Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-05-28 07:31:46
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6966|Πάϊ

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

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?
The only people who see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (I have a feeling this is what you're referring to) in black and white are the ones who think that Israel is merely trying to defend itself from the evil Palestinian terrorists. Of course this is all thanks to the wonderfully effective Israeli propaganda. If you people will get your head out of your ass and open your eyes to the millions of ways in which the Israeli government is suppressing the Palestinian people, maybe you will come to realise that nobody becomes a suicide bomber just like that.

Talk about collateral damage and the like is merely Israel's constant excuse for killing thousands of innocent people. Take into account the settlements on Palestinian land. The fact that Palestinians are kicked out of their homes and their land for no reason. The checkpoints. The discrimination. All the difficulties these people have to go through to go to work every morning. This is not collateral damage. This is a fucking occupation.
ƒ³
2007-05-28 07:33:03
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7008

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

san4 wrote:

Despite the fact that they consistently say the opposite?
Because who ever hear of a country lieing?
Huh? Seriously, you could apply that to anything and everything.



Typical Thread:

Some random user: "The Holocaust happened."

Bubbalo: "Because who ever hear of a country lieing?"
Wow, you're down to using straw-men.  Are my arguments that convincing?
2007-05-28 07:37:31
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6650

oug wrote:

This is not collateral damage. This is a fucking occupation.
It is not restricted to being one thing or another. An occupation and collateral damage are two separate concepts.

You are implying that "occupation" and "collateral damage" are two concepts on opposite ends of the same scale--that something can be one, but not the other. Such is not the case. Collateral damage can occur in any situation involving military action, even an occupation.

@everyone else...

See what I meant about drawing connections that don't exist?

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-05-28 07:38:07)

2007-05-28 07:39:11
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7008
Except that according to you he ignored connections that do exist....................
2007-05-28 07:43:02
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6650

Bubbalo wrote:

Except that according to you he ignored connections that do exist....................
What are you going on about now?

He drew the connection between "occupation" and "collateral damage" that both are mutually exclusive, which is incorrect.

Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-05-28 07:43:13)

2007-05-28 07:51:04
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6966|Πάϊ

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

oug wrote:

This is not collateral damage. This is a fucking occupation.
It is not restricted to being one thing or another. An occupation and collateral damage are two separate concepts.

You are implying that "occupation" and "collateral damage" are two concepts on opposite ends of the same scale--that something can be one, but not the other. Such is not the case. Collateral damage can occur in any situation involving military action, even an occupation.

@everyone else...

See what I meant about drawing connections that don't exist?
It is obvious that you're making a case for Israel here, in an effort to explain the killing of civilians. There's your connection. What you do not understand is that the Israelis are doing whatever it is they are doing in a country that does not belong to them. Now you call it collateral damage because the Israeli government calls it collateral damage. And don't get me wrong here: I can see how easy it is to condemn a man strapped with C4 exploding in a bus. Nobody in the right mind can approve of such action. But this is the easy part. Yes, suicide attacks aiming at civilians is wrong. But what about the actions of the Israeli government against the Palestinian people. Are they not wrong? Are they "better" in some way? Well, yes, if you call people dying "collateral damage". That's my problem. I see Israel send helicopters against a leader of Hamas for example, and in that attack 20 people die from the missiles. Is that collateral damage? Fuck no. Innocent Palestinians try to go to work every day, and some of them die in clashes at the checkpoints. Bottom line:
Trying to hide Israeli aggression behind terms like that creates a false impression. It's viewing things in black and white.
ƒ³
2007-05-28 07:53:48
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6650

oug wrote:

It is obvious that you're making a case for Israel here, in an effort to explain the killing of civilians. There's your connection. What you do not understand is that the Israelis are doing whatever it is they are doing in a country that does not belong to them.

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

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.
2007-05-28 10:17:39
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002

san4 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.

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'.
Despite the fact that they consistently say the opposite? What is your evidence for this?
Because I've been there and I see what's going on: it's an illegal ANNEXATION not an occupation. I've seen their pristine settlement blocks all over PALESTINIAN land. I've seen the wall they're building right through Palestinian land. I've seen the nice shiny roads they've built INSIDE the Palestinian West Bank exclusively for the use of Jewish settlers there (Palestinians are forbidden from using them, they instead have to wait until the 'drawbridge is raised' to cross them - think Warsaw Ghetto).

The mouth might be saying one thing but the hands are doing something distinctly fucking different. Do me a favour - go there and report back to me afterwards.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-28 10:18:18)

2007-05-28 10:51:57
san4
The Mas
+311|7135|NYC, a place to live

CameronPoe wrote:

san4 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.

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'.
Despite the fact that they consistently say the opposite? What is your evidence for this?
Because I've been there and I see what's going on: it's an illegal ANNEXATION not an occupation. I've seen their pristine settlement blocks all over PALESTINIAN land. I've seen the wall they're building right through Palestinian land. I've seen the nice shiny roads they've built INSIDE the Palestinian West Bank exclusively for the use of Jewish settlers there (Palestinians are forbidden from using them, they instead have to wait until the 'drawbridge is raised' to cross them - think Warsaw Ghetto).

The mouth might be saying one thing but the hands are doing something distinctly fucking different. Do me a favour - go there and report back to me afterwards.
I am sure you can distinguish between building things where things shouldn't be built vs. killing people to alter demographics.

I hope to go there one day, but I don't have to go there to understand that (a) over the years Israel has taken significant steps toward annexing the occupied territories, and (b) Israel generally treats the arab residents of the occupied territories like shit. Both of those counter-productive Israeli policies are evidence of the moral corrosion the occupation has caused in Israel. Targeted killings are another example, but they are still not in the same class as suicide bombings.
2007-05-28 11:00:18
san4
The Mas
+311|7135|NYC, a place to live

Bubbalo wrote:

san4 wrote:

Despite the fact that they consistently say the opposite?
Because who ever hear of a country lieing?
Leaders lead, and leaders who express approval of killing non-combatants lead their people astray.
2007-05-28 11:03:03
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7002

san4 wrote:

I am sure you can distinguish between building things where things shouldn't be built vs. killing people to alter demographics.

I hope to go there one day, but I don't have to go there to understand that (a) over the years Israel has taken significant steps toward annexing the occupied territories, and (b) Israel generally treats the arab residents of the occupied territories like shit. Both of those counter-productive Israeli policies are evidence of the moral corrosion the occupation has caused in Israel. Targeted killings are another example, but they are still not in the same class as suicide bombings.
Personally I couldn't trust the Israeli government as far as I could throw them given almost every action and decision they have taken since 1948. They're every bit as underhand as their enemy.
2007-05-28 12:16:24
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6966|Πάϊ
Ok Cerpin_Taxt, let me put it this way. The only reason why anyone would choose to target insignificant civilians over military facilities, the only reason why anyone would choose to die rather than live is if he doesn't have the ability to choose. It is obvious that the death of innocent bystanders never helped anyone's facade, hence all the hatred towards Palestinians. Israel has the luxury to worry about said facade, and that's why you're talking about collateral damage instead of civilian casualties.
ƒ³

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard