"Innocent" civilians?

[Art Vandelay]

Spin-off from this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54553

Hypothetical situation one:

Group A is advancing towards an Israeli position. It comprises a few hundred people who have rifles, grenade launchers, and other weapons, and intend on killing the Israelis. Group B is accompanying Group A, and comprises several thousand unarmed people who have no intention of engaging the Israelis.

Hypothetical situation two:

Group A is a normal military unit, with weapons and uniforms. Group B is a buch of people standing amongst Group A, wearing clothes that look very similar to Group A's uniforms, and holding objects that look very similar to Group A's weapons.

Hypothetical situation three:

Group A comprises a group of bank robbers in a single black sedan. Group B comprises several hundred people, in several dozen black sedans. Group B accompanies Group A to a bank, then drives around between the cops and Group A.

In which, if any, of these situations is Group B "innocent"?

 

[Megalodon]

How about this hypothetical:

Timothy McVeigh (any resemblence to a real name is purely coincidental) lives in an apartment block. He's known among his neighbours to be a radical militarist anti-government person, several cards short of a full deck.
After a terrorist attack, the government decides to take out McVeigh. To do so they pursue him with an attack helicopter through the streets, and rocket his car to a halt. Several civilians get killed in the pursuit, but he manages to enter his building. When he reaches his apartment, a missile explodes in the living room, killing him and a number of neighbours.

Which ones of the tens of dead civillians are "sooper-sekrit-undecover-terrorists"?

 

[Soapy Sam]

How about this one.

You are coming home from work when either a bomb or a missile takes out a government building, which collapses, burying your car under ten metres of rubble.

It's a year before your body is found and identified by what's left of the car.

The ordnance was either American or British. The man was Iraqi. I used to work with him.

I'd say that's about as innocent as you get.

 

[zenith-nadir]

One must divide the combatants from the non combatants.

Group A is advancing towards an Israeli position. It comprises a few hundred people who have rifles, grenade launchers, and other weapons, and intend on killing the Israelis.

Those would be combatants.

Group B is accompanying Group A, and comprises several thousand unarmed people who have no intention of engaging the Israelis.

If Group B is accompanying Group A then they are designated combatants because they are accompanying Group A who is engaged in hostilities. If they have "no intention of engaging the Israelis" logically they would not be moving with Group A towards an Israeli position.

The reality on-the-ground is the terrorists themselves do not care about the lives of innocent Palestinians, which is why they are not hesitant to use them as shields. Gunmen have repeatedly hid behind civilians, stashed weapons in mosques, sent women and children suicide bombers and smuggled explosives in Red Crescent ambulances. Hell, Palestinian terrorists even stormed the Church of the Nativity and held up in there for 39 days to hide from the IDF.

It really doesn't matter who or what us used to "shield" them and the Palestinian Authority - in a mockery of international humanitarian law - does nothing to stop the palestinian combatants from using the noncombatants as shields. They actually relish the idea that Palestinian noncombatants get killed so they can point their hypocritical fingers and go "Look!...look!...I told you we are being oppressed!".

 

[Beerina]

It's unspoken, but it seems like in all cases, group B both knows what group A is up to and is along with them voluntarily. So if a defender blows up group A and hits group B as well or instead, well, that's their problem.

Morally, even if group B were completely innocent and unaware, anyone defending themselves from A might take into consideration that they were hiding among innocents (group B) but they need not refuse to defend themselves for fear of hurting group B. Any innocents who die, their deaths are on the heads of group A, not those defending themselves from group A.

 

[zenith-nadir]

It's unspoken, but it seems like in all cases, group B both knows what group A is up to and is along with them voluntarily. So if a defender blows up group A and hits group B as well or instead, well, that's their problem.

Morally, even if group B were completely innocent and unaware, anyone defending themselves from A might take into consideration that they were hiding among innocents (group B) but they need not refuse to defend themselves for fear of hurting group B. Any innocents who die, their deaths are on the heads of group A, not those defending themselves from group A.

I agree. If I was unarmed and saw "people who have rifles, grenade launchers, and other weapons" advancing on an enemy who also has "rifles, grenade launchers, and other weapons" I would remove myself from the situation tout sweet.

The problem in Gaza and the West Bank is the "people who have rifles, grenade launchers, and other weapons" are not:

• members of militias under the command of the armed forces
• commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates
• displaying a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
• carrying their arms openly
• conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war
• members of regular armed force who profess allegiance to a government or an authority

 

[Mycroft]

In which, if any, of these situations is Group B "innocent"?

None.

 

[Giz]

How about this hypothetical:

Timothy McVeigh (any resemblence to a real name is purely coincidental) lives in an apartment block. He's known among his neighbours to be a radical militarist anti-government person, several cards short of a full deck.
After a terrorist attack, the government decides to take out McVeigh. To do so they pursue him with an attack helicopter through the streets, and rocket his car to a halt. Several civilians get killed in the pursuit, but he manages to enter his building. When he reaches his apartment, a missile explodes in the living room, killing him and a number of neighbours.

Which ones of the tens of dead civillians are "sooper-sekrit-undecover-terrorists"?

Apples and oranges. For your comparison to be accurate the following would have to be true:

1 The Israeli police would have jurisdiction over PA territory.
2 The general population of the PA territory would be in the main supportive or at least non-violent towards the Israeli police.
3 Sending in ground units to make an arrest would not result in a mass urban battle... leading to far more collateral damage than a missle...

 

[Mephisto]

Now, for those of you who answered that the unarmed group WAS NOT innocent, maybe you'd like a look at the ORIGINAL post. Please note that in this post, there was NO MENTION of the two groups being inter-mixed. They were clearly TWO SEPARATE GROUPS.

Now, are you justified in shooting through the unarmed group to kill the members of the group with weapons? (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?

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.

________

I hope you took note of the assertion in the last paragraph. The fact that innocent Palestinians are guilty for their own deaths because they didn't avoid being near a terrorist target when an Israeli rocket strikes is pretty much the logic Mr. Vandelay uses throughout the original thread.

 

[Mycroft]

When I initially read Art's post I understood it to mean the unarmed group was offering cover to the armed group. He may not have phrased it as well as he could have, but that was my understanding of his intent.

 

[Beerina]

When I initially read Art's post I understood it to mean the unarmed group was offering cover to the armed group. He may not have phrased it as well as he could have, but that was my understanding of his intent.

If that's the case, i.e. they were knowing and literally supporting, then what's the moral ambiguity here?

Or was it a rhetorical question to start with?

 

[CFLarsen]

Spin-off from this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54553

Hypothetical situation one:

Group A is advancing towards an Israeli position. It comprises a few hundred people who have rifles, grenade launchers, and other weapons, and intend on killing the Israelis. Group B is accompanying Group A, and comprises several thousand unarmed people who have no intention of engaging the Israelis.

Hypothetical situation two:

Group A is a normal military unit, with weapons and uniforms. Group B is a buch of people standing amongst Group A, wearing clothes that look very similar to Group A's uniforms, and holding objects that look very similar to Group A's weapons.

Hypothetical situation three:

Group A comprises a group of bank robbers in a single black sedan. Group B comprises several hundred people, in several dozen black sedans. Group B accompanies Group A to a bank, then drives around between the cops and Group A.

In which, if any, of these situations is Group B "innocent"?

Why are you asking this question?

 

[Mephisto]

When I initially read Art's post I understood it to mean the unarmed group was offering cover to the armed group. He may not have phrased it as well as he could have, but that was my understanding of his intent.

You're absolutely right, Mycroft. That's the way it's presented here, but as you can see from the original post - the two groups were clearly separate, one having no weapons AND no intention of engaging the soldiers. Obviously an unarmed group intermixing with an armed group is clearly looking to engage the soldiers in spite of the fact that they're unarmed.

 

[Mephisto]

Why are you asking this question?

To see if general opinion gives credence to his assertions that there ARE instances that innocent people can be shot. Read the OP in his link and you'll see where the argument originated.

 

[Mycroft]

You're absolutely right, Mycroft. That's the way it's presented here, but as you can see from the original post - the two groups were clearly separate, one having no weapons AND no intention of engaging the soldiers. Obviously an unarmed group intermixing with an armed group is clearly looking to engage the soldiers in spite of the fact that they're unarmed.

Well, they seemed like separate groups until he said, "Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?" While it wasn't clear earlier in the paragraph, there is no way that shooting at the armed group would mean killing people in the unarmed group unless the unarmed group were somehow offering cover to the armed group.

 

[CFLarsen]

To see if general opinion gives credence to his assertions that there ARE instances that innocent people can be shot. Read the OP in his link and you'll see where the argument originated.

I see, thanks.

I wonder what Art will answer to his own question.

 

[Mephisto]

Well, they seemed like separate groups until he said, "Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?" While it wasn't clear earlier in the paragraph, there is no way that shooting at the armed group would mean killing people in the unarmed group unless the unarmed group were somehow offering cover to the armed group.

The way I took it was that the first group was unarmed and perhaps walking in front of the armed group (maybe trying to vacate the area BEFORE violence starts). He DID say that the unarmed group had NO INTENTION OF ENGAGING THE SOLDIERS. That, to me says they were attempting to avoid violence.

Now, as Beerina said, where is the moral ambiguity? WHY would it be immoral to shoot through the unarmed crowd (with no intention of engaging the soldiers) to kill members of the second armed group? Apparently someone doesn't know the answer to that OR why it's immoral to use a tank to shoot young boys throwing rocks.

 

[Mephisto]

I see, thanks.

I wonder what Art will answer to his own question.

He's already answered his own question in the OP (and my sig line) - I hope he's examing his conscience instead.

 

[Mycroft]

The way I took it was that the first group was unarmed and perhaps walking in front of the armed group (maybe trying to vacate the area BEFORE violence starts).

I think that's also a reasonable interpretation of the initial post.

So what do you think now after it's been clarified?

 

[Art Vandelay]

The way I took it was that the first group was unarmed and perhaps walking in front of the armed group (maybe trying to vacate the area BEFORE violence starts).

No, I specifically said "advancing on an Israeli position". That eliminates the possibility that their motions towards the Israeli was merely incidental to an attempt to flee; "advance" indicates a purposeful movement towards some goal.

He DID say that the unarmed group had NO INTENTION OF ENGAGING THE SOLDIERS. That, to me says they were attempting to avoid violence.

It means that they were attempting to avoid engaging in violence. It doesn't mean they were attempting to avoid being part of violence (i.e. getting killed).

WHY would it be immoral to shoot through the unarmed crowd (with no intention of engaging the soldiers) to kill members of the second armed group?

And someone thinks they know the answer, but for some reason doesn't wish to present that answer to be examined by others.

Now, for those of you who answered that the unarmed group WAS NOT innocent, maybe you'd like a look at the ORIGINAL post. Please note that in this post, there was NO MENTION of the two groups being inter-mixed. They were clearly TWO SEPARATE GROUPS.

As Mycroft pointed out, what is "clearly" true is completely inconsistent with what I actually said. What, two groups just happen to be advancing on the exact same Israeli position at the exact same time, and you assume they are "TWO SEPARATE GROUPS"? Please. Either you're an idiot, or you're deliberately interpreting it in a manner that makes no sense. What purpose did you imagine a group of civilians to have to advance on an Israeli position? Does it really take a genius to figure out that several thousand civilians don't just spontaneously decide to walk between a bunch of Israelis with guns and a bunch of Palestinians with guns?

I hope you took note of the assertion in the last paragraph. The fact that innocent Palestinians are guilty for their own deaths because they didn't avoid being near a terrorist target when an Israeli rocket strikes is pretty much the logic Mr. Vandelay uses throughout the original thread.

Lying about what I said is the sort of "logic" that you used. I never said that merely being near a terrorist target makes them guilty. I said that not taking reasonable steps to avoid being near terrorists makes them responsible for (I did not say "guilty", I said "responsible") their own deaths.

You're absolutely right, Mycroft. That's the way it's presented here, but as you can see from the original post - the two groups were clearly separate, one having no weapons AND no intention of engaging the soldiers. Obviously an unarmed group intermixing with an armed group is clearly looking to engage the soldiers in spite of the fact that they're unarmed.

I didn't see that. Mycroft didn't see that. If you were honestly trying to understand my position, you would have made sure that I was saying what you thought I was saying before you started criticizing it. But you're more interested in attacking anyone with an opposing view that actually having an honest debate. You even went so far as to say that I didn't understand what I wrote, when you were the one who didn't understand it.

I agree that what I wrote wasn't completely clear, and if you had asked for clarification, you would have been absolutely justified. But you were completely unjustified in simply making up your own interpretation and attacking a strawman. When I clarified that they were participating in the attack, what was your reaction? Was it "Thanks for clarifying your example" or even "I don't understand what you mean"? Of course not! That would have been a reasonable response. Completely out of character. Instead you said "But you're changing the parameters of your own example." So apparently you think you know better than me what the parameters of my own hypothetical are. You're an arrogant jackass.

What was your defense of the claim that they were innocent? You said "You said they had no weapons and no intentions of engaging the Israelis." Now, in this thread, you're changing your story. Now you're claiming that what makes them innocent is the fact that they were completely separate groups. If that's what you think makes them innocent why didn't you say that in the first place? Then I could have explained that they're not separate groups, and we could have gone on to have a constructive discussion. Oh, wait, I guess I just answered my own question.

You said "Again, you said they were innocent, unarmed people with no intentions of engaging the Israelis". You took two things that I did say, and added in something I did not say. Are you really going to pretend that's not dishonest?

Who can argue with this logic?

Apparently, not you, because you don't even try.

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

This really sums up your position: "I disagree with you, therefore I'm going to misrepresent your position, engage in dishonest debate, and then pretend that it's your fault that the discussion isn't going anywhere".

Why are you asking this question?

Why are you posting on this forum?