Hafrada is worse than Apartheid

[volatile]

Now you are equating a lack of concern for civillian casualties that result from attacks on military targets with relishing the death of civillians.

That is a distinction without a difference, particularly when accompanied by the phrase "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". Brilliant. Brilliant! More people dead. Good work, Israel.

 

[WildCat]

Who says there were weapons in mosques?

The secondary explosions:



But, of course, you know this already.

 

[gtc]

So then Hamas are equally justified in firing their rockets?

They may think so but what they think is not the sole determinant of morality.

Israel is not deliberately targetting civillians - it is attacking military targets with the knowledge that this may lead to civillian deaths. For the most part, Hamas is attacking civillian targets with the hope of killing civillians. That is an important difference.

No - violence and killing are never to be justified. Dividing this into "them" and "us" is what is at the root of this bloody mess in the first place.

Dividing people into us and them is at the root of every conflict. It is also part and parcel of every responsible government's actions - we elect government's to look after the interests of our fellow countrymen and women before looking out for the interests of other country's people.

All human life is valuable. If you think otherwise, then I suggest this discussion halt right now.

Of course all human life is valuable.

 

[WildCat]

That is a distinction without a difference, particularly when accompanied by the phrase "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". Brilliant. Brilliant! More people dead. Good work, Israel.

Well, these guys were sure as hell surprised!



And yes, good work Israel!

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Its a war. Government's are supposed to value the lives of their own civillians over the lives of the civillians of countries that are attacking them.

A war??

Let's look at the more closely shall we?

One side has weapons only consisting of a few mortars and some privitive rockets.

The other side has one the most powerful and modern military capabilities in the world.

 

[RandFan]

Who says there were weapons in mosques?

It's really not in the best interest of Israel to blow up houses of worship if there is no reason to. There might not be weapons but Israel had gathered intelligence before hand. If Israel simply wanted to kill civilians there would be thousands if not tens of thousands dead and there were would be hundreds of Mosques destroyed.

I'm not saying that it is beyond Israel to make a mistake or to target a mosque on the pretense of destroying weapons but I rather doubt it.

 

[volatile]

I'm not going to be drawn into a semantics debate over the meaning of the word "state".

Gaza is not part of Israel. That's a critical distinction.

How fortunate that you refuse to be drawn on precisely the matter where your argument collapses, huh?

Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. So what? What does that have to do with the appropriateness of the response.

Why would the British government not have been justified in ordering missile strikes on West Belfast? After all, the IRA operated out of civilian areas, and mustered considerable local support. So what's the functional difference here? If Israel is justified in acting in a manner guaranteed to cause massive civilian death because those actions will kill terrorists, why wouldn't the British have been justified in acting in the same way?

I grew up in Britain in the 80s. This is my frame of reference. So explain to me why the two situations aren't analogous from the point of view of the civilians on the ground -- because from where I'm standing, they're all too similar. Innocent men, women and children brutally killed because of the actions (and, occasionally, simply the beliefs) of their neighbours.

That cannot be justified.

The same goes for Hamas too, of course - their attacks on civilians are equally heinous. The key word being "equally".

 

[gtc]

Will you, then, condemn the actions of Israel - actions which are guaranteed to cause civilian deaths? If you disagree that Palestinian civilian deaths are justifiable and that the Israeli methods of punishing / mitigating terrorism are entirely appropriate, please say so. Now's your chance.

For the record: I wholeheartedly condemn Hamas' actions, and the philosophy they embody.

Of course some level of civillian casualtiesd has to be justifiable, otherwise military activities would be practically impossible and civillian policing would be greatly hindered as well.

The question is whether the level of civillian casualties can be justified and that involves looking at the tactics of both sides and the military goals pursued. Which involves actual research and the consideration of actual evidence rather than simple black and white moralising.

 

[Thunder]

It is a war. Highly unbalanced...but still a war.

Like when the Americans fought the Indians....guns vs. bows and arrows. It was still a war.

and btw..when buses start blowing up in Tel Aviv (and they will soon)..will this war seem a little more balanced?

yes it will.

"meow"

 

[volatile]

They may think so but what they think is not the sole determinant of morality.

Israel is not deliberately targetting civillians - it is attacking military targets with the knowledge that this may lead to civillian deaths. For the most part, Hamas is attacking civillian targets with the hope of killing civillians. That is an important difference.

No, it is not an important difference. Not if you're the dead civilian.

Try and humanise this, Gtc. Imagine your wife being killed because your next-door neighbour is a terrorist. Empathise.

Also, need I repeat -- two wrongs do not make a right. If Israel wants to stop the violence, there are better, more precise ways of going about it.

Dividing people into us and them is at the root of every conflict. It is also part and parcel of every responsible government's actions - we elect government's to look after the interests of our fellow countrymen and women before looking out for the interests of other country's people.

Of course all human life is valuable.

These two sentences do not follow from each other.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Of course all human life is valuable.

But not equally. It seems.

 

[Texas]

A war??

Let's look at the more closely shall we?

One side has weapons only consisting of a few mortars and some privitive rockets.

The other side has one the most powerful and modern military capabilities in the world.

Then Hamas must be, hands down, the dumbest organisation in history. Maybe they are too stupid to live.

 

[volatile]

The question is whether the level of civillian casualties can be justified and that involves looking at the tactics of both sides and the military goals pursued. Which involves actual research and the consideration of actual evidence rather than simple black and white moralising.

Exactly.

So let's look at these tactics. Israel are using fighter planes against handfuls of individuals with home-made rocket launchers. They are bombing densely-populated civilian areas to target small militia. 2,000 injured, at least (and certainly more) 62 civilians dead.

That's the evidence. So let's stop the black and white moralising. Is the military force exerted justifiable? Not to my mind.

 

[gtc]

That is a distinction without a difference,

Rubbish. There is a vast difference between relishing civillian deaths and recognising that civillian deaths may be justifiable. As an example, I do not relish the deaths of Japanese civillians from the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki but I recognise that they were most likely necessary to bring about the end of WWII.

particularly when accompanied by the phrase "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". Brilliant. Brilliant! More people dead. Good work, Israel.

Being happy that more Hamas terrorists are dead is very different from being happy that more Palestinian civillians are dead. Maybe you should ask the journalist which he meant before you start using his words to condemn Israel.

Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Palestine is not part of Israel although whether it is occupied by Israel or not is another matter.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Also, need I repeat -- two wrongs do not make a right. If Israel wants to stop the violence, there are better, more precise ways of going about it.
.

Israel is no better than Hamas. In fact it is worse. It's worse because it is bigger an stronger and can afford to take a more civilized approach then killing indiscriminately.

But Israel doesn't want that. It wants to eventually drive the Palestinians out of Palestine completely so there's a 1 state solution

 

[WildCat]

Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. So what? What does that have to do with the appropriateness of the response.

And Hawaii is not part of the North American continent. Which has no bearing at all as far as it being part of the USA.

Why would the British government not have been justified in ordering missile strikes on West Belfast? After all, the IRA operated out of civilian areas, and mustered considerable local support. So what's the functional difference here? If Israel is justified in acting in a manner guaranteed to cause massive civilian death because those actions will kill terrorists, why wouldn't the British have been justified in acting in the same way?

Because the British government had police in NI. They had British law in NI.

I grew up in Britain in the 80s. This is my frame of reference. So explain to me why the two situations aren't analogous from the point of view of the civilians on the ground -- because from where I'm standing, they're all too similar. Innocent men, women and children brutally killed because of the actions (and, occasionally, simply the beliefs) of their neighbours.

Which also makes it just like the terror after the French Revolution!
Except, of course, it's not at all like that once you look beyond the simplistic "innocent people get killed" analogy.

That cannot be justified.

And yet, it is. So long as Israel sticks to attacking militart targets they're off the hook under the Laws of Armed Conflict.

The same goes for Hamas too, of course - their attacks on civilians are equally heinous. The key word being "equally".

If your moral compass can't distinguish between targeting civilians and targeting military targets you may want to have it looked at.

 

[gtc]

Exactly.

So let's look at these tactics. Israel are using fighter planes against handfuls of individuals with home-made rocket launchers. They are bombing densely-populated civilian areas to target small militia. 2,000 injured, at least (and certainly more) 62 civilians dead.

That's the evidence. So let's stop the black and white moralising. Is the military force exerted justifiable?

Good.

Not to my mind.

So what actions would Israel be justified in undertaking?

 

[volatile]

Which also makes it just like the terror after the French Revolution! Except, of course, it's not at all like that once you look beyond the simplistic "innocent people get killed" analogy.

It's not a simplistic "innocent people get killed" analogy. It's about a disputed territory, with terrorists using civilian cover, in an area where they enjoy considerable popular support.

I take it, by your responses, that you feel the British bombing West Belfast would have been the wrong thing to do. Why not? They would have hit plenty of "military targets", if (as I assume from your final sentence) you count "civilian buildings where explosives are secreted" as "military targets".

How's that moral compass going? At least mine always points North, and doesn't shift poles depending on which country I'm in.

 

[volatile]

So what actions would Israel be justified in undertaking?

Armed soldiers arresting armed militants. No helicopters. No jet fighters. No missiles.

 

[WildCat]

It's not a simplistic "innocent people get killed" analogy. It's about a disputed territory, with terrorists using civilian cover, in an area where they enjoy considerable popular support.

NI wasn't disputed territory. It had been part of the UK for nearly 400 years.

I take it, by your responses, that you feel the British bombing West Belfast would have been the wrong thing to do. Why not? They would have hit plenty of "military targets", if (as I assume from your final sentence) you count "civilian buildings where explosives are secreted" as "military targets".

Because the British could go to any part of NI they felt like and take it out using far less destructive means.

How's that moral compass going? At least mine always points North, and doesn't shift poles depending on which country I'm in.

I don't think you know which way "north" is, actually.