- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:09 am to polydorr
It's amazing that nearly 70 years after the Holocaust, so many people here still think ethnic cleansing is a morally acceptable way for a nation-state to settle political disputes.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:11 am to trackfan
quote:What about apartment buildings? Were they ever used as fighting positions or storage sites with noncombatants present? If so, then those noncombatants should be classified as human shields. The places where Hamas fighters slept at night were legitimate targets. If they slept among noncombatants, then those noncombatants were human shields.
According to the U.N., Hamas did use buildings that the U.N. had abandoned, but not the buildings that the U.N. employed as shelters during the war.
quote:Hamas had just as much duty to safeguard noncombatants as Israel. What measures did Hamas take to protect noncombatants? I don't recall reading accounts of Hamas evacuating neighborhoods from which it intended to fight.
This is the central question. Gaza isn't Lebanon where Hezbollah has plenty of open space miles away from civilian areas to launch attacks, Gaza is the most densely populated real estate on the planet. What distance is Hamas obligated to operate away from civilian buildings? I don't know the answer, and I doubt that the Geneva Convention spells it out that clearly. Let's also look at the flipside of this question. Should Israel use non-precision weapons like artillery shells in such a densely populated area?
The practical alternative to artillery is airstrikes. The destruction from airstrikes is much larger than from artillery, and the monetary cost to attack a given target is much greater. So there are those tradeoffs to consider.
If Israel is expected to refrain from using indirect weapons against densely populated areas, then what is Hamas' justification for aiming its artillery weapons at densely populated areas? The fact that Hamas' indirect fire is less effective does not alter the justification.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:29 am to trackfan
quote:
It's amazing that nearly 70 years after the Holocaust, so many people here still think ethnic cleansing is a morally acceptable way for a nation-state to settle political disputes.
It's already their land. Spoils of war from 1967 when most of the Middle East willingly tried to commit genocide and erase Israel - and failed.
The West Bank and all of Jerusalem belongs to Israel and their moving to possess it makes me happy.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 12:18 pm to trackfan
quote:Just what do you think are the aims of Hamas? Ethnic cleansing would be putting it mildly. They do not just want to displace Jews. They want to kill them all. Yet, you seem to have no objection to their actions designed to achieve their objective. It is amazing you do not recognize that you are one of the people here who thinks ethnic cleansing is a morally acceptable way for the Palestinians to settle a political dispute.
It's amazing that nearly 70 years after the Holocaust, so many people here still think ethnic cleansing is a morally acceptable way for a nation-state to settle political disputes.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 12:50 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:So what? Set aside for the moment that fire from civilian buildings is feature of every modern urban guerrilla war. This still leaves open the question of whether shelling the human shields is appropriate. Britain did not shell entire apartment blocks in Belfast in response to IRA bombs and rockets. When Yuogslavia shelled civilians in Drenica while hunting down KLA irregulars, we condemned them for war crimes. The story of the Immortal Six Hundred would've been very short and boring if Maj. Gen. Foster had simply shrugged and shelled them.
Your assertion that Hamas are not employing human shields is simply unbelievable. Fighting from within buildings occupied by noncombatants is using them as shields since the presence of noncombatants will result in changes to enemy tactics.
Moreover, Hamas fires their rockets from extremely light, mobile frameworks that can be assembled and taken down by a team of two in a matter of minutes. Even if you accept that this is using human shields, and if you accept that shelling an apartment block is a morally permissible response, it's not going to be a very effective one. By the time the origin has been confirmed, the firing solution plotted, the calls to the residents made, and the love tap shot fired, the Hamas rocketeers have probably already ran out the door, or will be mixed in with the civilians. So what does it actually accomplish? They will find another building. The residents, if they are lucky, will lose everything except what they can carry. If they are unlucky, aged, disabled, sleep too soundly, welp
I don't dispute Hamas bears some blame by launching the rocket. But this doesn't exculpate the IDF, which chooses to react in such a morally questionable, strategically ineffective way.
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:02 pm to Iosh
quote:
So what? Set aside for the moment that fire from civilian buildings is feature of every modern urban guerrilla war. This still leaves open the question of whether shelling the human shields is appropriate. Britain did not shell entire apartment blocks in Belfast in response to IRA bombs and rockets. When Yuogslavia shelled civilians in Drenica while hunting down KLA irregulars, we condemned them for war crimes. The story of the Immortal Six Hundred would've been very short and boring if Maj. Gen. Foster had simply shrugged and shelled them. Moreover, Hamas fires their rockets from extremely light, mobile frameworks that can be assembled and taken down by a team of two in a matter of minutes. Even if you accept that this is using human shields, and if you accept that shelling an apartment block is a morally permissible response, it's not going to be a very effective one. By the time the origin has been confirmed, the firing solution plotted, the calls to the residents made, and the love tap shot fired, the Hamas rocketeers have probably already ran out the door, or will be mixed in with the civilians. So what does it actually accomplish? They will find another building. The residents, if they are lucky, will lose everything except what they can carry. If they are unlucky, aged, disabled, sleep too soundly, welp I don't dispute Hamas bears some blame by launching the rocket. But this doesn't exculpate the IDF, which chooses to react in such a morally questionable, strategically ineffective way.
Pretty sound argument IMHO
The more civilized democracies(The U.S.,the U.k etc) do not take life lightly. An argument could be made about our use of Predator Drones. But for the most part, Israel's way is unacceptable. TBH, I think they like sheddingivilian blood, but they understand everyone else abhors it, so they manufacture ways and targets to justify them doing so
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:45 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
Just what do you think are the aims of Hamas? Ethnic cleansing would be putting it mildly. They do not just want to displace Jews. They want to kill them all. Yet, you seem to have no objection to their actions designed to achieve their objective. It is amazing you do not recognize that you are one of the people here who thinks ethnic cleansing is a morally acceptable way for the Palestinians to settle a political dispute.
Hamas is not oppressing Israelis, nor or they in a position to do so. For the record, I don't support the ethnic cleansing of anyone, anywhere at any time, and if the tables were turned, and the U.S. was blindly supporting a group of people who were in the process of ethnic cleansing Jews from Palestine, I would oppose that to, and therein in lies the difference between people like me and people like you. You gladly support Likud's ethnic cleansing of Gentiles from Palestine because of what you believe Hamas might do, while I would never support Hamas' ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel despite the fact that I already know what they have always stood for going back to the days when it still called itself Irgun.
Did you know that the IDF routinely demolishes the homes of the relatives of Gentiles who are merely SUSPECTED of killing Jewish settlers, while it does nothing to the relatives of Jews even when they admit to killing Gentiles, such as the Palestinian kid who was burned alive a month ago? Furthermore, the Israeli courts have defended this discrepancy in punishment since it has ruled that draconian punishments are justified to fight "terrorism", but an act can only be considered "terrorism" if the victims are Jewish. Under the same rationale, Israel seizes funds from the PLO's treasury to compensate the families of Jewish murder victims when the murderer is suspected to be Palestinian, but of course it makes no compensation to Palestinian murder victims when the murderer is Jewish.
That's life in "the Mideast's only democracy" which is also "America's staunchest ally".
Posted on 9/2/14 at 11:53 pm to Rex
quote:
I am quickly moving to their side.
I usually agree with you. However, here is were we part ways.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:07 am to EthanL
quote:
TBH, I think they like sheddingivilian blood, but they understand everyone else abhors it, so they manufacture ways and targets to justify them doing so
Thomas Friedman said the same thing in one of his recent NYT columns. One thing Israel has going for it is that the American MSM is always eager to parrot its catchy slogans which rationalize the massacre of Palestinian civilians.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:36 am to polydorr
quote:
Good. Keep it up, Israel.
I'm sure you and your fellow-minded peers are fine with the Mexicans and Hondurans coming into our country and appropriating our land, as well. Glad we know where you stand on immigration issues.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:37 am to Poodlebrain
quote:
Just what do you think are the aims of Hamas? Ethnic cleansing would be putting it mildly. They do not just want to displace Jews. They want to kill them all. Yet, you seem to have no objection to their actions designed to achieve their objective. It is amazing you do not recognize that you are one of the people here who thinks ethnic cleansing is a morally acceptable way for the Palestinians to settle a political dispute.
You know what drives Palestinians into the arms of Hamas? The continued illegal appropriation of their land by Israelis.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 7:21 am to REG861
quote:
You know what drives Palestinians into the arms of Hamas? The continued illegal appropriation of their land by Israelis.
The Palestinian people are reacting the same way we would under such circumstances which explains why the war has increased Hamas' popularity both in Gaza and the West Bank, while decreasing Abbas' popularity who they increasingly see as a quisling. Furthermore, most Palestinians support armed resistance as long as they are under a blockade. The Palestinians have had ten years to watch Abbas in action, and the message they've gotten loud and clear is that non-violence will get you no where with a Likud government. The surest way to guarantee no future rocket attacks is to give them access to the sea instead of denying them access to its own territorial waters, or give the nonviolent Palestinians like Abbas tangible results for the adherence to nonviolence. Bibi's problem is that he was put in power by the settlers and rejectionsits, and if he ever gave Abbas an inch, it would cause his government to collapse.
quote:
Hamas's support has surged after its war with Israel and would win Palestinian elections if they were held today, an opinion poll suggests.
The Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research's poll, released on Tuesday, suggested Hamas leader Ismail Haniya would win almost twice as many votes as Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas, in a two-way presidential election.
More than half of respondents said armed resistance - a pillar of Hamas's ideology - would help gain a Palestinian state, as opposed to 20 percent who said they supported non-violent means.
LINK
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News