Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on July 17, 2006, 10:13:52 PM
-
I was amazed to learn that some people when they die violently are imbued with some sort of Aristotlean essance of targetiness. Apparently these people instantly become more sympathetic. I'm not sure what instrument is used to measure ones targetiness but it seems some people on this board have one. Perhaps they can be bought on ebay.
If so I recommend that they be bought by people who's families are possible victims of conflict. That way when their loved ones die they can check the victims targetiness and thus be reasured that even though they have been blown to pieces, that if they weren't targeted it's just not as bad.
-
That must be like victimliness; the aura that separates the victims of involuntary manslaughter from those that are killed by premeditated murder.
-
Trying to be subtle on this BBS is a waste of time. ;)
-
[SIZE=19]NO
IT
ISN'T! [/SIZE]
-
Wha'?
Sorry, I wasn't listening.
-
Thrawn, if somebody killed me, i would want my family to forgive him, but only if he or she asked for forgivness. if somebody killed my friend or relative, then asked for my forgiveness, they would have it. they already have the chair and eternal damnation to worry about, my hatred of them would be pointless.
PS
you have no right to pass judgment on the actions of the people who know these victims best.
-
Somebody's been watching Colbert. :aok
-
so witty!
-
You're right.
This is much better...
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL OLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
-
I didn't understand that, could you say it louder please?
-
Ok.. I admit it...
It made no sense to me. I musta missed the thread or program that it is about and the explanation for same.
lazs
-
Is targetiness the ability to hit the bullseye or a smart shopper card for Target stores?
-
Speaking of Target's targettiness. Looks like some have taken aim. Do they deserve sympathy or should we feel less bad for them?
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050712-120944-7745r.htm
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It made no sense to me. I musta missed the thread or program that it is about and the explanation for same.
It's has nothing to do with a specific thread or program (if Colbert touched on this issue, I missed it as I don't have cable).
I take issue with the arguement that killing civilians as collateral damage is morally superior to targeting civilians and killing them. In effect it makes no damn difference to the victims, their family and friends. The victims are still just as dead.
Country A targets and kills 10 civilians.
Country B goes to war and "accidentally" kills 10 million civilians.
Is country B really morally superior to country A?
The moral responsibily is equal, because "collateral damage" is totally predictable. Some people have said, "Civilians die in war." and imply therefore the moral responsibility is some how negated as if the war just kind of happened. War just doesn't happen, somewhere along the line a decision is made to go to war. When that decision is made (unless that person/s is a total retard) they realise that it's inevitable that they will kill some civilians. They may not target them, but their decision are going to directly lead to civilians dying.
War becomes much more palatable to a populous when you tell them, "Well, we are using some precision guided weapons and gosh darn it we sure are trying not to kill civilians.". But that's horse crap, they are still going to die. And this why war is a bad thing.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:aok
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Thrawn,
I have a simple question for you. Are you saying the total impetus for your arguement is to protect civilians at all costs?
-
Everyone is somebodys target. Its just a matter of point of view.
-
Originally posted by 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?
No.
Originally posted by Neubob
You're dealing in absolutes and theory, Thrawn.
Yes, this is because I'm trying to refute an absolutist position. Many a time I've seen posted on this board and others the proposition that not targeting civilians is de facto evidence of a group's moral superiority regardless of context. If I can show, without context, that this doesn't necessarily hold true, then perhaps such absolutist positions can be taken out of the dialog. Of course because this is the O'Club, even if I can demostrate my arguement to be valid I would have to keep bumping the thread every two weeks as memories here tend to be incredibly short. :o
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.
You're right, but in most conflict it approches close enough 100% certainty that it might as well be. Someone starts lobbing bombs, missles, shoots enough bullets etc.
And there's another side to that coin. A group says, "We don't target civilians.", but there is no 100% certainty that that statement is true. The group may have that policy. But there is no garuantee that sub-groups or individuals will follow that policy.
However, the element of intent cannot be ignored.
No it can't, but some people do in favour of relying solely on the "targeting" argument.
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.
This is such a grey area I find it hard to say anything meaningful about it. It's a matter of perspective.
Country A's civil population is attacked by suicide bombers.
Country A deploys infantry amongst it's civil population in order to defend against them.
One could say, they are using the civil population as a human shield. That One would be an *******, but again it's perspective.
Country A is being attacked by Country B that has stated that civilian infrastructure is valid as a military target.
Country A deploys AA weaponry to defend that infrastructre.
Again, are they human shields? It's chicken and the egg time, and depends on who is doing the spinning.
That being said, I believe that placing a valid military target (predicated by the Fourth Protocol of the Geneva Convention) amongst a civil population solely for the purposes of increasing negative public reaction to any valid reprisals is immoral. But good luck proving that it was sole motivator for the placement.
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.
Using your specific parameters, I would be forced to argee with you. ;)
However, I don't believe the moral highground to be a zero sum concept and I don't subscribe the false dilema that is implicit in some conflicts of having to support one or the other. Certainly not in the Israel versus Hezbollah, Palistinian conflict. Both sides have acted such that they both in my moral ****house.
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.
And here I thought you weren't an absolutist. ;)
It isn't inherently moral to attack targets of strategic importance. You have to know what qualifies as strategic importance to the nation or group. In the case you sited, it was of strategic importance to attack the civil population. Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone it but it was still of strategic importance to them. Israel thought it is was of strategic importance to destroy civil infrastucture (in this case homes) of the relatives of suicide bombers. Now don't get me wrong, I don't condone it but it was of strategic importance to them.
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'.
Within my model yes, but I hope I have clarified my intention of it. As you and others have pointed out though it's incredibly narrow. As far as the actual Palistinian/Israeli conflict is concerned, the cycle of violence has turned so many times that it becomes impossible (for me at least) to point at one party or the other and say, "You are the aggressor.". It all depends on where you pick your starting point.
As far as a solution the current problem is concerned...cripes I don't know, but I know where I would start. The border between Lebanon and Israel isn't as controversial as between Israel, the West Bank and Gaza strip. We are definately dealing with two nation states with a recognised boundry. It's only 79Km long. Put a multinational peacekeeping force there. The nature of the issue is so prevalant in the international conscience I would bet that quite a few countries would be willing to pony up. Of course that can only be start, peacekeeping is only useful as long as the parties participate in peacemaking in good faith. This idea has been bandied about so often and seems like such a sideways approach to the problem I'm surprised it hasn't happened.
...see why I try to keep the hill I'm defending small. ;)
-
I'm not gonna argue with you, Thrawn. And yes, I do see why you try to keep the hill you're defending small.
I think we can both agree that the situation, for both sides, is pretty bleak. Even without taking on the task of determining who started it all, the present situation is a good example of both sides painting themselves into a corner. I'm glad I don't live there, and I sympathize for anyone who does.
I'll be the first to admit that my perspective is not objective, however. To me, one side remains a friend, the other, an enemy. Chalk it up to upbringing, genetic pre-disposition, experience or plain old stupidity. The best solution is for the two sides to become friends of each other, but holding out hope for this transformation is delusional at best.
-
Thrawn,
Thanks for the answer.
The reason I asked that is that the arguements I have seen here are rather similar to the ones I see regarding high speed chases. It's a rather nice dilema.
On one hand the Police are criticized (and blamed including suits) if a chase ends with a crash and injury to folks who are not involved otherwise in the chase.
If they don't chase and the driver of the vehicle crashes and hurts another innocent driver the Police are at fault because they didn't stop the car before the crash. If the driver of said vehicle is a felon and dangerous to boot the Police are faulted because they didn't stop or arrest the felon before any crash happened as well.
In none of the cases is the person who actually caused the crash / high speed situation blamed for the results. It's the fault of the Police for not preventing it and they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
If the Isreali's attack the civilian area that the rockets are coming from it's their fault that there is damage to the civilian areas and casualties.
If they don't attack the launch points they are guilty of allowing indiscriminate shelling of their own civilian areas and casualties of their own people.
There is no condemnation of those who hide in the very neighborhoods of their own people to attack the civilian targets of another. It seems rather one sided to me. If hezbolah didn't hide from and shoot from within civilian areas there would be far far less collateral damage to their own people. Then again it would be rather more difficult for them to be rocketing the city of Haifa at will too. I suppose they are supposed to be allowed to do that. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I take issue with the arguement that killing civilians as collateral damage is morally superior to targeting civilians and killing them. In effect it makes no damn difference to the victims, their family and friends. The victims are still just as dead.
I agree it makes no difference to the family/friends/dead, but it makes a difference in the minds of many of those not personally uninvolved.
Speaking for myself, the motives behind an action count for a lot. If a civilian dies as the result of him/her being an actual target it is worse than merely being in the wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time, like an apartment next door to a Katusha launcher.
Motivation of the actor and "targetiness" (being the target or being a bystander) do count in my mind.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
The best solution is for the two sides to become friends of each other, but holding out hope for this transformation is delusional at best.
At best indeed. But I hold out hope (reinforced by Northern Ireland and recent polling data from the West Bank/Gaza strip and Israel) that if not friends perhaps they can come to live with each other.
Originally posted by Maverick
In none of the cases is the person who actually caused the crash / high speed situation blamed for the results. It's the fault of the Police for not preventing it and they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
****ty situation, and not one where I would blame the cop. When the cop chases the dingbat he doesn't know with any degree of certainty what the end result will be. I would bet that in the vast majority of cases the public isn't harmed at all in high speed chases. But still, I imagine each situation has to be judged on a case by case basis. In the very rare situation it might be that the cop has degree of culpability. Say he side swipes the dingbat into a farmers market.
In none of the cases is the person who actually caused the crash / high speed situation blamed for the results. It's the fault of the Police for not preventing it and they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I'm not really a believer in linear causality. In many cases, it can be pretty straight forward who/what/when is the cause of a certain event...at least straight forward enough to decide on a reaction that is reasonable. But not in all cases.
If the Isreali's attack the civilian area that the rockets are coming from it's their fault that there is damage to the civilian areas and casualties.
If they don't attack the launch points they are guilty of allowing indiscriminate shelling of their own civilian areas and casualties of their own people.
There is no condemnation of those who hide in the very neighborhoods of their own people to attack the civilian targets of another. It seems rather one sided to me.
That sure is one sided. I remove myself from such hypocracy by condemning both sides for thier immoral actions. Israel does have a right to defend itself. But, I hardly think that invading the Gaza strip after two soldiers are kidnapped is a reasonable response. And worse, I think it's bad for the long term defence of Israel. Same thing with southern Lebanon.
The problem I have for these reactions aren't just the question of thier morality, but that I think they're stupid. These invasions and occupations have been tried before and nothing has changed. Israel is being out bred in the middle east at an alarming pace. The situation for Israel is becoming more and more untenable. A new solution is needed.
-
Originally posted by Edbert1
If a civilian dies as the result of him/her being an actual target it is worse than merely being in the wrong-place-at-the-wrong-time, like an apartment next door to a Katusha launcher.
Having been blown up because you live next door to a Katusha launcher isn't happenstance. It's because someone decided they wanted to take out the Katusha launcher. Enough bombs being dropped on enough Katusha launchers and it becomes inevitable that the guys next door to them are going to start dying. Heck enough bombs being dropped on enough Katusha launchers and the guy down the street or next few blocks over from it are going to start dying.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Having been blown up because you live next door to a Katusha launcher isn't happenstance. It's because someone decided they wanted to take out the Katusha launcher. Enough bombs being dropped on enough Katusha launchers and it becomes inevitable that the guys next door to them are going to start dying. Heck enough bombs being dropped on enough Katusha launchers and the guy down the street or next few blocks over from it are going to start dying.
So you and I are down to a chicken and egg argument it seems. I would say they were blown up by those who put the Katusha launcher nextdoor, or even that they were legitiimate combatants themselves (for being on a military site at the time). The same can NOT be said for the ones watching TV in an apartment, the real kind where there are only civilians and no rocket launchers.
-
I wouldn't say he's at a chicken and the egg situation. His posting seems to be pretty static.
Bombing of katyusha positions in civilian areas = bad
Putting katyusha rocket positions in civilian areas and rocketing Isreal = not bad.
At least I haven't seen him place any blame for the deaths of those living in the rocket areas on those who decided to use civilians as human shields. Neither have I seen criticism for those using the katyushas on a civilian city.
I could be wrong but that's the impression I have of his position.
-
"That being said, I believe that placing a valid military target (predicated by the Fourth Protocol of the Geneva Convention) amongst a civil population solely for the purposes of increasing negative public reaction to any valid reprisals is immoral. But good luck proving that it was sole motivator for the placement."
-
That seems to be a rather weasely way of neither condemming the act of placing the weapons in civilian areas nor the deliberate rocketing of a civilian city with no military targets in it.
So in order to satisfy you there must be undeniable prrof that there was no other reason to place the rockets there and fire them other than to cause a negative public reaction.
Sorry but you have no moral high ground at all with that contention. There is no way you could convince me the act of placing the rockets inside of a city neighborhood is anything but an act of cowardice by using human shields in order to try and hold back counter battery fire. I Guess you can't see that those who fire from the neighborhood are directly responsible for the damage they cause both to the civilain target they fired on and to the civilian s THEY placed in danger by firing from their vicinity in the first place. Once you place and then launch the weapons from a location you have just turned it into a valid military target. If they gave a damn about their own countrymen they wouldn't use them as human shields.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
As far as a solution the current problem is concerned...cripes I don't know, but I know where I would start. The border between Lebanon and Israel isn't as controversial as between Israel, the West Bank and Gaza strip. We are definately dealing with two nation states with a recognised boundry. It's only 79Km long. Put a multinational peacekeeping force there. The nature of the issue is so prevalant in the international conscience I would bet that quite a few countries would be willing to pony up. Of course that can only be start, peacekeeping is only useful as long as the parties participate in peacemaking in good faith. This idea has been bandied about so often and seems like such a sideways approach to the problem I'm surprised it hasn't happened.
...see why I try to keep the hill I'm defending small. ;)
UNITED NATIONS INTERIM FORCE IN LEBANON (http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unifil.htm)
Duration: March 1978 to present
Established to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, to restore international peace and security, and to assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. UNIFIL has, however, been prevented from fully implementing its mandate. Israel has maintained its occupation of parts of south Lebanon, where the Israeli forces and their local auxiliary continued to be targets of attacks by groups that have proclaimed their resistance to the occupation. UNIFIL does its best to limit the conflict and protect the inhabitants of the area from the fighting. In doing so, it continues to contribute to stability in the area.
As of 31 May 1999:
Uniformed mission total : 4,500 troops; supported by international and locally recruited civilian staff
Note that Israel withdrew from South Lebanon in 2000.
UNIFIL is still there, has been since 1978. Been there six years since Israel withdrew.
Just sayin'.
-
Folks keep interjecting morality here, I wont argue it's relative merits in a discussion of warfare, but to continue the train of thought...
If the Arab neighbors of Israel would all lay down their weapons, stop teaching their children that the path to salvation is through the killing of innocents; the shooting war would end. Do you argue that?
If the Israelis were to cast all their weapons into the sea, there would be a total slaughter reminicent of the holocaust. Do you argue that?
So if you want to bring up morality in the current war in Lebanon then the case is clear.
-
It may go beyond Arabs v Israel.
Most of the deaths in Iraq now are Muslim Sect v Muslim sect.
Can you imagine the Methodists suicide bombing the Lutherans on a routine daily basis? With the Lutherans returning like for like? With religious leaders encouraging the suicides? I simply can't imagine that.
It's not politically correct to say it but there's something seriously defective there. Something that, IMO, may well be as great a threat to the species as anything we have seen in the last 100 years.
-
Moral schmoral...
Would you decide not to protect your family against an attacker if you knew the bullet you fired would probably travel through him and probably hit someone else?
-
If the person behind the suspect was also involved in the assault, darn skippy I'd fire it! :p
-
Originally posted by Toad
It's not politically correct to say it but there's something seriously defective there. Something that, IMO, may well be as great a threat to the species as anything we have seen in the last 100 years.
imo it is the fact they value dying for their cause more than living itself
we ran into a similiar mindset in 1945. In the end, it may require the same solution. I hope and pray it does not.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
imo it is the fact they value dying for their cause more than living itself
In the case of the Islamofascists...I'm only happy to oblige.
-
my 2 yurocents:
- hiding rocket launchers behind a 'civilian shield': evil
- flattening rocket launchers sites without any regard for civilian losses: evil
- using 'surgical strikes' to attack the launchers sites: a little less evil b/c everybody knows that there will be civilian casualties anyway
- for the civilians, not leaving the area and go to somewhere else: I dunno, there are a lot of factors involved (they are supporters of Hezbollah, or they will face a food/shelter problem if they leave, or there is an heavy social pressure or they are life-threatened by Hezbollah if they try to leave) and we don't know the situation there
That being said, I think that Israel is playing the game of Hezbollah right now: during years, Hez made skirmishes inside Israel territory with close to zero military results but drawing a lot of attention... Israel answers with an all-out war, killing civilians (even if they try to avoid it) and drawing critics and hurting the support given to them by other nations while Hezbollah is raking points and new recruits (those who got their lives shattered by the war).
Israel is right to defend itself but covert ops would have been preferable IMO.
-
I agree with edbert... there may be no difference in how you die to the the dead and their families but...
The difference to the world is the targeting. If you target rocket launchers that are aimed at your country and killing your people and by doing so you hit civilians... that is much less bad than the muslims who are lauching the rockets at civilians...
Actually targeting civilians...
It is also a factor if you are harboring the terrorists. There is no other way to put it... there is no effort to root out these terrorists in lebanon and indeed... they are a large part of the population and government.
The terrorist's stated goals are to wipe israel off the face of the map and lebanon seems fine with that. They seem fine with the rocket launchers.
To put it in perspective....
What would our government do if the minutemen on our border started launching rockets into mexican border towns with the justification that mexico was ruining our economy with illegals and "invading"?
How frigging fast do you think we would stop them?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
That seems to be a rather weasely way of neither condemming the act of placing the weapons in civilian areas
No, it's it condemning it and explaining what I mean by it. You haven't.
By a very loose definition Canada could be condemned for put a valid military target amongst civilians. The Governor General's Foot Guard deploy from a drill hall every day (and before any Canucks tell me that the Goo Goo Foo Goos are cerimonial, they are in the military, are in uniformed and are armed. By any definition they are valid military targets). This drill hall is situated beside Lisgar Collegiate Institute, a public highschool.
nor the deliberate rocketing of a civilian city with no military targets in it.
It's immoral. I'm sorry for not expliciately said it, but I sure implied it.
So in order to satisfy you there must be undeniable prrof that there was no other reason to place the rockets there and fire them other than to cause a negative public reaction.
I wouldn't say undeniable, just reasonable. If a nation attacked Canada and said that Canada practices human shielding because of the example up above I would say they are full of ****. By the same token if a country is attacked by a nation that destroys civil infrastructure than I wouldn't condemn them for human shielding if they placed weapons near that civil infrastructure.
Sorry but you have no moral high ground at all with that contention. There is no way you could convince me the act of placing the rockets inside of a city neighborhood is anything but an act of cowardice by using human shields in order to try and hold back counter battery fire.
It would depend on the context. Say a country is defending against a war of aggression. A(some) defending military unit(s) have retreat to a city because they are surrounded or what have you. If they fire thier weapons at the enemy is it they who are at fault? Or is it the aggressive nation who started the war in the first place.
Now if it must be determined on a case by case basis. And if you want to talk about Hezbollah, firing rockets show me on a map where they fired thier rockets from and please use a non biased sources.
-
Thrawn,
You are still being weasily and you damn well know it.
Your first example is a straw man. The foo goo's (your term not mine) are not at the present time launching unguided rockets from the location of the school are they? If they were they would have just turned that location into a valid military target. One would hope that the personell in the school would vacate the premisis as soon as the rocket folks showed up and set up the rockets.
You certainly don't seem to have any trouble condemming return fire yet are only able to imply the folks who started shooting unguided rockets at a civilian city from Lebanon first. How fair and balanced of you.
Third example you have it turned around. A nation that attacks another nation and in that process uses people as a human shield to do so either as a means of generating publicity or simple because they are cowards to hide behind innocent civilians has in fact committed immoral acts. Period. It would seem to me that launching unguided rockets into a city population center is in fact attempting to destroy the infrastucture by killing the population.
Last example also does not apply as the hezbolah cowards didn't retreat to the city, they started there to begin with. They never came out to initiate hostilities in the open, just launch their unguided rocket at Isreali city from within the neighborhood of their own people.
As to the map, use a device called TV. You can see the reporting of rocket fire in real time as the reporters and other news crew seek shelter from rockets landing in Haifa. It seems that the ME situation has top billing on the national news. At least I can find it broadcast, hell I can't get away from the broadcasts. Perhaps if you turned your TV on to the news you could see it as well.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Thrawn,
You are still being weasily and you damn well know it.
Really? I'm speaking in generalities, you are seeing everything I say though a Hezbollah/Israel filter.
Your first example is a straw man.
No it's not, you're dragging this thead that was about targeting generalities into a specific case was a strawman.
The foo goo's (your term not mine) are not at the present time launching unguided rockets from the location of the school are they? If they were they would have just turned that location into a valid military target.
I don't care if anyone launching unguided rockets from that location. It's a valid military target regardless. Unless you wish to contend that a military building, filled with miltary personal, in uniform, carrying weapons isn't a valid military target.
One would hope that the personell in the school would vacate the premisis as soon as the rocket folks showed up and set up the rockets.
One would hope, but it wouldn't invalidate the fact that the Government of Canada has seen fit to put a valid military target a few feet away from a public highschool.
You certainly don't seem to have any trouble condemming return fire yet are only able to imply the folks who started shooting unguided rockets at a civilian city from Lebanon first. How fair and balanced of you.
Killing civilians with the foreknowedge that your actions will result in thier deaths is as bad as targeting civilians.
Killing civilians with the foreknowedge that your actions will result in thier deaths is bad.
The reason I didn't explicitately state targeting was explicitly bad was bacause it was the moral baseline to begin with.
Third example you have it turned around. A nation that attacks another nation and in that process uses people as a human shield to do so either as a means of generating publicity or simple because they are cowards to hide behind innocent civilians has in fact committed immoral acts. Period.
We aren't fundamentally disagreeing here.
We both agee that intent is paramount. Intent is stated in your sentance, "uses people as". I agree with that, what I'm saying differently is that not all cases of valid military targets being amongst the civil population is a case where they are using the civil population as a human shield.
Now before you type "But Hezbollah...." remind youself that I'm speaking in generalities.
It would seem to me that launching unguided rockets into a city population center is in fact attempting to destroy the infrastucture by killing the population.
Yep.
Last example also does not apply as the hezbolah cowards didn't retreat to the city, they started there to begin with. They never came out to initiate hostilities in the open, just launch their unguided rocket at Isreali city from within the neighborhood of their own people.
Stop it with the Hezbollah already. I wasn't speaking about Hezbollah, you are speaking about Hezbollah. Cripes you won't shut up about Hezbollah. Hezbollah are bunch of evil terroist, I spit on the grave of Hezbollah. I wish Hezbollah to be cursed for eternity...shall I go on? ;) Hell if we want to talk about Hezbollah we can do it in the other thread. If fact, that's what I'll do.
As to the map, use a device called TV.
I live in basement appartment, I don't have a medium called cable. I have a dial up connection to the internet. And more importantly in discourse it behooves the maker of a statement to support it.