Middle East Conflict

[SebastianBlue]

@Eds here is a genuine hypothetical for you:

Say you are sitting in your home with your entire family during Passover, enjoying sedar, and the company of your loved ones, including your many grand children and nephews/nieces, when a Kahanist second cousin you vaguely know, but do not associate with (though several members of your family do occasionally, despite his extreme ideology and behaviour), enters your house uninvited, and decides to join the dinner. You quickly realise something is wrong as the military surround your home shortly after, presumably because this pariah has committed a serious violent crime.

Are they justified in killing all of you by bombing your home to neutralise the threat of your estranged family member (without putting the lives of the soldiers at “unnecessary” risk, as they cannot know if he went to your home because there are other sympathetic militants present)?

If not, why?

 

[Eds]

You have implied numerous times that you don’t really care about the civilian casualties incurred as long as the terrorists are neutralised.

In fact, you seemingly “celebrate” the entire event of their killing, according to your own words.

I think you have misunderstood me. Civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs, however as in all wars this isn't always possible especially when the tactics of one side is to deliberately embed themselves amongst civilians. I wonder how many terrorists were killed at Majdal Shams the other day? And don't forget the videos of the thousands of 'civilians' who were celebrating on October 7, who spat on the dead bodies of the innocent festival goers, who hit them, who paraded them around as if they were some sort of trophy. Still over 100 hostages held underground including babies who have spent more time in captivity than not. Let's have a ceasefire you all shout but make no mention of the hostages nor who broke the ceasefire on October 7. So whilst I will celebrate the destruction of all terrorist groups I will not do the same for innocent civilians.

 

[Eds]

@Eds here is a genuine hypothetical for you:

Say you are sitting in your home with your entire family during Passover, enjoying sedar, and the company of your loved ones, including your many grand children and nephews/nieces, when a Kahanist second cousin you vaguely know, but do not associate with (though several members of your family do occasionally, despite his extreme ideology and behaviour), enters your house uninvited, and decides to join the dinner. You quickly realise something is wrong as the military surround your home shortly after, presumably because this pariah has committed a serious violent crime.

Are they justified in killing all of you by bombing your home to neutralise the threat of your estranged family member (without putting the lives of the soldiers at “unnecessary” risk, as they cannot know if he went to your home because there are other sympathetic militants present)?

If not, why?

If I knew their background I wouldn't let him / her into my house nor associate with him.

 

[robbieh]

No, just letting people know that Israel has rid the world of one more terrorist. A bit like when the world celebrated the death of Bin Laden etc

If Hamas had the capability, which they probably don't, to kill Netanyahu and they did, how would you feel?

Related questions.

1.Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist?
2. Were the Apaches, Sioux, Cherokees terrorists?
3. Was Menachem Begin a terrorist?

 

[SebastianBlue]

If I knew their background I wouldn't let him / her into my house nor associate with him.

But say he was able to get in regardless of your wishes (whether because you weren’t aware he was there or had no power to stop him from entering your home) — would the military be justified in killing you and everyone else, women and children included, to neutralise him as a threat (and prevent “unnecessary risk” to their personnel)?

 

[Eds]

But say he was able to get in regardless of your wishes (whether because you weren’t aware he was there or had no power to stop him from entering your home) — would the military be justified in killing you and everyone else, women and children included, to neutralise him as a threat (and prevent “unnecessary risk” to their personnel)?

Are you trying to say that the way the Israeli military have conducted some strikes is wrong because innocent civilians have died despite that being the Hamas strategy. They think that they are almost immune if they embed themselves. We know for a fact that many airstrikes have been called off due to their being civilians in the area, it's just unfortunate that in some cases civilians have died. But there is a war going on and there will be cases where collateral damage if you want to call it has been justified. It's not necessarily what you want to hear but that's may view however harsh it may sound. No doubt the pile on will start soon but people have to remember what is going on and not rely on Gaza health ministry to provide them with the facts.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Are you trying to say that the way the Israeli military have conducted some strikes is wrong because innocent civilians have died despite that being the Hamas strategy. They think that they are almost immune if they embed themselves. We know for a fact that many airstrikes have been called off due to their being civilians in the area, it's just unfortunate that in some cases civilians have died. But there is a war going on and there will be cases where collateral damage if you want to call it has been justified. It's not necessarily what you want to hear but that's may view however harsh it may sound.

I appreciate you answering the question. It seems you would support the killing of everyone in your home in that scenario as “justified collateral damage” given your estranged family member would have been intentionally using your family as human shields, thus the death of your family was just a consequences of military action to neutralise the threat to the public.

No doubt the pile on will start soon but people have to remember what is going on and not rely on Gaza health ministry to provide them with the facts.

I suppose my follow up to this would be if we are not to listen to the Gaza health ministry (or, presumably international aid agencies or medical organisations largely verifying both counts of deaths and accounts of the savagery of the killings, especially of the thousands of children who have been killed), or even the IDF who have largely verified counts close (though perhaps slightly lower) to those provided by the aforementioned sources, who are we meant to believe?

 

[robbieh]

I'll answer my own questions.

Netanyahu is fair game I'd say as he's responsible for the suffering that Palestinians have experienced the last 20 years.

Nelson Mandela not a terrorist, except in the eyes of Thatcher. He was fighting against an apartheid state. Which is precisely what Hamas are doing. Palestinians live under the Israeli yoke.

Native American Indians obviously weren't terrorists. They were fighting for their lives.

I don't think Begin was a terrorist either.

In fact for me the word is used way to often by the powerful against those with no power.

On both sides of this conflict both Hamas and the IDF are breaking laws relating to the conduct of war. This makes them criminals not terrorists.

Ed seems to think only Israel has the right to defend itself.

 

[The blue phantom]

I'll answer my own questions.

Netanyahu is fair game I'd say as he's responsible for the suffering that Palestinians have experienced the last 20 years.

Nelson Mandela not a terrorist, except in the eyes of Thatcher. He was fighting against an apartheid state. Which is precisely what Hamas are doing. Palestinians live under the Israeli yoke.

Native American Indians obviously weren't terrorists. They were fighting for their lives.

I don't think Begin was a terrorist either.

In fact for me the word is used way to often by the powerful against those with no power.

On both sides of this conflict both Hamas and the IDF are breaking laws relating to the conduct of war. This makes them criminals not terrorists.

Ed seems to think only Israel has the right to defend itself.

He doesn't recognise the occupation or the word Palestine. He's on record multiple times stating this. And all the land is Israels.

 

[Vic]

He doesn't recognise the occupation or the word Palestine. He's on record multiple times stating this. And all the land is Israels.

From the river to the sea.