israel responds to terrorism by killing civilians

[bloodyminded]

If the children were not the targets, and you would have preferred that the children weren't at home, then you were not targeting the children; just as Israel does not target civilians.

Yes, this is the way I do in fact think about such matters; innocent civlians are not targeted; if, by "Targeted," one means (as I do in the sense of this discussion) the purpose for the attack.

They are, however, sometimes intentionally killed, even though they are not the targets.

Some here have said that Israel targets civilians, and that includes bloodyminded, thus my response directed at him.

No. That's not what I've been saying. I've been saying the opposite. Now, yes, I believe in one instance you inserted the word "target" within a longer passage, and i missed it and agreed....my bad, but you can see how that literally contradicts what I've said before and since.

Also, you weren't talking specifically about Israel in that passage, so I don't now where you're getting this "bloodyminded's picking on Israel" theme (I thought I had already explained to you my opinion on why Israel is so often the focus of criticism).

But no; not "targets." To clarify once and for all. Not my point, not my opinion, not my assertion.

Edited April 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I think it's a semantic argument which is why I haven't plunged into it too deeply. Certainly, it does not "target" them. Whether it kills them "intentionally" is a matter of the interpretation of the word "intentional":

No, it isn't a semantic argument; the disagreement with it is a semantic argument, because the disagreement with it is wholly politicized.

My stance is not inherently politicized. It can be used as such, and often is; but it is not inherent to the argument. That is, many people can and do rationally justify such behavior.

One more time: if you know that your attack will kill civilians, you are intentionally killing them.

[bloodyminded]

It is the same in any country carrying out military operations, which I've pointed out myself. Any war has involved civilian casualty and it's impossible to avoid, but Israel does not target civilians, which is the bottom line. We're in agreement about that. As to whether or not it's acceptable, I think that every nation has accepted the consequences of their deliberate military operations, making Israel no different in that regard than any other nation.

Also my point, from the very beginning; I said Israel is not unusual in this regard.

[Bob]

One more time: if you know that your attack will kill civilians, you are intentionally killing them.

You're still wrong. This is simple English, and you're trying to massage the semantics to make Israel look bad. You're lying about the meaning of "intentional", and you know it.

[Bob]

And yet I do argue differently. If I choose to kill my neighbour, andf so blow up his house; and if I am aware that his children are present (or even if I know they might be); then yes, I am intentionally killing them. (The courts would agree with this summation, no doubt.) But the children were not the targets; the childen were not the purpose for my attack. I might even have preferred that the children were not home. And if they weren't, I would have considered my mission a success. It's a success either way, because my purpose (to kill my neighbour) has been successful.

A more accurate hypothetical example would be if your neighbour regularly shoots at your home from his property, always changing locations - sometimes from this window, sometimes from behind that tree, sometimes from under his car, etc. There is no possible way for you to kill your neighbour by simply walking into his house, as there are IEDs, land mines, and other traps all around. You also don't know how many others are on his property or in the neighbourhood that will assist him if they see you exposed. These neighbours who are sympathetic to his attempts to murder you will call him is they see you walking towards his home so that he might prepare himself to kill you. So in the interests of protecting your family....

That should give a richer picture of the kind of position Israel is in with respect to terrorism from Gaza.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

You're still wrong. This is simple English, and you're trying to massage the semantics to make Israel look bad. You're lying about the meaning of "intentional", and you know it.

No, you are. It's quite cynical.

And, per American Woman's asking about Israel being singled out...I agreed with her, and explained that it has nothing specifically to do with Israel at all. Israel is not unique in this matter; it's usual.

[Bob]

I doubt very much that Bonam's in agreement that Israel is targeting civilians. I'll await his response.

Nobody agrees with bloodyminded, he's simply wrong and he knows it. And he continues to dig the whole because he doesn't want to relinquish rhetoric about Israel "intentionally" targeting civilians. We're all fluent in English here, he can't bullshit us with respect to our own language. He's trying to redefine a word for political purposes.

[bloodyminded]

A more accurate hypothetical example would be if your neighbour regularly shoots at your home from his property, always changing locations - sometimes from this window, sometimes from behind that tree, sometimes from under his car, etc. There is no possible way for you to kill your neighbour by simply walking into his house, as there are IEDs, land mines, and other traps all around. You also don't know how many others are on his property or in the neighbourhood that will assist him if they see you exposed. These neighbours who are sympathetic to his attempts to murder you will call him is they see you walking towards his home so that he might prepare himself to kill you. So in the interests of protecting your family....

That should give a richer picture of the kind of position Israel is in with respect to terrorism from Gaza.

If this helps you, fine. My analogy had nothing whatsoever to do with whether Israel is jsutified in its behaviour or not. That question is not relevant to my point, which is about objective reality.

There's no point in debating right or wrong, or sensible versus unsensible policy, when you and others refuse to even navigate the terrain of objective reality as a premise to other debates.

[DogOnPorch]

Nobody agrees with bloodyminded, he's simply wrong and he knows it. And he continues to dig the whole because he doesn't want to relinquish rhetoric about Israel "intentionally" targeting civilians. We're all fluent in English here, he can't bullshit us with respect to our own language. He's trying to redefine a word for political purposes.

If I recall, Hamas refused to evacuate Gaza City during that last skirmish....prefering the citizens to remain. They had plenty of bunkers for Hamas fighters...but none for civilians.

[bloodyminded]

Nobody agrees with bloodyminded, he's simply wrong and he knows it. And he continues to dig the whole because he doesn't want to relinquish rhetoric about Israel "intentionally" targeting civilians. We're all fluent in English here, he can't bullshit us with respect to our own language. He's trying to redefine a word for political purposes.

Ah yes, the little "two year olds aren't necessarily innocent" degenerate now gets sanctimonious about digging rhetorical holes.

One more time, Bob (though I remain unconvinced that you're "fluent in English"):

1. If you know you're going to kill civilians with your action, you are intentionally killing them.

The only people who cannot recognize this basic truism are politicized moral cowards. Period.

2. Whether or not this makes this or that action wrong is entirely a separate debate.

3. It has nothing to do specifically with Israel; that is, it is not about something Israel does that others do not.

Hopefully, now that I've repeated this easy-to-understand (and incontrovertible) point for the thousandth time, you will finally comprehend it.

Edited April 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

You can repeat yourself as much as you'd like, you're still lying and you know it. You're not speaking to idiots here. We know what "intentional" means, and how it can be accurately in this context. You're trying to redefine it for obvious political purposes. Israel doesn't intentionally attack civilians, and we all know it. Or at least, people should know it.

I also never suggested that infants weren't innocent. In that thread I explained I hadn't read the ages of the children being referenced - I didn't know were talking about children that were so young. Your desperation to attack me is simply a result of you being backed into a corner saying shit we all know isn't true.

[bloodyminded]

You can repeat yourself as much as you'd like, you're still lying and you know it.

You're not speaking to idiots here. We know what "intentional" means, and how it can be accurately in this context. You're trying to redefine it for obvious political purposes. Israel doesn't intentionally attack civilians, and we all know it. Or at least, people should know it.

Your inability to read is certainly not my fault; nor is it my problem, however much you desire to make it so.

I also never suggested that infants weren't innocent. In that thread I explained I hadn't read the ages of the children being referenced - I didn't know were talking about children that were so young.

Wrong. Outraged at jonsa's post, you thundered that you "knew all about" that incident.

Patently false, as you now concede.

Your desperation to attack me is simply a result of you being backed into a corner saying shit we all know isn't true.

Whoa, little guy, I was making an observation about military attacks generally; incredible as it may seem, you personally were not part of my argument.

It is you who decided that the sober approach to such a debate is to throw a tantrum, call out "lies," and determine that "intentional" must only mean "direct stated policy," I assume, since you state that it can't mean what it really means.

If we are to think it means what it actually means, why, that's just "context" for "political purposes."

And what, pray tell, could be my "political purpose"...that is, if you aren't determined to ignore my (logically undebatable) rejoinder that my point has nothing specifically to do with Israel?

What's the "political purpose," Bob?

[Bob]

Having a conversation with you is a waste of time.

[DogOnPorch]

Having a conversation with you is a waste of time.

[Oleg Bach]

Having a conversation with you is a waste of time.

No conversation is a waste of time - prolonged silence and non-participation is a waste of time.

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe Israel believes that conversations with those they seek to minimalize are a waste of time - to much arrogance to do anyone any good including Palistine - Israel and the whole middle east - of course they will say "we do not negotitate with anyone that is a terrorist (who they are frightened of) Maybe they should stop being cowards and go to their neighbours and make friends? How hard could that be?

[bloodyminded]

Having a conversation with you is a waste of time.

Then keep your ill-considered opinons to yourself, and improve everyone's life a little bit.

[Oleg Bach]

Then keep your ill-considered opinons to yourself, and improve everyone's life a little bit.

ill considered is accurate...I should give more consideration before I rant....I stand corrected my friend.

[bloodyminded]

ill considered is accurate...I should give more consideration before I rant....I stand corrected my friend.

But Oleg, I was not calling your remarks ill-considered. I was speaking to the hate-filled extremist.

[Chippewa]

He is following in the footsteps of his fellow native Ahenakew.

There isn't much difference between the Jews and the First Nations when it came to getting killed from genocide. Nazi's got away with a 44% death rate, while Canada Government Nazi's got away with a 51% death rate for about 80 years. The Jews only got killed off for a few years compared to First Nations in Canada.

I would rather follow a fellow native named Chief Del Riley, he entrenched section 35 in the Canadian Constitution, and had Aboriginal Rights, and Treaties recognized for the first time in north american law. He also helped First Nations fight oppression and racism, and one of the leading First Nations people who stood up against the Racist Canadian Laws.

He is also is a one of the modern day Land Claims Leaders who found Billions of Dollars in Stolen Property, Laundered Land, Stolen Money caused by the Government, and showed his people that its not o.k that immigrant occupiers called Canadians can continue to steal more land, and infringe on more Aboriginal Rights.

I think you are following in the footsteps of your fellow Hitler and government. Just look at the Indian Act and Apartheid Act, and tell me you love voting in your local government who likes and loves racism, because its the law of the land. you must be proud of yourself.

[Bob]

There isn't much difference between the Jews and the First Nations when it came to getting killed from genocide.

Not much point reading the rest of your post after this ridiculous introduction.

[DogOnPorch]

If there was Genocide in Canada, you wouldn't be here.

[bud]

Not much point reading the rest of your post after this ridiculous introduction.

says the fanatical settler who believes palestinian land belongs to his tribe.

[Bob]

says the fanatical settler who believes palestinian land belongs to his tribe.

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

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, this is the way I do in fact think about such matters; innocent civlians are not targeted; if, by "Targeted," one means (as I do in the sense of this discussion) the purpose for the attack.

They are, however, sometimes intentionally killed, even though they are not the targets.

No, they are not intentionally killed.

Definitions of intention on the Web:

purpose: an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs"

It is not the purpose or the anticipated outcome that guides the planned action. The intent is not to kill civilians. They are not "intentionally" killed.

An intention in performing an action is his or her specific purpose in doing so, the end or goal that is aimed at, or intended to accomplish. Whether an action is successful or unsuccessful depends at least on whether the intended result was brought about. ...

The intention in performing the military action is not to kill civilians. That 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.

A course of action that a person intends to follow; The goal or purpose behind a specific action or set of actions

The course of action is not to kill civilians; the goal or purpose is not to kill civilians.

Israel does not intentionally kill civilians.

No. That's not what I've been saying. I've been saying the opposite. Now, yes, I believe in one instance you inserted the word "target" within a longer passage, and i missed it and agreed....my bad, but you can see how that literally contradicts what I've said before and since.

No, I can't see how it contradicts your claim that Israel intentionally kills civilians.

Also, you weren't talking specifically about Israel in that passage, so I don't now where you're getting this "bloodyminded's picking on Israel" theme (I thought I had already explained to you my opinion on why Israel is so often the focus of criticism).

I have no idea what you're on about here.

But no; not "targets." To clarify once and for all. Not my point, not my opinion, not my assertion.

Your assertion is that Israel intentionally kills civilians, and you're wrong. As wrong as if you were using the word "targets" instead of "intentionally kills."