Peaceful Palestinians?

yeah, yeah...its a lot easier to play closer to fair when its muzzle loader against muzzle loader. When its rocks (Palestinians) against the latest in American weapons technology (Israel), things change a bit...:rolleyes:
 
RDX said:
Hamas IS a terrorist organization, the US revolutionary movement was not. It's not to say the Americans followed all the rules of war during the American Revolutionary War, but the overall process and goal of the Americans was not to terrorize the British civilian populations in the colonies, but to militarily defeat the British armed forces in the colonies.

The goal of Hamas is not to defeat the Israeli military, but to terrorize the general Israeli population to such an extent that the Israeli political leaders no longer have the backing of the people required to continue the military occupation of Palestinian areas and are forced to retreat.

The objective of the American revolutionary forces and the Palestinian terrorists might be very similar, but the ends to the means are vastly different.

The assignation of the Hamas leader was not an act of terrorism by Israel. Ahmed Yassin was a self declared and recognized leader of Hamas and ordered the deployment of dozens of suicide bombers resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Israelis. Even if you argue that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, but a valid army, the assignation is still fair. Although many countries now condone the use of assignations to hinder an enemy, it is not a terrorist act. It is considered legitimate and has been used many times by sovereign nations in the past as a method of war.

Now some other things that Israel has done I think can border the definition of terrorism. Bulldozing civilian housing in retaliation for suicide bombers seems an awful lot like going purely after civilians rather than attacking terrorists.
Click to expand...



theyre goal is only to terrorise? I thought ti was more than just that,
 
RDX said:
Although many countries now condone the use of assignations to hinder an enemy, it is not a terrorist act. It is considered legitimate and has been used many times by sovereign nations in the past as a method of war.
Click to expand...


why do the British feel its against international law then?

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said "We understand Israel's paramount needs to defend itself, but we also say for Israel to carry the full support of the international community it needs to do so within the boundaries set by international law. It's been the long-standing position of the British government that such targeted killings, assassinations, are out with international law.""

Baroness Symons, a minister in the British Foreign Office, called in Israel's ambassador to Britain, Zvi Shtauber, to express the government's concern over the killing.

She told Shtauber that while Britain believed Israel had a right to defend itself, its actions should stay within international law, the Foreign Office said
Click to expand...

and

“Such actions are not only contrary to international law, but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution,” Annan said.
Click to expand...
 
Just because many countries don't embrace assinations now doesn't mean they didn't 50 years ago. British agents during WWII caried out at least 2 attempts at killing hitler. The united States succeeded in WWII at targeting the commander of the Japanese imperial fleet after receiving intellegence on his whereabouts. It wasn't until after WWII that the US decided FOR ITSELF to ban the use of assinations from then on. It was not a global decision, but rather an internal one. Many countries have taken a similiar stance (I'm not sure when Britian did). Israel has obviously not gone down that road yet.

theyre goal is only to terrorise? I thought ti was more than just that,
Click to expand...

I don't think that's their goal in and of itself, by that is their means to an end. Quite frankly, if Hamas stricktly targeted military units, I would have a very different perspective of the war over there. The vast majority of Hamas bombings tend to be civilian though, with the occasional strike at a military target.
 
when you said their goal was to terrorise thats what confused me. they have other goals. and certain members on here have said the ends justify the means. they say the same
 
and certain members on here have said the ends justify the means.
Click to expand...

While some might argue from this very utilitarianistic point of view, most would probably argue from a more Kantian version. Saying that the end is the only important matter to consider in a ethical decision, is a very dangerous thing. By this reasoning just about any act can be justified.

Are you running low on cash? Simple, go kill someone and take his! Overcrowding problem in China... hitler had a nice model for extermination. Need to get an A on a test? Just go ahead and cheat.

As stupid as it seems, just about any action can be defended if you simply state that the ends that you desire justify any method of getting there.

While I certainly don't look to Kant for guidance in ethical issues, I would strongly disagree with anyone who believes that ends justify the means.
 
Gonz said:
True, Squiggy, it is against an enemy. However, targeting a civilian area that has no material target with the express interest of creating terror is not the job of the military.
Click to expand...
What about dropping an A-bomb in a small town? Or Phosphor bombs on widespread popullation?
 
More fuel for the fire:
HAWARA CHECKPOINT, West Bank - [size=-1]A 16-year-old Palestinian with a suicide bomb vest strapped to his body was caught at a crowded West Bank checkpoint Wednesday, setting off a tense encounter with Israeli soldiers whom the army said he was sent to kill.
Click to expand...
[/size]

source
 
AlladinSane said:
What about dropping an A-bomb in a small town? Or Phosphor bombs on widespread popullation?
Click to expand...


Until you understand war & it's historical context, stop brining this up. It was the best bet to end the war with fewer casualties.
 
once again you defend the ends and the means. but he has a point. it was targeted at a city not just a base. it took out both cities didnt it. so I guess its ok cause it was a war right?
 
As I've pointed out several times...

Do not use todays morality to vilify yesterdays deeds.

The Japanese civilians were fully behind Hirohito. They would have fought to the end with sticks & stones. (so they say) It saved more lives than it took. Many more.
 
ah but the thing is that why not do it now. we did it before. whats stopping it now? plus why take lives to save them and the like?
 
Gonz said:
Until you understand war & it's historical context, stop brining this up. It was the best bet to end the war with fewer casualties.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what "they" say. I still think it was just to test out their new toy. :alienhuh:
 
Gonz said:
Until you understand war & it's historical context, stop brining this up. It was the best bet to end the war with fewer casualties.
Click to expand...
So if one can proves statistically that blowing a nuke on an Israeli city will cause less deaths in a long run, it's ok to do it?
Again if they were willing to figth with rocks and clubs, why they didn't? Because the goal was achieved:
Gonz said:
...targeting a civilian area that has no material target with the express interest of creating terror...
Click to expand...
 
AlladinSane said:
So if one can proves statistically that blowing a nuke on an Israeli city will cause less deaths in a long run, it's ok to do it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how a person could logically argue this point, the american dropping of the Abomb is another matter however. The decision to drop the bomb was not an easy one. It took two administrations many months of decision making before the go ahead was given.

A big problem with dropping an abomb (especially in that era), was that there were no military targets suitable for such a device. Now that we have low yeild tactical and theatere nukes, military targets are now an option; they weren't at that time.

Did this justify the use of the abomb? I'm not sure. One thing that is for certain is that many more lives were spared because of the nukes than were taken. For anyone who had their doubts, the battle at Okinawa proved the point. Around 100,000 Japanese were killed for this island about 1/3 the size of Rhode Island. The Americans took about 70,000 casulities in the battle. All this, for a little island hundreds of miles away from the Japanese Homeland. The alternative to using the Abomb would have been a full scale invasion. Many American military planners were predicting between 250,000 -500,000 US soldiers would die in the combat. The Japanese picture was much bleaker. Deaths from combat would have easily gone into the millions (and that was the optimistic perspective of the Japanese military command).

I believe both the ends and the means were considered very carefully in the decision. The war had to end, and this method was going to be the least destructive for both parties. If the Japanese hadn't surrendered after the 2nd Abomb, it would have been hard to justify the use of it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top