• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Hezbollah’s Exploding Electronics

You repeat these blatant slanderous accusations time and time again. Unlike you, I think killing noncombatants is wrong no matter who does it and no matter who the noncombatants are.

It is a ridiculous position to take. The logical conclusion to it would mean that no country can ever do anything to another country to stop an enemy from repeated attacks leading to property damage, injury and death, since it is basically impossible to neutralize those doing the attacking in a country which one doesn't control without the risk of harming noncombatants.
I never got a meaningful response to the cartoon of Hamas with a baby in their plate carrier.

There are a lot of people who stick their head in the sand when confronted by hard choices. If you refuse to pick one when reality offers up a horrible choice you probably get the worse outcome.
 
You repeat these blatant slanderous accusations time and time again. Unlike you, I think killing noncombatants is wrong no matter who does it and no matter who the noncombatants are.

It is a ridiculous position to take. The logical conclusion to it would mean that no country can ever do anything to another country to stop an enemy from repeated attacks leading to property damage, injury and death, since it is basically impossible to neutralize those doing the attacking in a country which one doesn't control without the risk of harming noncombatants.
Killing noncombatants it is wrong even when it unavoidable. Shrugging it off with the”It’s unavoidable, so it’s ok” is moral cowardice. Nor is it to be celebrated. Your logical conclusion is a straw man.
 
This gets at why I find this action to be so wrong. I remember that 1980 protocol because of the horrific issues at the time. This 1996 amendment added the “harmless portable objects” phrases.

AND ISRAEL SIGNED IT.

NPR Story

In addition, Israel is party to certain treaties that regulate or prohibit specific weapons.

And the most relevant treaty here is an international agreement called the Amended Protocol II, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which contains a specific prohibition on the use of booby traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed or constructed to contain explosive material. And all the information that we've been obtaining since these attacks implicate Israel in these attacks, and also suggests that these attacks violate this prohibition on the use of booby traps or other devices in this fashion.

You can read more here.
Protocol background

It shouldn’t need to be said every time, but the accusations are there so*
* Of course I consider Hammas’ attacks to be horrendous, and also the attacks by Hezbollah. In no case, however, do I want to ally with a government who is breaking international law. I abhor retribution and revenge. They propagate, they do not de-escalate.
How about looking at the rest of that protocol?


In the list of things that must not be booby trapped the only thing remotely relevant is:

protocol said:
(g) kitchen utensils or appliances except in military establishments, military locations or military supply depots;

In other words, booby trapping a civilian item used in a military context is permissible. And the booby trapped pagers were Hezbollah. Thus Israel did not break the rules however much you want them to have.
 
You repeat these blatant slanderous accusations time and time again. Unlike you, I think killing noncombatants is wrong no matter who does it and no matter who the noncombatants are.

It is a ridiculous position to take. The logical conclusion to it would mean that no country can ever do anything to another country to stop an enemy from repeated attacks leading to property damage, injury and death, since it is basically impossible to neutralize those doing the attacking in a country which one doesn't control without the risk of harming noncombatants.
I never got a meaningful response to the cartoon of Hamas with a baby in their plate carrier.

It looks to me like you never got the response you wanted to hear so you ignored the responses you did get.


There are a lot of people who stick their head in the sand when confronted by hard choices. If you refuse to pick one when reality offers up a horrible choice you probably get the worse outcome.
Your proposal to kill the kidnapper, the baby, the neighbors, and anyone who might possibly be connected to the kidnapping in any way no matter how circumstantial or trivial, isn't a hard choice. It's brutality masquerading as morality, and for people who judge the rightness or wrongness of an action by who is doing it to whom, it's a simple choice.

The hard choice is the one where you struggle with the morality of killing scores of people in order to prevent more kidnappings, not where you simply condemn them to death because it's inconvenient to devote all that time and effort into thinking up ways to stop crimes against humanity without resorting to crimes against humanity.
 
Another photo from the 10/8 protest:
5139dff3-9595-4ad8-8731-6f4cbf676735.jpeg
If you skew the meaning of "justice" and "human rights" to fit some eccentric definition no one else uses, then the only calls for justice and upholding human rights you will acknowledge are your own. And if you say that apartheid is justice and ethnic cleansing is upholding human rights, then you can claim that Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and their allies are standing on the moral high ground while Jews for Peace and Médecins Sans Frontières are stanning for genocide.

Of course, that only works in Alice's Wonderland, not irl where words have meanings everyone shares.
Of the signs in that picture I can read there is only one that is not effectively endorsing the 10/7 atrocity.

Do you endorse atrocity? If not, why do you think those protesters are on the side of justice and human rights?
 
But as long as "everyone does it" remains your attitude towards war, everyone will keep doing it.
That is not my attitude toward war, as I have just recently stated. War is the worst consequence of the failure of diplomacy, and it is a tragedy whenever it occurs.
Leftist error. You are assuming that diplomacy can prevent all wars. Does it not occur to you that there are those evil enough that they knowingly choose the path of horror?
 
Another photo from the 10/8 protest:
5139dff3-9595-4ad8-8731-6f4cbf676735.jpeg
If you skew the meaning of "justice" and "human rights" to fit some eccentric definition no one else uses, then the only calls for justice and upholding human rights you will acknowledge are your own. And if you say that apartheid is justice and ethnic cleansing is upholding human rights, then you can claim that Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and their allies are standing on the moral high ground while Jews for Peace and Médecins Sans Frontières are stanning for genocide.

Of course, that only works in Alice's Wonderland, not irl where words have meanings everyone shares.
Of the signs in that picture I can read there is only one that is not effectively endorsing the 10/7 atrocity.

Do you endorse atrocity? If not, why do you think those protesters are on the side of justice and human rights?
Oh I see.

In your mind, when someone says "Resistance against occupation is a human right" they're "effectively endorsing" an atrocity.

This from a guy who less than one hour ago said Israel successfully threw off its oppressors and attacks get worse when victims leave their abusers.
 
Another photo from the 10/8 protest:
5139dff3-9595-4ad8-8731-6f4cbf676735.jpeg
If you skew the meaning of "justice" and "human rights" to fit some eccentric definition no one else uses, then the only calls for justice and upholding human rights you will acknowledge are your own. And if you say that apartheid is justice and ethnic cleansing is upholding human rights, then you can claim that Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and their allies are standing on the moral high ground while Jews for Peace and Médecins Sans Frontières are stanning for genocide.

Of course, that only works in Alice's Wonderland, not irl where words have meanings everyone shares.
Of the signs in that picture I can read there is only one that is not effectively endorsing the 10/7 atrocity.
The only way those signs “effectively” endorse the 10/7 atrocity is through imputation of meaning because the words clearly do not.
 
But Israel is doing exactly that, goading attacks that they know will force the international community to intervene and help them exterminate their rivals. What exactly do you think an illegal "settlement" is, if not a blatant attempt to attract a violent response against civilians? They know they are putting their settlers in harm's way, that's the whole point. The settlers know it too, though many are given no choice in whether to participate, which is why it is a vicious crime against humanity to use families as bait for violence. This conflict has some unspoken rules that both "sides" are following, but their game and the conditions it plays under should not be tolerated by the international community at large. This cannot be the generally accepted model for international disputes, or we're all fucked in the long term. There are many ancient disputes in the world, we cannot afford turn a blind eye to either Hatfield or McCoy as the world burns on their behalf and behest. Israel has nuclear weapons. No holds barred is not an acceptable option.
You have it utterly wrong and you are committing the standard sin of thinking everyone thinks alike.

If Israel was trying to get the international community to exterminate it's rivals you would expect to see at least some such extermination. Yet we have absolutely nothing. We have responded to attacks directed at us. We have shot down weapons heading for Israel, but we did nothing about the launchers.

And the settlers are nuts. Most of the Israelis don't like them, but neither do they feel the need to expend too much effort to stop them as they know that they're actually irrelevant.

As for the international community, what do you propose they do? Israel will not accept extermination as an answer, nobody else is lifting a finger to try to do anything but keep down the level of Israel shooting back. And now there's nothing that the international community can do because Russia has gotten into the game with Iran. Trying to force a resolution in either direction will result in it going nuclear before it reaches the point of "success."
 
I don’t disagree, actually. A two state solution seems the only choice as Hamas has long stated its goal is to exterminate Jews worldwide. Both sides have backed themselves and each other into positions that, if not abandoned, will lead ultimately to mutual death and destruction of Israelis and Palestinians entirely.
And how in the world do you think a two state answer will bring peace?? Even if you could somehow create a two state solution there would be enough money on the side of war that war would continue. The Iranian money goes to whoever will do the shooting--and they put enough money into it that somebody will take it.
 
But as long as "everyone does it" remains your attitude towards war, everyone will keep doing it.
That is not my attitude toward war, as I have just recently stated. War is the worst consequence of the failure of diplomacy, and it is a tragedy whenever it occurs.
Leftist error. You are assuming that diplomacy can prevent all wars. Does it not occur to you that there are those evil enough that they knowingly choose the path of horror?
In children's books, sure. When I was nine or ten, I graduated to reading novels where people had a bit more nuance than simplistic stereotypes of good and evil. More complicated, I found, but more interesting, and certainly more like real life.

I don't know what you mean by "diplomacy can prevent all wars". Obviously, it has failed to do so repeatedly. I am well aware of this. Similarly, I do not believe that medicine can prevent all illness, that environmental regulations can prevent all extinctions, that counseling can fix every marriage, or that loving mommy enough will fix her brain. I do, however, think that illnesses (of whatever kind) should be ameliorated to whatever extent possible, not intentionally fostered and certainly not celebrated.
 
If Israel was trying to get the international community to exterminate it's rivals you would expect to see at least some such extermination. Yet we have absolutely nothing. We have responded to attacks directed at us. We have shot down weapons heading for Israel, but we did nothing about the launchers.
You're getting as bad as barbos! Refusing to acknowledge the daily news doesn't somehow stop it from happening. The whole world is watching Israel rain bloody hell both on its neighbors and those it claims as its own citizens. (Subjects? Property? Whatever it considers Gazans to be.)
 
But as long as "everyone does it" remains your attitude towards war, everyone will keep doing it.
That is not my attitude toward war, as I have just recently stated. War is the worst consequence of the failure of diplomacy, and it is a tragedy whenever it occurs.
Leftist error. You are assuming that diplomacy can prevent all wars. Does it not occur to you that there are those evil enough that they knowingly choose the path of horror?
In children's books, sure. When I was nine or ten, I graduated to reading novels where people had a bit more nuance than simplistic stereotypes of good and evil. More complicated, I found, but more interesting, and certainly more like real life.

I don't know what you mean by "diplomacy can prevent all wars". Obviously, it has failed to do so repeatedly. I am well aware of this. Similarly, I do not believe that medicine can prevent all illness, that environmental regulations can prevent all extinctions, that counseling can fix every marriage, or that loving mommy enough will fix her brain. I do, however, think that illnesses (of whatever kind) should be ameliorated to whatever extent possible, not intentionally fostered and certainly not celebrated.
Off topic and completely rhetorical and not directed at your remark personally but why is it always mommy who supposedly needs fixing??
 
I don’t disagree, actually. A two state solution seems the only choice as Hamas has long stated its goal is to exterminate Jews worldwide.

Hamas has always identified its enemy as the "Zionist entity" that is the state of Israel, not the Jewish people.

Hamas Charter

Articles 6, 16, and 17 reject genocide whether against against Jews or anyone else. AKAIK there is no stated goal to kill all Jews worldwide that has come from Hamas, only unsupported assertions of such.
Hamas leaves enough room for doubt that you can convince yourself they don't stand for genocide. Doesn't mean you're right.
And before anyone jumps on this and accuses me of being pro-terrorist or something, I will reiterate once again for the hard of learning:
You are very willing to believe the best of them.
I believe Hamas is a terrorist organization full of highly motivated haters who want to blow up the walls around Gaza, defeat the IDF, overthrow the government of Israel, and rule Palestine on behalf of the Palestinian people. They are willing to murder civilians to achieve their goals. I do not support them. I believe Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box for there to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Defeat on the ground will no doubt require war in the streets, and civilians will most likely be caught in the crossfire, leading to the deaths of innocents, which is tragic but IMO inevitable at this point. That does not justify targeting them, refusing to allow them to surrender, or not trying to avoid killing them. And, as always, I support the Two State solution but would enthusiastically support a One State solution that respects and upholds the rights of all individuals regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sex, hair color, or any other factors that racists and bigots use to justify being assholes to others.
And how do you propose this happens???

1) There is no ballot box. And if there were Hamas will have killed any meaningful competition.

2) You continue to pretend the data shows targeting of civilians despite there being a lower civilian to combatant death rate than anyone else has accomplished.

3) Where do you see them not being allowed to surrender? Israel is very strict about how it will accept a surrender because they're used to suicide attacks. You will not be allowed to approach until you have demonstrated that you don't have a bomb. Israel is taking quite a few prisoners, surrender is obviously possible.

4) How do you think a two state solution will magically be peaceful?

5) How would you ensure a one state solution would continue to respect everyone??
 
If they targeted against members of a terrorist group, no noncombatants are injured. Neither land mines nor explosive communication devices discriminate among combatants and noncombatants. That is how they two are alike.
You continue to fail to understand that war isn't executed with perfection.
How is that straw man relevant to my comparison?
You continue to demand an unattainable ideal and effectively say they should accept death if they can't do a sufficient perfect job of defending themselves.
 
You repeat these blatant slanderous accusations time and time again. Unlike you, I think killing noncombatants is wrong no matter who does it and no matter who the noncombatants are.

It is a ridiculous position to take. The logical conclusion to it would mean that no country can ever do anything to another country to stop an enemy from repeated attacks leading to property damage, injury and death, since it is basically impossible to neutralize those doing the attacking in a country which one doesn't control without the risk of harming noncombatants.
Killing noncombatants it is wrong even when it unavoidable. Shrugging it off with the”It’s unavoidable, so it’s ok” is moral cowardice. Nor is it to be celebrated. Your logical conclusion is a straw man.
The real world is the trolley problem. Your response it to tell the trolley to stop but of course it doesn't--and it goes on to smash the group.
 
You repeat these blatant slanderous accusations time and time again. Unlike you, I think killing noncombatants is wrong no matter who does it and no matter who the noncombatants are.

It is a ridiculous position to take. The logical conclusion to it would mean that no country can ever do anything to another country to stop an enemy from repeated attacks leading to property damage, injury and death, since it is basically impossible to neutralize those doing the attacking in a country which one doesn't control without the risk of harming noncombatants.
I never got a meaningful response to the cartoon of Hamas with a baby in their plate carrier.

It looks to me like you never got the response you wanted to hear so you ignored the responses you did get.
Where did I get a meaningful response? As in a solution that actually works. Remember, it's a metaphor, it's the battlefield, not something that can be solved with a sniper.

There are a lot of people who stick their head in the sand when confronted by hard choices. If you refuse to pick one when reality offers up a horrible choice you probably get the worse outcome.
Your proposal to kill the kidnapper, the baby, the neighbors, and anyone who might possibly be connected to the kidnapping in any way no matter how circumstantial or trivial, isn't a hard choice. It's brutality masquerading as morality, and for people who judge the rightness or wrongness of an action by who is doing it to whom, it's a simple choice.

The hard choice is the one where you struggle with the morality of killing scores of people in order to prevent more kidnappings, not where you simply condemn them to death because it's inconvenient to devote all that time and effort into thinking up ways to stop crimes against humanity without resorting to crimes against humanity.
Except your choice is to tie the hands of anyone who tries to prevent more atrocities.
 
Another photo from the 10/8 protest:
5139dff3-9595-4ad8-8731-6f4cbf676735.jpeg
If you skew the meaning of "justice" and "human rights" to fit some eccentric definition no one else uses, then the only calls for justice and upholding human rights you will acknowledge are your own. And if you say that apartheid is justice and ethnic cleansing is upholding human rights, then you can claim that Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and their allies are standing on the moral high ground while Jews for Peace and Médecins Sans Frontières are stanning for genocide.

Of course, that only works in Alice's Wonderland, not irl where words have meanings everyone shares.
Of the signs in that picture I can read there is only one that is not effectively endorsing the 10/7 atrocity.

Do you endorse atrocity? If not, why do you think those protesters are on the side of justice and human rights?
Oh I see.

In your mind, when someone says "Resistance against occupation is a human right" they're "effectively endorsing" an atrocity.

This from a guy who less than one hour ago said Israel successfully threw off its oppressors and attacks get worse when victims leave their abusers.
The "resistance" of which it speaks is the 10/7 atrocity. That sign is endorsing atrocity even if you don't want to believe it.
 
I don’t disagree, actually. A two state solution seems the only choice as Hamas has long stated its goal is to exterminate Jews worldwide.

Hamas has always identified its enemy as the "Zionist entity" that is the state of Israel, not the Jewish people.

Hamas Charter

Articles 6, 16, and 17 reject genocide whether against against Jews or anyone else. AKAIK there is no stated goal to kill all Jews worldwide that has come from Hamas, only unsupported assertions of such.
Hamas leaves enough room for doubt that you can convince yourself they don't stand for genocide. Doesn't mean you're right.

Doesn't mean I'm right that Hamas has always identified its enemy as the "Zionist entity"? Well then, show me the Charter or position paper or press release that proves I'm wrong. Or just accept that the only official statements we have indicate that I'm right, and we can all move on.

If you can support the assertion that Hamas' stated goal is the murder is all Jews everywhere, then please do. Link to your source(s).
And before anyone jumps on this and accuses me of being pro-terrorist or something, I will reiterate once again for the hard of learning:
You are very willing to believe the best of them.
I believe Hamas is a terrorist organization full of highly motivated haters who want to blow up the walls around Gaza, defeat the IDF, overthrow the government of Israel, and rule Palestine on behalf of the Palestinian people. They are willing to murder civilians to achieve their goals. I do not support them. I believe Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box for there to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Defeat on the ground will no doubt require war in the streets, and civilians will most likely be caught in the crossfire, leading to the deaths of innocents, which is tragic but IMO inevitable at this point. That does not justify targeting them, refusing to allow them to surrender, or not trying to avoid killing them. And, as always, I support the Two State solution but would enthusiastically support a One State solution that respects and upholds the rights of all individuals regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sex, hair color, or any other factors that racists and bigots use to justify being assholes to others.
And how do you propose this happens???

1) There is no ballot box. And if there were Hamas will have killed any meaningful competition.

2) You continue to pretend the data shows targeting of civilians despite there being a lower civilian to combatant death rate than anyone else has accomplished.

3) Where do you see them not being allowed to surrender? Israel is very strict about how it will accept a surrender because they're used to suicide attacks. You will not be allowed to approach until you have demonstrated that you don't have a bomb. Israel is taking quite a few prisoners, surrender is obviously possible.

4) How do you think a two state solution will magically be peaceful?

5) How would you ensure a one state solution would continue to respect everyone??
Enough with the deliberate misreading of everyone else's posts and the ridiculous rhetoric.

Stop pretending anyone here thinks peace just magically happens.

Stop pretending anyone here is so ignorant they believe there has ever been a way to ensure that a government will "always" respect everyone.

Stop pretending you don't know about the shirtless and barefoot Israeli hostages who escaped their captors and were gunned down by the IDF as they tried to surrender, or the other reports of people who had surrendered being murdered.

Stop pretending that when you posed the question about the baby being held hostage that no one answered your question, when in fact we discussed it: I said that's what snipers were for and you complained that I kept framing it as kill the hostage taker, not something else you refused to specify.

BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions in post#4993. If you're not trying to kill the hostage taker, why are you shooting? What are you aiming at, or are you not aiming at all?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom