Jump to content

israel responds to terrorism by killing civilians


bud

Recommended Posts

Intent is the only thing that matters. They intended to get the terrorist leader. They did not intend to kill civilians.

There is no equivalancy between terrorists who intend to kill civilians and those who kill civilians by accident.

I agree there is no equivalency.

However, dropping a bomb on an apartment building in the middle of the night to kill one person is not killing civilians by "accident".

It is by intent. the intent is to kill whoever is in the building to ensure that the one guy you want to kill is killed. You know when you drop the bomb you are going to kill innocent people including children, but you don't give a shit.

that's why the prime minister called it a "mistake" instead of an "accident".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 436
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Intent is the only thing that matters. They intended to get the terrorist leader. They did not intend to kill civilians.

There is no equivalancy between terrorists who intend to kill civilians and those who kill civilians by accident.

Your argument is sound if we take predictable and orthodox platitudes by political officials as bland reportage of fact.

In truth, civilians are intentionally killed all the time. Sometimes, no doubt, they are mistakes; sometimes they're not.

The real delineation isn't--or not always--between intentional and unintentional killing...but between intentional (ie targeted) and incidental (not targeted, but still knowing, still "intentional") killing.

It's still an argument, but it's a different one.

[edit]Sorry Jonsa, you beat me to it; our arguments are very similar, I see.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I agree there is no equivalency.

However, dropping a bomb on an apartment building in the middle of the night to kill one person is not killing civilians by "accident".

It is by intent. the intent is to kill whoever is in the building to ensure that the one guy you want to kill is killed. You know when you drop the bomb you are going to kill innocent people including children, but you don't give a shit.

that's why the prime minister called it a "mistake" instead of an "accident".

Main Entry: intent/intention

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: aim, purpose

Synonyms: acceptation, animus, bottom line, conation, design, desire, drift, end, goal, heart, hope, idea, import, intendment, meaning, meat*, name of the game, nature, notion, nub, nuts and bolts, object, objective, plan, point, project, purport, scheme, score, sense, significance, significancy, signification, target, understanding, volition, will, wish

No, the "intent" is not to kill civilians. Not at all. It's not even a teeny tiny part of the aim or the goal. Civilian death is, unfortunately, one of the givens of war. It doesn't mean "they don't give a shit" when it happens.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Main Entry: intent/intention

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: aim, purpose

Synonyms: acceptation, animus, bottom line, conation, design, desire, drift, end, goal, heart, hope, idea, import, intendment, meaning, meat*, name of the game, nature, notion, nub, nuts and bolts, object, objective, plan, point, project, purport, scheme, score, sense, significance, significancy, signification, target, understanding, volition, will, wish

No, the "intent" is not to kill civilians. Not at all. It's not even a teeny tiny part of the aim or the goal. Civilian death is, unfortunately, one of the givens of war. It doesn't mean "they don't give a shit" when it happens.

Well by design, the desire to kill one terrorist resulted in a scheme to target an apartment building with the aim or objective of the plan to kill everyone in the building to ensure achieving the goal was the bottom line.

I'm sure they agonized over the possibility of killing children. they didn't give a shit, all they wanted to do was ice the terrorist asshole. Which they did. Which was the name of the game.

Edited by Jonsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Main Entry: intent/intention

Part of Speech: noun

Definition: aim, purpose

Synonyms: acceptation, animus, bottom line, conation, design, desire, drift, end, goal, heart, hope, idea, import, intendment, meaning, meat*, name of the game, nature, notion, nub, nuts and bolts, object, objective, plan, point, project, purport, scheme, score, sense, significance, significancy, signification, target, understanding, volition, will, wish

No, the "intent" is not to kill civilians. Not at all. It's not even a teeny tiny part of the aim or the goal. Civilian death is, unfortunately, one of the givens of war. It doesn't mean "they don't give a shit" when it happens.

Yes, it is the intent. If you know you're going to kill civilians when you act, then you are itnentionally killing them.

As I said earlier, the issue is about "targeting" not "intent."

The civilians are not targeted; more to the point, they're not the target. The action would still occur if the civilians were not present.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Yes, it is the intent. If you know you're going to kill civilians when you act, then you are itnentionally killing them.

As I said earlier, the issue is about "targeting" not "intent."

The civilians are not targeted; more to the point, they're not the target. The action would still occur if the civilians were not present.

Then evidently it's been the "intent" of every nation in every war to kill civilians. By your reasoning, there's no arguing that. So why is Israel singled out? Why didn't the headlines during WWI and WWII read "allies respond to hostilities by killing civilians?" Why wasn't it stated as the "intent" of the allies to kill civiilans?

But by the same reasoning, whenever a military target is housed with civilians/in hospitals/et al it's their intent for civilians to be targeted/killed along with them. I don't see how you could argue that. Yet I don't see that claim being made; I don't see that in the headlines. Only Israel (or The West) is to blame when civilians are killed. Even when civilians are the target, the purpose, the aim, the goal (and they are none of those things in the incident being discussed in this thread), many come back with 'they have the right to fight back.' It's truly mind boggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Well by design, the desire to kill one terrorist resulted in a scheme to target an apartment building with the aim or objective of the plan to kill everyone in the building to ensure achieving the goal was the bottom line.

I'm sure they agonized over the possibility of killing children. they didn't give a shit, all they wanted to do was ice the terrorist asshole. Which they did. Which was the name of the game.

How would you know what's going on in their minds? I know I sure as hell wouldn't want the responsibility of the well being of my nation; to feel the responsibility of the safety and security of all the citizens. I'm sure they agonized over many things. That you would claim to know what's going on inside their heads is ridiculous and it says a lot more about you than it'll ever say about them.

And again. No. The "intent," the goal, the aim, was NOT to kill civilians. The intent, the aim, the goal, was to kill the target(s). If it was the intent, the goal, the aim to kill civilians along with the target(s) and only the target(s) were killed, then one would have to say they didn't achieve their goal, their aim, their intent; and that's just not true. Even you can't argue that.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then evidently it's been the "intent" of every nation in every war to kill civilians.

A very strong argument could be made for this, yes.

So why is Israel singled out?

Are you asking me rhetorically, or are you suggesting that I single Israel out?

If the latter, I reject your premise. If the former...I'm not quite sure. I would speculate that there are several factors at play...some legitimate, some pretty ugly. First, as a democratic "Western" (in a sense) ally, many people feel that their misbehaviour is more morally important than the misbehaviour of enemies...a point with which I agree, mainly because there is better opportunity to change our and our allies' behaviour, and do it peacefully, then it generally is with those who aren't allies.

On the other hand, some people have a hate-on for Israel, and their "principles" are probably matters of convenience. These people are sometimes presumably anti-semites; others simply haven't really thought their opinions through very well. It takes all types.

Personally, I'm more concerned about the behaviour of Canada (because it's my country) and the US (because it's the most powerful, and because its behaviour is worse than Israel's, in my view). Also, while I think Israel is monstrously overreactive, the dangers they face are real and present; and the horrific 20th century history is real too, and can never quite be separated from Israel's stance.

But by the same reasoning, whenever a military target is housed with civilians/in hospitals/et al it's their intent for civilians to be targeted/killed along with them. I don't see how you could argue that.

I don't argue that. I'm astonished that people would and do argue against that basic truism.

Yet I don't see that claim being made; I don't see that in the headlines. Only Israel (or The West) is to blame when civilians are killed.

What are you talking about? The reason most North Americans polled believe that Israel has suffered more deaths at the hands of Palestinians than the other way around (a belief that is the literal and unequivocal opposite of the truth)...is because our media tends to concentrate more heavily on Israeli deaths than Palestinian deaths. That's exactly why the delusion remains. (This is not a comment on the conflict itself; only a reply to your remark.)

The reason I know that more Afghans have been killed by Afghan fighters than by NATO forces is because it has been reported in the mainstream news media. That's how I found out about it.

More of us know about German killings in WW2 than they know about Allied killings. Obviously.

Hell, if you were right, a lot more of us would know about our part in the Indonesian massacres of the East Timorese (a very serious, long-term series of slaughters). But very few people do know about it. (Though no doubt the East Timorese are quite aware.)

In short, I don't only disagree with your premise: I think it is close to 180 degrees mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Christ.

There are a few matters under discussion here, but let's recap one of them, in an ongoing back and forth throughout several posts:

Jonsa (quoting): "Israel's Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, has described Monday night's attack on Gaza City which killed 15 people - including nine children - as a mistake."

Bob: Killing fifteen people alongside a high-profile terrorist? It's a decision I would make, if I was in charge. I also would not presume the innocence of people near him at any time.

Bloodyminded: Are you serious? Are the children guilty through a "sins of the father" hypothetical?

Bob: That's not what I said and certainly not what I meant. There are two points people need to understand, that being below the age of majority certainly does no imply innocence in the context of terrorism in Gaza. Moreover, close proximity to terrorism/terrorists (living among them) doesn't imply innocence.

Bob: Define "child".

Jonsa: Subhi Mahmoud al-Huti (5),

Dunia Rami Matar (5),

Muhammad Ra'id Matar (4),

Aiman Ra'id Matar (2),

Alaa Muhammad Matar (11),

Dina Ra'id Matar (<1),

Muhammad Mahmoud al-Huti (3)

So, OK, points to Jonsa, obviously. That's not even a debate.

Bob, I cannot for the life of me understand posters who are so determined to discredit themselves that they plunge into this sort of darkness.

For the sake of argument, let's say that you have made a lot of really good points. It's not inconceivable. But this sort of thing ruins any possibility of your being taken seriously.

It's fucking grotesque, to put it bluntly.

I missed the part with the children's names and ages. Anyways, the fact remains is that we're often placed in the position where it's us or them. Don't you get that? The people the IDF goes after murder Israelis and Jews around the world, and they certainly target children. We have to make that choice - either we kill these terrorists who are completely embedded within the civilian population and do our best to reduce harm to civilians, or we allow them to continue to operate with impunity and murdering us. That's what things boil down to. If I am ever in the situation where I have to choose between us and them, I will never flinch and make that decision one hundred times over. Killing terrorists like Yassin *saves lives*. Either way, the IDF monitors those is targets for assassination and does its best to find the best and safest opportunities to carry out its operations. It's a good thing a person like you isn't responsible for making these kinds of decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, people like me don't view zionism as inherently extreme.

What I mean by extreme zionist, is someone with your views. That there is no occupation, that arabs should leave, that arab israelis are occupiers, that all arabs are out to kill jews, that arab children aren't innocent, that have a teflon attitude where no shit sticks to Israeli actions. I'll bet you even think Baruch Goldstien was a hero.

Moderate zionists are the 60% of Israelis (general public and Israeli settlers) who support "dismantling most of the settlements in the territories as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/659.php

And spare us all your idiotic melodramatic vision of a 'moderate' is.

You're attributing statements and perspectives to me I've never made.

For starters, I never said there wasn't an occupation, only that Gaza isn't occupied (and it isn't). Moreover, the occupation of Judea and Samaria is very "soft", with plenty of autonomy given the the Palestinians. The issue of Arab occupation in Israel was to illustrate the politicized nature of the term "occupation" with respect to the Israel/Arab conflict. They certainly do occupy a lot of land, largely existing in the economic and social black market, and almost exclusively give their political support to anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist Arab political parties. Don't expect me to love this group of people who are largely a fifth column and hostile to fundamental Israeli/Jewish national interests.

I never said "all Arabs want to kill Jews". What I do recognize, however, after the hundreds and hundreds of hours I've spent learning about Arab/Muslim perspectives of Israel, is the massive amount of hostility among them. Metaphorically speaking, the torch of anti-Semitism burns brightest among the Arabs and Muslims in today's world. Of this there can be no debate.

With respect to Arab children, I didn't say they were automatically guilty. What I did say was that they are not automatically innocent as most media outlets would lead you to believe. What is never reported is how children are utilized in the terrorist infrastructure.

As far as beefs with the Israeli government, I certainly have my fair share. My beefs with the Israeli government, however, certainly do not include describing it as "right-wing" or "aggressive" or "hardline". Current and previous Israeli government always operate with great hesitancy out of fear of political attacks from the USA, EU, UN, et al.

With respect to "land for peace"/removal of settlements for peace, it is largely a joke. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it as long as I keep hearing this bullshit about settlements being a core issue - the Arabs and Muslims were murdering us and waging war against us many decades before the Six-Day War. Were they opposing settlements in 1967, 1954, or 1948? What about the pogroms in the Palestinian Mandate and Arab/Muslim countries decades leading up to 1948? Were they opposing the occupation then? When you can explain that to me, then I'll explain "land-for-peace" with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well by design, the desire to kill one terrorist resulted in a scheme to target an apartment building with the aim or objective of the plan to kill everyone in the building to ensure achieving the goal was the bottom line.

I'm sure they agonized over the possibility of killing children. they didn't give a shit, all they wanted to do was ice the terrorist asshole. Which they did. Which was the name of the game.

How do you know they intended to kill everyone in the building? Remember, this is a small apartment we're talking about. The IDF and Israeli security forces do everything reasonably possible to limit civilian harm. If it was an intelligence failure that is one thing (such as thinking the families who lived in the building were out for one reason or another), but to suggest that the IDF knowingly killed everyone in the building is reaching far beyond what you know, and runs contrary to what we know about the operations and code of conduct of the IDF and Israeli intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
American Woman, on 31 March 2011 - 01:09 PM, said: Then evidently it's been the "intent" of every nation in every war to kill civilians.

A very strong argument could be made for this, yes.

Short on time at the moment, so I'll just address this portion of your post for now.

I think it's a fair statement to say that people/nations hope to accomplish their intention with their actions, wouldn't you agree? Therefore, if one's intent is to kill civilians, and just the target is killed, one wouldn't have accomplished what one intended, right? And I think we can both agree that that's hardly the case in the situation(s) we are discussing. Quite the opposite. I don't see how anyone could argue differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is the intent. If you know you're going to kill civilians when you act, then you are itnentionally killing them.

As I said earlier, the issue is about "targeting" not "intent."

The civilians are not targeted; more to the point, they're not the target. The action would still occur if the civilians were not present.

You're playing the game of semantics, and losing. Intending to do one thing doesn't mean you necessarily intend to do all associated likelihoods. If I apply for a job that you also applied for, and I secure the position, did I intentionally deny you work? By your twisted logic, yes. Your desperation at drawing false moral equivalence between the conduct of the IDF and that of the terrorists is really showing in this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? The reason most North Americans polled believe that Israel has suffered more deaths at the hands of Palestinians than the other way around (a belief that is the literal and unequivocal opposite of the truth)...is because our media tends to concentrate more heavily on Israeli deaths than Palestinian deaths. That's exactly why the delusion remains. (This is not a comment on the conflict itself; only a reply to your remark.)

Since when did most North Americans polled believe that? Moreover, why does the body count matter? Are all deaths and killings the same to you (it's a rhetorical question, we all know you view Israeli military operations in the same light as a teenager blowing herself up in an Israeli disco and murdering tens of Israeli partiers)?

As far as the media's focus on deaths in this conflict, it is absolutely untrue that more concentration is given to Israeli over Arab deaths. Absolutely untrue. Any search on any mainstream media website will reveal, if anything, many more results and articles discussing IDF operations resulting in deaths (which are more than likely entirely justified) than terrorist murders. You're just making this up as you go along, or, more frighteningly, perhaps you actually believe what you're saying. And I say this as someone who certainly consumes far more media than you do regarding this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Jonsa, it's pretty infantile of you to state that I think "all Arabs should leave" or that I am a Baruch Goldstein fanboy or Kahanist. I never said such things or held such sentiments, and you're just trying to smear me in the same way you accuse me (incorrectly) of labelling people anti-Semitic unfairly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know they intended to kill everyone in the building? Remember, this is a small apartment we're talking about. The IDF and Israeli security forces do everything reasonably possible to limit civilian harm. If it was an intelligence failure that is one thing (such as thinking the families who lived in the building were out for one reason or another), but to suggest that the IDF knowingly killed everyone in the building is reaching far beyond what you know, and runs contrary to what we know about the operations and code of conduct of the IDF and Israeli intelligence.

\

Don't play stupid.

No they didn't intend to kill everyone in the four or five unit apartment building by dropping a 1 ton bomb on it in the early morning hours.

Who in their right mind could possibly think that normal people and small children would be in their beds at that time?

Who could have known what a 1 ton bomb would have done to a 4 story concrete building?

You claim you know all about these attacks, but from your responses it appears as though you either don't know anything about them, or you are being disingenuous hoping to some how defend the indefensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

israel responds to terrorism by killing civilians

Terrorists do not wear uniforms. They ARE civilians.

Also, are you we supposed to trust Hamas and other terrorist organizations with their reports of who is and isn't a civilian when they give us their official casualty numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Jonsa, it's pretty infantile of you to state that I think "all Arabs should leave" or that I am a Baruch Goldstein fanboy or Kahanist. I never said such things or held such sentiments, and you're just trying to smear me in the same way you accuse me (incorrectly) of labelling people anti-Semitic unfairly.

Ahhhhh, so when applied to you its infintile, but when you do it, its okay? Lesson 1.

It wasn't unfair. You definitely implied I was anti-semitic twice. that crack about how we both know why I said "european jews".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you know what's going on in their minds? I know I sure as hell wouldn't want the responsibility of the well being of my nation; to feel the responsibility of the safety and security of all the citizens. I'm sure they agonized over many things. That you would claim to know what's going on inside their heads is ridiculous and it says a lot more about you than it'll ever say about them.

They are not stupid and neither are you.

Tell me, what do you think the outcome of dropping a 1 ton bomb on a 4 story concrete structure that houses three or four families will be?

Now, consider dropping the bomb at 2 in the morning?

Now tell me what immediate conclusions you come to wrt the results?

the didn't give a shit because they did it. They knew they were going to kill families, but their desire to kill a bad guy was greater than any moral repugnance to kill babies.

And again. No. The "intent," the goal, the aim, was NOT to kill civilians. The intent, the aim, the goal, was to kill the target(s). If it was the intent, the goal, the aim to kill civilians along with the target(s) and only the target(s) were killed, then one would have to say they didn't achieve their goal, their aim, their intent; and that's just not true. Even you can't argue that.

Tell me how you can kill only the target with a 1 ton bomb when the target is sleeping in an apartment building in the middle of the night.

The intent was to kill everyone in the apartment building to ensure that the target was killed.

I agree that in an active fire fight lobbing a grenade into a house where the shooters are that kills some innocent civilians huddled in the house, there was no intent to kill the civilians. that isn't the case with this attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed the part with the children's names and ages. Anyways, the fact remains is that we're often placed in the position where it's us or them. Don't you get that? The people the IDF goes after murder Israelis and Jews around the world, and they certainly target children. We have to make that choice - either we kill these terrorists who are completely embedded within the civilian population and do our best to reduce harm to civilians, or we allow them to continue to operate with impunity and murdering us. That's what things boil down to. If I am ever in the situation where I have to choose between us and them, I will never flinch and make that decision one hundred times over. Killing terrorists like Yassin *saves lives*. Either way, the IDF monitors those is targets for assassination and does its best to find the best and safest opportunities to carry out its operations. It's a good thing a person like you isn't responsible for making these kinds of decisions.

Nobody argues about being placed in an us or them position. this wasn't one of those instances. don't you get that?

Nobody is suggesting that Israel allows terrorists to operate with impunity. don't you get that?

And it says a lot about you that you'd make the decision a hundred times over to deliberately bomb innocent children to kill one bad guy, especially when there are so many other proven ways of efficiently eliminating said bad guy. (I particularly liked the exploding cell phone myself).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me, what do you think the outcome of dropping a 1 ton bomb on a 4 story concrete structure that houses three or four families will be?

The point is what else was in that building. "palestinians " nomally used ambulance to transport arms.

Situation not unlike Iraq, where Saddam placed the 30 mm antiaircraft automatic canons on roofs of occupied apartment buildings in Baghdad. Luckily for the people there allies could afford to ignore them.

Why do "palestinians" fire rockets from very heavy populated areas?

This same Arab mindset was also apparent in Lebanon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

They are not stupid and neither are you.

Tell me, what do you think the outcome of dropping a 1 ton bomb on a 4 story concrete structure that houses three or four families will be?

Now, consider dropping the bomb at 2 in the morning?

Now tell me what immediate conclusions you come to wrt the results?

the didn't give a shit because they did it. They knew they were going to kill families, but their desire to kill a bad guy was greater than any moral repugnance to kill babies.

No, I'm not stupid, which is why I'm not so ignorant as to claim to know what others feel/don't feel. Your "they don't give a shit because they did it" line of thought is ludicrous. People sometimes do things they would rather not do. I repeat. Your insistence that "they don't give a shit" based on "because they did it" speaks more of you than of them, and means nothing in reality.

Tell me how you can kill only the target with a 1 ton bomb when the target is sleeping in an apartment building in the middle of the night.

The intent was to kill everyone in the apartment building to ensure that the target was killed.

No. The "intent" was to kill the target. If no one else was in the building, the building would be bombed, the target would be killed, and that would be good. If the "intent" was to kill civilians too, only killing the target would mean failure because they intended to kill civilians, too.

I agree that in an active fire fight lobbing a grenade into a house where the shooters are that kills some innocent civilians huddled in the house, there was no intent to kill the civilians. that isn't the case with this attack.

There was no intent to kill civilians in any instance. When one "intends" to do something, one does not have regret when it happens. One is pleased that their "intent" was accomplished. Show me one instance of Israel being pleased that civilians were killed in an attack. Show me one instance of Israel being disappointed that civilians/more civilians weren't killed.

The title of this thread is flat out misleading. Israel did not target civilians, intend to kill civilians, in response to terrorism, even though terrorism does target civilians.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...