What Israel did recently with the Hamas leader was morally reprehsible. Haven’t they heard of “due process”? This is even worse than if they would have shot the alleged terrorist on the spot without a trial. At least then, they wouldn’t kill innocent bystanders.
What if the United States did the same thing? What if, instead of arresting Timothy McVeigh, we bombed his apartment complex and killed 15 other people?
Er . . . without defending this particular action by Israel, I have to point out that this “alleged terrorist” spent eleven years in prison in Israel and in the Palestinian territories for terrorism. You did know that, right? He wasn’t just a “suspected” terrorist – he was the military commander of Hamas. Hamas has publicly claimed responsibility for many of the suicide bombings that have taken place in Israel. I think it can be assumed by most reasonable people that if Hamas admits responsibility, and he was the military commander of Hamas, that he was, well, responsible, no?
Uhhh… did the U.S.A.F. even indict the Taliban troops thew carpet bombed last fall? Because I don’t really see a difference. Israeli targeting killings never take place on Israeli soil - only in the Territories, which I’m sure you’d claim are not part of Israel. It’s not “extrajudicial killing” if it’s an act of war in a foreign country.
Or maybe you believe soldiers should be issued warrents before going into battle.
That may be true, perhaps, if Israel knew before hand that civilians would be killed. However, the IDF claims - and I believe them - that intelligence indicated that the building was empty and that surrounding buildings would be undamaged (most of the casualties were from surrounding shacks which they failed to take into account). Remember, this is the army that didn’t bomb Jenin from the air.
Now, all you Murkens just stand back while I try to light off this here an-al-o-gy.
Can you imagine if Osama was hiding out in Mexico? Say… Tijuana. And Mexico was uninterested in giving Osama to America. And the Mexican population was, according to at least some polls, largely in favor of the continuation of Osama’s terrorist tactics, the ultimate objective of those tactics being the destruction of the United States and the removal of all Americans from United States territory…
…And you spotted Osama there in an apartment complex in Tijuana.
At this point, you could:
a) Inform the Mexican authorities that Osama is in that neighborhood and would they please just go collect the fellow and bring him across the border so that we can serve him justice. But wait! Mexico also has a demonstrable history of saying, “no, we’ll take care of him,” putting him in jail for a couple of months, and then letting him go so he can continue to attack the United States.
b) Send troops into sovereign Mexican territory to capture Osama and bring him to justice. But wait! Every single time you try to do that, the press paints it as an “invasion,” telegraphs your moves on live TV to Osama, and causes hundreds of angry Mexicans to attack your elite troops and occasionally kill them, as well as dozens of themselves. And which naturally invites the usual round of rat-poison laden suicide bombers to do what they do best on innocent American citizens. Or…
c) Send the bastard to hell with an extremely neat airstrike, killing fewer Mexicans than if you went in there on the ground, and inviting the exact same rat-poison attacks you would sustain anyway, since the bastard you just sent to hell is one of the main guys who was planning the fucking attacks. But not the only one.
But wait! Your response can’t be a), b), or c). Instead, the real question is this:
What would your response be to the poor and oppressed children of Mexico?
Consider the above analogy carefully and feel free to throw in “d) just let the terrorists win and contemplate your own genocide” at any point.
That has got to be one of the oldest excuses for arocities on the planet. ‘All is fair in love and war’. Civilian or not, ‘Enemy’ lives are always cheap, right? As long as wewink can justify it, it’s officially not wrong.
Wow, an enemy who doesn’t recognize your right to exist (I am shocked :eek: ). Their ‘implacable’ too (However, they are easily recognizable by the 666 on their forehead) so our only hope is to let God sort them out.
Your right, Palestinians aren’t motivated nationhood or by a sense of justice, anger, or fear (the things that motivate Israelis). They are somehow different. Maybe it’s because of their ‘religious fanaticism & intolerance’.
God bless OUR allies. It is their struggles that are courageous, and filled with valor!
Of course! Don’t blame our side blame the other, after all they are the wrong ones.
Why does ‘counter-terrorism’ look an awful like ‘terrorism’?
Just what America needs to turn into Israel, we all know how safe THEY are. Maybe they haven’t killed enough ‘terrorists’? Shot enough ‘agressors’? Settled enough land? Opressed enough ‘enemies’? What America needs is to drop a big ol’ nuke right down in ‘Terrorville, ME’. That will fix everything, right?
Empty building - a residential apartment building in the residential heart of the most densely populated city of the most densely populated stretch of land on Earth and their intelligence indicated no one else was there?
Surrounding buildings would be undamaged - add to the above one of the poorest areas on Earth. Quite obviously, said buildings are built to the highest construction standards and aren’t really really close to each other.
The Israeli commanders believed that the ends justified the means, and acted accordingly.
Maybe so, Sua. In that case, they obviously had a good enough reason to do it, if it was worth suffering massive flack from the international community, from the Israeli press and public, and from elements in the Israeli government.
It probably was a little of both: the IDF decision makers were so eager to get the man that they chose - subconciously or not - to ignore pessimistic estimates. It’s the old “conception” problem. Still falls within the (rather broad) bounds of acceptible wartime actions, though.
That was a good post. Well written and containing a powerful punch.
However, I think I’ve spotted the flaw in your analogy.
The flaw lies at the very beginning in this paragraph:
The views of the population of a country are a secondary consideration, all that matters is what official government policy is.
The general population of Egypt hate Israel but the official view of their government is somewhat “tamer” than the view of the average “man on the street”.
This is the case with all Governments including those of the US or the UK. They all adopt an “official position” that don’t necessarily reflect the views of the majority of the population of the country at that moment in time.
For example, we don’t have the death penalty in the UK even though polls clearly show that a majority of the British public supports it. The reason we don’t have the death penalty even though most people support it is because the decision-makers in government have decided that the general public don’t know enough about the issue to make an infomed decision.
In my opinion the government is right. Political issues can be very, VERY complicated. So we elect representatives to argue these things for us. We can’t be expected to be an expert in EVERYTHING, so we elect people who can do all that “expert stuff” for us.
If we are ill, we consult a doctor. If we need legal advice we speak to a lawyer. Why do people have such a hang-up about the idea of talking to a politician?
He is, after all, the expert in politics.
Sometimes we have to trust parliament to examine the issues we can’t be bothered to examine (either because they are too complicated, like tax issues, or because they are ethically difficult). That’s why we hire them - to make difficult decisions for us.
So the fact that most people in Mexico may support harbouring Osama would not justify indiscriminate bombing of Mexico. The fact that the government of Mexico were lukewarm about handing over Osama would not justify indiscriminate bombing of Mexico.
Ends do not always justify means.
So your analogy is wrong because you seem to think that innocent civilian deaths can ever be justified in the name of justice. They can’t.
Justice? Who’s talking about justice? It’s about stopping an enemy before he can attack again
The United States government has an obligation to protect U.S. citizens. It has no obligation to protect Mexican citizens. Therefore, if killing Mexicans helps protect Americans, the U.S. government is obliged to kill Mexicans.
For the Mexican government the situation is reversed.
Efrem, I cordially invite you to examine my post in this BBQ Pit thread, which I think more effectively underscores my contempt for the position you repeatedly and tenaciously take on this matter.
If you care to dispute any of the facts I offered there, or anywhere else, please feel free to address them to me either here or by e-mail. Because we’re about to tread the same ground we’ve trodden before, and when I start listing facts, you tend to become abnormally silent on the subject.
And Jojo, I appreciate your critique of my analogy, and I promise to consider it carefully before I respond to it directly. But for now, my position is that war is dirty, Israel is in a state of war, war is people fighting people, and if your people have to die to prevent my people from being killed, then it’s not a very difficult decision. Heartbreaking, yes, but not difficult, and not irrational.
No, sorry, two wrongs don’t make a right. Maybe in a few years, we’ll even get to test to see if i really would think that way. I’d like to hope not, but you never know. (hope not on thinking that way and suicide morons)
Sofa King, may I suggest you chill your invective? One thing I have seen in Efrem’s prose over the months that I definitely have not seen in the rants you posted in the Pit is respect for human life and compassion for the plight of both sides involved, as well as calls to resolve the matter peacefully and diplomatically. I’m not suggesting he is is always clear-headed on such a difficult topic–few people, if any, are-- but at least he doesn’t shove ideas down readers’ throats. You on the other hand have simply been intent on demonstrating that Palestinians are the scum of the planet and that they must be subjugated, and you will latch on to any ridiculous line of argument to back up such bigotry.
Please spare us this approach. And check your sources of propaganda while you’re at it!
What I find curious is that the IAF used a 2000lb bomb, the biggest “general purpose” bomb there is. With stuff like that, minimizing civilian casualties must have been really low on their list of things to do.