Terract in Jenin!

[Ecthy]

Even we have rules, KH...

[chequita guevara]

Floyd somehow seems to believe that rights trump reality. He's going to get himself killed one of these days.

[Ecthy]

Yeah. He'll get mugged. Then tell the bugger "hey, you have the right to take this, but I have the right to kick your arse for it" and then get shot. While falling to the ground he'll rant to himself in thought "damn, I have the right to stand not fall, why am I disturbed in my right to breathe" etc etc... he'll never learn his lesson

[Sirotnikov]

Nope. Floyd has no right to kick anyone's arse. It takes away the liberties of his poor victim/mugger.

It removes vital civil liberties, which is always a bad thing. Civilians can decide for themselves if they want to take risks, they don't need Big Brother.

Vital civil liberties include staying alive.
The curfew helps the civilians stay alive, and helps the soldiers to be concentrated on their mission.

They're fine if you get a specific warrant from a judge detailing specifically what is being looked for in every case of a search, and there is reasonable cause to believe something illegal is being done. Otherwise, they are ridiculous limits on liberty.

Hmm... And here I thought that it was the general staff that was deciding on war actions.

I'm waiting to see the entire list of warrants America got for it's Afghanistan actions

US involvement was certainly wrong, and any attacks on German civilians were wrong as well, as were restrictions on German civilians.

Aha.

So what you say, is that instead of fighting an actual war, US should have fought a legal war?

FDR: Hitler, you are breaching civil rights of your people. We can not fight you as that will hurt the civil rights of stray civilians or illegal combatants, though.

Hitler: You're right. I shall step down from power immediatelly.

FDR: I'm glad we have this resolved.

Hilter: Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!!! (slaughters 10 million civilians).

You haven't yet decided if bombing civilians intentionally was moral or not? That doesn't really seem to be a tough one to me.

Bombing specifically civilians is wrong.

Bombing an enemy productive town isn't.

The Atom bombs is a more difficult case. Not only were those productive towns, this also helped finish the war faster and with less casualties on both sides, though with heavier troubles to the japanese.

Wait a minute, curfews and searches aren't nice? I thought you said above that they were intended to help civilians? How can that not be nice, unless that is not the real intent?

That's not related.

You're using the logic
if it's intended to help civilians then it's nice.
If it's not nice it's not intended to help civilians.

But, it depends what is it compared to.

I say it's not nice compared to... say... normal life, peace on earth and prosperity.

If that was the situation, Israel would indeed be guilty of hurting the people's rights.

However, the situation is actually - war, killing, battles on the streets.

Compared to it, staying at home, being assured you won't be targetted is nice.

Therefore Israel is doing them a service.

Further, just because wars are not nice does not justify actions during war.

Not, but it justifies actions meant to make them nicer.


Che is right. You do not live in a world by Kant or Locke, yet. You have to step out to the Hobbes world and fight once in a while.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
You haven't decided if bombing 700 000 civilians without any industrial or military significance is moral or not?

Frankly, I don't know enough exact facts to decide.

It always seemed on the immoral side.

What's wrong with bombing 'nazis' ?

[KrazyHorse]

Not Nazis, Siro; dirty Krauts.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sava
And after days/weeks/months of anti-israeli trolling, it will be found out that these "civilians" all had ak-47s, explosives strapped to their chests, and maps of Israeli elementary schools.

No, it will turn out that 3 of the dead were schoolchildren who got blown up by a tank shell. Pretty crappy troll.

But it's okay to lob tank shells at people to warn them away; if someone gets killed it was an accident and no one's to blame.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Frankly, I don't know enough exact facts to decide.

So why do you keep quoting it then, if you apparently don't know what you're talking about...???

It always seemed on the immoral side.

That's because it was - vast numbers of civilians, wounded AND ALLIED POW's were burnt to a crisp in a giant open air oven!

The official excuse is that it was a transport hub, if so then destroy the transport but not flatten a civilian 'soft target'... It was 1945 for christ's sake - Germany was beaten. There was absolutely no need for this kind of mass murder of defenseless civilians!

What's wrong with bombing 'nazis' ?

That's sick, Siro. The overwhelming majority of Dresden would have been innocent of active participation in Nazi acts. Their only crime was the unfortunate coincidence on living in Nazi Germany...

Still it gains yet another insight on how your little Zionist mind works - you wouldn't like it if I turned round and said 'what's wrong with bombing Israeli civilians, they're Zionists...

I digress...

Apparently the people of Jenin thought the curfew was lifted during the day (for whatever reason) and they went to the marketplace to stock up on food (because they have to eat! ), apparently as a 'warning' Israeli tanks fired shells into the crowd...

Oh, it was an accident...

It will probably be swept under the carpet as usual. Could our Israel friends please keep tabs on this story and let us know when those guilty are court martialled and convicted of murder!



Actually, come to think of it - was anyone court martialled for the Liberty 'mistake', obviously if it was an error a bunch of high up Israelis would have been busted BIG TIME! Think of that as another concurrent task Siro et al. Maybe if you can prove there was a bunch of high ranking court martials, perhaps I might change my mind as to the brutal and unprovoked attack against the USS Liberty - cos if no one got court martialled, it wasn't an accident...

[GeneralTacticus]

Still it gains yet another insight on how your little Zionist mind works - you wouldn't like it if I turned round and said 'what's wrong with bombing Israeli civilians, they're Zionists...

What if we turned around and asked 'what's wrong with killing Palestinianian civilians, they're terrorists?' Quite apart from that, I have no idea where you got this strange idea that Zionism = Nazism from.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Still it gains yet another insight on how your little Zionist mind works -

Ahem!

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
They were Germans. Bombing Krauts is always moral.

[Gatekeeper]

It's always fun damning our predecessors for what they did in World War II from the comfort of 55 years removed, in societies that exist and prosper today precisely because Adolf Hitler and his likes lost the war they instigated. Our predecessors sure as hell weren't saints, but neither are we. I can imagine some yahoo a century from now sitting in an ivory tower, looking down on his or her own decedents while indirectly enjoying the benefits of the decisions we made in the here and now.

Hiroshima was bad. Nagasaki was bad. Dresden was barbarous. Easy for us to say, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the victors.

It's always a question: Where does one draw the line when looking back into the past? Where does the boundary exist, if one exists at all? Perhaps we should walk a mile in their shoes. Perhaps we should exist in their world for a time. Experience their mindset. Their fears. Their hopes. Perhaps only then can we realize why things were done they way they were done. And, unfortunately, some of those reasons will be stupid ones. Barbarous ones, even. But others will have been because they wanted a better world for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Us.

Gatekeeper

[David Floyd]

Nope. Floyd has no right to kick anyone's arse. It takes away the liberties of his poor victim/mugger.

Doesn't work that way - my right to liberty doesn't extend to violating someone else's right to liberty. If I decide to violate someone else's liberty, they can defend themselves.

The curfew helps the civilians stay alive,

Yes, and Big Brother knows better than the people themselves, doesn't it?

and helps the soldiers to be concentrated on their mission.

Why do you think I give a rat's ass about the soldiers?

I'm waiting to see the entire list of warrants America got for it's Afghanistan actions

A)Slightly different situation
B)You are correct - if we wanted to bomb Afghanistan we should have declared war, and we should never have trampled private property rights without the consent of Afghan courts.

So what you say, is that instead of fighting an actual war, US should have fought a legal war?

No, the US should have fought no war at all.

Bombing an enemy productive town isn't.

The Atom bombs is a more difficult case. Not only were those productive towns, this also helped finish the war faster and with less casualties on both sides, though with heavier troubles to the japanese.

Both Germany and Japan were already thoroughly beaten by the time of Dresden and the firebombing/atomic bombing of Japanese cities. It was unnecessary, but even if it had been necessary for victory, victory would not have been worth incinerating innocent civilians.

That's not related....blah blah blah

OK, we both know damn well that the curfews/searches are meant to protect Israelis. Israel doesn't give a flying **** about the Palestinians and their rights.

Gatekeeper,

It's always fun damning our predecessors for what they did in World War II from the comfort of 55 years removed, in societies that exist and prosper today precisely because Adolf Hitler and his likes lost the war they instigated. Our predecessors sure as hell weren't saints, but neither are we. I can imagine some yahoo a century from now sitting in an ivory tower, looking down on his or her own decedents while indirectly enjoying the benefits of the decisions we made in the here and now.

So basically, don't condemn immoral actions in the past, because if things had been done differently history might have come out a different way. Is that what you're saying? If so, we might as well not condemn any immoral actions at all, even present ones - who are we to judge, eh?

Hiroshima was bad. Nagasaki was bad. Dresden was barbarous. Easy for us to say, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the victors.

Actually it's a lot easier for the survivors of Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki to say than it is for us to say.

It's always a question: Where does one draw the line when looking back into the past? Where does the boundary exist, if one exists at all? Perhaps we should walk a mile in their shoes. Perhaps we should exist in their world for a time. Experience their mindset. Their fears. Their hopes. Perhaps only then can we realize why things were done they way they were done. And, unfortunately, some of those reasons will be stupid ones. Barbarous ones, even. But others will have been because they wanted a better world for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Put yourself in Hitler's shoes. He thought that by enacting the Final Solution, he would make things better for Germans.
Put yourself in Truman's shoes. He thought that by incinerating civilians, he would make things better for Americans.

Regardless of perspective, both actions are morally reprehensible. Good intentions? Maybe - but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the end cannot justify the means.

[TCO]

DF, it's ok to kill innocent military, but not innocent civilians? Quite a mideaval point of view. Remember Pearl Harbor...

[David Floyd]

DF, it's ok to kill innocent military, but not innocent civilians? Quite a mideaval point of view. Remember Pearl Harbor...

Actually I don't think war is OK, except in self-defense.

As to your argument about killing innocent military - come on. If someone is charging you with a gun, or trying to destroy your ship or airplane, it's OK to fire back. If someone is sitting at home drinking tea and playing gin rummy, it's not OK to shoot at them.

[chequita guevara]

The military, by definition, is not innocent.