Pages: 1 2

 

2008-05-15 03:30:42
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6834|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

According to the article earlier that day Israel killed 2 civillians. Surely that's the headline, not Palestinians wounding 15 Israelis. One of the civillians was killed rinding a bycicle of mass destruction, an obvious military target.
Were the Israelis intentionally targeting the civilians?

You excuse PFLP's actions based on the outcome, not the intent. And you curse the IDF on the same logic.

Which is worse: unintentionally killing/wounding civilians or intentionally targeting them?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-05-15 03:33:38
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7265|Cologne, Germany

the attack was featured on last night's news shows here in germany, but those happen so often, it failed to really catch my attention, I have to admit.

It's a game Israelis and palestinians have been playing since 1948, and it's bound to go on, regardless of any diplomatic effort. There is simply too much scorched earth between the two sides now.

Personally, I think I have now reached a point where all this conflict does is bore me. Everything that could possibly have been said about it has been said numerous times, and now it's all rinse and repeat.

*raises white flag of debate surrender*
2008-05-15 03:34:30
JahManRed
wank
+646|7052|IRELAND

Yeah, a beach is a military target too then I guess.

Both sides are rabid homicidal lunatics who carry out wrongs. The only difference I see is that it's militarily totally one sided.
2008-05-15 03:43:25
PureFodder
Member
+225|6709

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

According to the article earlier that day Israel killed 2 civillians. Surely that's the headline, not Palestinians wounding 15 Israelis. One of the civillians was killed rinding a bycicle of mass destruction, an obvious military target.
Were the Israelis intentionally targeting the civilians?

You excuse PFLP's actions based on the outcome, not the intent. And you curse the IDF on the same logic.

Which is worse: unintentionally killing/wounding civilians or intentionally targeting them?
Were the Israeli's intentionally targetting civillians? We simply don't know. We don't investigate Israels crimes seriously. Intentional targeting of civillians by Palestinians has resulted in a higher ratio of military to civillians kills than Israels unintentional targetting. 

p.s. I didn't excuse anyone's actions, I merely pointed out that the far worse crime comitted that day had gone unmentioned in this thread.
2008-05-15 03:46:48
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7265|Cologne, Germany

JahManRed wrote:

Yeah, a beach is a military target too then I guess.

Both sides are rabid homicidal lunatics who carry out wrongs. The only difference I see is that it's militarily totally one sided.
the irony in that statement is that there would maybe be a chance of a peaceful resolution of that conflict if both sides were equal militarily, and thus israel would not be able to bully the palestinians as they can do freely at the moment.
2008-05-15 03:59:06
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6834|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

According to the article earlier that day Israel killed 2 civillians. Surely that's the headline, not Palestinians wounding 15 Israelis. One of the civillians was killed rinding a bycicle of mass destruction, an obvious military target.
Were the Israelis intentionally targeting the civilians?

You excuse PFLP's actions based on the outcome, not the intent. And you curse the IDF on the same logic.

Which is worse: unintentionally killing/wounding civilians or intentionally targeting them?
Were the Israeli's intentionally targetting civillians? We simply don't know. We don't investigate Israels crimes seriously. Intentional targeting of civillians by Palestinians has resulted in a higher ratio of military to civillians kills than Israels unintentional targetting. 

p.s. I didn't excuse anyone's actions, I merely pointed out that the far worse crime comitted that day had gone unmentioned in this thread.
The point you miss is that it's the intention that makes it a crime, not the act itself. I know that sounds counter-intuitive to some, but when it comes to military action, intentionally causing one civilian death is worse than unintentionally causing ten.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-05-15 04:00:57
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6251

FEOS wrote:

Were the Israelis intentionally targeting the civilians?
I think by now they must have figured out that their current tactics result in almost as many innocent people killed.  If they fail to change them, then effectively yes, they are.

B.Schuss wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Yeah, a beach is a military target too then I guess.

Both sides are rabid homicidal lunatics who carry out wrongs. The only difference I see is that it's militarily totally one sided.
the irony in that statement is that there would maybe be a chance of a peaceful resolution of that conflict if both sides were equal militarily, and thus israel would not be able to bully the palestinians as they can do freely at the moment.
Or it'd turn into a convential war, someone would lose, and that'd be the end of it.

Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-05-15 04:02:00)

2008-05-15 04:06:00
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7265|Cologne, Germany

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Were the Israelis intentionally targeting the civilians?

You excuse PFLP's actions based on the outcome, not the intent. And you curse the IDF on the same logic.

Which is worse: unintentionally killing/wounding civilians or intentionally targeting them?
Were the Israeli's intentionally targetting civillians? We simply don't know. We don't investigate Israels crimes seriously. Intentional targeting of civillians by Palestinians has resulted in a higher ratio of military to civillians kills than Israels unintentional targetting. 

p.s. I didn't excuse anyone's actions, I merely pointed out that the far worse crime comitted that day had gone unmentioned in this thread.
The point you miss is that it's the intention that makes it a crime, not the act itself. I know that sounds counter-intuitive to some, but when it comes to military action, intentionally causing one civilian death is worse than unintentionally causing ten.
sorry, FEOS, but that's too easy for me. By that logic, you could excuse any civilian death in a military operation as having been "unintentional", because how are you ever going to prove the opposite ?
2008-05-15 04:15:37
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7265|Cologne, Germany

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Were the Israelis intentionally targeting the civilians?
I think by now they must have figured out that their current tactics result in almost as many innocent people killed.  If they fail to change them, then effectively yes, they are.

B.Schuss wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Yeah, a beach is a military target too then I guess.

Both sides are rabid homicidal lunatics who carry out wrongs. The only difference I see is that it's militarily totally one sided.
the irony in that statement is that there would maybe be a chance of a peaceful resolution of that conflict if both sides were equal militarily, and thus israel would not be able to bully the palestinians as they can do freely at the moment.
Or it'd turn into a convential war, someone would lose, and that'd be the end of it.
well, the obvious problem with today's conventional wars is that they're not fought until the end, if you will.
WWII was basically the last conventional war where there was no insurgency after hostilities had "officially" ended. We raised the white flag, put down our arms, and that was the end of that.

Would that happpen in Israel/Pelastine ? I doubt it.

I have said it before, and this may sound harsh, but I think the only way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can really end is through the complete and utter annihilation of one of the parties involved. But that would be genocide, and is obviously not an option.

I guess the problem is that mankind has evolved just enough to consider a total war ( i.e. genocide ) to be wrong and deplorable, but not enough to end war at all.
2008-05-15 04:19:55
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6251

B.Schuss wrote:

well, the obvious problem with today's conventional wars is that they're not fought until the end, if you will.
WWII was basically the last conventional war where there was no insurgency after hostilities had "officially" ended. We raised the white flag, put down our arms, and that was the end of that.
Actually, there were low level insurgencies in Germany after WWII.  The Allies just made damn sure noone heard about it.

B.Schuss wrote:

Would that happpen in Israel/Pelastine ? I doubt it.
No, but you can be damn well sure the loser wouldn't be around to run an insurgency.

B.Schuss wrote:

I have said it before, and this may sound harsh, but I think the only way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can really end is through the complete and utter annihilation of one of the parties involved. But that would be genocide, and is obviously not an option.
I disagree.  Do I think it's something we should work towards?  Of course not.  Do I think it's how it will end?  Definitely.

B.Schuss wrote:

I guess the problem is that mankind has evolved just enough to consider a total war ( i.e. genocide ) to be wrong and deplorable, but not enough to end war at all.
Actually, I think if it came to it most nations would happily adopt total war policies, but at the moment the balance of power makes it unnecessary/not possible.
2008-05-15 04:38:32
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6646|Escea

Wonder if anyone realises that the beach they targeted was being used to launch rockets from.
2008-05-15 04:40:23
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6251

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Were the Israelis intentionally targeting the civilians?

You excuse PFLP's actions based on the outcome, not the intent. And you curse the IDF on the same logic.

Which is worse: unintentionally killing/wounding civilians or intentionally targeting them?
Were the Israeli's intentionally targetting civillians? We simply don't know. We don't investigate Israels crimes seriously. Intentional targeting of civillians by Palestinians has resulted in a higher ratio of military to civillians kills than Israels unintentional targetting. 

p.s. I didn't excuse anyone's actions, I merely pointed out that the far worse crime comitted that day had gone unmentioned in this thread.
The point you miss is that it's the intention that makes it a crime, not the act itself. I know that sounds counter-intuitive to some, but when it comes to military action, intentionally causing one civilian death is worse than unintentionally causing ten.
That depends on how you choose to judge it.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Wonder if anyone realises that the beach they targeted was being used to launch rockets from.
Not if it's the attack I'm thinking of (which, in all fairness, it may well not be).

Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-05-15 04:41:47)

2008-05-15 04:47:03
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7181|Argentina
Hamas extremists don't care who they kill.  You may say they don't have respect for innocent civilians lives.  Pretty much like Israel.
2008-05-15 05:50:52
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6646|Escea

ZombieVampire! wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:


Were the Israeli's intentionally targetting civillians? We simply don't know. We don't investigate Israels crimes seriously. Intentional targeting of civillians by Palestinians has resulted in a higher ratio of military to civillians kills than Israels unintentional targetting. 

p.s. I didn't excuse anyone's actions, I merely pointed out that the far worse crime comitted that day had gone unmentioned in this thread.
The point you miss is that it's the intention that makes it a crime, not the act itself. I know that sounds counter-intuitive to some, but when it comes to military action, intentionally causing one civilian death is worse than unintentionally causing ten.
That depends on how you choose to judge it.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Wonder if anyone realises that the beach they targeted was being used to launch rockets from.
Not if it's the attack I'm thinking of (which, in all fairness, it may well not be).
Beach hit by gunboat fire and some civilians killed? Same beach.
2008-05-15 06:03:39
Megalomaniac
Formerly known as Missionless
+92|6751|105 RVK

PureFodder wrote:

According to the article earlier that day Israel killed 2 civillians. Surely that's the headline, not Palestinians wounding 15 Israelis. One of the civillians was killed rinding a bycicle of mass destruction, an obvious military target.
The Israeli army is full of trained and modern equipped soldiers gone trough massive training and stuff

The fighters for Palestine are usually people who have lost everything in the war and have nothing left to loose.
Try imagining loosing your house, furniture, maybe your wife and kids too, and all thanks to Israel, I would also make it my life long goal to make them suffer but I doubt it will happen to Iceland anytime soon.

Last edited by Megalomaniac (2008-05-15 06:04:05)

2008-05-15 06:04:09
rammunition
Fully Loaded
+143|6285
no sympathy from me
2008-05-15 06:51:59
JahManRed
wank
+646|7052|IRELAND

B.Schuss wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Yeah, a beach is a military target too then I guess.

Both sides are rabid homicidal lunatics who carry out wrongs. The only difference I see is that it's militarily totally one sided.
the irony in that statement is that there would maybe be a chance of a peaceful resolution of that conflict if both sides were equal militarily, and thus Israel would not be able to bully the Palestinians as they can do freely at the moment.
Yes, with their history their would have to be a war before peace. But it would probably cost less lives in the long run. Maybe the UN should arm the Palestinians to force Israeli to the table? The threat of a conventional war would bring the Palestinians to the table too. Maybe they already have,I have noticed the majority of Hamas gunmen on TV are now armed with M16-Carbines mounted on harness, Marine style.

Last edited by JahManRed (2008-05-15 06:53:35)

2008-05-15 17:43:13
san4
The Mas
+311|7112|NYC, a place to live

B.Schuss wrote:

[snip] I have said it before, and this may sound harsh, but I think the only way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can really end is through the complete and utter annihilation of one of the parties involved. But that would be genocide, and is obviously not an option.
Your understanding of the conflict is outdated. The official Israeli policy is support for a two-state solution. The official position of the Palestinian Authority is support for a two-state solution. The official position of Hamas is eradication of Israel.

There are three parties, and only one of them needs to be annihilated for peace to happen.
2008-05-15 18:34:41
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6953|Global Command

JahManRed wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Yeah, a beach is a military target too then I guess.

Both sides are rabid homicidal lunatics who carry out wrongs. The only difference I see is that it's militarily totally one sided.
the irony in that statement is that there would maybe be a chance of a peaceful resolution of that conflict if both sides were equal militarily, and thus Israel would not be able to bully the Palestinians as they can do freely at the moment.
Yes, with their history their would have to be a war before peace. But it would probably cost less lives in the long run. Maybe the UN should arm the Palestinians to force Israeli to the table? The threat of a conventional war would bring the Palestinians to the table too. Maybe they already have,I have noticed the majority of Hamas gunmen on TV are now armed with M16-Carbines mounted on harness, Marine style.
Holy!!!!!!!!


That's a radical concept.
2008-05-16 03:26:42
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6251

san4 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

[snip] I have said it before, and this may sound harsh, but I think the only way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can really end is through the complete and utter annihilation of one of the parties involved. But that would be genocide, and is obviously not an option.
Your understanding of the conflict is outdated. The official Israeli policy is support for a two-state solution. The official position of the Palestinian Authority is support for a two-state solution. The official position of Hamas is eradication of Israel.

There are three parties, and only one of them needs to be annihilated for peace to happen.
The official position of Iran is that there are no gays, yet the still kill people over it.  The official position of the US is that everyone at Guantanamo is guilty, yet they still haven't tried them in a civilian court.

I'd suggest that Hamas is just a little more honest.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard