quote:In a briefing to journalists late on Monday, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz addressed the issue of ongoing Palestinian Kassam rocket attacks against Israeli towns and cities.
In the past week alone, Palestinian rockets have hit the western Negev, Kibbutz Nir Am, Kibbutz Nahal Oz, and Highway 34 near Sderot, and the terrorists are said to be perfecting missiles with an even longer range.
"In order to deal with the Kassams," Halutz said, "we would need to breach various constraints that we have imposed upon ourselves, moral constraints and others, that we do not wish to breach, and I do not recommend that we do so." The chief of staff later explained that he was referring to more aggressive counterterror operations designed to stop the rocket launchings against Israel, as these would inevitably harm innocent Palestinian civilians.
I can only cry at such misplaced "mercy".
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, the media portray such retaliations as attacking peaceful Palestinians, not the ones doing the rocket attacks. Not stating an opinion, just the way it comes across.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I respect the care he is showing for the innocent Palestinians who would be killed. It's tough work to respect individual lives, and it's easy to lump the slaughtered innocents into a catagory of collateral damage, dying for the greater good.
Even if you don't agree, starlisa, you don't have a little bit of respect for his position?
[ January 11, 2006, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Then your solution is...what, exactly?
It's very easy to applaud this respect for individual lives, but at some point the question will remain the same but the answer will be different. At what point do the individual Israeli lives count for as much as the lives of the Palestinians terrorists are using to shield themselves?
In other words, if this goes on long enough, eventually the ratio of Israelis killed by these missile attacks will equal and then exceed the number of Palestinians who would be killed to stop these missile attacks.
I don't have a lot of respect for answers that blithely ignore such obvious considerations in favor of the moment.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
That answer becomes much clearer when you refuse to think of Palestinian lives and Israeli lives and learn to think of human lives.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I respect the care that he is showing for the innocent Palestinians that would be killed. It's tough work to respect individual lives, and it's easy to lump the slaughtered innocents into a catagory of collateral damage, dying for the greater good.
Even if you don't agree, starlisa, you don't have a little bit of respect for his position?
Um... not really. He's the head of the Israeli army. His first priority has to be protecting the lives of the people he works for.
I suspect that if he spent less time worrying about Palestinian casualties in cases like this, the Palestinian civilians might make some attempt to curb the ones firing the rockets.
Of course, that could be naive. Maybe they wouldn't do any such thing, since there doesn't appear to be any sign at all that they oppose firing rockets at innocent civilians. In fact, they seem to applaud such actions. In which case, I can't fathom concerning ourselves with their welfare. Particularly if it puts us at risk.
Imagine you're the army commander. Do you want to explain to the mother of a 2 year old girl who was killed by a rocket that you could have taken out the rocket emplacement, but you were worried that "innocent" Palestinians (who are dancing in the streets now celebrating the death of the 2 year old "oppressor") might have gotten hurt?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: That answer becomes much clearer when you refuse to think of Palestinian lives and Israeli lives and learn to think of human lives.
The value of a human life is different when you're talking about attackers and their supporters on the one hand, and victims on the other.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:I suspect that if he spent less time worrying about Palestinian casualties in cases like this, the Palestinian civilians might make some attempt to curb the ones firing the rockets.
Of course, that could be naive. Maybe they wouldn't do any such thing, since there doesn't appear to be any sign at all that they oppose firing rockets at innocent civilians. In fact, they seem to applaud such actions. In which case, I can't fathom concerning ourselves with their welfare. Particularly if it puts us at risk.
Since, of couse, there's no danger for a civilian in tring to stop an aggressive armed person from firing a rocket.
Nor any danger of having the more radical and violent members of your faction think you a traitor.
Jeez, damned if you do...
Not all Palestinians celebrate the death of innocent Israelis, any more than the opposite.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Then your solution is...what, exactly?
It depends.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That answer becomes much clearer when you refuse to think of Palestinian lives and Israeli lives and learn to think of human lives.
This line of thinking can never become the primary line for a military commander.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I suspect that if he spent less time worrying about Palestinian casualties in cases like this, the Palestinian civilians might make some attempt to curb the ones firing the rockets.
Of course, that could be naive. Maybe they wouldn't do any such thing, since there doesn't appear to be any sign at all that they oppose firing rockets at innocent civilians. In fact, they seem to applaud such actions.
At least you're consistent, Lisa. I'd hate to think that you recognized the humanity and independence of your self-described enemies for even a second.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: I suspect that if he spent less time worrying about Palestinian casualties in cases like this, the Palestinian civilians might make some attempt to curb the ones firing the rockets.
Of course, that could be naive. Maybe they wouldn't do any such thing, since there doesn't appear to be any sign at all that they oppose firing rockets at innocent civilians. In fact, they seem to applaud such actions. In which case, I can't fathom concerning ourselves with their welfare. Particularly if it puts us at risk.
There doesn't seem to be any sign at all that you oppose killing innocent civilians either. In fact, the whole point of starting this thread seems to be criticizing someone for being opposed to killing innocent civilians.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Or just another excuse to vent yet another incarnation of starLisa's rhetoric.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That answer becomes much clearer when you refuse to think of Palestinian lives and Israeli lives and learn to think of human lives. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This line of thinking can never become the primary line for a military commander.
Really?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A smart military commander would be aware of the potential fallout for the civilians under his care when taking actions against the civilians of his enemy.
In other words, attacking Palestinian civilians will have deadly reprecussions for Israeli civilians. Though in the past the ratio has always been many more dead Palestinians than dead Israelis, it ends up being something of a wash when the deaths cause more Palestinians to join the cause.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Terrorism is primarily a political tool, not a military tool. It isn't used to achieve battlefield victories, but to effect political change by intimidating leaders into giving in to you out of fear.
So you can win all the military victories you want against terrorists — but if you lose the political war, you have still lost. It sounds like this leader gets it. Firing through the human shields at the terrorists might kill some terrorists and make a lot of noise, but in the end, it would serve the terrorists' political purposes, not the Israelis'.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:He's the head of the Israeli army. His first priority has to be protecting the lives of the people he works for.
Would you also agree that Palestinian militants should care first about protecting Palestinians, and not worry about the number of innocent Israelis they have to kill in order to do so?
The fact of the matter is that self-defense often IS immoral - whenever one is so concerned about protecting oneself that one ignores one's moral responsibilities to everyone else.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know about everyone here, but I maintain a difference between self defense where you shoot someone who is pointing a gun at you, and self defense where you shoot someone who knows someone who in the past pointed a gun at you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Terrorism is primarily a political tool, not a military tool. It isn't used to achieve battlefield victories, but to effect political change by intimidating leaders into giving in to you out of fear.
So what? You seem to forget that battlefield victories are also a political tool, used intimidate leaders into giving in to you. How terrifying is a terrorist that loses every battle?
I do think, though, that starLisa may be blaming the wrong guy. He's in charge of the military; he does not set policy. Although he is careful to say 'we' and 'us', it is entirely possible that the rules of engagement were actually set by politicians with a view to wider world opinion. As a professional military man, it would then be the general's job to back those policies whether he agreed with them or not. For all you know, he is actually a gung-ho fascist type who would like nothing better than to bomb every Palestinian settlement to dust.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I don't know about everyone here, but I maintain a difference between self defense where you shoot someone who is pointing a gun at you, and self defense where you shoot someone who knows someone who in the past pointed a gun at you.
Yes, I agree with this.
I'm sure the point will be made soon, however, that the guy who pointed a gun at you in the past is still out there, and has done it so many times before that there's no real reason to expect that he WON'T do it again soon.
To me, the ideal would be to go arrest them and have a trial.
It'd be interesting to see, for instance, the evidence against particular individuals who have been targetted for elimination by the Israelis. Even granting that it's particularly difficult to make a case against a terrorist leader (who may order killings but never actually pull the trigger), my definition of morality includes a requirement of being more than just "sure" that a certain person is a terrorist before you order a missile strike on the building they may (or may not) be occupying at any given moment.
Really, the tough part is that this situation is not subject to the rule of law, or the "rules" of war. It's something that we, in general, as human beings haven't got rules for.
To me, that's one of the reasons why terrorism is effective (in so far as it DOES disrupt the peace). Because there are no rules, the response to terrorism is bound to look like blundering incompetence.
Sadly, it mostly IS blundering incompetence, and that doesn't help the victims of it feel any better about their corner of the world either.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: That answer becomes much clearer when you refuse to think of Palestinian lives and Israeli lives and learn to think of human lives.
*nod*
A flower is born, and then it blooms, but eventually it dies.
[/beingthere]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: That answer becomes much clearer when you refuse to think of Palestinian lives and Israeli lives and learn to think of human lives.
Then I have to ask... which ends more civilian lives, stopping terrorists or tolerating attacks?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:stopping terrorists or tolerating attacks?
Are those the diametrically opposed alternatives?
Seems to me we're discussing a particular set of methods used in the past in an attempt to stop terrorists, unsuccessfully, and comparing that to other tactics that have also proven ineffective.
Perhaps what we want to determine is which of the many strategies open to a government committed to the rule of law is the most effective.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
The choice was to compare casualty losses in situations where intelligence comes of a terrorist group's location, and stopping it runs the risk of harming civilians. Of course there are better methods of combatting terrorism -- gainful employment and land probably chief among them -- but the question belonging to "that answer" Pelegius commented on is "At what point do the individual Israeli lives count for as much as the lives of the Palestinians terrorists are using to shield themselves?"
And if the answer truly is a numbers game, I don't think it's unfair to ask which solution costs more lives.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:And if the answer truly is a numbers game, I don't think it's unfair to ask which solution costs more lives.
It may not be unfair, but it may be asking the impossible.
You might- might be able to say "such and such 'terrorist' undertook actions with other terrorists a,b, and c; these actions killed x number of people over the course of a year; presuming the terrorist would have had y number of years of continued activity, in eliminating him, we have prevented the death of (number killed * number of years activity would have continued)/ number of terrorists engaged in those activities." It's kind of brutal and cold to put things in such terms, and at least some of the figures would be utter speculation, but you could do it. I don't doubt that someone, somewhere, is probably doing just that.
But then you get to the cost of killing a civilian, and that gets even more speculative. These countries become more likely to withdraw some or all of their support, or not vote favorably on a U.N. issue, or complicate some trade issue. These ministers spend more of their time answering letters of concern, and possibly get burnt out in the process. And more to the point, These friends and family members, previously uncommitted or borderline, now take an active role in terrorism themselves. These civilians believe their situation that much more hopeless, their chances of survival that much slimmer, and if they don't actively support the terrorism, they at least don't see any reason to oppose it, since day-to-day life has become so throwaway anyway.
At the point you have to consider such statistics, I truly wonder if gut moral feelings aren't at least as accurate.
To put it bluntly, while I support the existence of Israel, and marvel at the tenacity of those who founded it, the current state of affairs generally shows all the moral high ground of a Los Angeles gang war. Yes, a lot of people are living in a siege mentality, yes, too many people close to things see attrocities way too frequently and it has hardened the people who have to make decisions. Come down to it, though, and those are excuses, not justifications.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think part of the problem is the siege mentality you speak of.
If tomorrow Israel decided on an entirely new strategy, one that consisted of helping Palestine, it'd still be doomed to failure because of their preexisting mentality. Let's say they moved into Palestine and started to rebuild schools, and hospitals, and actively worked to bring food to starving areas and to boost their economy, basically helping them in a way that no Arab nation ever has, it still wouldn't work.
One guy in the back of a Honda would launch a shoulder mounted rocket into the Negev and land on a small house killing a young Israeli boy, at which point he IDF would go bucknutty and send in the Apache Longbows to eliminate the threat, which would result in civilan deaths, and then they are back to square one.
Israelis, as evidenced by starLisa's repeated posts that affirm this statement, have a very difficult time in seeing a difference between Palestinians and Palestinian terrorists. They think they are one in the same, and even if 99% of the people supported a peace with Israel, that 1% could goad Israel into blowing holes across Gaza.
And I really don't know what the solution to that is. I'm hard pressed to tell Israel to just absorb those losses, but at what point does it become a short term loss for long term gains? This struggle could go on for another hundred years, and in that time thousands of Israeli lives could be lost through a continued cycle of violence.
Could a few years of deaths, with no retribution, end the cycle and be worth it, if it meant no deaths in the future? Deep down, Palestinians realize there will always be an Israel, even if the rest of the Muslim world refuses to accept that fact (though I think they really have). Deep down, do the Israelis realize there will always be a Palestine? Probably. I suspect the majority of them do.
Israel is in a unique position to end the violence and set itself up as Palestine's benefactor and protector. They'd be doing something the rest of the Muslim world has refused to do, to try and make coexistance with Palestine profitable, safe and healthy for both sides and have it not revolve a culture of death and sacrifice. The US would back Israel in that regard, and many Palestinians would approve of a US and European backed effort, even if Israel was the one doing the helping.
It has merit, but sadly it'll never work.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Terrorism is primarily a political tool, not a military tool. It isn't used to achieve battlefield victories, but to effect political change by intimidating leaders into giving in to you out of fear.
So you can win all the military victories you want against terrorists — but if you lose the political war, you have still lost. It sounds like this leader gets it. Firing through the human shields at the terrorists might kill some terrorists and make a lot of noise, but in the end, it would serve the terrorists' political purposes, not the Israelis'.
There is a lot of truth in this quote. I don't agree with everything there, but I do believe that military solutions to political problems, just like scientific solutions to political problems, are easily prescribed and often inappropriate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think people are ignoring my intentional use of the word primary.
As for these questions of politics, political objectives are not to my knowledge supposed to be in the purview of military commanders.
Edit: At least, not people whose sole job is a military commander.
[ January 12, 2006, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Oh, come now. Israelis don't see a difference between civilians and terrorist? If that were true, they would have carpet-bombed Jenin, rather than taking it house by house.
But I fear that in 10 years, the question of non-nuclear missiles against Israel will be moot. Whether it is depends on whether the UN will take action. That is, we're in trouble.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Carpet bombing Jenin would have universally united the world against Israel. They would have lost ALL political traction and all military support.
You're seeing the result of the IDF being told what is reasonably acceptable for political reasons, but the more I see and hear from people like starLisa, I wonder how many Israelis really see a distinction. I hope for the sake of Israel's future she's an extreme minority.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's up to you to decide, Lyrhawn, if nakedly self-serving political motivations are the only reason Israelis attempt to show restraint where civilian deaths are concerned.
While there certainly are political benefits, it might just be that the Israeli leadership places a higher priority on preventing the death of innocents than does the militant Palestinian leadership.
(Note: I'm not saying all Palestinian leadership is militant. I'm referring here to the portions of Palestinian leadership who are militant.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'd suspect that both place a high priority on preventing the death of innocents, yet the Israeli army simply has more options available to it than Palestinian militants. A direct war between the militants and the Israeli army would result in the militants being devastated.
Unfortunately, there is only one option available to either side that will actually solve their ongoing crisis - and that is the one option neither side seems willing to commit to: serious compromise. They will give and take, but neither side seems willing to give enough to satisfy the minimum that the other is willing to take. But this is what happens when you create a state for one religion and culture in an area where not all people are from the same religious and cultural heritage. You aren't really going to be able to have peace until either everyone from a different religious and cultural background leaves, until the state dissolves, or until that state ceases representing only one segment of its population.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote: I suspect that if he spent less time worrying about Palestinian casualties in cases like this, the Palestinian civilians might make some attempt to curb the ones firing the rockets.
Of course, that could be naive. Maybe they wouldn't do any such thing, since there doesn't appear to be any sign at all that they oppose firing rockets at innocent civilians. In fact, they seem to applaud such actions. In which case, I can't fathom concerning ourselves with their welfare. Particularly if it puts us at risk.
There doesn't seem to be any sign at all that you oppose killing innocent civilians either. In fact, the whole point of starting this thread seems to be criticizing someone for being opposed to killing innocent civilians.
--Enigmatic
Do you seriously not understand the difference between attacking murderous terrorists and civilians sometimes getting hurt as a side effect and deliberately targeting civilians?
It certainly sounds as though you don't get the difference. And that, in a nutshell, is the source of the lunatic moral relativism that's being pasted onto a situation that has a very clear good side and bad side.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: Do you seriously not understand the difference between attacking murderous terrorists and civilians sometimes getting hurt as a side effect and deliberately targeting civilians?
It certainly sounds as though you don't get the difference. And that, in a nutshell, is the source of the lunatic moral relativism that's being pasted onto a situation that has a very clear good side and bad side.
I think that sums it up pretty well.
This is a "Me, too!", "I agree!" post. Not much I have to say of my own...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If tomorrow Israel decided on an entirely new strategy, one that consisted of helping Palestine, it'd still be doomed to failure because of their preexisting mentality. Let's say they moved into Palestine and started to rebuild schools, and hospitals, and actively worked to bring food to starving areas and to boost their economy, basically helping them in a way that no Arab nation ever has, it still wouldn't work.
True. We've actually done that. We pay huge amounts of money to Arab villages, and they don't pay taxes, so it's a one way street. We give them scholarships to college, and free schooling for their children. And if there are any "starving areas", they aren't under our control in any way, and going in there would be a bloodbath.
The number of Jewish Israelis living below the poverty line is enormous and growing, and it's because of the constant drain on the economy necessary to prevent the Arabs from destroying us.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: One guy in the back of a Honda would launch a shoulder mounted rocket into the Negev and land on a small house killing a young Israeli boy, at which point he IDF would go bucknutty and send in the Apache Longbows to eliminate the threat, which would result in civilan deaths, and then they are back to square one.
If one guy in the back of a Honda were to commit such an atrocity and the Palestinian leaders got up and roundly condemned the act, and the Palestinian media bemoaned the viciousness of the terrorist scumbag who did it, Israel wouldn't do anything of the sort.
But that's not what happens. Three times in the history of the State of Israel, a lone Israeli Jew has killed Arabs in a way that's similar to what the Arabs do to us all the time. And every time, the entire Israeli populace has gone absolutely apeshit with horror over it.
It is positively sickening that you can't see the difference between a culture that reacts to the brutal and animalistic targeting of innocents with celebrations or indifference and one which actually values human life enough to risk our own people to prevent casualties among the enemy.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Israelis, as evidenced by starLisa's repeated posts that affirm this statement, have a very difficult time in seeing a difference between Palestinians and Palestinian terrorists.
That's because Palestinians make it very hard to see any difference. There is a culture of support of the ones who actually carry out these attacks. Indifference is about the best reaction you ever see from them, and dancing in the streets is more common.
During the Gulf War, Palestinian Arabs, even those with Israeli citizenship, who are given the right to elect representatives to the Knesset, danced on the rooftops as the Scuds fell, and sang:
Saddam, Saddam Ya habib Udroob, udroob Tel Abib
That means "Saddam, Saddam, O friend, smash, smash, Tel Aviv."
Did any of the scum who did that actually commit acts of terror? Maybe not. But you'll forgive me if I don't shed a tear when they get caught in the crossfire.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: They think they are one in the same, and even if 99% of the people supported a peace with Israel, that 1% could goad Israel into blowing holes across Gaza.
That's not true. If we knew that Palestinian society would fall on such a person like a ton of bricks, we wouldn't do any such thing. But it isn't happening. And I don't see any sign that they're at all interested in it happening.
They have land, now. It's not all the land they want, but it's independent. And what have they done with it? Declared the kernel of their new state? Nah. Because it isn't a state that they're after. No, they've used it as a base for making war against Israel.
Can you even imagine what would happen if Canada allowed someone to fire rockets from Canada into populated areas in the US? When someone does something like that as a lone wolf, it's maybe a crime. When they do it with the support of their nation, it's war.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And I really don't know what the solution to that is. I'm hard pressed to tell Israel to just absorb those losses, but at what point does it become a short term loss for long term gains?
Easy for you to say. And I really do hope that some day you find yourself learning what it really means to have a savage population trying to murder you. That you find yourself on the target side of this kind of war. Because you seem to be unteachable with words.[/QB][/QUOTE]
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Israel is in a unique position to end the violence and set itself up as Palestine's benefactor and protector. They'd be doing something the rest of the Muslim world has refused to do, to try and make coexistance with Palestine profitable, safe and healthy for both sides and have it not revolve a culture of death and sacrifice. The US would back Israel in that regard, and many Palestinians would approve of a US and European backed effort, even if Israel was the one doing the helping.
The most dangerous of the terrorist leaders are the ones Israel has educated. We've given them schooling, we've given them free rides at Hebrew University, and they've used that education to better their ability to murder us.
Your idea doesn't have merit, Lyrhawn. It's been done, and it's being done, and the results have been the opposite of what you imagine they would be. You need to lose the delusional thing and get a reality check.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rakeesh, things have gotten to the point where anyone not calling for the utter and immediate annihilation of all Jews everywhere is considered a "moderate" Palestinian leader.
Find me one Palestinian leader who calls for the utter repression and imprisonment of fellow Palestinians who shoot rockets at Israel and send suicide bombers across the border. Yes, all Palestinian leadership is militant.
Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
StarLisa,
I have read with fascination a number of your, let's say 'fundamentalist' posts (i.e. the Hannukah thread). I agree, in principle, with the spirit of your questioning.
On the issue at hand I would only ask that you too remain consistent...
As you know, from your own readings, all Israelis (all Jews in Israel) are soldiers. Your distinction of civilian/soldier for the purposes of making what is merely a political arguement is disingenuous.
If you'd like to disagree of course you may, but then I would ask that you reconsider your position on how a Jew should understand Hannukah.
The moral relativity is yours. Imagine if you lived in Israel.
Posted by boogashaga (Member # 8881) on :
Perhaps instead of the "broadsword" approach, israel could utilize "the guys" and try a "sugical" approach? They have the teams, and theirs are very good, trust me. We have not seen them in action very much lately and i wonder why. Most of trhe time you do not see these missions all over the news, but their results generally are apparent,but perhaps not to a casual observer. "The guys" are one of the top counterterrorist groups around and have incredible experience agaist this particular foe. They appear to be being held in reserve for some reason. Also, the military commander noted above would generally not mention this unit or it's missions to the press in any event.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tresopax,
quote:I'd suspect that both place a high priority on preventing the death of innocents, yet the Israeli army simply has more options available to it than Palestinian militants. A direct war between the militants and the Israeli army would result in the militants being devastated.
I don't understand what possible definition of the words "high priority" you could possibly be using to describe the level of importance militant Palestinian leaders put on avoiding civilian deaths. They target civilians for death and execute them in cold blood.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How much of a threat are the Kassam rockets? My understanding is that they are inefficient and dangerous to fire. One news report (from NPR, I think) said that more people have been killed launching the missles than have been killed by the missiles hitting their targets.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by monteverdi: On the issue at hand I would only ask that you too remain consistent...
As you know, from your own readings, all Israelis (all Jews in Israel) are soldiers. Your distinction of civilian/soldier for the purposes of making what is merely a political arguement is disingenuous.
See, that's the problem with getting information from "readings" and knowing things from personal experience. Most Israelis are not soldiers. Women have to do 2 years of army when they turn 18 (or maybe it's down to a year and a half; I don't recall). They don't do reserve duty. And most religious girls don't do army at all. Instead, they do national service of a non-military sort.
As far as men are concerned, they do 3 years of service when they turn 18 (though, again, that may be only 2.5 years now). Then they do reserve service until they're 55 (unless that's been lowered as well).
Reserve duty differs from person to person, but in most cases, if you do it for a month out of a year, that's a lot. During the rest of the year, only someone who has no knowledge of the reality would refer to them as "soldiers". They are 100%civilians except during reserve duty.
Nice attempt at making excuses for Palestinian terrorism, though. Sorry to make it harder for you.
quote:Originally posted by monteverdi: If you'd like to disagree of course you may, but then I would ask that you reconsider your position on how a Jew should understand Hannukah.
The moral relativity is yours. Imagine if you lived in Israel.
This last has just so many things wrong with it.
I do disagree, and I don't need your permission to do so.
I disagree on the basis of knowledge, which is in contrast to what you may have picked up from reading the odd newspaper article.
There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between this subject and Hanukkah.
You seem not to know what the term "moral relativity" means, because it makes no sense as you're using it.
And finally, I lived in Israel for 12 years. I haven't been in Chicago for that long. You might want to check your facts before making silly claims.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Tresopax,
quote:I'd suspect that both place a high priority on preventing the death of innocents, yet the Israeli army simply has more options available to it than Palestinian militants. A direct war between the militants and the Israeli army would result in the militants being devastated.
I don't understand what possible definition of the words "high priority" you could possibly be using to describe the level of importance militant Palestinian leaders put on avoiding civilian deaths. They target civilians for death and execute them in cold blood.
Do you see why I get so outraged, Rak? There seems to be a serious disconnect in people's minds. Almost as though they're so terrified of the idea that some people might just be utterly evil, and so they're compelled to substitute fantasies of what they'd like to be true for what's actually the case.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How much of a threat are the Kassam rockets? My understanding is that they are inefficient and dangerous to fire. One news report (from NPR, I think) said that more people have been killed launching the missles than have been killed by the missiles hitting their targets.
Oh. My. God.
Scott, you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing. They're f***ing shooting flying bombs at us. What kind of a person tries to minimize that by talking about the relative efficiency of the rockets?
Good Lord. If someone mugs you with a Saturday Night Special, is it mitigated by the fact that those things are poorly made and often backfire?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you're overreacting, starLisa, in a big way. Scott has not said, "It's OK because they're terribly inefficient weapons." He has asked how dangerous these weapons are because he's heard reports that they're potentially as dangerous to the operator as the target.
You're reading into that that he is saying, "Forget about it, then."
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Do you seriously not understand the difference between attacking murderous terrorists and civilians sometimes getting hurt as a side effect and deliberately targeting civilians?
It certainly sounds as though you don't get the difference. And that, in a nutshell, is the source of the lunatic moral relativism that's being pasted onto a situation that has a very clear good side and bad side.
I do, as a matter of fact. Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz seems to get the importance of that difference. You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating decreasing the difference to a very fine line. You're not saying the IDF should "deliberately" target civilians, but you are saying that the IDF shouldn't be concerned if civilians get killed.
To an outside observer, your statements in this thread make it much harder to see the conflict as so clear-cut "good" vs "evil" as you see it. Or rather, it looks like Israel is trying to stay Good and you want them to not try quite so hard.
The problem with being the Good side is that you have to, as Halutz said, impose upon yourself "moral constraints."
--Enigmatic
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:aggressive counterterror operations designed to stop the rocket launchings against Israel, as these would inevitably harm innocent Palestinian civilians.
This doesn't really sound like "sometimes getting hurt as a side effect." If you know that civilians will be killed and you intentionally do it anyway, that's not much different than deliberately targeting them, imo.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:aggressive counterterror operations designed to stop the rocket launchings against Israel, as these would inevitably harm innocent Palestinian civilians.
This doesn't really sound like "sometimes getting hurt as a side effect." If you know that civilians will be killed and you intentionally do it anyway, that's not much different than deliberately targeting them, imo.
It's incredibly different. Would you live next to someone commiting atrocities and do nothing about it?
Furthermore, that's ridiculous. The rockets being fired from the ruins of Gush Katif can be destroyed, and if "innocent civilians" get hurt, it's because they've moved to that area in the past month or two. It's not as though they were living there all along.
When are you going to insist on a modicum of self-responsibility on the part of the Arabs? They can't have it both ways. We keep our civilians away from military emplacements, because that's what sane and civilized people do. If the Arabs did the same, this wouldn't even be an issue. They are counting on our restraint.
These are people who transport arms in ambulances marked with the Red Cross. They do not subscribe to the humanitarian code of conduct accepted by most of the world.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a thing.
Suprisingly, I'm not ashamed at all. You'd think I would be (heck even *I* think I would be) with my overactive Mormon guilt gland and all-- but I'm not.
Even more supringsing is the fact that I don't think I SHOULD be ashamed about posting what I posted.
Wow. I AM Mr. Apathy, aren't I? Dangit, that means Jon's going to have to change my title back on the GalacticCactus. Now THAT I'm bummed about-- I liked being Mr. Astounding.
If it helps you feel better, I give you permission to interpret my comments as a scathing mockery of Palestinian technical expertise.
And truthfully, the Palestinians KNOW that the Kassam's are ineffective and dangerous. So why continue using them? The conclusion that I reached, given my limited knowledge of the subject is that they are trying to send a political message to the Israelis:
No peace, not ever. Not even if we have to kill ourselves with our own crappy hardware.
It makes for a succinct statement of barbarism.
If I understand things, the Kassam missile attacks are not a big threat; the Israeli military knows it; the Palestinians know it. So why spend worry on it? Especially when you realize that taking away their weapons is not going to do anything to secure your country. Palestinians are notoriously good rock throwers, I hear. Will you try to remove all the rocks in the mid-east, too?
Spend more time worrying about winning over the Palestinian populace (which, oddly, cannot be done through collateral damage-- I'm quite sure of it), and protecting Israelis from serious threats.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Rakeesh,
I don't that think that even a military commander need to abdicate his humanity for a more efficient result. If so, then there is something ghastly about the military.
Now is about the time where people trot out MacArthur's speech about how the primary objective of the military is to win, and that's when I say that MacArthur is wrong. If you win a war in a manner which makes a stable peace impossible to achieve, then one has won a war and failed as a military commander.
Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
Starlisa,
Don't be silly !
I am not talking about the constitution of the modern political state of Israel, but about the Torah! (Which, as you have insisted, especially in your Hannukah thread, should be zealously upheld!)
How can you now wear the garb of a secular rationalist? As you know, the Promised Land would always be fought for and need be defended by all the chosen.
Herein lies your moral relativity: the Palestinians are simply taking you seriously (at least as seriously as you wish Jews would take themselves, according to your Hannukah postings)--and we should, of course, fight back; but, not complain, as you do, about the immorality of the enemy!?
p.s. by reading I only meant the Torah, and not, as you intimate, the news...
Regards, MV
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Irami,
Even after I was specific, you're still missing my point. I said that such concerns cannot be the primary concern for a military commander. I have never said such concerns should not be the primary concern of anyone in a position of leadership, ever.
It is the job of the military to execute political violence on behalf of its people and its leadership. It is its people and its leadership, not the military, that is responsible for supplying this humanity you speak of.
Now a part of that is naturally instilling in the military sufficient humanity-different people draw that line in different places. A military commander is by definition divided into "us and them" thinking. That's his job. To defeat the enemy without sustaining defeat yourself, usually by killing the enemy. Or practicing to do so, making one's enemies wary.
None of this means that this is the only thing a military commander should think about. Obviously there are many other concerns. But ultimately, insofar as his occupation is concerned, a military commander's first priority must be victory. Others are supposed to answer questions regarding how much victory, of what type, and what should be done to obtain it. But it's become clear to me over the years that you do find something ghastly about the military anyway, so I expect these are wasted words.
If you think this commander has decided all on his own, without political oversight of any kind, to include concerns for Palestinian civilian death, I think you're mistaken.
So, for the record, just to be absolutely and perfectly clear: I do not think that a military commander shouldn't be concerned about civilian casualties in pursuit of military objectives. I just don't think that can be the first, most important priority. Because once it is...well, the commander is defeated.
-------
camus,
quote:This doesn't really sound like "sometimes getting hurt as a side effect." If you know that civilians will be killed and you intentionally do it anyway, that's not much different than deliberately targeting them, imo.
There's different and there's different. Yes, a civilian killed in pursuit of some other objective is just as dead as one who is targeted specifically. Possibly that civilian, if there is an afterlife, would be just as upset about it, too.
But unless you're willing to downplay the importance of intent in all things-unless you're willing to ignore what people intend, what they mean, what they're working towards-when you judge them, I think you should reconsider your opinion on what is and isn't different.
If I murder my neighbor in cold blood, should I receive the same penalty as if I murdered that same man because there was a man behind me threatening to shoot me if I did not? The neighbor is just as dead, isn't he?
Note: I am not trying to portray that as the situation between Palestinians and Israelis. But it does go to the issue of whether or not intent matters.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But unless you're willing to downplay the importance of intent in all things-unless you're willing to ignore what people intend, what they mean, what they're working towards-when you judge them
Not to say that intent is not important to some extent, I am willing to downplay its overall importance. After all, many atrocities are committed with good (or misguided) intentions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I daresay you couldn't point to an atrocity and say its executioners had good intentions. Unless you take their words at face value.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Good intentions from their point of view, or do you suggest intentions should be judged good or bad before some type of committee?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I challenge you to point out an atrocity that had good intentions for the people as the first motivator, rather than enabling the executioner's own ambitions as the first motivator.
Hitler, Stalin, all the big favorites throughout history...they weren't carrying out atrocities whilst living in the gutter wearing rags. They were carrying out atrocities living on the high horse, getting and staying in power. I think you know exactly what I mean, and are just playing semantic games, camus.
My intent does not necessarily equal what I actually say. I could, y'know, be lying-to you, to myself, or both. It takes an examination of what actually happens and an evaluation of intent to really, I believe, judge someone, not a committee. It's imprecise, yes. But it's better than your stance, which is to say essentially that intent doesn't matter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
starLisa -
quote: Easy for you to say. And I really do hope that some day you find yourself learning what it really means to have a savage population trying to murder you. That you find yourself on the target side of this kind of war. Because you seem to be unteachable with words.
Wow, that's possibly the most aggressively hateful thing I've ever heard someone say to me. Thanks I guess. I hope you die too, mazeltov!
And they aren't savage, your words indicate your prejudice. I don't think you understood the meaning of my words or for that matter my post at all. As always, you took it as some sort of assault on Israel, and on the whole, it wasn't. Some of it was criticism sure, but in typical starLisa fashion, you took it to the extreme.
If you think it's in the best interests of Israel to keep the status quo for the next few hundred years then so be it, I won't criticize Israeli policy anymore. You obviously know what you're doing. Ahem.
I don't know why I get pulled into arguments with you. You aren't reasonable, and there's no evidence to show you ever will be.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:A military commander is by definition divided into "us and them" thinking. That's his job.
Would you say that an individual's duty to do their job is a more "primary" concern than their duty to do the right thing?
I would say ANY person's primary duty is usually to do the right thing, and only after that to do their job. For instance, a salesman should not lie to trick people into buying their product, even if that would help him sell more of it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The problem with believing that ALL Palestinians want to see the destruction of Israel is that it leaves room for only one type of response to Palestinian terrorism.
And that response has, to date, been less successful than anyone would hope. In fact, it has had the opposite effect to that desired by the Israelis.
The problem with believing that there are moderate, and even peace-loving Palestinians, is that that comes with a moral burden and a practical one: to not turn them into your mortal enemies through mistreatment; to foster them whenever possible; but above all, not to kill them.
One problem with going back and forth on the issue is that the Israeli government switches strategies too often to really know the effects of its policies, whether they be strong-arm or conciliatory. It's all a big jumble that not even a good time-series analysis could disentangle adequately.
I look to Israel and Palestine and see the future of US/Middle East relations. We're doing the same things, in many ways. And facing the same types of foes, drawn from similar backgrounds -- intense poverty, easy access to damning information about our past behaviors, and a culture of distrust and antipathy towards us.
------------------------------------
The Palestinians, for their part, have a government in name only. The rule of law is practically non-existent. And for the average person, life just "happens to them." They have no great vision for the future and no real hope of developing one in this generation.
Investing there is a huge gamble. Thus, they will remain backward and poor in comparison to even their poor neighbors in Jordan and Egypt.
Poverty and lack of employment means that young people have a lot of time on their hands, and a lot of frustration ripe for harvesting.
So long as there is an external enemy to blame (Israel, the US, Britain), the "leaders" will use that excuse rather than focus on what can be done within Palestine. And hey, it's not like there aren't obvious abuses they can point to in the past and present. And they know that any government that doesn't sing that song is basically slitting its own throat, because the next most abusive entity in Palestine, has been their own leaders.
That only helps groups like Hamas. An angry, disillusioned population, especially angry teens with time on their hands, is like automatic recruitment for the terrorists.
----------------------------------------------
It seems to me that there are only 3 options for making the situation safer (going along the same road as now is not an option since it would lead to only the safety of today):
1) Wholesale deportation of either the Israelis or the Palestinians. Anyone who thinks the Israelis are going someplace else is fooling themselves. So, if this were ever to be the chosen option, you can bet the Palestinians would be moved out, by force. Or simply killed.
or,
2) Slow, steady dedication to a process of improving the life of people in the Palestinian states to the point where recruitment of kids into terrorist organizations becomes less and less likely.
Neither of these is going to make Israel a "safe" country. It'll make it a "safer" country. Neither will make the PA a safe and prosperous country. But under #2 it'll be safer and more prosperous.
Then there's #3)Option 3 is to seal Israel more or less completely. Anyone entering the country would have to be checked thoroughly and basically enter the country only after a period of quarantine after a good thorough strip search and some assurance that they aren't carrying a deadly plague in their body. Nothing larger than a six-pack of soda could be allowed in without inspection and, perhaps, lab testing. An air barrier extending beyond Israel's borders should be sufficient to protect against bombs being flown in. Then we just have to worry about medium-to-long range ballistic missiles. They can have whatever works from our technology, I suppose, and develop something better for themselves. Maybe some space-based anti-nukes? Whatever it takes.
I personally favor option #2. I'm not a fan of mass movement of people, and I definitely don't think genocide is a solution, since the rest of the Arab world would still exist out there, and they'd be more than just angry -- they'd be wondering if they were next. Actually, deportation would have a similarly chilling effect on the other neighbors of Israel. In fact, for #1 to work, it'd almost have to include a program of genocide against most of Israel's neighbors, and ultimately the entire Arab world since some of those countries have nukes and could someday become convinced that Israel is enough of a threat. Pre-emptive death to all of Israel's neighbors is about the only way to ensure a sufficient safety buffer once the world starts down the path of #1, IMO. Since that's not likely to happen, I think option #1 would result in Israel's destruction by force, unless the rest of the world entered into a war to stop it.
I don't think Israel would survive option #3. Economically, it'd be a disaster. And, ultimately, if ICBMs are introduced into the Arab world, there'd be no effective shield against their use, someday, eventually. And safety could not be guaranteed.
#2 is the toughest one. Things would take a long time to get better. And the world in general would have to chip in BIG TIME because it'd be totally unfair to expect Israel to spend it's limited resources on those who are now its enemies. Especially since in the early stages of such a program, the costs would certainly outweigh the benefits. (i.e., there'd still be terrorists in large numbers even as we spend billions on making sure that Palestinians have good jobs and schools).
And, frankly, Israel's government can't be counted on to stick to one program for the length of time this would require. No government can.
The whole thing needs to be turned over to the IMF and the UN. or some new body if those have provent to be ineffective.
...
or...
we could just let things alone. let them fight it out. Eventually, there'll be a clear winner and a clear loser. And we can all wait for the blood to settle into the earth, and for the crops to become less radioactive. And then the survivors can build a new civilization from the ashes.
I'd sure be interested in hearing another set of options. Or, if someone things option #1 or #3 is the preferred one, I'd like to hear the reasoning.
Ultimately, I just KNOW we'll never even try option #2. It's not the way our world works.
But if every other option has been tried, or every other option leads to MORE death and hardship...is there a great loss in trying this one?
Sadly, though, I don't see an option that gives Palestinians much of a chance for sane self-government in the near term. The world powers would almost have to insist on the current leadership stepping down. They have proven to be corrupt AND ineffective. One or the other we could work with, but both in combination makes it impossible to believe that investment in the country will do much good.
Also, I hate to even bring this up, but to make #2 work, Israel would almost certainly have to agree to let someone else (besides their forces) take care of going after the terrorists in the PA regions. I don't see how the presence of the Israeli military could do anything but slow the progress if option #2 were decided upon.
I don't see Israel doing that without significant concessions and assurances.
In short, I don't hold out much hope for the region.
And sadly, I think we're heading into a World War over it.
In view of that, I'd rather take some strong-arm tactics with BOTH the Israelis and the Palestinians. Basically drag the Palestinian areas into prosperity, and force the Israelis to keep out of the region until it was accomplished. Even when terrorists still sneak into Israel and kill people.
But, now I'm sounding like everything I hate in Bush's approach to Iraq.
So, ultimately, I suspect when it comes right down to it, I'm going to just sit here and watch the entire region go up in flames and say "well, I saw that coming."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tresopax,
quote:Would you say that an individual's duty to do their job is a more "primary" concern than their duty to do the right thing?
I would say ANY person's primary duty is usually to do the right thing, and only after that to do their job. For instance, a salesman should not lie to trick people into buying their product, even if that would help him sell more of it.
No, it is the job of the people giving the orders never to order the commander to do something wrong. Wrong in the way I think you're meaning. And "do the right thing" is a very flexible phrase anyway. Especially with you, who regard terrorists as placing a high priority on avoiding civilian casualties.
Anyway, this is also not to say a commander should follow every order given, or yield up the conscience at the door to the base. There is a lot of deliberate obtuseness going on here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Also, I hate to even bring this up, but to make #2 work, Israel would almost certainly have to agree to let someone else (besides their forces) take care of going after the terrorists in the PA regions. I don't see how the presence of the Israeli military could do anything but slow the progress if option #2 were decided upon.
I don't see Israel doing that without significant concessions and assurances.
Who can Israel trust to do such a thing?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It is the job of the military to execute political violence on behalf of its people and its leadership. It is its people and its leadership, not the military, that is responsible for supplying this humanity you speak of.
That might be the law as it's written, but who's to say that the moral duty of the military is to obey their leaders? I say their duty, like yours and mine and everyone else's, is to do what's right whenever possible. This might include mutiny, it might include turning against unjust leaders to depose them, or if they receive just orders it would be their duty to obey them. But hiding behind the notion that a soldier's duty is to his people and not to the greater ethical good is, in my mind, unjustifiable.
Let me give an of example. I think the true duty of the German soldiers during WW2 was to surrender, or to depose their leaders. They did the wrong thing by fighting for a country that was so badly corrupted. Since many were ignorant about some of the details of the Nazi regime, they can be partly forgiven for not knowing what they were doing. But I would say most of them were still at least partly culpable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I challenge you to point out an atrocity that had good intentions for the people as the first motivator, rather than enabling the executioner's own ambitions as the first motivator.
Um, Hitler's massacre of the Jews? I mean, the guy was mad, sure, but he apparently sincerely believed all the 'parasites weakening the race' rubbish he spewed. And I don't think you can argue that he needed to kill the Jews to enable his own ambitions - after all, by the time he had the power to order such a thing, he was already in power. The Holocaust was the end, not the means.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Destineer,
quote:That might be the law as it's written, but who's to say that the moral duty of the military is to obey their leaders? I say their duty, like yours and mine and everyone else's, is to do what's right whenever possible. This might include mutiny, it might include turning against unjust leaders to depose them, or if they receive just orders it would be their duty to obey them. But hiding behind the notion that a soldier's duty is to his people and not to the greater ethical good is, in my mind, unjustifiable.
The people have an obligation to the soldiers who serve them to give them lawful and ethical rules and orders. It's a two-way street. And anyway, who decides what this "greater ethical good" is, exactly? You? There are things a soldier might do that, unlike say machine-gunning a village of civilians, are in fact quite debatable, ethically speaking.
KoM,
quote:Um, Hitler's massacre of the Jews? I mean, the guy was mad, sure, but he apparently sincerely believed all the 'parasites weakening the race' rubbish he spewed. And I don't think you can argue that he needed to kill the Jews to enable his own ambitions - after all, by the time he had the power to order such a thing, he was already in power. The Holocaust was the end, not the means.
We don't know if he really believed that-although speaking for myself, I think he did, of course. What we do know is that he surrounded himself with men who said things like, "Lie big enough and often enough and the people will believe it." Food for though regarding what Hitler actually thought about his rhetoric, ain't it?
And anyway, the Holocaust wasn't the end, at least not according to the plan. Thousand Year Reich, remember? Hitler was doing it-he said so-in order to purge Germany and make it pure and more powerful...but who was running Germany's show? Hitler, of course. If the nation he ruled became more powerful and pure, then of course he did too, right?
Not to mention all the political dissidents he murdered as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think that argument stretches a bit. After all, Hitler was an old man by the time of the Holocaust; killing all the Jews was surely a rather long-term plan for strengthening the Thousand-Year Reich. You might also consider that Hitler's actions are not those of a man pursuing power for the sake of the wealth and pleasure it brings him, or even for its own sake. He lived quite frugally. I think his actions compare much better to those of the Crusaders, and those Popes who tried to extend the secular power of the church : He believed in the idea of the Aryan race with religious fervour, and his quest for power was a means to further that end, not an end in itself.
And besides, a strong Germany the way he ran it was not a bad thing for the ordinary German. Cheap imports because he could dictate the price he paid to his conquests, for example. Unlimited land. A servant caste of 'Untermenschen'. Whatever psychological kick people get out of being top dog in the world - and while you might not approve, you can hardly deny that it's real. You can see it even in Americans today.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, power isn't its own end and justification, KoM? That's nonsense. To some, power is as worthwhile as wealth and pleasure. To some, power brings pleasure.
I'm going to ignore your effort to-again-extend this discussion to another indictment of religion, beyond pointing out that I recognized it. It's just as tiresome, wrongheaded, and predictible as ever.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The people have an obligation to the soldiers who serve them to give them lawful and ethical rules and orders.
Then a commander does have a higher duty to disobey orders to kill Palestinian civilians if those oders are unethical?
quote:And anyway, who decides what this "greater ethical good" is, exactly? You?
Nobody decides what the greater ethical good is. It is what it is, regardless of what anyone thinks it is. But when judging what to do, I think it is the individual soldier's or commander's duty to judge whether they think the order they've been given is ethical or not, just like every person has a duty to judge for themselves how best to act rightly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Then a commander does have a higher duty to disobey orders to kill Palestinian civilians if those oders are unethical?
If his orders are precisely and ONLY that, yes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A soldier is told, "Fire that mortar at that building - it's full of enemy soldiers."
A soldier cannot take it upon himself to independently confirm the intelligence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What, power isn't its own end and justification, KoM? That's nonsense. To some, power is as worthwhile as wealth and pleasure. To some, power brings pleasure.
Yes - to some people. I do not think it is obvious that Hitler was one of them.
quote:I'm going to ignore your effort to - again - extend this discussion to another indictment of religion, beyond pointing out that I recognized it. It's just as tiresome, wrongheaded, and predictable as ever.
I was not comparing Popes to Hitler to say that the Popes were bad; I was comparing Hitler to the Popes to say that he believed in his cause. Just because you disagree with his cause doesn't make that a bad thing; indeed, if you are Christian, then in the Popes it is a good thing. I state that the Popes were not hypocrites, indeed hold them up as models of believing their own words, and you accuse me of indicting religion? Get a grip.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I've got three things for starLisa
1. You started this. Calm down.
2. Your profile says you are located in Chicago. I assume that if that is current it means Chicago, IL USA.
3. I'm sure everyone here is pretty confident (I sure as hell am) in Israel's ability to deal with foreign and domestic threats, and you being angry and offended 6178 miles from Tel Aviv helps no-one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM,
quote:Yes - to some people. I do not think it is obvious that Hitler was one of them.
It seems pretty obvious to me, given the kind of people he surrounded himself with deliberately. Those people believed in lying to support their belief structure. If they deep-down believed it was true, it wouldn't need lies.
But anyway, if it's not obvious one way, it's certainly not obvious the other way. So far the only "evidence" you've provided for your conclusion that Hitler's primary motivation wasn't power for himself was...he lived frugally.
quote:You might also consider that Hitler's actions are not those of a man pursuing power for the sake of the wealth and pleasure it brings him, or even for its own sake. He lived quite frugally.
You're implying here that someone who lives frugally cannot be pursuing power for any reason other than he truly believes in his cause. This is obviously wrong.
quote:I was not comparing Popes to Hitler to say that the Popes were bad; I was comparing Hitler to the Popes to say that he believed in his cause. Just because you disagree with his cause doesn't make that a bad thing; indeed, if you are Christian, then in the Popes it is a good thing. I state that the Popes were not hypocrites, indeed hold them up as models of believing their own words, and you accuse me of indicting religion? Get a grip.
quote:I think his actions compare much better to those of the Crusaders, and those Popes who tried to extend the secular power of the church.
&
He believed in the idea of the Aryan race with religious fervour...
This is obviously an indictment of religion. I realize you think religious people are stupid, KoM, but we're not that stupid as to miss the thrust-in-our-face obvious. Anyway, your credibility when you say, "I'm not insulting religion," is basically non-existent. You routinely insert insults to religion into discussions that had nothing to do with it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The people have an obligation to the soldiers who serve them to give them lawful and ethical rules and orders. It's a two-way street.
And the question is, what should the soldiers do when the people don't live up to their end of the deal? Your view seems to be that they should pretend that their orders are ethical and act on them anyway. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If something is unethical, don't do it!
quote:And anyway, who decides what this "greater ethical good" is, exactly? You?
You don't believe there's such a thing as ethical right and wrong?
Obviously, as Tres already said, it's up to each of us to judge ethically, but that doesn't mean we can't make mistakes. And obeying unjust orders is a moral mistake.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I was not comparing Popes to Hitler to say that the Popes were bad; I was comparing Hitler to the Popes to say that he believed in his cause. Just because you disagree with his cause doesn't make that a bad thing; indeed, if you are Christian, then in the Popes it is a good thing. I state that the Popes were not hypocrites, indeed hold them up as models of believing their own words, and you accuse me of indicting religion? Get a grip.
quote:I think his actions compare much better to those of the Crusaders, and those Popes who tried to extend the secular power of the church.
&
He believed in the idea of the Aryan race with religious fervour...
This is obviously an indictment of religion. I realize you think religious people are stupid, KoM, but we're not that stupid as to miss the thrust-in-our-face obvious. Anyway, your credibility when you say, "I'm not insulting religion," is basically non-existent. You routinely insert insults to religion into discussions that had nothing to do with it.
Uh. I don't know about his history, Jeff, but I do know yours -- and hyperventilation at disagreement's hardly uncommon with you. I'm not sure I see, at least in the quotes you've provided, where he's criticizing religion -- unless you believe fanaticism and self-delusion are inherent qualities of religion. And if you do, this reflects on your beliefs, not his.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Why do so many Hatrack people waste their time ripping on each other?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And the question is, what should the soldiers do when the people don't live up to their end of the deal? Your view seems to be that they should pretend that their orders are ethical and act on them anyway. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If something is unethical, don't do it!
I agree. There are different systems of ethics for different people in different situations, though.
For instance, it would be unethical for a businessman to pursue a business strategy that would cost civilian lives to achieve financial victory. However, for a soldier, in some situations it would be ethical-by most standards-to pursue a strategy which would cost a single civilian life.
No need to be upset, Destineer. Eddie's been doing that for quite awhile. Being told I'm hyperventilating by him is nothing new. I'm used to it.
----
Eddie,
King of Men said that Hitler was holding religious fervor for his beliefs-which were delusional and fanatic. Therefore, he was suggesting that fanaticism and self-delusion are aspects of religion. That's insulting. You knew precisely what I meant, because I emboldened the bloody quote. Please return to ignoring me, I'd appreciate it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: King of Men said that Hitler was holding religious fervor for his beliefs-which were delusional and fanatic. Therefore, he was suggesting that fanaticism and self-delusion are aspects of religion.
I'm not sure that's the case, Jeff. The one statement doesn't logically follow from the other.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
OK, given my history on these boards, possibly 'passionate' would have been the better word choice. That is the sense of 'religious' that I was trying for : A belief sufficiently powerful to build one's life and actions around.
quote:You're implying here that someone who lives frugally cannot be pursuing power for any reason other than he truly believes in his cause. This is obviously wrong.
No, I meant to imply that people who pursue power for other reasons than believing in their cause usually use that power to live quite luxuriously. And even if that is the only evidence I have produced so far, that still puts me one up on you : You have done nothing but assert your superior insight into Hitler's mind.
Moreover, I did actually give a different argument, a bit back : Hitler had no need to exterminate the Jews. Indeed, from a military point of view, it was a deeply stupid diversion of resources. And yet the killing persecution didn't really start until Hitler was pretty well entrenched in power, 1941 and 42. There was certainly persecution before then, but not so much of the deporting-to-camps' variety. You can hardly argue that he needed to shore up his power by that time!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tom,
quote:I'm not sure that's the case, Jeff. The one statement doesn't logically follow from the other.
This is KoM we're talking about, Tom. He's cultivated a reputation for saying things like that. It's hardly my problem if he says things like that and gets taken the way he's stated himself dozens of times in the past.
--------
KoM,
quote:No, I meant to imply that people who pursue power for other reasons than believing in their cause usually use that power to live quite luxuriously. And even if that is the only evidence I have produced so far, that still puts me one up on you : You have done nothing but assert your superior insight into Hitler's mind.
I've never said he was pursuing power only for its own sake. Obviously he believed in his cause, but I believe he believed in power for himself more-again I point out the type of people with which he surrounded himself. People who had said, "Lie and people will believe it." That suggests he cared more about power for himself than trusted in his cause. You're not one up on anything, KoM.
quote:Hitler had no need to exterminate the Jews.
You and I know that is true. He obviously believed differently. He felt it was important to get rid of them to ensure Germany's security in the future-a future he, Hitler, would be ruling.
quote:And yet the killing persecution didn't really start until Hitler was pretty well entrenched in power, 1941 and 42.
Yes, but he only did it when he could-when he knew he could get away with it. When it could be more or less hidden from outsiders. That suggests he was concerned with being caught, concerned with his reputation.
If he placed his cause above power for himself, I think he would've cared less for such things.
quote:You can hardly argue that he needed to shore up his power by that time!
I've never suggested he did it or needed to do it to support his power in the short-term. It was called the Final Solution, not the Solution for the 1940s.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I think we have now reached the point of arguing over differences that the evidence available to us just can't distinguish between. How about you agree that he believed in his cause, and I agree that he didn't exactly object to the power it gave him, and we leave it at that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* You're the one who started keeping score Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: Even after I was specific, you're still missing my point. I said that such concerns cannot be the primary concern for a military commander. I have never said such concerns should not be the primary concern of anyone in a position of leadership, ever.
It is the job of the military to execute political violence on behalf of its people and its leadership. It is its people and its leadership, not the military, that is responsible for supplying this humanity you speak of.
Again, I don't think that's the case. I'm arguing that humanity is inextricably tied to the highest levels of military leadership.
Let's draw an analogy. If you are the CEO of the company, your job is the maintainance and successful execution of this business. Cooking the books is often an effective way of buying time for the company to adjust to fluctuations in the market. My argument is that even as a CEO, it is not permissable to cook the accounting books because there is a tacit precondition of humanity that precludes false accounting, even if that false accounting will aid the business.
There are two reasons for this precondition of humanity. If it didn't exist, then free market economics would implode because without a bedrock of trust, commerce becomes difficult to impossible.
The second reason, and more disturbing, is the indignity of licensing monsters within the polity. In my esteem, military leaders are not monsters because of their job. If they act as monsters would, it's because we have encouraged them to do so, and this encouragement is something we should be ashamed of.
[ January 16, 2006, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I challenge you to point out an atrocity that had good intentions for the people as the first motivator, rather than enabling the executioner's own ambitions as the first motivator.
Hitler, Stalin, all the big favorites throughout history...they weren't carrying out atrocities whilst living in the gutter wearing rags.
Probabaly because they couldn't carry them out whilst living in the gutter wearing rags.
quote:They were carrying out atrocities living on the high horse, getting and staying in power. I think you know exactly what I mean, and are just playing semantic games, camus.
The conditions that enabled them to carry out their desires have no bearing on what their intentions actually were.
quote:My intent does not necessarily equal what I actually say. I could, y'know, be lying-to you, to myself, or both.
My argument has nothing to do with what is officially stated. Rather, I believe that most people sincerely believe that what they are doing is ultimately for the greater good.
quote:It takes an examination of what actually happens and an evaluation of intent to really, I believe, judge someone, not a committee. It's imprecise, yes. But it's better than your stance, which is to say essentially that intent doesn't matter.
I never said that intent doesn't matter at all, just that intent doesn't excuse certain crimes against humanity.
quote:Those people believed in lying to support their belief structure. If they deep-down believed it was true, it wouldn't need lies.
Not true. A person can believe something to be true (or good) while recognizing that the majority of people may not agree with him. Thus, he may see the need to lie in order to carry out what he believes is good. In all actuality, this happens all the time; people lie to friends all the time with the belief that they are serving their best interests.
So in other words, I feel that Hitler truly believed that exterminating the Jews would make the world a better place. He was acting based on his convictions, and those convictions do not excuse actions.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)