliberately ignorant mean? They are either ignorant or not? And in my example they were infact ignorant of the presence of terrorists. In that case they clearly are innocent civilians (unless they are terrorists themselves). Don't you agree?

I don't think the civilians have any more duty to seek out terrorists than I have to seek out criminals. But the civilians that are aware of the fact that there is a terrorist hiding are also partly responsible. IDF should still use constraint in their attack. Enough force to get the job done with minimal casualties. After all you can't discriminate ignorant civilians from the rest with a rocket attack.

Also I was just trying to point out basic quidelines that are in my opinion valid. As I said in my earlier post: Every situation should be examined individually before assigning responsibilites to any parties. I don't mean we should start creating all kinds of hypothetical situations. We could try to twist all kinds of different hypotheticals but I don't think that is very productive.

Edit: I just noticed that you pointed out a typo in my previous post but I can't edit that anymore. The correct word is except as you suspected. The terrorists are not expecting anything. Thanks.

 

[Art Vandelay]

If you ask that you are asking to prove a negative. If you say they are infact not innocent civilians then you are making a positive claim that the people in question have done something criminal. The onus is on you. (Innocent until proven guilty.)

If you say that these civilians are innocent, and therefore the Israelis are killing innocent civilians, then the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty says that the onus is on you (note the word "presumed").

What does deliberately ignorant mean?

It means that they are ignorant by choice. Kinda like a "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards terrorists.

I don't think the civilians have any more duty to seek out terrorists than I have to seek out criminals.

I think they do. If there are terrorists, then the civilians are helping them. Not trying to find out if there are terrorists is like selling a gun to someone without making effort to find out if they're a criminal.

Enough force to get the job done with minimal casualties. After all you can't discriminate ignorant civilians from the rest with a rocket attack.

Rocket attackis only non-minimal if there are better options. As I said, no one has given one.

 

[.13.]

If you say that these civilians are innocent, and therefore the Israelis are killing innocent civilians, then the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty says that the onus is on you (note the word "presumed").

dictionary.com

v. pre·sumed, pre·sum·ing, pre·sumes
v. tr.

1. To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary: We presumed she was innocent.

It is abundantly clear that the onus is not on me to prove their innocence. But on you to provide the contrary proof. Presuming someone is innocent and then requiring proof for that innocence is a contradiction.

Or are you saying that people should be presumed guilty untill proven innocent?

It means that they are ignorant by choice. Kinda like a "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards terrorists.

How long do you think a person in Gaza stays alive if he starts asking awkward questions about terrorists?

If there are terrorists, then the civilians are helping them.

Non sequitur.

If there are criminals then I am helping them?

What does the law say? If you don't actively search for criminals are you an accomplice in the eyes of the law?

Rocket attackis only non-minimal if there are better options. As I said, no one has given one.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you objecting to my opinion or not? I thought I was merely pointing out the obvious. To use only enough force to get the job done with minimal civilian casualties. You don't agree with that principal?

 

[Mycroft]

That's not much of a defense. The reason there are no major non-terrorist parties is because hardly anyone votes for them. Unless the elections are not, in fact, democratic, any lack of other parties is because the Palestinians have chosen not to have any other parties. It's like those people complaining that it's unfair that we only had Bush and Kerry to choose from, because no one else was electable. Well, if you don't want to have to choose between Bush and Kerry, vote for someone else in the primary!

A Palestinians who publicly proclaim that making peace with Israel and ending terrorism is a good idea risk getting killed as collaborators.

We are not talking about a free society. It is a society run by fanatics with guns.

 

[Mycroft]

C'mon Mycroft, who holds the dubious honor of being in charge of the only administration in the U.S. to invade a sovereign country, unrelated to the largest attack on American soil?

Which suggests the administration you were talking about is the Bush administration.

Follow the thread back:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1550422#post1550422


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1550582#post1550582

The topic is Israel, not America. You seem to be confusing the two.

 

[Mephisto]

If you say that these civilians are innocent, . . .

No YOU said they were innocent.

Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis.

No YOU claimed they were innocent.

Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis.

Is the first group really "innocent civilians"?

Well, if as YOU said they carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis, I would assume they are. Again, what part of what you wrote didn't you understand?

Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis.

It means that they are ignorant by choice.

I can understand your ire. We have seen the enemy, and he be me.

Not trying to find out if there are terrorists is like selling a gun to someone without making effort to find out if they're a criminal.

I see. So, are you active in this pursuit? Have you set up an armed booth at the border of your backwater town, and greet people with, "Ve haff to see zee papers," or do you just sit in a foxhole guarding your stockpile of Ramen noodles?

If an Israeli soldier is on patrol, and out of nowhere a Palestinian throws a rock at him and kills him, is the Israeli authomatically at fault simply because he's at fault? And how are the Israelis supposed to know that they're rocks, and not grenades?

No, the Israeli soldier is not at fault for simply being at fault if he's stupid enough to be killed by a rock. He's at fault for not paying friggin attention, much like you.

Do you really want to continue this. I imagine a lot of your Conservative friends here are cringing at this tirade of yours.

 

[Mycroft]

...As I said in my earlier post: Every situation should be examined individually before assigning responsibilites to any parties...

Well said.

The truth is somewhere between the extremes. Soldiers, if they have another option, should not respond to rock throwing with deadly force, but it's also true that people who throw rocks at soldiers take their lives in their hands.

Israel has been unfairly smeared with this false meme. The IDF has pioneered non-lethal technology precisely because they have to deal with situations like this day in and day out.

 

[Mycroft]

No, the Israeli soldier is not at fault for simply being at fault if he's stupid enough to be killed by a rock. He's a fault for not paying friggin attention, much like you.

Soldiers should pay attention, yes, but in your scenario the one who killed him is the rock-thrower.

 

[Mephisto]

The topic is Israel, not America. You seem to be confusing the two.

What's to confuse? Two military Superpowers squatting on land they didn't own, oppressing the indigenous populations, engaging that population with the latest in military hardware . . .