It was a military attack on a military target, so my answer is “kind of.”
I will say that 9/11 was not an attack on the US.
From here:
Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949
Before I sign off for the night I want to make a point:
As far as direct targeting of civilians…
I do NOT think American civilians are legitimate targets.
I do NOT think Israeli civilians are legitimate targets.
I do NOT think Palestinian civilians are legitimate targets.
As far as civilina deaths being the necessary by-product of war…
I do NOT accept that any collateral death of any civilian is acceptable.
You forgot to include this part:
Out of curiosity though how do you torture the article you cite into making whatever point you were trying to make? Are you saying that Israel is deliberately punishing the Palestinians in a collective fashion? If that were the case wouldn’t the Israeli’s be pounding Palestinians everywhere there are Palestinians, instead of attacking Hamas installations or rocket sites that just happen (though sheer happenstance, no doubt) to also have clusters of Palestinian civilians in and around them?
BTW, I have to say that it’s fairly ironic that you would choose this article to make your supposed point, since it seems to me that Hamas is much more in violation of it than Israel is. I mean ‘all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited’. You know, things like non-specifically or guided attacks by rockets at civilian populations…that kind of thing.
-XT
Then you have accepted that the only ‘right’ thing to do is to do nothing and simply take whatever your enemy wants to do to you, any time they want to do it to you and any way the feel they can do it too you. You have accepted that you can do nothing to protect your own citizens if the other side doesn’t feel the same way about things as you do.
-XT
That’s exactly the logic that Hamas uses.
It must be fun making up your own definitions to commonly understood terms. Do you have any support for your position?
Do you have any support for yours? If I kick the ground is that an attack on Minnesota?
Obviously you people are using your own self-serving definition of “attack” that basically boils down to whatever you feel will absolve you of culpability for killing civilians, so there’s no point engaging with this.
I reject allowing the enemy to do anything it wants, and I also reject actions that will harm civilians.
So far there has been no solution that can solve for both of these problems, but I am hopeful that there can be.
Despite repeated warnings from Israel to clear as many innocent civilians as possible from the targets areas, it doesn’t help when Hamas locates many of their headquarters, offices, etc, by schools; their munitions in mosques; and the hundreds of tunnels in residential areas. They seem to want to maximize civilian fatalities before they ask for yet another round of world hand outs.
What position have I taken?
And who are “you people”?
If the CIA had successfully assassinated Castro in the 1960s, would that have constituted a US attack on Cuba?
Even if the reason you cannot prevent me from killing you without killing my children is because I am using them as human shields as I shoot you?
Let’s see if I have this straight:
Hijacking a plane and intentionally flying it into the Pentagon is not an “attack” on the United States?
Anyway, it’s nice to know that Israel never actually attacked Iraq. Or Lebanon. Or Syria. Or Hamas.
When a Jew killed Rabin, was that a Jewish attack on Israel?
That’s ridiculous. In any action, intent is the much more important criterion by which to judge, particularly from a moral standpoint. We are not nearly as responsible for accidental outcomes as we are for intentional ones. Even the law makes specific allowances.
Collateral damage is an intentional outcome.
You’re on a roll tonight, Dio. I’d love to hear the logic behind this.
No it’s not. It’s damage that one may be willing to accept above and beyond the intended damage. But the damage could reach that level or not come near it. Collateral damage is damage outside the scope of the intended target. You can’t jut equate them. Also, in this case, Israel has sought to minimize collateral damage by calling homes and sending in some type of warning bombs before the real ones come.
Whether or not you accept that there is a moral difference inherent with intent* is immaterial to the point that Israel is not targeting civilians and Hamas is. You can claim your belief that the two are morally without difference but that still does not change that you have stated that Israel is doing something that you clearly know they are not doing.
newcrasher how nice that you reject reality. Unfortunately that action doesn’t change the fact that occasionally war is not only unavoidable, but just. And even the most just war has unfortunate occurrences. While we wait for you to devise your new solution the rest of the world has to deal with the facts as they actually are.
kaylasdad99, you say
And I say, if you are trying to kill my children I will stop you, even if you make me kill your children to do it. Do you indeed have a daughter named Kayla? If a gunman came in shooting, aiming to kill her, holding his daughter in front of him, and you could stop him only at the real risk of killing his daughter as well, would you just sit there and let your daughter die?
*I assume that you would hold a sharpshooter who takes out a gunman holding 50 people hostage and whose shot accidentally also kills one of the hostages is morally equal to the gunman who shot a first hostage as a sign that they meant business?