Israel - Hamas War VII

[karaddin]

Just now, Altherion said:

There is a pretty strong argument for a government preserving the lives of its soldiers at the cost of its enemy's civilians. It's been debated since such bombardment became a viable military option.

Can't say I'm used to seeing that argument openly articulated and I find it pretty fucking reprehensible personally.

[Durckad]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Notice the /s

Oh, I'm aware, but I just thought how "interesting" it was that that type of logic became so commonplace in the US post-9/11, both IRL and in pop culture, and how it was used to justify war crimes and imperialism. And how quickly it's seemingly making a return now. 

[Durckad]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

There is a pretty strong argument for a government preserving the lives of its soldiers at the cost of its enemy's civilians. It's been debated since such bombardment became a viable military option.

When that type of logic is used, what makes that government any better than the terrorists it's killing?

[karaddin]

Just now, fionwe1987 said:

And what is this supposedly strong argument? 

I would assume completely amoral self interest that treats future international blow back as an externality and thus irrelevant. It's far from the first time I've seen the edges of that sentiment and it's pretty clearly evident in some things the US/Americans do/say but it's normally not just stated openly like that.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Call me naive, but I would not blow up the human shields.

Even if you were being fired at from the location?

Quote

We regularly excoriate cops for using excessive force that results in the deaths of civilians or the US government in its use of unregulated drone warfare to bomb "terrorists" ie civilian weddings and family gatherings that may have contained one "evil fuck" so I really don't see how this is any different. 

That's a bit apples and oranges outside of the need for accountability in each of the scenarios. 

8 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

I'd say no one needs to be killed so immediately that a refugee camp can be blown up to get them. I'd say that if it was bin Laden in that camp.

Not sure if I would agree.

Quote

At some point, we need to acknowledge that arial bombardment is not an appropriate response for people. Its attraction to nation states as a low risk option is obvious, but I don't understand how low risk became the same as moral. 

If a guy is hiding in a refugee camp, go in and get him. If that isn't possible today, wait till it is, since it's not like a ground invasion isn't being planned. 

But that's the problem, now you're advocating for an invasion, one that will still likely result in a lot of civilian deaths, your own troops will likely suffer heavy causalities and the chance to get the individual probably decreases by a good amount, so if you don't get him it's all for not.

Again, there are no good answers. Basically every course of action probably leads to an overall bad result. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Even if you were being fired at from the location?

Define from that location?

And what’s being fired that’s bad enough to kill and injure all the refugeess?

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not sure if I would agree.

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

[Durckad]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Even if you were being fired at from the location?

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?

Quote

That's a bit apples and oranges outside of the need for accountability in each of the scenarios. 

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?

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 minutes ago, Durckad said:

Oh, I'm aware, but I just thought how "interesting" it was that that type of logic became so commonplace in the US post-9/11, both IRL and in pop culture, and how it was used to justify war crimes and imperialism. And how quickly it's seemingly making a return now. 

Well at least this time it’s getting more public push back. Young people, people Biden needs are furious with him and aren’t going along with the notion the terrorist group that’s presented as existential evil to the world and is so bad there’s absolutely no freedom lost or civilian death toll too high that’d stop us from rooting out that terrorist group.

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[TrueMetis]

I do hope this expanded definition of acceptable military targets, and of acceptable military operations, and of "human shield" now meaning the complete suspension of protection for civilians, gets consistently applied in the future even if say, someone were to blow up a bar the military frequents since that would seem to check all the same boxes as this strike on a refugee camp eg Military commander, military fighters, and nearby infrastructure that the military uses. But I've a feeling it won't be. Indeed I suspect many of you will object to the very idea even though at this point at a minimum you've made any city that hosts a military base an acceptable military target in totality.

Edited November 1, 2023 by TrueMetis

[fionwe1987]

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I would assume completely amoral self interest that treats future international blow back as an externality and thus irrelevant. It's far from the first time I've seen the edges of that sentiment and it's pretty clearly evident in some things the US/Americans do/say but it's normally not just stated openly like that.

Yep. I'm glad it's coming into the open. It's a noxious argument, and it needs to be aired so people can respond. 

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Even if you were being fired at from the location?

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. 

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's a bit apples and oranges outside of the need for accountability in each of the scenarios. 

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

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not sure if I would agree.

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. 

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But that's the problem, now you're advocating for an invasion,

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. 

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

one that will still likely result in a lot of civilian deaths, your own troops will likely suffer heavy causalities and the chance to get the individual probably decreases by a good amount, so if you don't get him it's all for not.

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. 

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. 

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, there are no good answers. Basically every course of action probably leads to an overall bad result. 

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. 

[Altherion]

27 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

And what is this supposedly strong argument? 

It's quite simple: a government owes protection to its own people.

[Durckad]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's quite simple: a government owes protection to its own people.

Please define protection.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's quite simple: a government owes protection to its own people.

What’s actually the worst thing that can happen to Israel if they didn’t bomb a refugee camp?

[fionwe1987]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

It's quite simple: a government owes protection to its own people.

Setting aside whether killing civilians elsewhere en masse does anything to protect citizens back home, is this a carte blanche? A government can do anything outside it's borders in the name of protecting it's own people?

For instance the United States has the technical capability to place missile armed satellites across the globe. These could hunt down terrorists, evil dictators, and missiles launched by other nations. Clearly, a protective effect for the people of the US can be argued.

Is the US therefore morally permitted to do this? 

[Altherion]

1 minute ago, Durckad said:

Please define protection.

In the context of waging war, it means not sending them into danger when a solution exists which accomplishes the same objectives with fewer (ideally none) of one's own soldiers lost.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

In the context of waging war, it means not sending them into danger when a solution exists which accomplishes the same objectives with fewer (ideally none) of one's own soldiers lost.

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?

Instead of doIng a ground invasion that will see a lot more soldiers dead,  the thing that can launch the region into a bigger war, and the thing that could lead to tens of thousands of death’s(if not hundreds), and millions of people displaced and primed for radicalization?

Edited November 1, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Altherion]

2 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Setting aside whether killing civilians elsewhere en masse does anything to protect citizens back home, is this a carte blanche? A government can do anything outside it's borders in the name of protecting it's own people?

For instance the United States has the technical capability to place missile armed satellites across the globe. These could hunt down terrorists, evil dictators, and missiles launched by other nations. Clearly, a protective effect for the people of the US can be argued.

Is the US therefore morally permitted to do this?

No, it is not a blank check. There are limits to what a government can do because at some point protecting one's people locally causes a larger problem. In your example with the missile armed satellites, when nations unfriendly to the US see the US doing this, they will immediately try to shoot down the satellites before they're in place which would quite likely start a large war. In the situation with Israel, the Israelis must not allow the collateral damage to be great enough for the US to tell them to stop.

[fionwe1987]

2 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?

 

Not when you can nuke the city the Hamas leaders are in. Why waste the life of special forces soldiers in your team when you can guarantee the death of the guys you want killed? The others are collateral damage. This is war, after all. What else can be expected.

*Add dramatic shake of the head, slowly, to indicate sadness and inner struggle to cover the completely bonkers morality being expressed.*

[fionwe1987]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

No, it is not a blank check. There are limits to what a government can do because at some point protecting one's people locally causes a larger problem. In your example with the missile armed satellites, when nations unfriendly to the US see the US doing this, they will immediately try to shoot down the satellites before they're in place which would quite likely start a large war. In the situation with Israel, the Israelis must not allow the collateral damage to be great enough for the US to tell them to stop.

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.