Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-05-27 06:40:38
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6649
I am confused as to why some people here refuse to acknowledge the difference between collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians. As much as it may help your argument, killing a bystander when bombing a military facility is not the same as intentionally blowing yourself up in a marketplace or launching a rocket targeting civilian homes.

I don't understand the reasoning in viewing things like this in black or white. If you're going around thinking that one party who killed civilians in a military strike on a military target is no different than one who intentionally seeks out civilian targets, you aren't seeing things as they really are. Just because both actions result in civilian death, it doesn't make them the same. Failure to make that distinction would be down right frightening for anyone with power.

I've seen entire debates drone on and on because of this. It's almost as if one side has no argument whatsoever, so they intentionally force a connection that doesn't exist. Arguing just for the sake of arguing comes off as bickering, not intelligent debate.

What are your thoughts on this?
2007-05-27 06:48:00
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002
Of course you may not be specifically targetting civilians but you can carry something out in the knowledge that there is a high likelihood that civilians will be killed. As such, it is little better than actually targetting them but marginally better nonetheless.

Personally I think Israelis actually enjoy and take pride in the knowledge that civilians will be killed in the process thereby improving the demographics for their 'Greater Land of Israel'.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-27 06:49:45)

2007-05-27 06:48:02
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7204|Argentina
You are justifying Israel bombings over Palestine and Lebanon.  That's not collateral damage.  That's killing of civilians, terrorism, call it whatever you want.  How do you determine what a military target is?  How do you justify the heavy handed attitude carried by Israel?  Just in case you don't know, last year Israel killed +1000 Lebaneses, mostly civilians, just in retaliation for 2 captured soldiers.  Do you understand the difference between soldiers and civilians?
2007-05-27 06:48:27
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7008
I presume this is in relation to Israel-Palestine threads?

There are two problems with Israel claiming collateral damage:

1)  They know that their method of attack will kill a lot off innocent people for every terrorist leader/terrorist it takes out, yet don't use alternative methods

2)  Palestine is technically a part of Israel, meaning that they're responsible for policing.  If they can prove someone is a terrorist, they should arrest them.
2007-05-27 06:49:20
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7068|London, England
My thoughts are that it's funny when people cry about suicide bombings then complain when they're not allowed to shoot through the civilians to get to the bad guys. Obviously the intentional killing via bombings is worse, but with the attitude of "we can't win because we're not allowed to shoot through the civilians" you're not far behind.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-05-27 06:49:49)

2007-05-27 06:53:27
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6801
I thought it was similar to " splash damage " modeled in the game. If the enemy or his infrastructure gets it, that’s cool, If its freindlies, kids and puppies it isn't. Am I not correct ?

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-05-27 06:54:09)

2007-05-27 06:53:54
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6649

CameronPoe wrote:

Of course you may not be specifically targetting civilians but you can carry something out in the knowledge that there is a high likelihood that civilians will be killed. As such, it is little better than actually targetting them but marginally better nonetheless.
Exactly. What I'm implying is that the topic of debate should be whether or not the collateral damage is worth the benefits of that military action. What we have instead, most of the time, is "debate" trying to compare two separate concepts. Both sides can be wrong, but that doesn't mean they are the same.

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-05-27 06:54:40)

2007-05-27 06:58:17
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7204|Argentina

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Of course you may not be specifically targetting civilians but you can carry something out in the knowledge that there is a high likelihood that civilians will be killed. As such, it is little better than actually targetting them but marginally better nonetheless.
Exactly. What I'm implying is that the topic of debate should be whether or not the collateral damage is worth benefits of that military action. What we have instead, most of the time, is "debate" trying to compare two separate concepts. Both sides can be wrong, but that doesn't mean they are the same.
Most of the supporters of Palestine know that Muslim extremists are making things harder for them, and if you base your whole case in a minority, you are just generalizing.  If a jackass throws a rocket into Israel go and arrest him.  Don't kill 10 innocent people.
2007-05-27 07:04:03
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6649

sergeriver wrote:

Most of the supporters of Palestine know that Muslim extremists are making things harder for them, and if you base your whole case in a minority, you are just generalizing.  If a jackass throws a rocket into Israel go and arrest him.  Don't kill 10 innocent people.
That is not practical given the current situation there. Who are they going to arrest? These people do not wear uniforms or anything else that distinguishes them from the civilian populace. Israel made the best choice it could have to defend their country from such attacks. Whether or not saving the lives of a few of their own civilians is worth even larger collateral damage is certainly debatable, but what your are suggesting is simply not possible.

Israel is in a bind. They are left with the choice of not retaliating against the rocket attacks, endangering the lives of their own people, or they can retaliate knowing that Palestinian civilian death is unavoidable.

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-05-27 07:05:01)

2007-05-27 07:07:33
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7204|Argentina

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Most of the supporters of Palestine know that Muslim extremists are making things harder for them, and if you base your whole case in a minority, you are just generalizing.  If a jackass throws a rocket into Israel go and arrest him.  Don't kill 10 innocent people.
That is not practical given the current situation there. Who are they going to arrest? These people do not wear uniforms or anything else that distinguishes them from the civilian populace. Israel made the best choice it could have to defend their country from such attacks. Whether or not saving the lives of a few of their own civilians is worth even larger collateral damage is certainly debatable, but what your are suggesting is simply not possible.

Israel is in a bind. They are left with the choice of not retaliating against the rocket attacks, endangering the lives of their own people, or they can retaliate knowing that Palestinian civilian death is unavoidable.
You're wrong.  Israel is endangering the lives of their own people every time they retaliate.  And those assholes extremists are endangering the lives of Palestinians every time they throw those shitty rockets into Israeli soil.  I must admit this conflict seems to have no solution.
2007-05-27 07:10:07
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002
The Israelis should never have elected Likud and the Palestinians should never have elected Hamas. End of.
2007-05-27 07:10:54
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7204|Argentina

CameronPoe wrote:

The Israelis should never have elected Likud and the Palestinians should never have elected Hamas. End of.
2007-05-27 07:17:32
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6737|Éire
Collateral damage is murder, just because it is a byproduct of an otherwise strategic attack does not justify it. The fact that it has it's own name/term implies the people carrying out the attacks know full well they will incur the deaths of innocent bystanders so what's the difference at the end of the day? You can argue about the moral implications of deliberately setting out to blow up civilians but carrying out attacks in the knowledge that you will most likely kill innocent people is almost as deplorable.
2007-05-27 07:53:12
MrE`158
Member
+103|7070

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Israel is in a bind. They are left with the choice of not retaliating against the rocket attacks, endangering the lives of their own people, or they can retaliate knowing that Palestinian civilian death is unavoidable.
What I dislike about how Israel reacts is the extreme force they use.

Whenever Israel makes a gunship attack, firing guided missiles at a car, they come out and say that they were specifically targetting a known militant.  Fine, I guess if they've concluded that that individual has attacked their country they should be able to defend themselves.

*But*, if they're capable of identifying and locating specific individuals, why aren't they sending troopers in to capture him, or lead a conventional raid to take him out?  A soldier with a rifle will cause a lot less collateral damage than a missile from a helicopter.  Hellfire missiles are designed to be used against tanks, not civilian cars.  If you know a guy you want is in a building, isolate the building, go in and get him, destroying the entire building (and damaging the surrounding neighbourhood) seems like excessive force.  Yes, it's safer for Israeli soldiers, but, as has been mentioned, if you know that your attack is likely to cause significant civilian casualties in addition to achieving its mission goal, are you really any better than the terrorists you're targetting?
2007-05-27 08:00:05
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7008

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Israel is in a bind. They are left with the choice of not retaliating against the rocket attacks, endangering the lives of their own people, or they can retaliate knowing that Palestinian civilian death is unavoidable.
Unavoidable?  Are you fucking kidding me?  You honestly think that the Israeli army isn't capable of ambushing and arresting the leaders rather than throwing helicopter gunships are them?
2007-05-27 08:01:40
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7131|United States of America

Bubbalo wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Israel is in a bind. They are left with the choice of not retaliating against the rocket attacks, endangering the lives of their own people, or they can retaliate knowing that Palestinian civilian death is unavoidable.
Unavoidable?  Are you fucking kidding me?  You honestly think that the Israeli army isn't capable of ambushing and arresting the leaders rather than throwing helicopter gunships are them?
But you so rarely get to use gunships since there isn't a lot of armor floating around there...
2007-05-27 08:04:30
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6649

Bubbalo wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Israel is in a bind. They are left with the choice of not retaliating against the rocket attacks, endangering the lives of their own people, or they can retaliate knowing that Palestinian civilian death is unavoidable.
Unavoidable?  Are you fucking kidding me?  You honestly think that the Israeli army isn't capable of ambushing and arresting the leaders rather than throwing helicopter gunships are them?

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

That is not practical given the current situation there. Who are they going to arrest? These people do not wear uniforms or anything else that distinguishes them from the civilian populace.
2007-05-27 08:05:45
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7008
Yet they can find them to shoot them with their gunships?
2007-05-27 08:05:49
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7213|UK

Bubbalo wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Israel is in a bind. They are left with the choice of not retaliating against the rocket attacks, endangering the lives of their own people, or they can retaliate knowing that Palestinian civilian death is unavoidable.
Unavoidable?  Are you fucking kidding me?  You honestly think that the Israeli army isn't capable of ambushing and arresting the leaders rather than throwing helicopter gunships are them?
Bub lets face it. No one in Palestine would tell the Israelis where leaders of Hamas are. And if they did try to "ambush" them they would be spotted which would be immediately told to those leaders.

Stop living in your own little fantasy world.
2007-05-27 08:06:57
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7008

Bubbalo wrote:

Yet they can find them to shoot them with their gunships?
2007-05-27 08:07:28
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6649

Bubbalo wrote:

Yet they can find them to shoot them with their gunships?


They attack the site from where the rocket was launched.
2007-05-27 08:08:57
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7008
Ah...........no, Israel has repeatedly launched attacks which they claim target leaders.

Even if you're right, they could just as easily drop in troops to respond.
2007-05-27 08:24:20
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7213|UK

Bubbalo wrote:

Ah...........no, Israel has repeatedly launched attacks which they claim target leaders.

Even if you're right, they could just as easily drop in troops to respond.
Yes intel that needs a response within minutes. Not days. You literally have no understanding of how the military works do you. You do not drop soldiers into an unknown combat zone. It requires planning.

Seriously... im not in the army but i atleast understand the logistics of it and the planning that goes into missions.
2007-05-27 08:25:55
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6649

Vilham wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Ah...........no, Israel has repeatedly launched attacks which they claim target leaders.

Even if you're right, they could just as easily drop in troops to respond.
Yes intel that needs a response within minutes. Not days. You literally have no understanding of how the military works do you. You do not drop soldiers into an unknown combat zone. It requires planning.

Seriously... im not in the army but i atleast understand the logistics of it and the planning that goes into missions.
Agreed. Bubbalo has to be the most willfully ignorant person I've come across on this forum. It's gotten to the point of absurdity.
2007-05-27 08:37:21
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7204|Argentina

Vilham wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Ah...........no, Israel has repeatedly launched attacks which they claim target leaders.

Even if you're right, they could just as easily drop in troops to respond.
Yes intel that needs a response within minutes. Not days. You literally have no understanding of how the military works do you. You do not drop soldiers into an unknown combat zone. It requires planning.

Seriously... im not in the army but i atleast understand the logistics of it and the planning that goes into missions.
Do you know that the IDF are already there?  What are they doing in the OT?  They are the "police" of the OT, so let them catch the aggressors instead of killing innocent civilians in the bombings.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard