Targetiness.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Moral equivalence at its finest.

Gee whiz, he said war is bad. No kidding? We'd have NEVER guessed. Thank GOD you are here to tell us this. No one would have EVER figured it out. Not without your incredible intellect.

I suppose if terrorists kill ten civilians, and then go hide among ten civilians, they get a free pass to come back and kill ten MORE civilians, since you can't touch them when they're hiding among ten civilians. And then they can kill ten MORE civilians. And then ten MORE civilians. Ad inifinitum. And that's all okay, because you can't risk killing civilians in order to kill terrorists.

Thrawn ,you really are a true genius, a man of incredible intellect.

I nominate Thrawn as the Czar of antiterrorism. Within ten years, we'll all either be dead or under the rule of Muslim extremists. But on the bright side, nothing will happen to the civilians the terrorists hide among.

[Tarmac]

I see your point, Thrawn, and I see where the next step in your argument is going to be, and I understand (maybe even agree with) it.  My point was that there's a spectrum of crappiness when it comes to these types of decisions.  Sometimes people have to make a call between crappy and crappier, because if they neglect their duty and leave the issue undecided the result will be crappiest of all.    

And yes, this type of thinking is exactly what makes wars fightable.  It's what soldiers and officers say to themselves as they make these decisions that kill innocents or get their own men killed.  The best men among these put themselves in the situation deliberately, because they know that if they don't make the decision someone less qualified and less morally grounded will make it... likely with worse results.

[Stringer]

Virgil's spastic hyperbole aside.....

I think taking the risk is ok, and necessary.

I do think we're kidding ourselves if we think we're morally superior after that though.

The civilians are just as dead.  The justification for the collatoral damage is just conscience soothing gymnastics.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Tarmac, a guy wants to kill his teacher.  He blows up a bomb in the teacher's classroom.  Kills the teacher and about 20 kids along the teacher.  How many counts of murder is facing?  One, because he only targeted the teacher and the rest are collateral damage?

Ok....A guy who kills a kid while driving at 100 mph, dead drunk, through a school zone is just as guilty as a sober, conscienceous driver who kills a kid totally by accident. They were both driving, going about their business. The fact the one's actions were far more hazardous, inconsiderate, even malicious, makes no difference to the parents. Of course, neither actually intended to kill, which cannot be said for the guys lobbing rockets into civilian nieghborhoods.

Now, according to you (and the families of the dead, on whose mindset we're now apparently basing our new model of right and wrong) those who intend on killing the innocent during a first strike and those who do so in the course of national defense stand on equal moral footing. Taken to the next level, a nation that responds to provocation, no matter how carefully, is no better than their indiscriminate, malicious attacker simply because the end result, intended or not, is the same. Of course, we ignore the fact that in the course of killing all these civilians, the retalliations also destroy resources and personel that exist solely to harm family members of the retalliators.

It's a piece of brilliance, really. Since the moral high-ground is immediately relinquished upon retalliation, and retalliation, as humanity has proven time and time again, is the only effective way to subdue an aggressor, then why bother with waiting at all...  Israel should adopt this philosophy and indiscriminately first-strike every Arab nation back into the stone age because, well, why not?

The flip side, and I assume that this was your point to begin with, is that the moral high-ground can only be held by the side that does not take up arms, not as a first strike or as a response... Very nice, and I hope that group of enlightened souls that embraces this concept thoroughly enjoys the rewards of their moral high ground from the grave.

As for the people that lost loved ones in the exchange, be it intended or otherwise, well, I'm very very sorry... Unfortunately, there are a whole of others who haven't lost yet, and if there's an action to take to prevent future loss, then it's should be taken.  Furthermore, anyone standing by and cheering as the Katyushas are aimed at civilian targets imemdiately relinquishes their status as innocent. Again, sorry to the families.

[lukster]

2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Group H, the aggressor who attacks first, specifically launches an attack at a purely civilian target, with the intent of killing civilians for the sake of killing civilians.

Group I, in defense, responds by first warning everyone that they intend to attack Group H, specifically those in Group H at a specific location who used that location to launch the original attack, then proceeds to prosecute their attack.

In each attack, some civilians die.

According to some of the absurd stupidity here, AKA moral equivalence, Group I is no better than or different from Group H.

So now, attacking terrorists in self defense is morally wrong, unless there is an absolute guarantee that no one will be killed in that attack unless they can be absolutely identified as a terrorist.

So, in order to be morally superior to the terrorists, it is necessary to tamely and meekly submit to them and await death by whatever method the terrorists choose, since the terrorists will ALWAYS hide among civilians who will have varying degrees of association with the terrorists.

Yeah, right. You do that. The rest of the world that is in possession of common sense will respond to the terrorists with the only thing they can understand.

[Stringer]

Virgil,
You missed the part where I said I was OK with the risk, and it is necessary.

I just don't kid myself about the morality of causing innoncent deaths, or go into denial about who is responsible for those deaths.

In your scenerio, group H is responsible for the deaths they caused, and group I is responsible for the deaths they caused.   Heh, darn simple, taking responsibility for one's actions.   What a concept.

Why does the moral high ground even matter?  Cause and reaction is what your debating, not the morality of causing innoncent deaths.  There is no moral arguement for that.  Causing innocent deaths is immoral, period.  Good intentions do not automatically make action moral.

And like I said, morality shouldn't even be part of the thinking.  It's about reacting to an aggression, so as not to look soft and thereby invite more attacks, which I'm OK with.  Of course, it does help to get the party actually responsible for that attack on the purely civilian target.

I never said "don't respond".  Again, that's not the point I'm debating.

[Stang]

Originally posted by Neubob
Ok....A guy who kills a kid while driving at 100 mph, dead drunk, through a school zone is just as guilty as a sober, conscienceous driver who kills a kid totally by accident. They were both driving, going about their business. The fact the one's actions were far more hazardous, inconsiderate, even malicious, makes no difference to the parents. Of course, neither actually intended to kill, which cannot be said for the guys lobbing rockets into civilian nieghborhoods.

Now, according to you (and the families of the dead, on whose mindset we're now apparently basing our new model of right and wrong) those who intend on killing the innocent during a first strike and those who do so in the course of national defense stand on equal moral footing. Taken to the next level, a nation that responds to provocation, no matter how carefully, is no better than their indiscriminate, malicious attacker simply because the end result, intended or not, is the same. Of course, we ignore the fact that in the course of killing all these civilians, the retalliations also destroy resources and personel that exist solely to harm family members of the retalliators.

It's a piece of brilliance, really. Since the moral high-ground is immediately relinquished upon retalliation, and retalliation, as humanity has proven time and time again, is the only effective way to subdue an aggressor, then why bother with waiting at all...  Israel should adopt this philosophy and indiscriminately first-strike every Arab nation back into the stone age because, well, why not?

The flip side, and I assume that this was your point to begin with, is that the moral high-ground can only be held by the side that does not take up arms, not as a first strike or as a response... Very nice, and I hope that group of enlightened souls that embraces this concept thoroughly enjoys the rewards of their moral high ground from the grave.

As for the people that lost loved ones in the exchange, be it intended or otherwise, well, I'm very very sorry... Unfortunately, there are a whole of others who haven't lost yet, and if there's an action to take to prevent future loss, then it's should be taken.  Furthermore, anyone standing by and cheering as the Katyushas are aimed at civilian targets imemdiately relinquishes their status as innocent. Again, sorry to the families.

[lazs2]

Not sure how you have a war with explosives and such where civilians don't get killed.

In the WW's... We (and everyone else) targeted civilians.   We bombed cities... carpet bombed em.... firebombed em.... nuked em even.

Our justification was often as cruel as "creating refugees" or "destroying housing for workers" or... at best... to destroy the factories that produced munitions and material.

In the more up front and personal examples... we leveled villiges and towns that were allied if they even had a few bad guys in em.

I would say the Jews are being pretty patient and compassionate by war standards used by every other nation.

A country is allowing citizens to fire rockets that are targeting civilians.... They are doing nothing to stop it and are most probably encouraging it.

I think they should expect to be targeted.   I would not live in such a country that was poking sticks at the jews.

The government of lebanon is giving it's people the government they deserve..

sorry... that is really all there is to it.

lazs

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by BigGun
So you are saying that terrorists targeting civilians in a building & killing 3,000 innocent people is not any morally different than dropping a bomb on a building housing the terrorists that killed all the innocent civilians & intend to do more harm, knowing that a few innocent people might die in the act of dropping the bomb? You must be fishing. Too hard to believe someone's perception is so warped & can't tell the difference.

It's hard to believe that your perception of my arguement is so warped.  I'm saying that killing 3,000 innocent people knowing that it isn the inevitable effect of ones actions is that same as killing 3,000 innocent people by targeting them.

Originally posted by  Neubob
Ok....A guy who kills a kid while driving at 100 mph, dead drunk, through a school zone is just as guilty as a sober, conscienceous driver who kills a kid totally by accident.

Your analogy doesn't apply to what I am saying.  What I'm saying is that it isn't an accident when it's an inevitable effect of ones actions/decisions.

Now, according to you (and the families of the dead, on whose mindset we're now apparently basing our new model of right and wrong) those who intend on killing the innocent during a first strike and those who do so in the course of national defense stand on equal moral footing.

No, so you say.  Aggressor, defendor, they are irrelevent to my argument.  I'm not going to defend a point that I'm not making, but that you are ascribing to me.

What I am arguing is that claiming "not to target civilians", is a crap justification when ones actions/decisions will inevitably lead to thier deaths.

[Neubob]

You're dealing in absolutes and theory, Thrawn. In reality, there is no such thing as 100% inevitablity. There are increased chances of a certain outcome, given a certain action--and in this sense I may even partially agree with you. Yes, by using area-effect weapons on targets imbedded in civilian enclaves, you do raise the chances of civilian casualties. However, the element of intent cannot be ignored. Nor can be ignored the tendency of certain participants in this conflict to intentionally place their active combatants in dangerous proximity to said civilian enclaves.

Now, given intent and the habit of using civilians as cover, I think there is a great difference between one side and the other. The mere fact that the Israelis doing the same thing (using civilian concentrations as points of deployment) would be considered laughable given the enemy's intention of harming those very same civilians, speaks volumes about who occupies the moral high-ground. The fact that one side attacks targets of strategic importance, while the other makes strikes simply to make the news and rally the people into an even more frenzied fervor, soldifies this point. Forget aggressor/defender, it still holds true.

As said before, in order to adhere to your theoretical model, the Israelis would be forced to give up. Sadly, in war, when it comes down to us or them, I have yet to see a group of people unanimously say 'us'.

I cannot constrict my thinking to the extremely narrow and practically unrealistic parameters that you set up. If I could, I might agree with you wholeheartedly, but the issue is always greater--unless, of course you're not referring to what's going on in the news.

[BigGun]

Originally posted by Thrawn
No, so you say.  Aggressor, defendor, they are irrelevent to my argument.  I'm not going to defend a point that I'm not making, but that you are ascribing to me.

What I am arguing is that claiming "not to target civilians", is a crap justification when ones actions/decisions will inevitably lead to thier deaths.

Irrelevent? Just because you fail to recognize it as being irrelevent doesn't make it so except in your mind.

You seem to be trying to boil down to a single simple justification for ones actions/decisions. I think the justifications are multiple, and isn't right to just single one out of the whole just because it fits your point. Again, I say just fishing.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by BigGun
Irrelevent? Just because you fail to recognize it as being irrelevent doesn't make it so except in your mind.

It's irrelevent within the context of my arguement, not irrelevent as a whole.  I have found that when having a discussion on this (and other) bbses it's necessary to keep to the point as much as possible otherwise it gets lost quite quickly.  

You seem to be trying to boil down to a single simple justification for ones actions/decisions. I think the justifications are multiple, and isn't right to just single one out of the whole just because it fits your point. Again, I say just fishing.

I would say that the single one is my point and that others are adding qualifications to my arguement that detracts from it.  If I added, Israel/Hezbollah, aggression/defence or what have you.  I would have to try to explain my position on a multitude of instances and how each factor does or does not fit into the central point.  Sure it makes for a long thread, but the central arguement gets lost.


Neubob, thank you for your response.  It entails a lengthier response than I have time for right now, got to pick up my daughter from daycare.

[Maverick]

Thrawn,

I have a simple question for you. Are you saying the total impetus for your arguement is to protect civilians at all costs?

[icemaw]

Everyone is somebodys target. Its just a matter of point of view.