Israel - Hamas War VII

[karaddin]

If you're struggling to understand the argument Altherion is advancing, try thinking of the stories we see of American cops taking preemptive use of deadly force in scenarios we find unreasonable, but are exonerated by their courts and management on the grounds of experiencing sincere fear for their lives. 

It's ultimately the same idea. 

The lives of non citizen civilians are a non consideration, so you're entirely justified in killing as many of them as you need to in order to avoid military casualties. And it's certainly been the MO for plenty of history.

It's just not the world I want to live in.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Only the US eh? So the United States is the arbiter of morality here? I guess the day has been saved..I'll certainly sleep better tonight. Thanks. 

Yeah up until they’re daddy actually says stop it this spoiled arrogant child will go as far as it physically can damned everyone else.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Zorral]

What I find horrifying, disgusting and terrifying are the authentic antisemitic actions that have been going g on here in this country, particularly starting at Charlottsville, and the then so called potus saying there are good people on both sides.

Like all the horrifying racist garbage going on it's ALL escalated enormously, like the mass shootings. And like Charlottsville this new horrifying outbreak of Israel and Gaza is like providing a pretext to escalate the antisemitism here. It makes us all sick  makes us weep. Which does nothing at all to change anything. It seems nothing we can do can reverse this.

It's nearly midnight and the helicopters keep rattling my windows.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Not when you can nuke the city the Hamas leaders are in.

Oh by the nuclear fallout might affect Precious Israel so that mode of genocide is off the table.

[Altherion]

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh so you should also prioritize using speacial forces to go after hamas leadership and more targeted strikes and pressuring/bribing states that shelter Hamas into giving them up right?

It depends on what the goal is. If the goal was simply to remove the leadership, then yes. But removing the leadership just means that the next level of leaders moves up the ladder so I think the Israelis are trying for something more comprehensive here.

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Only the US eh? So the United States is the arbiter of morality here? I guess the day has been saved..I'll certainly sleep better tonight. Thanks. 

You are welcome. In general, such arbitration is performed by some state with a Security Council veto and enough military force to make most other states back off. In this case, that happens to be the US.

[fionwe1987]

It's high school bully boy dynamics, that we're being asked to swallow as international law and the last word on the moral use of force. 

It is utter horseshit, as far as most of the world is concerned. But point that out in this conversation, and you're likely to be called an antisemite. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

It depends on what the goal is. If the goal was simply to remove the leadership, then yes. But removing the leadership just means that the next level of leaders moves up the ladder so I think the Israelis are trying for something more comprehensive here.

Yes ethnic cleansing at least, genocide at best.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, fionwe1987 said:

But point that out in this conversation, and you're likely to be called an antisemite. 

Me: don’t do genocide.

Israel and its supporters right now: OMG literally Hitler!!!!

[Varysblackfyre321]

31 minutes ago, Altherion said:

the situation with Israel, the Israelis must not allow the collateral damage to be great enough for the US to tell them to stop.

It may have already failed to accomplish that Biden’s approval is going down the toilet because his administration has sighted of on Israel’s mad blood lust. 
 

To save American democracy by denying a trump re election  and prevent an ethnic cleansing Biden should call for a ceasefire at least. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

57 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Really? Is any hamas commander good enough to bomb a refugee camp?

I would say in almost every case no, but not all.

51 minutes ago, Durckad said:

If someone is shooting at you from inside a crowd a people does that give you carte blanche to mow down the civilians in your way to get at them?

I could easily ask if that also means you just let them go?

Quote

That feels like splitting hairs here. In any of the scenarios, a "bad person" is identified, usually within a large group of innocent people. At what point are the deaths of innocents justified to take out the "bad person" and how many? Is there a number that qualifies as "excessive?" Is the death penalty justified even if guilt cannot be 100% proven because it MAY remove a bad person from society?

These are hard questions without great answers. "Bad person" downplays that this is a war and in may very well be the best outcome to take a terrorist leader out. Obviously you don't want innocent civilians to suffer, but it's impossible to ensure that none will.  

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Obviously you don't want innocent civilians to suffer, but it's impossible to ensure that none will.  

Okay so was that particular hamas commander so dangerous that bombing a refugee camp had to be done right that second? Was he on the cusp of getting an infinity gauntlet and snapping Israel out of existence?

[fionwe1987]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I could easily ask if that also means you just let them go?

Yes? I'm really concerned you seem to think there is doubt here. You're actually arguing that you can mow down all civilians in the way of your target who's shooting at you? What the actual fuck? 

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Yes? I'm really concerned you seem to think there is doubt here. You're actually arguing that you can mow down all civilians in the way of your target who's shooting at you? What the actual fuck? 

Hell in this example even currently not shooting at you, a better analogy would be the police gunning a crowd of dozens to get one murderer that’s trying to escape detection.

[Altherion]

42 minutes ago, karaddin said:

The lives of non citizen civilians are a non consideration, so you're entirely justified in killing as many of them as you need to in order to avoid military casualties. And it's certainly been the MO for plenty of history.

It's just not the world I want to live in.

Very few people want to live in such a world. This is why we've have tried to make rules about military targets not being placed right next to civilian infrastructure and norms about minimizing collateral damage... but of course groups like Hamas completely ignore the rules in order to milk the norms for sympathy. At some point, there is no good way out and we're probably long past that point.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, Altherion said:

At some point, there is no good way out and we're probably long past that point.

So what exactly would have happened if the Refugee camp in this particular instance didn’t get bombed?

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

It’s why the Israelis told civilians to go south,

Did they use Arabic or did they keep using English  in their “warnings”

[karaddin]

11 minutes ago, Altherion said:

At some point, there is no good way out and we're probably long past that point.

You don't get back closer to the line you want by running in the opposite direction.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, fionwe1987 said:

If I have the technological capability to shoot down what is fired from that location, then of course. To me, it is readily obvious that if you have greater technological capability for war, that should and does increase your moral responsibility to minimize loss of life. That is the only way to keep the mechanization of war in check. Cross that line, and I don't know where we end up. Nowhere that makes any moral sense to me. 

Which is the case. Israel is clearly being held to a much higher standard despite being the one that got attacked. 

Quote

It is? I'd like to know how you think these are completely different. 

Cops' jobs are to protect and serve their own civilians. Soldiers jobs in war are not that. If you can recognize that Idk what to tell you.

Quote

That's sad. Take this logic, and expand it to the world you said you see coming, full of climate refugees and governments imposing draconian measures. It will make the world measurably worse. 

That ship has sailed. We're just waiting for it to come to port.

Quote

I am not. I have already detailed alternate steps I think should be taken. You insisted that those were all things that Hamas wanted and therefore weren't acceptable. 

If you're arguing Israel shouldn't respond by attacking either by air or ground you are advocating for something most governments would not accept.

Quote

This is the same argument that was used to justify dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sorry, this isn't a moral argument, it's one of risk minimization in the here and now. 

And many scholars think dropping the bombs ultimately saved lives. 

Quote

This is also the logic used by the Obama government for their drone campaigns. They're the blackest stain on his presidency, as far as I'm concerned. You seem to be arguing otherwise. 

It depends. If the mission was deemed necessary, would you have preferred to send in ground troops? I do agree It's a stain on his presidency, but it probably would have been worse if the Administration used more conventional means. 

Quote

No, that really isn't true. You've closed off the conversation from options that have significantly fewer civilian deaths. And now you seem to be arguing that since this death is inevitable, it's ok to bomb refugee camps. You're sliding further and further into this toxicity. As is the world, so at least you're not alone. 

I haven't closed it off, just pointed out how it will not achieve any of Israel's goals. Obviously you want to limit every civilian death you can, but that's not easy to do when Hamas is and has always been hiding behind civilians. There's no way to fight them without innocent people dying because they are cowards who do not value the lives of the people they're suppose to be governing. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

37 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Okay so was that particular hamas commander so dangerous that bombing a refugee camp had to be done right that second? Was he on the cusp of getting an infinity gauntlet and snapping Israel out of existence?

We don't know what the intel reports said and why it was determined the risk was worth it. 

37 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Yes? I'm really concerned you seem to think there is doubt here. You're actually arguing that you can mow down all civilians in the way of your target who's shooting at you? What the actual fuck? 

No, I'm just seeing if your answer for every situation is pacifism, which seems to be the trend.