I'm excited for the day when some script-kiddy with a laptop in the back of his mom's minivan can make my car go careening off the road by tripping the SWERVE TO MISS THAT DEER command.
Hiya - I'm the guy who wrote the parent. Just did it anon...for some reason.
I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
The solutions presented by both sides so far are ridiculous: a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution) b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
Both sides are idiots, hard headed and are in serious need for an adult conversation.
As a side note to the GP regarding extremist Muslims (or as I like to call them douche bags), if they read Quran they'll stop this my god is bigger than your god bull, here's a quote:
Al Baqara (002.136)
Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
P.S.: It's refreshing to see a post like yours on Slashdot:)
Thanks! There are some truly beautiful and inspiring lines in the holy books of (almost) all religions. Its a shame they get lost among the drivel, misreading, and misunderstanding.
One niggling issue, though: I don't believe there's any mainstream support in Israel for extermination of the Palestinians. In fact, the reason I support Israel in this whole thing is precisely because they don't have such a position, while Hamas has stated time and again that they would like nothing more than to wipe every last one of us (Jews, that is) off the face of the Earth. In a way, you might even call my support of Israel self-preservation.:)
I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
That's not the problem. The majorities on both sides are willing to negotiate. They are just not able to keep the lid on their respective radical factions.
We have ours in the USA as well. And we can't control them either.
As evidenced by the fact that they ran the place the last 8 years.:)
What you're missing is that the crime is all of Israel's, not just the IDF.
When you ask questions like "What should the IDF do?" You really should be asking, "What should Israel do?"
Once you start asking the right question, a number of things should become obvious, like giving Palestineans basic human rights.
I have no opposition to going this route with this conversation, but let's be very clear first: this is not the same discussion we were having. The topic was the ethics of Israel's bombing and invasion tactics in the current situation. This is background for all of that. Either way, it provides me with entertainment, and a stimulating partner. Thank you for that, by the way. You've been interesting and thought-provoking and I apologize if I get overly zealous sometimes. Condition of anonymity, you know.
Back on topic. I have had this talk with more than a few people. The reasonable thing to do at this juncture seems to me to be, first, to attain a ceasefire - something enforceable, perhaps with U.N. peacekeepers stationed on both sides. At the very least, something needs to be done to ensure weapons are not being carted into Gaza. Hamas then needs to acknowledge Israel's existence (and here we hit our first impossibility). Only then can Israel do what I believe would have incredible significance: help the average Palestinian. Build schools, build hospitals, send aid. Get some positive feelings going 'round Gaza (and elsewhere).
This will take a long, long time. Hamas will not be pleased. They are not interested in peace. They will break the ceasefire. They will kill Israeli civilians. They will kill Palestinians civilians and blame the IDF. It will be a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Israel must power through (and here we reach the second impossibility - what countries' populace has enough foresight to see something through which is so obviously harmful in the short-term? The essential weakness of democracy is its attention-deficit disorder with regard to long-term goals of any sort, not to mention ones with obvious immediate downsides.) Once Hamas' influence has been weakened enough, they can be removed or neutralized. This is essential - unless they undergo some drastic and essential change, Hamas is a fundamental problem in the region.
Now, a reformed Israel and Palestine can work together to form some sort of equal union or, at least, permanent ceasefire. I wish they could agree on a single-state solution and somehow find a way to mingle the two populations, but I find it hard to believe that ethnic tension would (or will) ever leave the area, especially with the malign influence of countries like Iran. A two-state solution, then, is probably best.
The arguments you apply are always trying to have it both ways, Palestine is supposed to be its own country and police itself. But how's that going to happen when Israel is bombing police stations?
If Israel is going to systematically dismantle the Palestinean gov't, they should be allowing the Palestinieans into their society as equals.
I'm all for allowing Palestinians in as equals, but their government needs to be dismantled. Hamas is a cancer. I don't care if it was voted in, it stands for and actively encourages the murder of a group of people wholesale. In some ways, Hamas is as bad as the Nazis. Luckily, they are not nearly as powerful.
Since they aren't doing this, nor even treating their lives as if they have value a Palestinean is left with two choices:
Sit home and hope that international pressure will stop the slaughter before they're all dead
Take up arms
I am tempted, first of all, to link you to a biography of Gandhi. Grabbing your guns isn't always the only solution.;)
In lieu of the non-violent approach, however, I am all for the Palestinians taking up arms - against military targets. There are rules of war for a reason: they keep c
Both sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict have done deplorable things. Where they really differ in my mind is in tactics and intent. Israel intends to hit military targets in order to protect its civilians. Unfortunately, they often miss. This is not surprising, since Hamas launches military action from highly populated areas. One might argue that both sides break the laws of war in this: Israel, in causing unnecessary destruction, and Hamas, in using nonuniform militants, hiding amongst their own civilians, and targeting Israeli civilians.
In order to assign the greater blame, a series of questions must then be asked: which of these violations is worse? Which would be easier avoided? It seems very obvious to me that Hamas's actions, being intentional and without any legitimate target, not to mention geared towards ethnic cleansing (and I'll get to your misreading of my analogy in a minute), are a far more blatant violation then the IDF's.
Now. Back to my analogy. I live in Southern California. I have many, many Mexican friends. In no way was I "suggesting that ethnic differences should be used to place a lower value on the lives of certain memebers of society." What I was suggesting is that a member of the armed forces of one country should place the protection of civilians from his country above the protection of civilians from another - so much so, that he should be willing to see many more of the other country's civilians die than those of his own.
Interesting minor point, actually: I've noticed that use of the word "Mexicans" has taken on almost a discriminatory tone in general. I suppose that's why Hispanic is used as a more "politically-correct" alternative. Imagine I had set my little tale on the Canadian border, and its still the same story: American lives are worth more to the American military then Canadian (or other) lives. Period. Likewise, if the situation were reversed, I would suggest that Canada take the same action. This has nothing to do with any perceived racism you may think I am applying to the situation.
Similarly, I do not blame Ariel Sharon's lawyers for trying to get him off, just as I would not blame the public defender assigned to an obviously guilty child molesting murderer for trying to get him off. In fact, if that public defender refused, I would condemn him. People have their duties: they are often unpleasant, but they signed up to do them. If they are not prepared to do these duties, they should not sign up; the IDF differs from the situation of the public defender in that it is compulsory. Because of this, Israeli civilians have only a few options: either refuse to serve and face the consequences (see Shministim, among others.), try to change the law, or leave. Or a combination of those. Simple as that. Any one of them a noble choice.
Can we assume for the sake of argument that each (or at least the vast majority) of the members of the IDF has made the choice to serve? Doing anything else derails this conversation into a discussion of individual ethics rather than the wider issues of IDF and Hamas policy.
The Guardian. The guardian is a very, very liberal paper - in fact, search for "the guardian" on google. It says it right there: "the world's leading liberal voice." They make no bones about being bias. It's part of their shtick. I happen to like my news objective, however.
Believe it or not, I consider myself a liberal. Very, very liberal in most things, in fact. You might even call me a socialist.I differ from the liberal mainstream in a few crucial areas, though: I think gun control has gone too far (I own no guns, by the way), and I support Israel. The Guardian is the liberal mainstream. The problem, to my mind, lies in when they present themselves as a legitimate and objective news source in one part of their paper and as a biased "liberal voice" in another. I think when trying to present facts, sources gen
Any rigorous argument against the existence of God would run stuck.
Really now. I suggest you take a modern philosophy of religion class. Natural and moral evil, the multiplicity of gods of different religions, Occam's Razor, and a variety of others point towards the nonexistence of God.
Note that I personally am a semi-ambivalent Jew. The Kierkegaard argument, that belief in God is justified because it allows a leap of faith and, therefore, a strengthening of spirit, holds quite a lot of water to me - nonetheless, it still doesn't provide any proof of the existence of God, merely that such a belief is a useful thing to have.
Additionally you could reject all contemporary claims and only accept that a lot of books, and of course a very old, very well preserved book, describes God, lots of old structures were made for God. And of course there is ample evidence that God-assisted events like the Exodus did indeed happen.
If you further continue your rejection, one could say "but old, well-preserved books are the only reason we have to postulate that the Roman Empire ever existed". I fail to see what answer an honest man would have to this argument.
So in positive science you're stuck. In historical argument you're stuck. In mathematical logic, you're especially stuck. Exactly what sort of reasoning are you going to use to justify your "God does not exist" claim ? "Lately (and we mean in the last 100 or-so years) there's been a lot of philosophical and political figures claiming this is true" ?
Even if these structures and books provided enough evidence for the existence of God at some point (and there are a number of problems with such a claim, not the least of which that there are few if any corroborating accounts of many of the same events, and that these "old books" from different religions either differ or flat-out contradict each other in several respects) They still do not provide evidence for His continued existence.
Consider, my friend, the words of Nietzsche's madman:
What? Are you fucking kidding? Every Arab state in spitting distance converged on Israel the instant they declared independence and you want to suggest that they started it? Mod down this fucking troll, please.
If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers?
If the swat team accidentally shoots innocent people, then the swat team is at fault. In fact, courts have backed this up - if you're in a bank, doing legal business, and a cop shoots you while trying to stop a robbery, you're getting your medical bills paid by the city, and if you die your family will win a wrongful death suit.
If a police car smashes into your auto while chasing someone else, the city pays. You can't shoot me in a bank and say it's the bank robbers' fault. It just doesn't work that way.
US soldiers have been court martialed for collateral damage, there were some airmen from here in Springfield who were in pretty deep shit because they accidentally bombed some Canadians in Afghanistan. Nobody blamed the Taliban for the Canadian deaths.
If you're going to shoot, it is your responsibility to hit the target and ONLY the target.
Yes, Hamas are monsters. So are the people they're fighting.
Lets take a look at your analogies vs. actuality (i.e. Hamas militants firing rockets from a school):
SWAT Team shoots a man, who then files suit: INVALID. This man was not in a warzone. He has no idea robbers are about to attack the bank, and no opportunity to remove himself. In this situation, it is reasonable to expect the SWAT team members to hit only their targets, unlike the IDF in actuality.
US Soldiers court-marshalled for hitting Canadians: INVALID. The American airmen were not firing at a valid military target. They made a mistake. They deserve reprisal.
In actuality, the IDF targeted militants firing mortars from a school - this provided a clear and present danger to the Israeli civilians the IDF is sworn to protect. They needed to act quickly and decisively, and they determined bombing was the best method. Whether or not that was wise is beyond me, but I can understand how the time saved by bombing rather than mounting an assault could easily have saved dozens of Israeli lives. The fact that there were civilians present in the school is testament not to a mistake on the part of the IDF, but to deliberate war crimes on the part of Hamas. Those militants should not have been around civilians.
Oh deary me. I don't think there's a question of moral superiority on this one...
But seriously: there's a difference between "reprisals" and "collateral damage" - one is deliberate murder of civilians, the other is accidental death in the course of an attack on a legitimate military target. Israel is guilty of the latter. It's not right, but it sure beats the hell out of revenge killings.
No. I place as much value on a Palestinian life as an Israeli one. My values are not what is under question, though.
Yes they are. I'm questioning them. Right here, right now. You are posting in a public forum, arguing in favor of a set of actions and I am questioning your ethics for doing so.
IDF values, and should value, the lives of the citizens that it is their duty to protect over the lives of Palestinian civilians (which they are under no obligation to keep out of harm's way).
This is a direct contradiction to your claim that you value Palestinian life equally. First you claim their lives are of equal value, then you claim that it's ok for someone to treat them as if they weren't.
You misunderstand me and my point. My values are whatever they are. The point is I am not a member of the IDF. I am not sworn to protect a group of people above all others. Let me rephrase: Even if I were a soldier in the IDF, my values would still be irrelevant. My job would be to protect my people first, their people second. To punctuate this point, I will refer to the analogy I made to another poster.
Imagine you live in Southern California, near the border to Tijuana. All of the sudden, mortar shells start flying overhead and exploding around you and your family. The military base nearby, which is aware that these mortar strikes are coming from a school, has two choices: They can 1) bomb the school immediately, killing 30-50 Mexican civilians but ending immediately the mortar fire and resulting in no American lives lost, or 2) they can send in a strike team, causing 10 Americans (or whatever. pick a number - its irrelevant anyway.) to die but only 2 Mexicans - the two militants. Which do you suppose they choose? Which would you? Suppose that one of those 10 Americans killed was your wife? Your child? Now tell me what the military's job is, what their moral responsibility is.
How is this morally different than bombing family homes?
Does Israel kill an entire family when a murder takes place between two Israelis? Or do they only apply "collective responsiblity" to outsiders?
This is not a matter of anyone applying collective responsibility. This is a matter of there existing a clear and present danger - be it a mortar attack, or missiles launching, etc. - that needs to be stopped. If Palestinians want to allow Hamas militants to set up these mortars and missile launchers in populated areas, then they need to also be willing to accept the consequences, i.e. collateral damage.
You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to compare this to Nuremberg. (Godwin's Law, perhaps?) These soldiers are protecting people, not dragging innocent civilians off to death camps. Again, the IDF has the moral high ground (what you were trying to erode with the Nuremberg reference) precisely because its targets are valid military ones, unlike Hamas. The fact that there is collateral damage is regrettable, but in the present situation, unavoidable. Let me repeat: Palestinians voted in their monsters. Until they change, they cannot expect anything but violence in return. It may not be right, but its the only possibility.
These links are...well, they have a variety of problems. For one, don't ever link anyone to The Guardian to prove a point. Its drivel, and vehemently anti-Israeli. The article shows massive bias, as most of their crap does. Interestingly, I notice that in all or most of the other cases, the IDF hit what it was supposed to hit. Sure, there was collateral damage - that's what happens when you let your government place missile and mortar launchers in populated areas. Nonetheless, the IDF protected its citizens.
The two final links are horrifyingly faulty. So what if Belgium barred a lawsuit that had nothing to do with them from occurring in their country? SO what if Ariel Sharon's lawyers did their best to get him off (guilty or not - I'm not making judgments
No. I place as much value on a Palestinian life as an Israeli one. My values are not what is under question, though. What I'm saying is that the IDF values, and should value, the lives of the citizens that it is their duty to protect over the lives of Palestinian civilians (which they are under no obligation to keep out of harm's way).
So yes, innocent Palestinians do have as much right to like as innocent Israelis. However, the hostile militants that they put in power do not.
Suggesting that Hamas militants habitually target anything other than innocent civilians is astonishingly naive. But that's not the point. If I had my way, everyone would simply forget past deaths, get over it, and live together. However, that's not going to happen anytime soon. Until it does, until the Palestinian populace says "hey, maybe we shouldn't vote in bloodthirsty psychos to lead us," there will be no peace. The IDF has always attacked military targets in immediate retaliation or, very rarely, pre-emptive strike. But always military targets - buildings or personnel. Therefore, the burden is on Hamas to stop attacking or on the Palestinian people to get them out of power.
Heh. I'd find a way to get out, or at least get out of harm's way should a drug lord actually take refuge in my place of residence. I'd also alert the police in first place if I had the opportunity and if I thought it was warranted - frankly, I don't think most drugs should be illegal. But anyway, off-topic.
It's all in how you look at it. On the small-scale, the IDF did what it was supposed to do: it protected those Israeli citizens who would have been killed should the mortars have been allowed to continue firing.
I think you touched on the fundamental problem when you said that the given officer acts correctly: it's a political problem being solved with deadly force. The problem lies at the top, not at the bottom. At that point, there are exactly three outcomes: 1 party is wiped out, 1 party changes its mind or the small set advocating war in one party get wiped out, and no one takes their spot. Right now, we're on the path to one party having to be wiped out. Are you really ok with that?
You phrased that political problem vs. deadly force thing better than I could have, but we are on the same page. I would differ slightly, however, by suggesting that it is a problem on both ends, the top and the bottom - the top being the politicos, and the bottom being the will of the people. Right now and as I understand it, Palestinians as a whole support Hamas overwhelmingly. They support a political and military organization which has stated repeatedly and has in its constitution the ideal of killing all Jews and driving them from the middle east, and which does not even recognize Israel as a country. This obviously makes political negotiation difficult.
Imagine, for instance, that you live next door to someone who has a dispute with you over the property line. You are willing to negotiate - you offer them (as the Israelis have done in the past) a share of the land which is fair. They, however, decline to recognize that you may have a claim or, even, that you are an entity which can be negotiated with. Instead, they set your house on fire. In this analogy (which isn't perfect:)), the police (UN) are spineless - unwilling or unable to protect or help either of you. You have to fend for yourself. Your neighbor begins threatening greater hostilities. You can see, in fact, that he means to kill you and drive you from your land, but you only want to live alone and in peace. You have already offered a fair deal, which he has refused. How do you respond? The only reasonable thing to do (besides move - again, this is not a perfect analogy) seems to be to fight back, and, if at all possible, to kill your neighbor.
So no, I'm not ok with one party being wiped out. Until Palestinian public opinion changes and they remove the bloodthirsty monsters they have in charge, however, I don't see an alternative. I would even suggest the Israel offer to build hospitals and infrastructure in Palestinian land, but without any trust that Israeli humanitarian workers wouldn't be attacked, that's a really hard offer to expect them to make.
Slashdot Mirror
More Os. It went WAY over his head.
So...why does this guy get troll, while the parent gets insightful? Because he used big nasty swear words?
http://www.amazon.com/Lights-Out-Sleep-Sugar-Survival/dp/0671038680 - T.S. Wiley's been saying this for years.
Yeah - inter-car communication is a fine idea. Because drivers aren't already distracted enough.
I'm excited for the day when some script-kiddy with a laptop in the back of his mom's minivan can make my car go careening off the road by tripping the SWERVE TO MISS THAT DEER command.
So I think I see a solution to the homeless problem coming up...
It's like....I want to stop reading, but I can't. It's a fucking train wreck.
I think it broke my head.
Heh - God willing, right? The very thought.
Hiya - I'm the guy who wrote the parent. Just did it anon...for some reason.
I'm a Muslim and my lunch break is almost over so I can't really write as long of a post as I wanted.
I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
The solutions presented by both sides so far are ridiculous:
a) Throw them in the sea (Palestinian solution)
b) Exterminate them (Israeli solution)
Both sides are idiots, hard headed and are in serious need for an adult conversation.
As a side note to the GP regarding extremist Muslims (or as I like to call them douche bags), if they read Quran they'll stop this my god is bigger than your god bull, here's a quote:
Al Baqara (002.136)
Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
P.S.: It's refreshing to see a post like yours on Slashdot :)
Thanks! There are some truly beautiful and inspiring lines in the holy books of (almost) all religions. Its a shame they get lost among the drivel, misreading, and misunderstanding.
One niggling issue, though: I don't believe there's any mainstream support in Israel for extermination of the Palestinians. In fact, the reason I support Israel in this whole thing is precisely because they don't have such a position, while Hamas has stated time and again that they would like nothing more than to wipe every last one of us (Jews, that is) off the face of the Earth. In a way, you might even call my support of Israel self-preservation. :)
I agree that this war needs to stop, Palestinians and Israelies need to sit down and freaking figure out how to not kill 600+ people over a weekend.
That's not the problem. The majorities on both sides are willing to negotiate. They are just not able to keep the lid on their respective radical factions.
We have ours in the USA as well. And we can't control them either.
As evidenced by the fact that they ran the place the last 8 years. :)
What you're missing is that the crime is all of Israel's, not just the IDF.
When you ask questions like "What should the IDF do?" You really should be asking, "What should Israel do?"
Once you start asking the right question, a number of things should become obvious, like giving Palestineans basic human rights.
I have no opposition to going this route with this conversation, but let's be very clear first: this is not the same discussion we were having. The topic was the ethics of Israel's bombing and invasion tactics in the current situation. This is background for all of that. Either way, it provides me with entertainment, and a stimulating partner. Thank you for that, by the way. You've been interesting and thought-provoking and I apologize if I get overly zealous sometimes. Condition of anonymity, you know.
Back on topic. I have had this talk with more than a few people. The reasonable thing to do at this juncture seems to me to be, first, to attain a ceasefire - something enforceable, perhaps with U.N. peacekeepers stationed on both sides. At the very least, something needs to be done to ensure weapons are not being carted into Gaza. Hamas then needs to acknowledge Israel's existence (and here we hit our first impossibility). Only then can Israel do what I believe would have incredible significance: help the average Palestinian. Build schools, build hospitals, send aid. Get some positive feelings going 'round Gaza (and elsewhere).
This will take a long, long time. Hamas will not be pleased. They are not interested in peace. They will break the ceasefire. They will kill Israeli civilians. They will kill Palestinians civilians and blame the IDF. It will be a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Israel must power through (and here we reach the second impossibility - what countries' populace has enough foresight to see something through which is so obviously harmful in the short-term? The essential weakness of democracy is its attention-deficit disorder with regard to long-term goals of any sort, not to mention ones with obvious immediate downsides.) Once Hamas' influence has been weakened enough, they can be removed or neutralized. This is essential - unless they undergo some drastic and essential change, Hamas is a fundamental problem in the region.
Now, a reformed Israel and Palestine can work together to form some sort of equal union or, at least, permanent ceasefire. I wish they could agree on a single-state solution and somehow find a way to mingle the two populations, but I find it hard to believe that ethnic tension would (or will) ever leave the area, especially with the malign influence of countries like Iran. A two-state solution, then, is probably best.
The arguments you apply are always trying to have it both ways, Palestine is supposed to be its own country and police itself. But how's that going to happen when Israel is bombing police stations?
If Israel is going to systematically dismantle the Palestinean gov't, they should be allowing the Palestinieans into their society as equals.
I'm all for allowing Palestinians in as equals, but their government needs to be dismantled. Hamas is a cancer. I don't care if it was voted in, it stands for and actively encourages the murder of a group of people wholesale. In some ways, Hamas is as bad as the Nazis. Luckily, they are not nearly as powerful.
Since they aren't doing this, nor even treating their lives as if they have value a Palestinean is left with two choices:
I am tempted, first of all, to link you to a biography of Gandhi. Grabbing your guns isn't always the only solution. ;)
In lieu of the non-violent approach, however, I am all for the Palestinians taking up arms - against military targets. There are rules of war for a reason: they keep c
Both sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict have done deplorable things. Where they really differ in my mind is in tactics and intent. Israel intends to hit military targets in order to protect its civilians. Unfortunately, they often miss. This is not surprising, since Hamas launches military action from highly populated areas. One might argue that both sides break the laws of war in this: Israel, in causing unnecessary destruction, and Hamas, in using nonuniform militants, hiding amongst their own civilians, and targeting Israeli civilians.
In order to assign the greater blame, a series of questions must then be asked: which of these violations is worse? Which would be easier avoided? It seems very obvious to me that Hamas's actions, being intentional and without any legitimate target, not to mention geared towards ethnic cleansing (and I'll get to your misreading of my analogy in a minute), are a far more blatant violation then the IDF's.
Now. Back to my analogy. I live in Southern California. I have many, many Mexican friends. In no way was I "suggesting that ethnic differences should be used to place a lower value on the lives of certain memebers of society." What I was suggesting is that a member of the armed forces of one country should place the protection of civilians from his country above the protection of civilians from another - so much so, that he should be willing to see many more of the other country's civilians die than those of his own.
Interesting minor point, actually: I've noticed that use of the word "Mexicans" has taken on almost a discriminatory tone in general. I suppose that's why Hispanic is used as a more "politically-correct" alternative. Imagine I had set my little tale on the Canadian border, and its still the same story: American lives are worth more to the American military then Canadian (or other) lives. Period. Likewise, if the situation were reversed, I would suggest that Canada take the same action. This has nothing to do with any perceived racism you may think I am applying to the situation.
Similarly, I do not blame Ariel Sharon's lawyers for trying to get him off, just as I would not blame the public defender assigned to an obviously guilty child molesting murderer for trying to get him off. In fact, if that public defender refused, I would condemn him. People have their duties: they are often unpleasant, but they signed up to do them. If they are not prepared to do these duties, they should not sign up; the IDF differs from the situation of the public defender in that it is compulsory. Because of this, Israeli civilians have only a few options: either refuse to serve and face the consequences (see Shministim, among others.), try to change the law, or leave. Or a combination of those. Simple as that. Any one of them a noble choice.
Can we assume for the sake of argument that each (or at least the vast majority) of the members of the IDF has made the choice to serve? Doing anything else derails this conversation into a discussion of individual ethics rather than the wider issues of IDF and Hamas policy.
The Guardian. The guardian is a very, very liberal paper - in fact, search for "the guardian" on google. It says it right there: "the world's leading liberal voice." They make no bones about being bias. It's part of their shtick. I happen to like my news objective, however.
Believe it or not, I consider myself a liberal. Very, very liberal in most things, in fact. You might even call me a socialist.I differ from the liberal mainstream in a few crucial areas, though: I think gun control has gone too far (I own no guns, by the way), and I support Israel. The Guardian is the liberal mainstream. The problem, to my mind, lies in when they present themselves as a legitimate and objective news source in one part of their paper and as a biased "liberal voice" in another. I think when trying to present facts, sources gen
Any rigorous argument against the existence of God would run stuck.
Really now. I suggest you take a modern philosophy of religion class. Natural and moral evil, the multiplicity of gods of different religions, Occam's Razor, and a variety of others point towards the nonexistence of God.
Note that I personally am a semi-ambivalent Jew. The Kierkegaard argument, that belief in God is justified because it allows a leap of faith and, therefore, a strengthening of spirit, holds quite a lot of water to me - nonetheless, it still doesn't provide any proof of the existence of God, merely that such a belief is a useful thing to have.
Additionally you could reject all contemporary claims and only accept that a lot of books, and of course a very old, very well preserved book, describes God, lots of old structures were made for God. And of course there is ample evidence that God-assisted events like the Exodus did indeed happen.
If you further continue your rejection, one could say "but old, well-preserved books are the only reason we have to postulate that the Roman Empire ever existed". I fail to see what answer an honest man would have to this argument.
So in positive science you're stuck. In historical argument you're stuck. In mathematical logic, you're especially stuck. Exactly what sort of reasoning are you going to use to justify your "God does not exist" claim ? "Lately (and we mean in the last 100 or-so years) there's been a lot of philosophical and political figures claiming this is true" ?
Even if these structures and books provided enough evidence for the existence of God at some point (and there are a number of problems with such a claim, not the least of which that there are few if any corroborating accounts of many of the same events, and that these "old books" from different religions either differ or flat-out contradict each other in several respects) They still do not provide evidence for His continued existence.
Consider, my friend, the words of Nietzsche's madman:
God is dead.
What? Are you fucking kidding? Every Arab state in spitting distance converged on Israel the instant they declared independence and you want to suggest that they started it? Mod down this fucking troll, please.
A walled off population that happens to be lobbing rockets at their citizenry.
Oh look, we're going around in circles again...
True, but how you behave in war often determines how you are treated afterwards; see Nuremberg.
Sinking wasn't justified, no. They could have captured it. There was no clear and present danger, as the Lusitania had no deck guns or torpedoes.
If 3 men rob a bank, and the SWAT team has to storm it, and innocent people die, do you blame the SWAT team, or the bank robbers?
If the swat team accidentally shoots innocent people, then the swat team is at fault. In fact, courts have backed this up - if you're in a bank, doing legal business, and a cop shoots you while trying to stop a robbery, you're getting your medical bills paid by the city, and if you die your family will win a wrongful death suit.
If a police car smashes into your auto while chasing someone else, the city pays. You can't shoot me in a bank and say it's the bank robbers' fault. It just doesn't work that way.
US soldiers have been court martialed for collateral damage, there were some airmen from here in Springfield who were in pretty deep shit because they accidentally bombed some Canadians in Afghanistan. Nobody blamed the Taliban for the Canadian deaths.
If you're going to shoot, it is your responsibility to hit the target and ONLY the target.
Yes, Hamas are monsters. So are the people they're fighting.
Lets take a look at your analogies vs. actuality (i.e. Hamas militants firing rockets from a school):
SWAT Team shoots a man, who then files suit: INVALID. This man was not in a warzone. He has no idea robbers are about to attack the bank, and no opportunity to remove himself. In this situation, it is reasonable to expect the SWAT team members to hit only their targets, unlike the IDF in actuality.
US Soldiers court-marshalled for hitting Canadians: INVALID. The American airmen were not firing at a valid military target. They made a mistake. They deserve reprisal.
In actuality, the IDF targeted militants firing mortars from a school - this provided a clear and present danger to the Israeli civilians the IDF is sworn to protect. They needed to act quickly and decisively, and they determined bombing was the best method. Whether or not that was wise is beyond me, but I can understand how the time saved by bombing rather than mounting an assault could easily have saved dozens of Israeli lives. The fact that there were civilians present in the school is testament not to a mistake on the part of the IDF, but to deliberate war crimes on the part of Hamas. Those militants should not have been around civilians.
Wow. The one time I forget to sign in and people actually pay attention.
But one is more right. ;)
However, the US *can* lower the death toll by not pouring high-tech weaponry into Israel.
I was under the impression that the purpose of much of R+D in "high-tech weaponry" was to prevent civilian casualties - to make more accurate weapons.
Oh deary me. I don't think there's a question of moral superiority on this one...
But seriously: there's a difference between "reprisals" and "collateral damage" - one is deliberate murder of civilians, the other is accidental death in the course of an attack on a legitimate military target. Israel is guilty of the latter. It's not right, but it sure beats the hell out of revenge killings.
No. I place as much value on a Palestinian life as an Israeli one. My values are not what is under question, though.
Yes they are. I'm questioning them. Right here, right now. You are posting in a public forum, arguing in favor of a set of actions and I am questioning your ethics for doing so.
IDF values, and should value, the lives of the citizens that it is their duty to protect over the lives of Palestinian civilians (which they are under no obligation to keep out of harm's way).
This is a direct contradiction to your claim that you value Palestinian life equally. First you claim their lives are of equal value, then you claim that it's ok for someone to treat them as if they weren't.
You misunderstand me and my point. My values are whatever they are. The point is I am not a member of the IDF. I am not sworn to protect a group of people above all others. Let me rephrase: Even if I were a soldier in the IDF, my values would still be irrelevant. My job would be to protect my people first, their people second. To punctuate this point, I will refer to the analogy I made to another poster.
Imagine you live in Southern California, near the border to Tijuana. All of the sudden, mortar shells start flying overhead and exploding around you and your family. The military base nearby, which is aware that these mortar strikes are coming from a school, has two choices: They can 1) bomb the school immediately, killing 30-50 Mexican civilians but ending immediately the mortar fire and resulting in no American lives lost, or 2) they can send in a strike team, causing 10 Americans (or whatever. pick a number - its irrelevant anyway.) to die but only 2 Mexicans - the two militants. Which do you suppose they choose? Which would you? Suppose that one of those 10 Americans killed was your wife? Your child? Now tell me what the military's job is, what their moral responsibility is.
How is this morally different than bombing family homes? Does Israel kill an entire family when a murder takes place between two Israelis? Or do they only apply "collective responsiblity" to outsiders?
This is not a matter of anyone applying collective responsibility. This is a matter of there existing a clear and present danger - be it a mortar attack, or missiles launching, etc. - that needs to be stopped. If Palestinians want to allow Hamas militants to set up these mortars and missile launchers in populated areas, then they need to also be willing to accept the consequences, i.e. collateral damage.
You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to compare this to Nuremberg. (Godwin's Law, perhaps?) These soldiers are protecting people, not dragging innocent civilians off to death camps. Again, the IDF has the moral high ground (what you were trying to erode with the Nuremberg reference) precisely because its targets are valid military ones, unlike Hamas. The fact that there is collateral damage is regrettable, but in the present situation, unavoidable. Let me repeat: Palestinians voted in their monsters. Until they change, they cannot expect anything but violence in return. It may not be right, but its the only possibility.
These links are...well, they have a variety of problems. For one, don't ever link anyone to The Guardian to prove a point. Its drivel, and vehemently anti-Israeli. The article shows massive bias, as most of their crap does. Interestingly, I notice that in all or most of the other cases, the IDF hit what it was supposed to hit. Sure, there was collateral damage - that's what happens when you let your government place missile and mortar launchers in populated areas. Nonetheless, the IDF protected its citizens.
The two final links are horrifyingly faulty. So what if Belgium barred a lawsuit that had nothing to do with them from occurring in their country? SO what if Ariel Sharon's lawyers did their best to get him off (guilty or not - I'm not making judgments
No. I place as much value on a Palestinian life as an Israeli one. My values are not what is under question, though. What I'm saying is that the IDF values, and should value, the lives of the citizens that it is their duty to protect over the lives of Palestinian civilians (which they are under no obligation to keep out of harm's way).
So yes, innocent Palestinians do have as much right to like as innocent Israelis. However, the hostile militants that they put in power do not.
Your last comment is simply ignorance. Suicide bombs that purposefully target city buses? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E5D7123FF935A35750C0A9659C8B63 How about hotel lobbies - on passover? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/suicide-bomber-kills-19-in-passover-feast-massacre-750377.html More recently, how about a shopping center? http://middleeast.about.com/b/2008/02/04/first-suicide-bombing-in-israel-in-over-a-year.htm Try searching "Hamas target civilians" compared with HAmas target military" on google. The results are pretty self-evident.
Suggesting that Hamas militants habitually target anything other than innocent civilians is astonishingly naive. But that's not the point. If I had my way, everyone would simply forget past deaths, get over it, and live together. However, that's not going to happen anytime soon. Until it does, until the Palestinian populace says "hey, maybe we shouldn't vote in bloodthirsty psychos to lead us," there will be no peace. The IDF has always attacked military targets in immediate retaliation or, very rarely, pre-emptive strike. But always military targets - buildings or personnel. Therefore, the burden is on Hamas to stop attacking or on the Palestinian people to get them out of power.
Heh. I'd find a way to get out, or at least get out of harm's way should a drug lord actually take refuge in my place of residence. I'd also alert the police in first place if I had the opportunity and if I thought it was warranted - frankly, I don't think most drugs should be illegal. But anyway, off-topic.
It's all in how you look at it. On the small-scale, the IDF did what it was supposed to do: it protected those Israeli citizens who would have been killed should the mortars have been allowed to continue firing.
I think you touched on the fundamental problem when you said that the given officer acts correctly: it's a political problem being solved with deadly force. The problem lies at the top, not at the bottom. At that point, there are exactly three outcomes: 1 party is wiped out, 1 party changes its mind or the small set advocating war in one party get wiped out, and no one takes their spot. Right now, we're on the path to one party having to be wiped out. Are you really ok with that?
You phrased that political problem vs. deadly force thing better than I could have, but we are on the same page. I would differ slightly, however, by suggesting that it is a problem on both ends, the top and the bottom - the top being the politicos, and the bottom being the will of the people. Right now and as I understand it, Palestinians as a whole support Hamas overwhelmingly. They support a political and military organization which has stated repeatedly and has in its constitution the ideal of killing all Jews and driving them from the middle east, and which does not even recognize Israel as a country. This obviously makes political negotiation difficult.
Imagine, for instance, that you live next door to someone who has a dispute with you over the property line. You are willing to negotiate - you offer them (as the Israelis have done in the past) a share of the land which is fair. They, however, decline to recognize that you may have a claim or, even, that you are an entity which can be negotiated with. Instead, they set your house on fire. In this analogy (which isn't perfect :)), the police (UN) are spineless - unwilling or unable to protect or help either of you. You have to fend for yourself. Your neighbor begins threatening greater hostilities. You can see, in fact, that he means to kill you and drive you from your land, but you only want to live alone and in peace. You have already offered a fair deal, which he has refused. How do you respond? The only reasonable thing to do (besides move - again, this is not a perfect analogy) seems to be to fight back, and, if at all possible, to kill your neighbor.
So no, I'm not ok with one party being wiped out. Until Palestinian public opinion changes and they remove the bloodthirsty monsters they have in charge, however, I don't see an alternative. I would even suggest the Israel offer to build hospitals and infrastructure in Palestinian land, but without any trust that Israeli humanitarian workers wouldn't be attacked, that's a really hard offer to expect them to make.