Iran applauds life achievement of arch-terrorist

[onodera]

Siro got successfully trolled by Mr. Soleimani.

[classical_hero]

Of course this is most definitely a tasteless thing done by Iran, but what tdo they care? They want to remove Israel, so they are clearly and Enemy of those who want to do right.

[Tattila the Hun]

I'm sure Hizbollah would love to strike against military targets... Unfortunately, that really isn't a very good strategy. They'd just get killed in open warfare against a competent military.

So they attempt to strike at the war making capability of Israel, it's people. Would anyone have anything *morally* against them bombing a factory making tanks or assault rifles? How about specifically striking against the workers of said factory? Or a bank financing said factory? Or workers of said bank?

Just curious, don't really give a damn. It's just death, humanity has done it in spades before. Nothing new.

[Lancer]

Right, death is good and they are in the business of bringing it, so return the gracious favor and bring it to them in wonderfully copious quantities.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
I'm sure Hizbollah would love to strike against military targets... Unfortunately, that really isn't a very good strategy. They'd just get killed in open warfare against a competent military.

So they attempt to strike at the war making capability of Israel, it's people. Would anyone have anything *morally* against them bombing a factory making tanks or assault rifles? How about specifically striking against the workers of said factory? Or a bank financing said factory? Or workers of said bank?

Just curious, don't really give a damn. It's just death, humanity has done it in spades before. Nothing new.

Then you won't object to Israel exterminating the civilian populace that props up the Hizbollah war making capability? That would seem to be a good strategy by the same reasoning. It's also well within Israels means to use that strategy far more effectively than Hezbollah ever could.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by snoopy369
They are most certainly not acts of war. If they were, they wouldn't be terrorist actions, they'd be acts of war, and governed by a rather different set of rules

They are indeed acts of war, because they are performed against a state, in an organized manner, by a foreign organized party, on a political basis.

The fact that terrorists ignore rules of war, does not make their actions any less an act of war. If I ignore rules of traffic, it does not mean I'm not driving. The reason they are not following by rules of war is because terrorists tend to ignore rules of war for tactical and strategic advantage.

You should also brush up on your definitions of criminal code and the justice system. Criminal code and police force do not deal with outisde threats. The army and intelligence agencies do.

Applying your countries criminal code against foreign threats is useless and impractical. It is also somewhat unfair, because the outsiders have never took upon themselves to follow your code of laws (having never been inhabitants or citizens).

Had you been talking about a group of Israeli citizens (or residents) that attacked civilians or state institutions, it would indeed have been logical to deal with this in using criminal code and criminal procedures.

For outside threats, the army will suffice.

The point stands - when you order a house bombed that you believe houses terrorists, how sure do you need to be? 70%? 80%? 90%? How sure do you think they actually are (and by 'sure' I mean 'have verified evidence', not 'believe in their heart')?

there's another point:
when you order a house bombed that you believe houses terrorists, how urgent it is? what is the chance of the enemy escaping and what is the increased threat of him being alive?

also, even if you assume IDF has no ethics what so ever, you would have efficiency and economical factors weighing in against bombing potentially empty houses with very expensive bombs.

Certainly the GW comparison is exaggerated, but for a reason: to emphasize that you are putting your personal point of view, and spin, on this where Iranians might feel very differently.

They do feel differently.

They feel that they are exporting the Iranian revolution and helping to rid the world of a Jewish threat.

This is not a point of view I am obliged to respect. Nor do I think, is there any moral justification for you to defend it as legitimate.

There were hundreds of thousands of people in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki who were innocent - quite possibly even who did not believe in the war their government was waging on their 'behalf' - who were slaughtered, and there are undoubtedly numerous palestinians, afghans, Iraqis, etc. who are killed every month who may well believe in the cause of the side who killed them (and by that I mean the US/Israel/Peace/etc.).

True.

The horror of war is incredible.

That does not mean that Israel should forsake using the army to defend the security of its own citizens (whom it is obliged to defend), because of possibly risks imposed to others.

Clearly we don't explicitly define everyone who kills a few innocent civilians a terrorist - only the ones on the other side...

we explicitly define everyone and anyone that intentionally and with forethought targets innocent civilians a terrorist.
That is regardless of their political aim - be it the death of jews, or the freedom and harmony of all man kind.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
So I shouldn't expect an Israeli stamp of Ariel Sharon, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Sharon said that he had thought the houses were empty and that the unit had checked all houses before detonating the explosives.

The comment retorting this claim is sourced to Benni Morris's book without referring to the original documents it claims exists, and without even quoting a passage from Benni Morris's book.

Benni Morris is known for his affection to selective quoting, or intentional misquoting of official documents for his early works.

If you want proof - look up articles and books by historian Efraim Karsh.

You can claim what you want about Karsh's motives, but if you see how Morris's quotes rank up to the full quotes of original documents, you'd have a serious problem relying on him.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by onodera
Siro got successfully trolled by Mr. Soleimani.

[chequita guevara]

meh

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

The comment retorting this claim is sourced to Benni Morris's book without referring to the original documents it claims exists, and without even quoting a passage from Benni Morris's book.

Benni Morris is known for his affection to selective quoting, or intentional misquoting of official documents for his early works.

If you want proof - look up articles and books by historian Efraim Karsh.

You can claim what you want about Karsh's motives, but if you see how Morris's quotes rank up to the full quotes of original documents, you'd have a serious problem relying on him.

And does any of your comment change the fact that several dozen civilians were murdered during this action, and that it was universally condemend worldwide?

NO.

I am sure the thousands of Lebanese who had family members dies due to Israeli military actions in 1978 and 1982 would be happy to see a stamp with Sharon's face on it, right?

[dannubis]

Gepap,

That is completely different because Israel would be doing it.

And don't ask why anymore. It is so because they said so !

Full stop.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
And does any of your comment change the fact that several dozen civilians were killed during this action, and that it was universally condemend worldwide?

fixed.

murder = killing + intention to kill

murder = bad
killing in the context of war = unfortunate.

I am sure the thousands of Lebanese who had family members dies due to Israeli military actions in 1978 and 1982 would be happy to see a stamp with Sharon's face on it, right?

No they obviously won't.

I'm curious as to the role Sharon played in the actions in 1978, when he was the agriculture minister.

What ever moral relativity you had in mind, does not change two facts:

a) Imad Mughnyeh is well accepted as a murderous terrorist
b) Iran claims to have nothing to do with terrorists or Hezbullah
c) Iran went out of its way to honor Mughnyeh as if he was somehow an Iranian figure.

that's all.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Then you won't object to Israel exterminating the civilian populace that props up the Hizbollah war making capability? That would seem to be a good strategy by the same reasoning. It's also well within Israels means to use that strategy far more effectively than Hezbollah ever could.

I would imagine an actual army can use much more wide variety of strategies against a guerilla-style organisation, with greater effect than random, or indeed, wholesale slaughter. While the guerilla group, cannot. I'm tired of hearing about violence in middle-east, they should just get it over with, one way or another. This god fellow should propably re-do the flood, it's his people who're doing the fighting there...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
murder = killing + intention to kill

Patently false, and if you don't know the definition of murder, then this is hopeless.

Murder = illegal killing. The illegal part is critical.
An executioner has every intention of killing the person they seek to execute. But they have the blessing of the state, hence their act is not considered murder by the state that approved of the execution. Any other state that also would approve of that klling would also not find it murder.

killing in the context of war = unfortunate.

Killing is the point in war. The reason it is not considered murder is that states have given soldiers the blessing to kill in a wide set of circumstances without legal consequence. But there are laws in war now.

And what happened in Qibya was not a military action. The whole point of the action was not to stop a threat, but to create fear in the civilian population so that they would think twice about harboring militants.

Blowing up villages to "deter" future action is an act of terror. Sharon's excuse that he didn't know that the residents of the houses had not fled in terror as they were supposed to, and instead they stayed home, so our bad when we demolished their houses and killed them is morally repugnant.

And in that sense, the action was internationally condemend because it was seen as breaking the rules of combat that the world was trying to put together. Hence, MURDER (which again, is illegal killing).

[Dinner]

I'd be interested in seeing what people thought of WW2 bombing of cities. Was that terror attacks or just part of total war? I know where I stand and recently got called a bastard for saying that Palestinians support continued "war" against Israel because modern laws on warfare shield people from the reality of just how brutal war really is and should be. Maybe if war was like WW2 where whole populations were slaughtered each night then Palestinians wouldn't be so egar to turn down peace deals where they get 97% of their demands met.