1
   

Palestinian Strikes Blow for Freedom Against Israel

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 03:50 pm
old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
What I have said here, and what I do believe is that violence that targets non-combatants as the intended target is unethical. That is the only statement I have made in this thread.


I agree with you that violence that targets non-combatants as the intended target is unethical.

The problem I have with your position is that you find violence that willingly accepts the deaths of non-combatants as "collateral damage" completely ethical and acceptable.


I find it equally shocking that you, or someone like you, would try to bring up that same old **** every time a thread like this comes up. What is wrong with discussing the violence of Palestinian terrorists without getting into the bed-wetting whining about how evil Israel is and how they bring it on themselves.

I doubt the people killed in that bakery had much to do with any crime against against any Palestinian... well, unless you count being a Jew as a crime.



Wait, McGentrix. Did you just call the deaths of non-combatants "that same old ****", and complaints about collateral damage "bed-wetting whining"?

Not that you don't have the right to do that (free speech and all), but I think it rather disqualifies you as someone who should talk about ethical and acceptable behaviour.

Merely my opinion.


No, I called what you, and others are doing in this thread the same old ****. A Palestinian decides to explode himself in a bakery, targeting and killing civilians yet no one can discuss that without bringing up how Israel kills innocents. Your whining knows no boundaries.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 03:54 pm
McGentrix wrote:
No, I called what you, and others are doing in this thread the same old ****. A Palestinian decides to explode himself in a bakery, targeting and killing civilians yet no one can discuss that without bringing up how Israel kills innocents. Your whining knows no boundaries.


The question is: why should it be discussed outside the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, McGentrix?

Context is important. After all, why else would you and Brandon bring up suicide attacks by Palestinian terrorists whenever non-combatant victims on the Lebanese or Palestinina side are being discussed?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 03:57 pm
old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
No, I called what you, and others are doing in this thread the same old ****. A Palestinian decides to explode himself in a bakery, targeting and killing civilians yet no one can discuss that without bringing up how Israel kills innocents. Your whining knows no boundaries.


The question is: why should it be discussed outside the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, McGentrix?

Context is important. After all, why else would you and Brandon bring up suicide attacks by Palestinian terrorists whenever non-combatant victims on the Lebanese or Palestinina side are being discussed?


I am sure you could find another thread to discuss the context. This one is about the a palestinian bombing a bakery. No context needed.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 04:01 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

It seems to me that there is a difference between aiming at a military target and trying hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see the moral distinction, or who believes that it's of no consequence.


So, you feel sorry for those who are killed? Because, to them, there exists no moral distinction; the reasoning is of no consequence. Only the facts matter.

Cycloptichorn

Your argument seems to be that because death is the ultimate penalty for anyone, all actions which cause death are morally equivalent, which is clearly untrue. For instance, the act of killing someone on whim for amusement, as I suppose some criminals do, is not morally equivalent to the act of getting into a car crash which kills someone, despite exercising all appropriate caution driving.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 04:04 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
What I object to is the idea that unethical violence by ones enemies justifies violence that willingly accepts the deaths of non-cambatants.

It seems to me that the conservatives on one side use the abuses of the conservatives on the other side to justify their own abuses.

It seems to me that limiting violence and opposing abuses by either side is the only ethical stance. Evil does not justify evil.

It seems to me that there is a difference between aiming at a military target and trying hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see the moral distinction, or who believes that it's of no consequence.


That's a good point.

The question is: how much of a moral distinction is there between aiming at a military target and not trying very hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other.

1. Even given your example, just as you present it, there is a huge moral distinction, is there not?
2. Additionally, I believe that the US military does usually try hard not to kill civilians.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 04:17 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

It seems to me that there is a difference between aiming at a military target and trying hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see the moral distinction, or who believes that it's of no consequence.


So, you feel sorry for those who are killed? Because, to them, there exists no moral distinction; the reasoning is of no consequence. Only the facts matter.

Cycloptichorn

Your argument seems to be that because death is the ultimate penalty for anyone, all actions which cause death are morally equivalent, which is clearly untrue. For instance, the act of killing someone on whim for amusement, as I suppose some criminals do, is not morally equivalent to the act of getting into a car crash which kills someone, despite exercising all appropriate caution driving.


To the person who is dead, there is no difference. It is of no consequence how you are killed. It is hard for me to believe you could argue any other way.

If you kill someone by accident, or kill them on purpose, is immaterial; they are still dead and you are still responsible. Our legal system places a different level of culpability based upon intention, but it does not excuse those who kill by accident.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 07:49 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

It seems to me that there is a difference between aiming at a military target and trying hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see the moral distinction, or who believes that it's of no consequence.


So, you feel sorry for those who are killed? Because, to them, there exists no moral distinction; the reasoning is of no consequence. Only the facts matter.

Cycloptichorn

Your argument seems to be that because death is the ultimate penalty for anyone, all actions which cause death are morally equivalent, which is clearly untrue. For instance, the act of killing someone on whim for amusement, as I suppose some criminals do, is not morally equivalent to the act of getting into a car crash which kills someone, despite exercising all appropriate caution driving.


To the person who is dead, there is no difference. It is of no consequence how you are killed. It is hard for me to believe you could argue any other way.

If you kill someone by accident, or kill them on purpose, is immaterial; they are still dead and you are still responsible. Our legal system places a different level of culpability based upon intention, but it does not excuse those who kill by accident.

Cycloptichorn

The only thing I am arguing is that wasting someone for kicks is more immoral than killing someone by accident in a car crash, in which you attempted to drive safely. The result may be the same, but some acts of killing are more immoral than others. Therefore, intentionally attacking non-combatants during a war is not morally equivalent to attempting to spare non-combatants during a war, but not always succeeding.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 08:06 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

It seems to me that there is a difference between aiming at a military target and trying hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see the moral distinction, or who believes that it's of no consequence.


So, you feel sorry for those who are killed? Because, to them, there exists no moral distinction; the reasoning is of no consequence. Only the facts matter.

Cycloptichorn

Your argument seems to be that because death is the ultimate penalty for anyone, all actions which cause death are morally equivalent, which is clearly untrue. For instance, the act of killing someone on whim for amusement, as I suppose some criminals do, is not morally equivalent to the act of getting into a car crash which kills someone, despite exercising all appropriate caution driving.


To the person who is dead, there is no difference. It is of no consequence how you are killed. It is hard for me to believe you could argue any other way.

If you kill someone by accident, or kill them on purpose, is immaterial; they are still dead and you are still responsible. Our legal system places a different level of culpability based upon intention, but it does not excuse those who kill by accident.

Cycloptichorn

The only thing I am arguing is that wasting someone for kicks is more immoral than killing someone by accident in a car crash, in which you attempted to drive safely. The result may be the same, but some acts of killing are more immoral than others. Therefore, intentionally attacking non-combatants during a war is not morally equivalent to attempting to spare non-combatants during a war, but not always succeeding.


I agree with this, though my point would be that the person who 'does not always succeed' still bears some responsibility for their actions and is not immune from judgement of them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 08:07 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

It seems to me that there is a difference between aiming at a military target and trying hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see the moral distinction, or who believes that it's of no consequence.


So, you feel sorry for those who are killed? Because, to them, there exists no moral distinction; the reasoning is of no consequence. Only the facts matter.

Cycloptichorn

Your argument seems to be that because death is the ultimate penalty for anyone, all actions which cause death are morally equivalent, which is clearly untrue. For instance, the act of killing someone on whim for amusement, as I suppose some criminals do, is not morally equivalent to the act of getting into a car crash which kills someone, despite exercising all appropriate caution driving.


To the person who is dead, there is no difference. It is of no consequence how you are killed. It is hard for me to believe you could argue any other way.

If you kill someone by accident, or kill them on purpose, is immaterial; they are still dead and you are still responsible. Our legal system places a different level of culpability based upon intention, but it does not excuse those who kill by accident.

Cycloptichorn

The only thing I am arguing is that wasting someone for kicks is more immoral than killing someone by accident in a car crash, in which you attempted to drive safely. The result may be the same, but some acts of killing are more immoral than others. Therefore, intentionally attacking non-combatants during a war is not morally equivalent to attempting to spare non-combatants during a war, but not always succeeding.


I agree with this, though my point would be that the person who 'does not always succeed' still bears some responsibility for their actions and is not immune from judgement of them.

Cycloptichorn

Then we are now in agreement on this issue.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 08:11 pm
McGentrix wrote:
old europe wrote:
The question is: why should it be discussed outside the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, McGentrix?

Context is important. After all, why else would you and Brandon bring up suicide attacks by Palestinian terrorists whenever non-combatant victims on the Lebanese or Palestinina side are being discussed?


I am sure you could find another thread to discuss the context. This one is about the a palestinian bombing a bakery. No context needed.

Umm.

So does that mean that next time there is a thread about an Israeli attack killing civilians, you will piously stick to that incident only in your posts, and not mention Palestine suicide bombers?

Or does it only work one way?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 06:58 am
nimh wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
old europe wrote:
The question is: why should it be discussed outside the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, McGentrix?

Context is important. After all, why else would you and Brandon bring up suicide attacks by Palestinian terrorists whenever non-combatant victims on the Lebanese or Palestinina side are being discussed?


I am sure you could find another thread to discuss the context. This one is about the a palestinian bombing a bakery. No context needed.

Umm.

I believe that the attacks on civilians by Palestinians are not only wrong but counterproductive and therefore useless in achieving their aims of peace. They may very well feel they have no choice because they have occupied and screwed in peace deals time after time. They may also feel enormous frustration and helplessness when they see the all the weapons which are provided to Israel and see those weapons used on themselves with little to no regard for human live or property while they are provided with no means to protect themselves from Israel's bombs and bulldozers which kill whole families and destroying what little infrastructure they manage to put back up. However, bombing a bakery accomplishing nothing but just useless revenge.

I wish like anything there would come a true hero for the Palestinians and the Middle Eastern people who know how to work the western international politics and negotiate good deals without useless violence which only serves to keep them under the thumb of Israel.

I feel bad for those who were killed in the attack. I also feel bad for all the Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli bombs and whose homes have been destroyed by Israeli bulldozers or just kicked out their homes to make room for more settlements. I feel sorry for a woman in labor who can't get to a doctor or hospital in time because of those road blocks. I feel sorry for all the starving and out of work Palestinians who have no hope for a better tomorrow and feel like they have nothing to loose by bombing some Israeli citizens.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 07:34 am
nimh wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
old europe wrote:
The question is: why should it be discussed outside the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, McGentrix?

Context is important. After all, why else would you and Brandon bring up suicide attacks by Palestinian terrorists whenever non-combatant victims on the Lebanese or Palestinina side are being discussed?


I am sure you could find another thread to discuss the context. This one is about the a palestinian bombing a bakery. No context needed.

Umm.

So does that mean that next time there is a thread about an Israeli attack killing civilians, you will piously stick to that incident only in your posts, and not mention Palestine suicide bombers?

Or does it only work one way?


You'll just have to wait and see now won't you?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jan, 2007 08:17 am
I'm not at all surprised to see that you didn't answer my question, McGentrix, but rather made a declaration on what should be discussed on this thread - nonwithstanding the fact that you haven't even started it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 04:08:26