iNow Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Indeed. That's actually the law. International law, at that. It's about attacking combattants, ensuring targets are primarily military in nature, and keeping the numbers of innocents killed to a minimum. Even in Iraq, soldiers only needed higher level approval if they thought an activity was going to kill more than 30 innocents. Less than that and they could do what needed to be done (again, as long as the target was primarily military and steps had been taken to minimize civilian casualities).
iNow Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 And those thousands of rockets since 2005? It appears CNN is the next Fox.
doG Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Are you claiming that there were no attacks, rockets, suicide bombers, etc.. from Hamas first? Really. Are you?
CaptainPanic Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Are you claiming that there were no attacks, rockets, suicide bombers, etc.. from Hamas first? Really. Are you? Since the state of Israel has been founded both sides have started this conflict. There has never been a moment where either side did not take any action at all. There were always some terrorists or colonists (which is pretty much the same thing). One side shoots rockets at civilians, the other locks up millions of civilians in the world's largest open air prison. If you think Israel is the good guys, then building a wall is defense, and rockets are bad (m'kay?), if you think Palestinians are the good guys, then you think that this wall is against human rights and rockets are defense. I think that both Israelis and Palestinians are a bunch of nutcases to fight over such a crappy piece of land for so long.
mooeypoo Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 There has never been a moment where either side did not take any action at all. There were always some terrorists or colonists (which is pretty much the same thing). I am quite vigilantly against those groups who go and "plant a house" in the middle of nowhere just to be able to claim it. I think that tehy should be arrested and put to jail, at much faster than any of that happens. But to say that terrorists -- that blow up busses full of civilians in the middle of a city, that target populated areas AIMING AT CIVILIANS, who celebrate whenever people in Israel die -- those are the same as colonists? *really*? Wow. Other than that, the Palestinians weren't always "locked away". They worked and traveled in between Gaza and Israel for YEARS. The only times *we* closed off the passways is when they started with terrorist attacks that originated there. And what about Egypt? Gaza has a passway there too, which Israel has no control over. If this is such a "open air prison" then Egypt is at fault as well.
iNow Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Are you claiming that there were no attacks, rockets, suicide bombers, etc.. from Hamas first? Really. Are you? doG, During my membership here, I've found Bascule to be an incredibly bright human being, very receptive to well formulated arguments and supported positions. That's twice now in this thread where you've lambasted him directly and personally for sharing news pieces that others have written. I encourage you to focus your responses/criticisms on those news pieces and perhaps be a little less inflamatory towards my "fellow moonbat" who is here sharing them with us after reading them. Cheers, friend.
doG Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 doG, During my membership here, I've found Bascule to be an incredibly bright human being, very receptive to well formulated arguments and supported positions. That's twice now in this thread where you've lambasted him directly and personally for sharing news pieces that others have written. I encourage you to focus your responses/criticisms on those news pieces and perhaps be a little less inflamatory towards my "fellow moonbat" who is here sharing them with us after reading them. Cheers, friend. He wasn't lambasted for this ......... yet. He was genuinely asked if he is presenting this as a valid claim that Hamas did not fire first.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 So, a Palestinian official claims that it was Israel who broke the cease-fire. The big question would by, why would Israel break the cease-fire? If they are interested in peace, breaking the cease-fire makes no sense. If they are not interested in peace, totally p0wning the Palestinians like they are doing now makes more sense.
ecoli Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 So, a Palestinian official claims that it was Israel who broke the cease-fire. The big question would by, why would Israel break the cease-fire? If they are interested in peace, breaking the cease-fire makes no sense. If they are not interested in peace, totally p0wning the Palestinians like they are doing now makes more sense. You forgot an alternative.. they are interested in peace, but they are more interested in long term self defense. This requires a Hamas that doesn't have the capability to break future cease fires.
bombus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Of course you can. Accepting civilian losses to get to the bad guys when they're being deliberately placed in the way is a political choice, not an ethical dilemma. Says you. I disagree. Lets not beat about the bush here. If you want to get at one or two bad guys but are willing to kill tens of civilians including small children to do so, you are a bad guy too. Most of the 'bad guys' being targetted are not even actively fighting at the time, so there is no clear and present danger being stopped here. It is mostly pre-emptive. Surely you'd agree that killing children as a direct consequence of pre-emptive action is unethical?
Riogho Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 If I was living in Gaza, I would get a brain and get the hell out of there. Israel even gave them an extra three hours today to do just that. Anyone who stays is stupid.
bombus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 You realize that gives Hamas a clear pass to do whatever the hell it wants... like launching rockets from civilian infrastructure and claiming the moral high ground when Israel retaliates. Well of course. These are the problems that liberal democracies have to deal with - we have to fight with one arm tied behind our backs. Otherwise just imagine what a morally derelict world we'd live in. Londonderry would have been carpet-bombed, as would Catalonia, the Basque region, Texas Someone has to play the adult and that someone should be the liberal democratic state.
ecoli Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Well of course. These are the problems that liberal democracies have to deal with - we have to fight with one arm tied behind our backs. Someone has to play the adult and that someone should be the liberal democratic state. right... so now acting like an adult is letting your civilians get killed by rocket attacks?
bombus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 right... so now acting like an adult is letting your civilians get killed by rocket attacks? Well very few actually get killed or injured compared to the hundreds of Palestinians that get killed by this sort of 'defensive action'. Are Palestinians less human than Israelis? I know a story about a man from Germany with a little moustache that used arguments like that.. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf I was living in Gaza, I would get a brain and get the hell out of there. Israel even gave them an extra three hours today to do just that. Anyone who stays is stupid. What? They are not allowed to leave! Israel won't let them leave - and hasn't done for many years.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Lets not beat about the bush here. If you want to get at one or two bad guys but are willing to kill tens of civilians including small children to do so, you are a bad guy too. So, glad you agree that Hamas are the bad guys and Israel the good guys, since they kill 95% bad guys and 5% meatshields, not nearly enough (10% bad guys, 90% good guys) for you to consider them bad for retaliating. Most of the 'bad guys' being targetted are not even actively fighting at the time, so there is no clear and present danger being stopped here. It is mostly pre-emptive. Surely you'd agree that killing children as a direct consequence of pre-emptive action is unethical? No, and anytime someone uses "think of the children" as a reason for anything I'm very suspicious. In this case, you are pretending that the Hamas attacks don't kill Israeli children, and that Israel's ops are pre-emptive as opposed to retaliatory. And yes, to be pedantic I'd say that the people being targeted by Israel are actively fighting at the time, or Israel wouldn't have any casualties in those operations. That they are not fighting immediately before the op is because they are hiding. Most criminals who get apprehended were not doing any crime immediately before being apprehended either.
bombus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Well I'm using the term 'bad guys' to keep things simple. Obviously the picture is far from simple, and it's not possible to draw a line and say one would accept x civilian casualties for y military targets. I can't say when day ends and night begins but I know the difference between the two... But when looked at holistically, what on Earth do Israel think this will achieve? It will not stop the missiles, it will kill innocents - including children (who I mention as they have no power of voting so some of the excuses for killing civilians expressed don't apply), and it will increase the hatred of Israel by Palestinians and others. It is a totally pointless excercise that will have no long-term beneficial effect for anyone. Israel should have been adult about the situation, not acting like some bad tempered child in a tantrum.
Reaper Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) I like how the people arguing for Israel are ironic in so many ways. It's so easy to point at the other side for being savages (e.g. that the civilians somehow deserve to be brutalized for the actions of Hamas), while conveniently ignoring so many of Israeli atrocities at the same time. Like this one. About the fact that humanitarian aid is getting through, that's a lie and you know it. Edited January 7, 2009 by Reaper
Sisyphus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 So in addition to denying any justification for any military actions (by Israel), you also deny the possibility that they'll accomplish anything? Makes you wonder why Israel even has a military!
mooeypoo Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Well I'm using the term 'bad guys' to keep things simple. Obviously the picture is far from simple, and it's not possible to draw a line and say one would accept x civilian casualties for y military targets. I can't say when day ends and night begins but I know the difference between the two... But when looked at holistically, what on Earth do Israel think this will achieve? It will not stop the missiles, it will kill innocents - including children (who I mention as they have no power of voting so some of the excuses for killing civilians expressed don't apply), and it will increase the hatred of Israel by Palestinians and others. It is a totally pointless excercise that will have no long-term beneficial effect for anyone. Israel should have been adult about the situation, not acting like some bad tempered child in a tantrum. Why do you say it won't stop the missiles? If the operation so far destroyed so many missile/rocket/mortar silos, and obliterated the terrorist infrastructure? There might still be random events, but not as relentless and neverending (and *long range*) as there used to be. Second, according to the UN 75% of the casualties were Hamas terrorists. According to Israel sources (+ Hamas website that seems to boast its "martyr dead"), 88% were terrrorists. Regardless of which is the right number, it's clear that *MOST* of the hits were Hamas' own infrastructure and people, and it delivered a very big blow to their operation, specifically the missile-launchers. Other than that, many of the Plestinians in Gaza are now free to go with Fatah (which they WEREN'T free to do before, because of the tight control of the Hamas and their 'winning' the civil war there, which was very bloody too, btw) and the chance for talk is actually increased; Fatah isn't the best ally but at LEAST it's willing to commence talks about peace. Hamas isn't. And finally -- what were Israel's options? To keep quiet while a million of its civilians are forced to live in bomb shelters? These things usually don't have a 'best solution', they have a 'least worst' solution. Even if you ignore the eight yeasr Hamas is bombing Israel, all you need to look at is the past six months: there was not ONE DAY of no-rockets from the Gaza strip, even while the so called "cease fire" was on. Not a single day. And Israel had tried talks, tried the international community, tried Egypt.. all but a military solution. And all that was during a time where there was SUPPOSED TO BE a cease fire. Not a "try not to throw missiles at Israel" agreement; a cease fire. my point is that I agree with you about the "it's not simple", I just disagree with how you continue it. I think it can be argued *how* Israel chose to react militarly and how long this should last, or whether or not ground troops should've been sent in, but I really don't see any other option other than a strict reaction after *eight years of constant missile attacks on civilian population* and six months of the Hamas extending the range of their missiles to target close to a million civilians. ~moo p.s: Reaper, Humanitarian Aid trucks went in and out of Gaza for years, the Huffington post just didn't cover it.
bascule Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Are you claiming that there were no attacks, rockets, suicide bombers, etc.. from Hamas first? Really. Are you? From my understanding of the CNN segment, there weren't any officially sanctioned attacks since the ceasefire was signed last June until it expired in December.
mooeypoo Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Partial list (I will try to get something perhaps a bit more accredited than wikipedia) but it shows that there *WERE* rocket attacks on civilian cities during the time of the "cease fire": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008#June
doG Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 From my understanding of the CNN segment, there weren't any officially sanctioned attacks since the ceasefire was signed last June until it expired in December. So individual members of Hamas can independently lob rockets at Israel, Grads, Qassams, etc.., and they're not a violation of the ceasefire as long as their organization as a whole didn't sanction it? BTW, is Israel currently attacking the general population of Gaza or making targeted attacks at Hamas terrorists that have been lobbing rockets? From the slow trickle of the Palestinian tally it looks like Israel is making an effort to limit its aggression to those that have been attacking it. They could easily have killed 10s of 1000s by now if they just wanted to attack the whole of Gaza.
ecoli Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 I like how the people arguing for Israel are ironic in so many ways. It's so easy to point at the other side for being savages (e.g. that the civilians somehow deserve to be brutalized for the actions of Hamas), while conveniently ignoring so many of Israeli atrocities at the same time. Like this one. When did anyone deny that these things happen? Beware of strawmanning, reaper
ParanoiA Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 This is so clearly a big guy - little guy thing. Israel is more than justified in doing what it's doing, and doing it with class since they could have delivered the Palestinians a holocaust 10 times over by now, yet they continue to take their own casualties to err on the side of humanity rather than to err on the side of security. Reading these Palestine / Israel threads, it becomes clear that some would presume an aura of natural innocence about Palestine's poverty stricken military. Somehow it's honorable to kill little kids and target civilians as long as your gun is cheap and you are desperate. Likewise, if you're doing well, then you have no reason to live. Just take it and die because Hamas can't be expected to behave as we expect Israel. There seems to be this weird notion that Israel is the metaphorical grownup while Hamas portrays the child and so we're all supposed to be cool with the idea that kids can hit grownups, but grownups should never hit kids. So we get this one sided bologna where Hamas's behavior is to be expected, but Israel's is out of line. This is not acceptable, in my opinion. Hamas are grownups - poor maybe, but grown up. Every border is negotiable by force, and very rarely by philosophical appeal. If Palestine doesn't have the government and military to take what they believe is theirs, and they don't, they'd be better served to cease their own fire, and grow and evolve for a few generations and then launch an invasion in 2080 when they're militarily advanced enough to do it. Otherwise, they run the risk of eventually pissing off Israel so much that they get wiped out entirely. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now