israel responds to terrorism by killing civilians

[bud]

Actually, no. I'm just a Jewish professional living in Jerusalem.

what part of jerusalem? the part that belongs to israel or the internationally recognized palestinian part that israel has illegally annexed?

[bloodyminded]

No, they are not intentionally killed.

They are often intentionally killed.

It is not the purpose or the anticipated outcome that guides the planned action.

I agree.

The intent is not to kill civilians. They are not "intentionally" killed.

This doesn't follow at all.

One more time: I drop a bomb on an apartment building, for the purpose of killing one man inside it.

That's why I drop the bomb; because I want to kill that man.

I would not drop the bomb on the building were I not trying to kill that one man.

However, there are other people, innocent people, in that building. I am not dropping the bomb because part of my military or political policy is to kill them. My military or political policy is to kill the one man, mentioned previously.

But I know the people are there.

So I know I'm going to kill them when I drop the bomb--which I'm only dropping because of that one man.

So...the innocent people were not the reason for my bombing the building. Indeed, I wouldn't have bombed the building at all, were that one man not present.

But I have still intentionally killed them.

I knew they were there....and I dropped the bomb on them.

That is intentionally killing them.

How can you say otherwise? It's absurd.

[Killing civilians] is not the specific purpose of the action. Whether or not the action is successful or unsuccessful does not depend on whether or not civilians were killed.

I agree, and have maintained exactly this all along. The action would be considered successful if there had been no civilians present, and only the intended military target was killed.

But if you knowingly kill someone, you are (by definition) intentionally killing that person. If it's utterly incidental to the reason for the attack, that does not render it "unintentional."

Political or military policy do not alter the rules of objective reality.

Edited April 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

what part of jerusalem? the part that belongs to israel or the internationally recognized palestinian part that israel has illegally annexed?

At the moment I I live in what you would describe as "West Jerusalem". But for the first six months I was here, I lived in what people like you refer to as "East Jerusalem". Either way, all of the "settlements" adjacent to Jerusalem will always be a part of Israel, even in the event of some sort of final-status agreement with territory swaps. You live in some sort of dreamworld where the 1949 Armistice Lines are somehow what define legitimate Israeli borders... and why? Just because the UN says so. Why does the UN say so? Because they say so.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

If bloodyminded simply told the truth, which by now we can all see he is committed not to do, he'd have to relinquish the ability to state that Israel "intentionally" kills civilians in its military operations. American Woman, you have more patience than I with respect to dealing with bloodyminded.

[bloodyminded]

If bloodyminded simply told the truth, which by now we can all see he is committed not to do, he'd have to relinquish the ability to state that Israel "intentionally" kills civilians in its military operations. American Woman, you have more patience than I with respect to dealing with bloodyminded.

You know, Bob, if you restrict yourself to believing I'm naive, or wrongheaded, or whatever quality might seem sound, that'd be one thing; but for you to remain stubbornly married to your "liar" theme is getting tiresome as hell.

[Bob]

You know, Bob, if you restrict yourself to believing I'm naive, or wrongheaded, or whatever quality might seem sound, that'd be one thing; but for you to remain stubbornly married to your "liar" theme is getting tiresome as hell.

I know you're not so stupid as to actually believe what you've been writing in this thread about the meaning of "intentional". In other words, you're lying. Just give it up, already. Israel doesn't intentionally kill civilians. Hamas and other terrorists, on the other hand not only target civilians but use civilians as human shields.

End of story.

[Bob]

Let me ask you a simple question - who has the moral highground, Hamas or the IDF? What about Hezbollah and the IDF? Which force demonstrates a higher moral code of armed conduct? This is an easy question to answer.

[bloodyminded]

I know you're not so stupid as to actually believe what you've been writing in this thread about the meaning of "intentional". In other words, you're lying. Just give it up, already. Israel doesn't intentionally kill civilians. Hamas and other terrorists, on the other hand not only target civilians but use civilians as human shields.

End of story.

No, I'm certainly not lying. I'm utterly sincere.

Why reduce yourself to this foolishness, Bob? Take a person's word for it...and debate on the premise that he's being sincere.

It's not asking so very much.

[bud]

At the moment I I live in what you would describe as "West Jerusalem". But for the first six months I was here, I lived in what people like you refer to as "East Jerusalem". Either way, all of the "settlements" adjacent to Jerusalem will always be a part of Israel, even in the event of some sort of final-status agreement with territory swaps. You live in some sort of dreamworld where the 1949 Armistice Lines are somehow what define legitimate Israeli borders... and why? Just because the UN says so. Why does the UN say so? Because they say so.

lucky for you, israel just gave the go ahead for the construction of new buildings in what the world (except for israel) calls east jerusalem and part of a future palestinian state. i'm sure you'll be able to get a pretty good deal for a flat there!

[bloodyminded]

Let me ask you a simple question - who has the moral highground, Hamas or the IDF? What about Hezbollah and the IDF? Which force demonstrates a higher moral code of armed conduct? This is an easy question to answer.

The IDF demonstrates a higher moral code than does Hamas. Was this meant as a serious question?

Why are you under the impression that I thought otherwise?

[Bob]

lucky for you, israel just gave the go ahead for the construction of new buildings in what the world (except for israel) calls east jerusalem and part of a future palestinian state. i'm sure you'll be able to get a pretty good deal for a flat there!

The same world that looked the other way at the best of times and was complicit in the worst of time while we were being put into ovens, right? Gotcha. Keep waiting for that Palestinian state with "East Jerusalem" as its capital!

[Bob]

The IDF demonstrates a higher moral code than does Hamas. Was this meant as a serious question?

Why are you under the impression that I thought otherwise?

Yet both Israel and Hamas intentionally kill civilians, right?

[bloodyminded]

Yet both Israel and Hamas intentionally kill civilians, right?

Well, of course, but there's a difference.

Of course, I've only elucidated this difference a gazillion times, in this thread alone, so I can see why you haven't come across it yet.

Further, I've been talking about countries in general. It's only incidentally, not pointedly, about Israel anyway.

All this seems to have passed you by; your hostility has made you stupid.

So, let me try yet again; hopefully, you'll go in a different direction than the old "liar!" chestnut that has served you so poorly:

Hamas targets civilians; it intentionally kills innocent civilians; it's plan is to kill innocent civilians; killing innocent civilians is the reason for many of its attacks.

Israel does not target innocent civilians; killing innocent civilians is not the purpose that drives the attacks in the first place; but they stll intentionally kill civilians.

Hamas wants to kill innocent civilians.

Israel has no special wanting to kill them; it kills them if they're in the way, somehow.

That's still intentional, though; and I'm not sure why this truism is met with such hostility. Intense politicization, I assume.

Edited April 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Israel does not target innocent civilians; killing innocent civilians is not the purpose that drives the attacks in the first place; but they stll intentionally kill civilians.

Like I said, having a conversation with you a complete waste of time.

[bloodyminded]

Like I said, having a conversation with you a complete waste of time.

Well, Christ on a cracker, my man, stop conversing with me, then!

I guess you'd prefer to lecture me, while I remain respectfully silent.

(Though I find it pretty hard to respect screechers, who can't even understand basic logic.)

Edited April 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

If you drop a bomb on a house in the middle of the night, attempting to kill one person, but results in killing innocent civilians, then this might not be what we call 'minimizing collateral damage' which goes against what the purpose of the strike is.

Explain that to the relatives of the people who were considered 'collateral damage'. I am not buying it, and neither would anyone else in that situation. Even when the tables are reversed.

Interesting thread otherwise.

[Bob]

If you drop a bomb on a house in the middle of the night, attempting to kill one person, but results in killing innocent civilians, then this might not be what we call 'minimizing collateral damage' which goes against what the purpose of the strike is.

Explain that to the relatives of the people who were considered 'collateral damage'. I am not buying it, and neither would anyone else in that situation. Even when the tables are reversed.

Interesting thread otherwise.

First of all, the above hypothetical example you provided is simplistic. Israel intelligence does much more to reduce civilian damage. What you're intentionally ignoring, obviously, is the fact that the targeted individual threatens the lives of Israelis/Jews. It's quite simply a choice between him or us. That's an easy choice to make.

[DogOnPorch]

Familiar with the bombing of Hamburg? Not Dresden...Hamburg. May 27th, 1943.

Inge Einspenner, 16 years old, was with her cousin in Hamburg, planning to join her parents at their cottage on the 0st See the next day.

"We were caught in a big, big fire," she recalls in halting English. "We came to a street crossing and the houses were all coming down on us. We didn't know where to go. Bombs were everywhere... We went this way, this way... We were lost. We were trying to go away from Hamburg.

"We went down in a basement of a house. Then the next minute, we heard a big bomb. So we went out of the house, on the street. And there was a large fire-all the houses.

"Everything was burning, even the paving stones in the street. We were blind from the fire. Burning dust. Ashes. People were burning. We went anywhere. We were only concerned to escape the fire.

"I saw a child stick in the tar in the street. And it didn't come out again. It burned to death. And the mother tried to save her child. But she couldn't. She made one step. That was all.

"A lady was seeing the girl burning and the mother sticking. Then she started to burn on her back, so she jumped into the river. But when she came out, she burnt again."

40,000+ killed in one Allied raid. Mostly women and children...the men killed were older for the most part.

Edited April 6, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[bud]

catch phrases like 'him or us', or we did it because of 'self-defense' or comparing the palestinians to the nazis and the idf to the allied forces are all bs that do not add up when you bring reality into the equation.

does it make sense that israel claims to be defending itself from someone who is defending itself from an occupation? why do those who try to justify israel's actions are never honest about why rockets are being fired? why do they never put the occupation, the blockade, the settlements, the violations of human rights into the equation?

[Bob]

So what were the Arabs (before the term "Palestinian" really came into being) "defending" themselves from before 1967, bud?

Also, nobody compared the Palestinians to Nazis.

[Bob]

Also, Gaza isn't occupied. I guess they're "defending" their right to arm themselves to launch more rockets into Israel, smuggle terrorists across the border, and plant IEDs wherever they can.

[M.Dancer]

If you drop a bomb on a house in the middle of the night, attempting to kill one person, but results in killing innocent civilians, then this might not be what we call 'minimizing collateral damage' which goes against what the purpose of the strike is.

Explain that to the relatives of the people who were considered 'collateral damage'. I am not buying it, and neither would anyone else in that situation. Even when the tables are reversed.

Interesting thread otherwise.

Hmmm....how many civilians would you have killed to kill Hitler in 1943? Personally I think 500K would not have been too many...the value of the target is weighed against the non military damage, whether it is the catherdral of cologne or a family of bedouins. So obviously killing a terrorist mastermind who has attacked and killed and will attack and kill is worth at least as many as he has killed times 4 or 5...

[bud]

So what were the Arabs (before the term "Palestinian" really came into being) "defending" themselves from before 1967, bud?

Also, nobody compared the Palestinians to Nazis.

the term palestine was used before the christian calendar came to be. you have to be pretty desperate to try to delegitimize palestinians. you're using another fanatical and extremist argument.

[bud]

Also, Gaza isn't occupied.

wrong, bobby.

control of borders, sea, air and control of movement = occupation

[Bob]

the term palestine was used before the christian calendar came to be. you have to be pretty desperate to try to delegitimize palestinians. you're using another fanatical and extremist argument.

Answer the question, please. What were the Arabs "defending" themselves from before the Six-Day War? Why were they fighting Israel and the Jewish people? I wasn't making a "fanatical and extremist argument", I am asking you a simple question. You claim that Palestinian violence is resistance and self-defense, resulting from occupation, violation of Palestinian human rights at the hands of Israel, settlements, and the blockade on Gaza. So, I ask again - what was the cause of Arab violence before 1967, which was before the occupation, the settlement enterprise, and blockade (which was put into place in 2006)?

Edited April 6, 2011 by Bob