Bad day to be a terrorist

[rnatalli]

 

[ryanosaur]

What up, @TankTop5 ?

You just gonna drop a box without explanation and taking a stand? Why don't you share a little of your thoughts, huh?

Oh wait, I recall... You already proclaimed your support of killing more Muslims in response:

I think the only option is to take out the Iranian Mullahs, cut the head off the snake. Of course Saudi and Qatar would step in and fill the void.

Are you just another racist? No sense of morality and ethics?

I think you are.

Yup, I'll put your "box" right there among the rest of the racist POS folk I've collected boxes from.

 

[TLS Guy]

As I suspected the pager attack was the opening of a new phase of the war with Hezbollah. Israel is in the midst of a massive targeted bombing campaign. It has now called up more reservists.

I think an invasion of Lebanon will occur. I think they will establish a front at the Litani River 18 miles of the border with Lebanon.

They did this in 1978. They returned back to their Northern border in March 1985 in an agreement brokered by the UN.

I suspect that the Israelis will establish the Litani as a permanent border with Lebanon, as it is a more defensible border.

The problem will still remain of a terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah immersing themselves in civilian populations which is totally immoral. Any defense from that is bound to harm civilian populations. These deaths should be squarely laid at the door of Hamas and Hezbollah and not Israel.

 

[ryanosaur]

The problem will still remain of a terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah immersing themselves in civilian populations which is totally immoral. Any defense from that is bound to harm civilian populations. These deaths should be squarely laid at the door of Hamas and Hezbollah and not Israel.

This is the exact thing I’ve said several times in this thread. They invite civilian casualties: both Hamas and Hezbollah are absolutely guilty of using their civilian populace as shields. A recent article purported evidence of Hezbollah hiding some of their most advanced weaponry in residential areas in southern Lebanon; an allegation I am certain is playing into Israel’s strategy of attack and advice to the citizenry to flee.

What is wrong with not liking the potential death of hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians? Where do you personally draw the line, Mark? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

You and several others seem to dislike my opinion that Israel is pushing the limits of what is acceptable in an armed conflict.

Do tell, Doc, what is your limit? Civilians? Medical teams and hospitals? Aid workers?

For the record:
Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. They are guilty of committing atrocities against Israel.
Israel has a right to defend itself.

 

[dolynick]

You and several others seem to dislike my opinion that Israel is pushing the limits of what is acceptable in an armed conflict.

I don't think your thoughts on the matter have been unreasonable. I agree that there is a moral connundrum here.

Terrorists using human shields while they commit horrific acts is a bad situation. At some point though, there is a cognitive decision to harm the civillians along with them, or at least not care if that they get harmed - and just accepting that is also problematic.

You can rationalize the course of action, but that doesn't just make it "right". I suppose part of it also comes down to how idealistic your stance on right vs wrong is though.

 

[TLS Guy]

This is the exact thing I’ve said several times in this thread. They invite civilian casualties: both Hamas and Hezbollah are absolutely guilty of using their civilian populace as shields. A recent article purported evidence of Hezbollah hiding some of their most advanced weaponry in residential areas in southern Lebanon; an allegation I am certain is playing into Israel’s strategy of attack and advice to the citizenry to flee.

What is wrong with not liking the potential death of hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians? Where do you personally draw the line, Mark? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

You and several others seem to dislike my opinion that Israel is pushing the limits of what is acceptable in an armed conflict.

Do tell, Doc, what is your limit? Civilians? Medical teams and hospitals? Aid workers?

For the record:
Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. They are guilty of committing atrocities against Israel.
Israel has a right to defend itself.

War is war. One has to ask oneself: - "What would Churchill do and say?" Well he did. "Be vigorous in conflict and magnanimous in victory." Churchill would have been totally ruthless in this conflict, and he was in all the conflicts in which he was involved and that was many, including close and hand to hand combat. Confronted with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah he would have been totally ruthless.

 

[highfigh]

What up, @TankTop5 ?

You just gonna drop a box without explanation and taking a stand? Why don't you share a little of your thoughts, huh?

Oh wait, I recall... You already proclaimed your support of killing more Muslims in response:


Are you just another racist? No sense of morality and ethics?

I think you are.

Yup, I'll put your "box" right there among the rest of the racist POS folk I've collected boxes from.

Uh, Islam isn't a race.

 

[highfigh]

This is the exact thing I’ve said several times in this thread. They invite civilian casualties: both Hamas and Hezbollah are absolutely guilty of using their civilian populace as shields. A recent article purported evidence of Hezbollah hiding some of their most advanced weaponry in residential areas in southern Lebanon; an allegation I am certain is playing into Israel’s strategy of attack and advice to the citizenry to flee.

What is wrong with not liking the potential death of hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians? Where do you personally draw the line, Mark? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

You and several others seem to dislike my opinion that Israel is pushing the limits of what is acceptable in an armed conflict.

Do tell, Doc, what is your limit? Civilians? Medical teams and hospitals? Aid workers?

For the record:
Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. They are guilty of committing atrocities against Israel.
Israel has a right to defend itself.

If Israel delays, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc will see that as weakness and it gives those turds time to concoct a plan although losing leadership isn't great for them, but you seem to be defending the other side by blaming Israel. Israel was attacked on Oct 7, yet so many are blaming them for where this has gone. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc have entrenched themselves in civilian areas, buildings, hospitals, schools- EVERYWHERE they should never be when conducting war-like efforts. HOW CAN YOU DEFEND THAT?

 

[ryanosaur]

Uh, Islam isn't a race.

No, but practitioners thereof tend to be treated with racist tropes and lumped into a single group of people because of their religion.

If Israel delays, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc will see that as weakness and it gives those turds time to concoct a plan although losing leadership isn't great for them, but you seem to be defending the other side by blaming Israel. Israel was attacked on Oct 7, yet so many are blaming them for where this has gone. Hamas, Hezbollah, etc have entrenched themselves in civilian areas, buildings, hospitals, schools- EVERYWHERE they should never be when conducting war-like efforts. HOW CAN YOU DEFEND THAT?

Clearly you can't read: I said many times that I am not defending Hamas, Hezbollah, nor Iran or any of their proxies. Israel has a right to defend themselves as a nation. I can't be more clear than what has been clearly stated several times.

It seems many folk here, however, are OK with whatever Israel chooses to do, no matter who or how many might be harmed.

This thread was about the pagers (and subsequent walkie-talkies) being refitted with explosive devices and detonated remotely, the results of which killed children and medical workers, among injuring many more. Of those injured, not all of them were strictly Hezbollah combatants.

I pointed out that Israel was a signatory to agreements banning the use of booby traps which could indiscriminately harm civilians. Even if said civilians are associated with Hezbollah yet are non-combatants (ie they are associated through medical or political work alone) they are technically protected.

This is what I referred to as a gray area and is the crux of my questioning the morality and ethics behind this attack. If you read carefully, I previously asked the question about how you fight an enemy that is using the populace as a shield, recognizing that is exactly what Hamas and Hezbollah have done.

Is it wrong to ask the question like I have?

If Israel has to commit crimes, of war or against humanity, in order to defeat their opponents, what does that make them as a nation?

It is a question of ethics and morality whether Israel is acting reasonably in their responses.

Are you still confused?

 

[highfigh]

No, but practitioners thereof tend to be treated with racist tropes and lumped into a single group of people because of their religion.

Clearly you can't read: I said many times that I am not defending Hamas, Hezbollah, nor Iran or any of their proxies. Israel has a right to defend themselves as a nation. I can't be more clear than what has been clearly stated several times.

It seems many folk here, however, are OK with whatever Israel chooses to do, no matter who or how many might be harmed.

This thread was about the pagers (and subsequent walkie-talkies) being refitted with explosive devices and detonated remotely, the results of which killed children and medical workers, among injuring many more. Of those injured, not all of them were strictly Hezbollah combatants.

I pointed out that Israel was a signatory to agreements banning the use of booby traps which could indiscriminately harm civilians. Even if said civilians are associated with Hezbollah yet are non-combatants (ie they are associated through medical or political work alone) they are technically protected.

This is what I referred to as a gray area and is the crux of my questioning the morality and ethics behind this attack. If you read carefully, I previously asked the question about how you fight an enemy that is using the populace as a shield, recognizing that is exactly what Hamas and Hezbollah have done.

Is it wrong to ask the question like I have?

If Israel has to commit crimes, of war or against humanity, in order to defeat their opponents, what does that make them as a nation?

It is a question of ethics and morality whether Israel is acting reasonably in their responses.

Are you still confused?

WRT "No, but practitioners thereof tend to be treated with racist tropes and lumped into a single group of people because of their religion"- you did that by claiming 'racism'.

I can read ad what you seem to expect from Israel is for them to know EXACTLY where Hamas and Hezbollah are at ALL TIMES, which is damn near impossible and if those groups move into civilian-occupied areas, civilians will die. Do you think Israel would change the course of their rockets just before impact? Not likely.

What about the flood of rockets that are being fired at Israel, into civilian-occupied areas? Do you see that as justified, or not?

You mentioned that Israel isn't supposed to use booby traps- who uses them most, Israel or Muslim governments and organizations? While I haven't seen how IEDs are being used at this time and this isn't the same because US troops aren't driving through the areas, have you heard of what was done to young children in Iraq/Afghanistan during the Gulf Wars? If you think that killing civilians when Hamas & Hezbollah are among them, I think you might want to discuss this with troops who were in the Gulf Wars, for their perspective.

Do you think Israel should be more polite in their killing? Tell us how. How can civilians be protected when Hamas and Hezbollah don't give a rat's ass about them until it's time to wail and moan, gnash their teeth and make it look as if they have been persecuted for 2000+ years.

War is hell, agreements or not.

 

[ryanosaur]

WRT "No, but practitioners thereof tend to be treated with racist tropes and lumped into a single group of people because of their religion"- you did that by claiming 'racism'.

What would you call it then? Honestly. I'm not trying to be a d!ck about this but since you are challenging the label... what flavor of hatred is it?

 

[Trell]

This thread was about the pagers (and subsequent walkie-talkies) being refitted with explosive devices and detonated remotely, the results of which killed children and medical workers, among injuring many more. Of those injured, not all of them were strictly Hezbollah combatants.

I pointed out that Israel was a signatory to agreements banning the use of booby traps which could indiscriminately harm civilians. Even if said civilians are associated with Hezbollah yet are non-combatants (ie they are associated through medical or political work alone) they are technically protected.

This was a targetted attack on terrorists hiding among civilians in a hostile country and these are communication devices the terrorists used to communicate among themselves. So very clearly not "booby traps which could indiscriminately harm civilians".

 

[ryanosaur]

WRT "No, but practitioners thereof tend to be treated with racist tropes and lumped into a single group of people because of their religion"- you did that by claiming 'racism'.

I can read ad what you seem to expect from Israel is for them to know EXACTLY where Hamas and Hezbollah are at ALL TIMES, which is damn near impossible and if those groups move into civilian-occupied areas, civilians will die. Do you think Israel would change the course of their rockets just before impact? Not likely.

What about the flood of rockets that are being fired at Israel, into civilian-occupied areas? Do you see that as justified, or not?

You mentioned that Israel isn't supposed to use booby traps- who uses them most, Israel or Muslim governments and organizations? While I haven't seen how IEDs are being used at this time and this isn't the same because US troops aren't driving through the areas, have you heard of what was done to young children in Iraq/Afghanistan during the Gulf Wars? If you think that killing civilians when Hamas & Hezbollah are among them, I think you might want to discuss this with troops who were in the Gulf Wars, for their perspective.

Do you think Israel should be more polite in their killing? Tell us how. How can civilians be protected when Hamas and Hezbollah don't give a rat's ass about them until it's time to wail and moan, gnash their teeth and make it look as if they have been persecuted for 2000+ years.

War is hell, agreements or not.

To the rest of this... I get it. I really do. I'm being challenged for thinking about morality and asking a question. Others are seemingly quite ok with the "kill'em all and let god sort'em out" mentality.

Is philosophical thought a crime now? Is challenging a persons sense of ethics somehow an inappropriate topic? Is disagreeing with Netanyahu a crime?

All I'm really doing is asking to engage in a conversation. Yes, it's a difficult one.. one which I am not trying to blame Israel or enact some foreign policy dispute over but which I am finding myself challenged by what I see and think I understand, and by whether or not I'm personally OK with what Israel has done in response to Hamas and now Hezbollah. Yet nowhere am I defending what Hamas or Hezbollah have done: absolutely not.

 

[Trell]

To the rest of this... I get it. I really do. I'm being challenged for thinking about morality and asking a question. Others are seemingly quite ok with the "kill'em all and let god sort'em out" mentality.

I don't have that mentality as I've written in this thread but you probably didn't have me in mind?

 

[ryanosaur]

This was a targetted attack on terrorists hiding among civilians in a hostile country and these are communication devices the terrorists used to communicate among themselves. So very clearly not "booby traps which could indiscriminately harm civilians".

It was targeted, loosely. The detonation of these devices did harm civilians and non combatants, therefore indiscriminate collateral damage was incurred.

This is part of the question I'm asking, whether it was reasonable or not?

In my mind, still, it is a step too far.

As above, I get it: war is hell and civilian casualties will occur.

This act just feels wrong to me and while I'm not losing sleep over it, I also have not been able to fully reconcile it.

 

[ryanosaur]

I don't have that mentality as I've written a couple of times in this thread.

I'm not accusing you of it, either.

But you have to admit that mentality exists in the spectrum of responses.

 

[Trell]

It was targeted, loosely. The detonation of these devices did harm civilians and non combatants, therefore indiscriminate collateral damage was incurred.

This is part of the question I'm asking, whether it was reasonable or not?

In my mind, still, it is a step too far.

As above, I get it: war is hell and civilian casualties will occur.

This act just feels wrong to me and while I'm not losing sleep over it, I also have not been able to fully reconcile it.

I think we just have to agree to disagree here.

 

[ryanosaur]

I think we just have to agree to disagree here.

And that is fine, too.

Disagreement does not make us enemies.

 

[ski2xblack]

This is part of the question I'm asking, whether it was reasonable or not?

I'll play.

Reasonable? Yes. Immoral? Strong argument that it is. It can be both.

Compare the reasonableness and morality of Israel's tactics to the rationality of the bandit, which, while potentially nasty, is emminently reasonable. He wants to add to his ledger by taking from yours. He may harm or kill you in the process, which is clearly immoral, as is merely stealing from you.

Israel's emplyment of the pager tactic might have been playing dirty, but was highly targeted and restrained, and effective at crippling/eliminating Hezbollah leadership. That's a morally questionable but rational, highly lopsided interaction in Israel's favor. Despite displaying overtones of intelligence, they essentially acted as a bandit.

The current Israeli conflict involves an opposition which is more 'stupid" than rational. They are stubbornly unreasonable, driven by religious zealotry. They will cause losses for Israel with no gain, indeed incurring signifigant losses to themselves. It's clarly immoral to commit the worst mass murder of Jews since the holocaust, along with some raping and hostage taking. It's irrational to initiate a hot war with a more powerful opponent. The only sliver of rationality involved is the brutish rationality of terrorism. In other words, they acted stupidly.

Bottom line: The Stupid is far more dangerous and damaging than a bandit. So we stand with Israel. They may be scoundrels, but they're OUR scoundrels, while radical islam are sworn enemies.

 

[ryanosaur]

I'll play.

Reasonable? Yes. Immoral? Strong argument that it is. It can be both.

Compare the reasonableness and morality of Israel's tactics to the rationality of the bandit, which, while potentially nasty, is emminently reasonable. He wants to add to his ledger by taking from yours. He may harm or kill you in the process, which is clearly immoral, as is merely stealing from you.

Israel's emplyment of the pager tactic might have been playing dirty, but was highly targeted and restrained, and effective at crippling/eliminating Hezbollah leadership. That's a morally questionable but rational, highly favorable interaction in Israel's favor. Despite displaying overtones of intelligence, they essentially acted as a bandit.

The current Israeli conflict involves an opposition which is more 'stupid" than rational. They are stubbornly unreasonable, driven by religious zealotry. They will cause losses for Israel with no gain, indeed incurring signifigant losses to themselves. It's clarly immoral to commit the worst mass murder of Jews since the holocaust, along with some raping and hostage taking. It's irrational to initiate a hot war with a more powerful opponent. The only sliver of rationality involved is the brutish rationality of terrorism. In other words, they acted stupidly.

Bottom line: The Stupid is far more dangerous and damaging than a bandit. So we stand with Israel. They may be scoundrels, but they're OUR scoundrels, while radical islam are sworn enemies.

I appreciate your reasoning. Thank you