| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
From Alan Dershowitz in the Wall Street Journal (no link):
While Israel does everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties -- not always with success -- Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides. Islamic terrorists, a diplomat commented years ago, "have mastered the harsh arithmetic of pain. . . . Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli casualties play in their favor." These are groups that send children to die as suicide bombers, sometimes without the child knowing that he is being sacrificed. Two years ago, an 11-year-old was paid to take a parcel through Israeli security. Unbeknownst to him, it contained a bomb that was to be detonated remotely. (Fortunately the plot was foiled.)
This misuse of civilians as shields and swords requires a reassessment of the laws of war. The distinction between combatants and civilians -- easy when combatants were uniformed members of armies that fought on battlefields distant from civilian centers -- is more difficult in the present context. Now, there is a continuum of "civilianality": Near the most civilian end of this continuum are the pure innocents -- babies, hostages and others completely uninvolved; at the more combatant end are civilians who willingly harbor terrorists, provide material resources and serve as human shields; in the middle are those who support the terrorists politically, or spiritually.
The laws of war and the rules of morality must adapt to these realities. An analogy to domestic criminal law is instructive: A bank robber who takes a teller hostage and fires at police from behind his human shield is guilty of murder if they, in an effort to stop the robber from shooting, accidentally kill the hostage. The same should be true of terrorists who use civilians as shields from behind whom they fire their rockets. The terrorists must be held legally and morally responsible for the deaths of the civilians, even if the direct physical cause was an Israeli rocket aimed at those targeting Israeli citizens....Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. These are not "occupied" territories. Yet they serve as launching pads for attacks on Israeli civilians. Occupation does not cause terrorism, then, but terrorism seems to cause occupation. If Israel is not to reoccupy to prevent terrorism, the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority must ensure that these regions cease to be terrorist safe havens.
#1
#2Yes. It's amazing how long it takes the world to catch on to this.
#3An analogy to domestic criminal law is instructive: A bank robber who takes a teller hostage and fires at police from behind his human shield is guilty of murder if they, in an effort to stop the robber from shooting, accidentally kill the hostage.
So would the police also be justified in calling in an airstrike to flatten the entire bank or a whole city block?
#4Ah, European moral-relativism rears its ugly head. Ummm... if the police were fighting a war, yes they would be completely justified in giving that order.
-OC
#5European moral-relativism
Non sequitur. I am applying principles that YOU argue for.
Ummm… if the police were fighting a war, yes they would be completely justified in giving that order.
So it is justified to kill more people than is necessary? Why?
Why does this not happen at home? In the UK police raided Forest Gate as part of the "war" against terror but they did not call in an airstrike on the entire street. Are you saying they should have, or that it would have been justified?
When the US authorities captured Timothy McVeigh and Moussaoui they managed to do it without killing hundreds of people. Are you saying they would have been justified in doing so?
#6Oh, where to begin? Where to begin?
I don't know about how Britain fights its war on terror, but last time I checked, another country wasn't firing missiles and rockets into London, are they? Britain's not fighting a military battle against another country, are they? You're comparing apples and oranges here.
Let's make one thing clear, Israel is fighting a war, and in a war, people die. The analogy is stating that in Israel's war against Hezbollah, civilian casualties are the fault of Hezbollah, not Israel. Why? Hezbollah is violating all international laws and the Geneva Convention's rules of engagement and war bu purposely placing their headquarters and weapons stock-piles in the midst of civilian population centers. Hence, they are using civilians as human shields and ensuring increased civilian casualties. That's what the analogy means. Any attempt to scew it to make it seem as if it's justifying killing civilians is rediculous and a pathetic attempt at moral relativism.
Timothy McVeigh and Moussaoui were single operatives in a country. McVeigh was NOT part of any terrorist organization. Regardless, Israel is not fighting against ONE person. They're fighting against an ENTIRE organization. Why did America and Britain go after the entire Al-Quada organization instead of just Bin-Lade? Umm, could it possibly be that while Bin-Laden and Nasrallah are the heads of their respective organizations and have carried out countless acts of murders, if you just take off the head, another one will grow in their place?
Israel is fightin a war against Hezbollah, not just Nasrallah. If there ever was a clearer case of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, well... maybe you can find one. Israel is engaged in a just war, and they are fighting it justly and morally and ethically.
Why don't you direct your criticisms and questions where they belong; at the Hezbollah terrorists, who have fired over 2,000 Katyusha rockets into Israel, deliberately aiming to kill, maim, and injury as many civilians as possible? Where's your questions of ethics for them? Over 70 cities, towns, settlements, and villages have been struck by Katyusha rockets and mortars. Only ONE of those cities, Haifa, can be considered a legitimate military target. Hmmm... where are your moral questions for them???
-OC
#7Britain’s not fighting a military battle against another country, are they?
Actually, yes, they are. You may have heard of it, it was big news a while back.
You’re comparing apples and oranges here.
Except it's not my analogy.
Let’s make one thing clear, Israel is fighting a war, and in a war, people die.
If war and self-defence justifies any deaths whatsoever then why bother with any ethical justification at all?
#8Oy, Britain is not fighting a war against a bordering country, ARE THEY? They're fighting a war in Afghanistan in Iraq. Last time I checked, that's a good few thousands miles away, isn't it?
I will not answer your question until you answer one crucial question about your mind-set here. Are you accusing Israel of indiscriminately killing and targeting civilians? Do you believe that Israel is just randomly killing people?
If the answer to any of those is "yes", than there's no point in even talking to you, because you're so far off the deep end, you're drowning.
-OC
#9Are you accusing Israel of indiscriminately killing and targeting civilians? Do you believe that Israel is just randomly killing people?
Nope. I accept Israel's right to self-defence and I also understand and accept the point about terrorists using human shields. However I think that there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether the current level of violence is necessary, and therefore if it is justified.
In the terms of the analogy, shooting at the guy with the hostage might be justified, but calling in an airstrike on the bank would clearly be more than is necessary. Similarly when Hezbollah is firing rockets it is obviously legitimate to strike against them and if human shields are being used then the fault lies with the terrorist. But for me this only holds as long as the intent is to kill the terrorist only and reasonable steps are also taken to minimise innocent deaths.
#10However I think that there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether the current level of violence is necessary, and therefore if it is justified.
No, sir, but you couldn't be more wrong. Current level of violence? What level is that? Tell me, sir, what level of violence would be justified? You have just been promoted to the level of Prime Minister of Israel. Two of your soldiers were just kidnapped. Over 2,000 Katyusha rockets filled with shrapnel are flying into the top half of your country. You have over 1 million refugees fleeing from the north to the southern half of the country. Over 1 million of your other citizens have been living in bomb shelters for the past 12 days. 1/3 of your entire country is paralyzed. You're losing millions of shekels every day by businesses being closed down, and tourism destroyed. You have over 700 wounded. 23 dead citizens and soldiers.
Tell me, Mr Prime Minister, what is the "appropriate level of violence"?
-OC
By the way, you insinuate that you believe Israel is indiscrimately targeting civilians by asking this very question:
If war and self-defence justifies any deaths whatsoever then why bother with any ethical justification at all?
Then, you insinuate it further by not addressing any of your ridiculous comments at the people that are actually purposefully and indiscrimantely targeting civilians: HEZBOLLAH! You don't bring up the fact that Hezbollah has been using civilians as human shields. You don't mention the fact that Hezbollah has been attempting to force people to stay in their homes even after Israel warned them to leave to save human LIVES. So, tell me, what else am I suppose to insinuate by your LACK of comments and questions at the people who are at fault for what is happening now?
#11Sorry, I didn't see the bottom half of your comments:
But for me this only holds as long as the intent is to kill the terrorist only and reasonable steps are also taken to minimise innocent deaths.
Excuse me, but do you have any proof that this is NOT the case? Do you have any proof that Israel has not the utmost it possibly can to save as many human lives as it possible can?
Not only is Israel using the most sophisticated weapons to decrease the amount of non-combatant death, but they are dropping hundreds of thousands of fliers telling people they have hours upon hours, even days, to evacuate an area before they strike. On top of that, they have even been CALLING peoples' houses telling them to leave in order to save lives.
Tell me, sir, is Hezbollah giving the same considerations and luxuries to Israeli civilians?
Where do you have any reason or viable to proof to question Israel's morality in this conflict? Hmmmm?
-OC
#12You don’t bring up the fact that Hezbollah has been using civilians as human shields.
Lying about easily checked facts like that doesn't inspire confidence in your credibility. I have mentioned human shields a number of times. It is the entire topic of this thread and anyone can see for themselves that you are not telling the truth.
you insinuate that you believe Israel is indiscrimately targeting civilians by asking this very question
Again you lie about easily checked facts. Why? I've already stated that I do NOT believe that.
When will you answer the "very question" that I asked? Or are you enjoying beating up your own strawmen too much?
Tell me, sir, is Hezbollah giving the same considerations and luxuries to Israeli civilians?
Since when are Hezbollah the standard by which we should measure actions?
#13Sir, thank you for answering nothing. You've said more by avoiding all the issue than you probably could have said by actually attempting to answer it.
You say one thing, and then contradict yourself. You say Israel has a right to defend itself and "admit" Hezbollah is using humans as shields, but then you contradict yourself by repeatedly asking whether them using human shields gives Israel the "right" to blow up city blocks and kill who-ever they want; two accusations that are complete and total LIES. You did not bring up Hezbollah using humans as shields. You said, I also understand and accept the point about terrorists using human shields Where did you mention Hezbollah specifically???
Again, you are contradicting yourself. All the points where you insinuate Israel is indiscriminately targeting civilians and infrastructure:
So would the police also be justified in calling in an airstrike to flatten the entire bank or a whole city block?
So it is justified to kill more people than is necessary? Why?
Why does this not happen at home? In the UK police raided Forest Gate as part of the “war” against terror but they did not call in an airstrike on the entire street. Are you saying they should have, or that it would have been justified?
When the US authorities captured Timothy McVeigh and Moussaoui they managed to do it without killing hundreds of people. Are you saying they would have been justified in doing so?
In the terms of the analogy, shooting at the guy with the hostage might be justified, but calling in an airstrike on the bank would clearly be more than is necessary. Similarly when Hezbollah is firing rockets it is obviously legitimate to strike against them and if human shields are being used then the fault lies with the terrorist. But for me this only holds as long as the intent is to kill the terrorist only and reasonable steps are also taken to minimise innocent deaths. I asked you provide proof or cite examples that Israel is NOT doing everything in it's power to ensure as minimum loss of non-combatant life as possible. You have, so far, not provided anything to this effect that would make this accusation remotely plausible.
Since when are Hezbollah the standard by which we should measure actions? It's an extremely legitimate question when you're throwing all the above mentioned statements and questions out without even remotely taking a look at the other side.
Talk about "strawmen". You focused on minute details and did NOT even address any of the questions I asked you. You make all these comments, but don't even address the realities. You asked the question of "appropriate level of violence", yet you didn't even bother to answer my questions when given all the facts of the situation. I think you're about to be impeaced, Prime Minister. Thank you.
-OC
#14You focused on minute details and did NOT even address any of the questions I asked you.
See, when you lie (yet again) about easily checked facts like this, there is no reason to believe anything you say.
#15Frank, what LIES?? Why won't you just give a straight answer. You're just beating around the bush and refusing to answer any question posed at you. Have you even read a thing you've written??
You said this:However I think that there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether the current level of violence is necessary, and therefore if it is justified.
I said this: Tell me, sir, what level of violence would be justified? You have just been promoted to the level of Prime Minister of Israel. Two of your soldiers were just kidnapped. Over 2,000 Katyusha rockets filled with shrapnel are flying into the top half of your country. You have over 1 million refugees fleeing from the north to the southern half of the country. Over 1 million of your other citizens have been living in bomb shelters for the past 12 days. 1/3 of your entire country is paralyzed. You’re losing millions of shekels every day by businesses being closed down, and tourism destroyed. You have over 700 wounded. 23 dead citizens and soldiers.
Tell me, Mr Prime Minister, what is the “appropriate level of violence”?
Where did you answer these questions?!? I looked over every word you said, where did you answer this?
You are accusing me of lying and repeatedly attacking my credibility with no proof to substantiate your claims. In my previous post I brought several quotes that would lead one to the conclusions that I mentioned, yet instead of answering anything, all you do is accuse me of more lying. Are these the same methods you use to get out of other discussions? You just accuse the other person of lying, so you don't have to answer any questions with anything substantial or of any intelligence.
-OC
#16Frank, what LIES?? Why won’t you just give a straight answer. You’re just beating around the bush and refusing to answer any question posed at you.
Repeating your lies doesn't make them true.
Here's you:
I will not answer your question until you answer one crucial question about your mind-set here. Are you accusing Israel of indiscriminately killing and targeting civilians? Do you believe that Israel is just randomly killing people?
You actually asked two questions, and not one. I answered both:
Nope. I accept Israel’s right to self-defence and I also understand and accept the point about terrorists using human shields. However I think that there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether the current level of violence is necessary, and therefore if it is justified.
You lied when you said you'd answer my question after I answered yours, and since I answered you've lied that I haven't answered any question you've asked, you've lied that I've stated that Israel is indiscriminately killing civilians, you've also lied that I've not mentioned Hezbollah's use of human shields.
Until you stop lying about such things that are easily checked NOTHING you say has credibility and no discussion with you is possible.
#17Frank, as is so often the case with you, when you run out of responses, you start accusing the person you're talking to, of lying. It looks like you don't have any reasonable responses to offer.
#18Thank you for backing me up Vik, and for seeing through frank's responses for exactly what they are: Nothing but hot air aimed at answering nothing and avoiding everything.
-OC
#19[Insult deleted]
#20Frank, as is so often the case with you, when you run out of responses,
I see you have changed your policy regarding insults, to the extent that you now offer unwarranted insults instead of a rational argument.
you start accusing the person you’re talking to, of lying.
I have documented the lies, which are rather obvious, and anyone can check them for themselves.
It looks like you don’t have any reasonable responses to offer.
It looks like you are rather partisan.
#21Frank, I'm still waiting to hear your response to what Olah asked in #6:
Why don’t you direct your criticisms and questions where they belong; at the Hezbollah terrorists, who have fired over 2,000 Katyusha rockets into Israel, deliberately aiming to kill, maim, and injury as many civilians as possible? Where’s your questions of ethics for them? Over 70 cities, towns, settlements, and villages have been struck by Katyusha rockets and mortars. Only ONE of those cities, Haifa, can be considered a legitimate military target. Hmmm… where are your moral questions for them???
See if you can respond without accusing anyone of lying.
#22Olah's question might make sense if someone representing Hezbollah were actually involved in this discussion. As it is, it's just a diversion technique.
I see you have changed your policy regarding insults, to the extent that you now offer unwarranted insults instead of a rational argument.
In fairness, Vik hasn't changed his policy. It has always been his policy that Vik and people agreeing with Vik are allowed to offer as many insults as they like.
#23Olah’s question might make sense if someone representing Hezbollah were actually involved in this discussion. As it is, it’s just a diversion technique.
Exactly.
#24Olah’s question might make sense if someone representing Hezbollah were actually involved in this discussion. As it is, it’s just a diversion technique.
You don't like the way the conversation is going, so you want to shut down conversation. Conversations about Hezbollah are only permitted when one of the people in the discussion is from Hezbollah! That's hilarious.
Frank, I'm still waiting for your response. See if you can do it without accusing anyone of lying.
#25You don’t like the way the conversation is going, so you want to shut down conversation.
Says Vic who has deleted contributions.
Frank, I’m still waiting for your response.
You must be very unobservant not to have seen my response.
#26You must be very unobservant not to have seen my response.
Another insult in place of a response. You don't seem capable of even trying to provide a reasonable answer.
If your response so easy to find, why not quote it in a new post? Here's the quote from Olah I'm looking for your response to:
Why don’t you direct your criticisms and questions where they belong; at the Hezbollah terrorists, who have fired over 2,000 Katyusha rockets into Israel, deliberately aiming to kill, maim, and injury as many civilians as possible? Where’s your questions of ethics for them? Over 70 cities, towns, settlements, and villages have been struck by Katyusha rockets and mortars. Only ONE of those cities, Haifa, can be considered a legitimate military target. Hmmm… where are your moral questions for them???
#27frank, I guess we all must be dense or blind, because you still have ignored my questions, especially this one:
ell me, sir, what level of violence would be justified? You have just been promoted to the level of Prime Minister of Israel. Two of your soldiers were just kidnapped. Over 2,000 Katyusha rockets filled with shrapnel are flying into the top half of your country. You have over 1 million refugees fleeing from the north to the southern half of the country. Over 1 million of your other citizens have been living in bomb shelters for the past 12 days. 1/3 of your entire country is paralyzed. You’re losing millions of shekels every day by businesses being closed down, and tourism destroyed. You have over 700 wounded. 23 dead citizens and soldiers.
Tell me, Mr Prime Minister, what is the “appropriate level of violence”?
I'm waiting. Can you please point out where I've lied and where exactly you answered this question? Hmmmm?
Ruth, your comment is completely ridiculous. How is it that it's a "diversion" technique? Please explain.
-OC
#28If your response so easy to find, why not quote it in a new post?
Here's the question:
"Why don’t you direct your criticisms and questions where they belong; at the Hezbollah terrorists"
And I have already stated:
"Since when are Hezbollah the standard by which we should measure actions?"
AND:
"Similarly when Hezbollah is firing rockets it is obviously legitimate to strike against them and if human shields are being used then the fault lies with the terrorist. But for me this only holds as long as the intent is to kill the terrorist only and reasonable steps are also taken to minimise innocent deaths."
AND:
"Olah’s question might make sense if someone representing Hezbollah were actually involved in this discussion. As it is, it’s just a diversion technique.
Exactly. "
That answers your question and neither of you deserved a response.
If neither of you have the integrity to apologise then let's see if you answer my question:
If war and self-defence justifies any deaths whatsoever then why bother with any ethical justification at all?
#29Olah,
you still have ignored my questions
Kindly stop repeating this lie.
When will you honor your promise to answer my question after I answered yours?
I will not answer your question until you answer one crucial question about your mind-set here. Are you accusing Israel of indiscriminately killing and targeting civilians? Do you believe that Israel is just randomly killing people?
I have answered both of those questions. You have not answered mine. Instead you have lied about me as I have shown.
Have you no integrity?
#30Frank,
Good job avoiding responding to the text I quoted! You responded only to a portion of the first line, and even then your response was only a question:
"Since when are Hezbollah the standard by which we should measure actions?"
Nobody said anything about Hezbollah being the standard by which we should measure actions.
So you haven't responded at all yet. Here it is again:
Why don’t you direct your criticisms and questions where they belong; at the Hezbollah terrorists, who have fired over 2,000 Katyusha rockets into Israel, deliberately aiming to kill, maim, and injury as many civilians as possible? Where’s your questions of ethics for them? Over 70 cities, towns, settlements, and villages have been struck by Katyusha rockets and mortars. Only ONE of those cities, Haifa, can be considered a legitimate military target. Hmmm… where are your moral questions for them???
#31So you haven’t responded at all yet.
How do you suppose it makes you look when you say that I haven't responded at all when I've responded several times?
#32How do you suppose it makes you look when you say that I haven’t responded at all when I’ve responded several times?
Another insult, and another non-response. That's all you've got.
#33"How do you suppose it makes you look when you say that I haven’t responded at all when I’ve responded several times?"
Another insult
Where's the insult and why haven't you answered the question?
and another non-response.
Repeating your assertions won't make them true.
#34You know what, frank? You've answered all the questions that I asked. You've made your opinions known very clear. Thank you for your responses. I have all that I need. I consider this matter closed. Vik, you can see that he's made his view perfectly clear, can't you? It's ridiculous to take this any further. He's answered all the questions just fine.
-OC
#35I agree, Olah. I think there's plenty here for anyone reviewing this thread to determine the views of the participants.
#36Conversations about Hezbollah are only permitted when one of the people in the discussion is from Hezbollah! That’s hilarious.
I said no such thing. You are clearly unable to respond to what I actually said, so you are pretending I said something else entirely. Olah suggested that Frank direct his questions and criticism toward Hezbollah. That would be completely pointless, since there is no Hezbollah representative involved in this conversation. Frank's questions and criticism would go unanswered and unheard. There is, however, an Israeli who supports Israeli policy involved in this discussion.
#37Olah,
You know what, frank? You’ve answered all the questions that I asked.
Whereas you've yet to answer mine, in spite of saying that you would do so :
I will not answer your question until you answer one crucial question about your mind-set here. Are you accusing Israel of indiscriminately killing and targeting civilians? Do you believe that Israel is just randomly killing people?
I have answered both of those questions. Mine remains unanswered:
If war and self-defence justifies any deaths whatsoever then why bother with any ethical justification at all?
When will you answer?
#38Ruth,
Olah suggested that Frank direct his questions and criticism toward Hezbollah. That would be completely pointless, since there is no Hezbollah representative involved in this conversation.
Not only that but I've been rather transparently clear about Hezbollah. Which part of terrorists, terrorist's fault, human shields, and Israel's right to defend itself do they not understand?
It is as you say, a diversion. Anything to avoid answering this question:
If war and self-defence justifies any deaths whatsoever then why bother with any ethical justification at all?
#39Frank, I won't answer your question. Like I said, I consider the matter closed. I asked you to give proof or any substantial evidence that Israel is NOT acting ethical. You have given me none. Therefore, there is no point in answering your question, because it's based on NOTHING. Next, I asked you what the "appropriate level of violence" was. You have yet to answer that question. Therefore, there is no point in addressing anything else you say. Thank you. Good-bye.
-OC
#40Olah,
Frank, I won’t answer your question.
[Insult deleted]
I did answer, and then when your conditions are met you move the goalposts and add conditions:
I asked you to give proof or any substantial evidence that Israel is NOT acting ethical.
But my question does not even mention Israel:
If war and self-defence justifies any deaths whatsoever then why bother with any ethical justification at all?
Are you saying this is only justified when and because Israel does it? There is no general principle involved?
#41Poor Vik the censor. First he has to make dishonest edits to posts he disagrees with. Then he has to delete posts which point those dishonest edits out.
#42Frank your retarded. Israel will destroy Hezbollah and rightfully so. Go Israel!
Great site Vic.
#43More evidence of Vik's double standardards in censorship.
#44Frank, after all your endless insults to people of "lying," of having "no integrity", of being "unobservant," etc. etc., which I have left up in this thread, I am definitely also leaving up this insult offered to you. You want your insults left up (you call it censorship when I delete any of them), but you want people's insults to you deleted.
Be advised that it is the stated policy of this forum that comments which are "trolls may be deleted."
Your insult-filled comments have become almost textbook examples of trolls. If you don't want to have a civilized, polite discussion, this blog is not the forum for you.
#45But "Frank your retarded" is an example of "civilized, polite discussion"?
#46No, and neither are Frank's insults. With all the insults from Frank to others which I left up in this thread, I'm going to also leave this insult to Frank up.
#47Frank no surprise your a typical liberal panty-waste, you can dish it but you can't take it. Don't cry to us, go cry to your boyfriend.
Ruth shut your piehole. We'll let you know if we need something.
Great site Vic. Go Israel!
#48I'm going to leave that one up too. We will now return this thread to the stated policy of this site, in which insults may be deleted from comments. In fact, I may delete entire posts if the post even contains one insult.
This will permit this thread to be used in the future if someone wants to post something fact-based and insult-free.
Well, I've only been saying this for the past several months. It seems at least one person has caught on to the truth.
-OC