Washington Man Accused of Hurling Molotov Cocktails at ICE Detention Center Killed by Police

[Loren Pechtel]

No, just saying -- as I keep saying -- that the consequences must be owned. Making statements like "bombing Dresden was wrong", and "the deaths of Hiroshima were a tragedy to be mourned and thought about when discussing nuclear deployment" helps us ask if there is a better option next time.

Our guilt over the failures of the past, and especially over the killing of Innocents, is what drives us to do better.

You're talking about specific incidents. I'm talking about the overall liberation--no way to do it without killing a lot of civilians. Your side's inability to address this shows you don't really hold to the position in the first place.

A liberation is composed exactly of many specific incidents.

Your inability to expect or accept ownership of those incidents shows your lack of ethics in this matter.

I am a soldier. I accept that, in the course of my life, I may end up in conflicts where I kill people. I will remember and mourn those who die by my hand, and always attempt a course of action to avoid it, because I see deaths as tragic. I see the deaths of Israelis as tragic. I see the deaths of Palestinians as tragic. People are attempting to give a pass to Israelis on the guilt and mourning of the deaths they inflict, and to blame those deaths on Palestinian civilians who die in the course. YOU are doing this same thing.

How was the liberation of Europe acceptable but Israel defending itself not acceptable?

 

[Jarhyn]

A liberation is composed exactly of many specific incidents.

Your inability to expect or accept ownership of those incidents shows your lack of ethics in this matter.

I am a soldier. I accept that, in the course of my life, I may end up in conflicts where I kill people. I will remember and mourn those who die by my hand, and always attempt a course of action to avoid it, because I see deaths as tragic. I see the deaths of Israelis as tragic. I see the deaths of Palestinians as tragic. People are attempting to give a pass to Israelis on the guilt and mourning of the deaths they inflict, and to blame those deaths on Palestinian civilians who die in the course. YOU are doing this same thing.

How was the liberation of Europe acceptable but Israel defending itself not acceptable?

How are you still not getting this: it is not about "acceptability". It is about the fact that Europe recognizes and admits to the tragic loss of life from the liberation and Israel (and their supporters) just don't fucking care.

 

[laughing dog]

You are shifting the goalposts. It is possible to achieve an acceptable goal via unacceptable actions. And there is no reason to accept your conclusion that there was no way to liberate Europe without killing a lot of civilians as an accepted fact.

Moreover, as usual, you seem incapable of understanding/accepting
It is unacceptable to kill civilians. Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it. It is particularly galling to blame the victims for their own deaths in those instances.

You're still evading.

No. I am not.

What don't you understand about
"It is possible to achieve an acceptable goal via unacceptable actions. " or
"It is unacceptable to kill civilians." or
" Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. " or
"Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it."

Because if you actually understand those statements, you would not persist in your derailing straw men and slanderous accusations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A liberation is composed exactly of many specific incidents.

Your inability to expect or accept ownership of those incidents shows your lack of ethics in this matter.

I am a soldier. I accept that, in the course of my life, I may end up in conflicts where I kill people. I will remember and mourn those who die by my hand, and always attempt a course of action to avoid it, because I see deaths as tragic. I see the deaths of Israelis as tragic. I see the deaths of Palestinians as tragic. People are attempting to give a pass to Israelis on the guilt and mourning of the deaths they inflict, and to blame those deaths on Palestinian civilians who die in the course. YOU are doing this same thing.

How was the liberation of Europe acceptable but Israel defending itself not acceptable?

How are you still not getting this: it is not about "acceptability". It is about the fact that Europe recognizes and admits to the tragic loss of life from the liberation and Israel (and their supporters) just don't fucking care.

You're still evading the question.

Why was it acceptable in the case of Europe but unacceptable in the case of Israel? Especially since the ratio of civilians to combatants is a lot higher in WWII than in Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are shifting the goalposts. It is possible to achieve an acceptable goal via unacceptable actions. And there is no reason to accept your conclusion that there was no way to liberate Europe without killing a lot of civilians as an accepted fact.

Moreover, as usual, you seem incapable of understanding/accepting
It is unacceptable to kill civilians. Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it. It is particularly galling to blame the victims for their own deaths in those instances.

You're still evading.

No. I am not.

What don't you understand about
"It is possible to achieve an acceptable goal via unacceptable actions. " or
"It is unacceptable to kill civilians." or
" Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. " or
"Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it."

Because if you actually understand those statements, you would not persist in your derailing straw men and slanderous accusations.

You are still not answering the question.

 

[Jarhyn]

How are you still not getting this: it is not about "acceptability". It is about the fact that Europe recognizes and admits to the tragic loss of life from the liberation and Israel (and their supporters) just don't fucking care.

You're still evading the question.

Why was it acceptable in the case of Europe but unacceptable in the case of Israel? Especially since the ratio of civilians to combatants is a lot higher in WWII than in Israel.

You are begging the question, and not even wrong. The question is not relevant in the context, and assumes a position.

 

[ruby sparks]

How was the liberation of Europe acceptable but Israel defending itself not acceptable?

Israel is (a) defending land it (or jewish immigrants to be exact) colonised as recently as 70 years ago, including displacing the existing non-jewish inhabitants, often forcibly and (b) defending land it took by force and (c) expanding its territory. It's not exactly a secret, because that's what Zionism openly said it wanted to do beforehand.

It's like if I came to your house and ejected you and claimed it as mine, you'd try to dislodge me somehow, except that in order to be consistent, you wouldn't. You'd be asserting my right to keep your house and defend it from your attempts to move back in.

 

[J842P]

How are you still not getting this: it is not about "acceptability". It is about the fact that Europe recognizes and admits to the tragic loss of life from the liberation and Israel (and their supporters) just don't fucking care.

You're still evading the question.

Why was it acceptable in the case of Europe but unacceptable in the case of Israel? Especially since the ratio of civilians to combatants is a lot higher in WWII than in Israel.

He is saying it is unacceptable in both cases.

 

[Jarhyn]

How are you still not getting this: it is not about "acceptability". It is about the fact that Europe recognizes and admits to the tragic loss of life from the liberation and Israel (and their supporters) just don't fucking care.

You're still evading the question.

Why was it acceptable in the case of Europe but unacceptable in the case of Israel? Especially since the ratio of civilians to combatants is a lot higher in WWII than in Israel.

He is saying it is unacceptable in both cases.

No. I'm not. I'm saying acceptablity doesn't enter into it. When you kill someone, you take responsibility for what you did and you don't try to ever tell yourself or was OK, or that someone else made you do it. No. YOU made you do it and you take responsibility for that choice. And forever into the future, that responsibility means applying doubt as to whether you had a better choice, whether you could have done otherwise and still have done the right thing, and you apply those lessons and doubts to the future.

When you say "the casualties were acceptable", the next time an objective would, on first glance, require casualties, that assessment of "acceptablity" means the calculus pushes the action again.

When you say "the casualties were UNacceptable", the next time an objective would require casualties, the calculus would resolve to a failure to act, perhaps to an unacceptable result.

Neither of these positions are themselves acceptable. You have to always say "casualties suck" and look at every incident with the lens "how do I reach an acceptable result while avoiding casualties to every possible extent", every time. That's the only "acceptable" calculus.

 

[Patooka]

If you are citing the mid twentieth century as your moral compass, you are on some pretty ethically shaky ground.

 

[J842P]

He is saying it is unacceptable in both cases.

No. I'm not. I'm saying acceptablity doesn't enter into it. When you kill someone, you take responsibility for what you did and you don't try to ever tell yourself or was OK, or that someone else made you do it. No. YOU made you do it and you take responsibility for that choice. And forever into the future, that responsibility means applying doubt as to whether you had a better choice, whether you could have done otherwise and still have done the right thing, and you apply those lessons and doubts to the future.

When you say "the casualties were acceptable", the next time an objective would, on first glance, require casualties, that assessment of "acceptablity" means the calculus pushes the action again.

When you say "the casualties were UNacceptable", the next time an objective would require casualties, the calculus would resolve to a failure to act, perhaps to an unacceptable result.

Neither of these positions are themselves acceptable. You have to always say "casualties suck" and look at every incident with the lens "how do I reach an acceptable result while avoiding casualties to every possible extent", every time. That's the only "acceptable" calculus.

Sorry, I meant to quote laughing dog's post above yours.

 

[laughing dog]

No. I am not.

What don't you understand about
"It is possible to achieve an acceptable goal via unacceptable actions. " or
"It is unacceptable to kill civilians." or
" Which means there are no acceptable excuses for doing so. " or
"Just admit what one is doing is unacceptable and stop making excuses for it."

Because if you actually understand those statements, you would not persist in your derailing straw men and slanderous accusations.

You are still not answering the question.

In this thread, multiple participants recognize I have answered the question. So I will try to answer it in a different way in the vain hope you may understand simple English.

Answer: It was as acceptable in the case of European liberation as it is in the defense of Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How are you still not getting this: it is not about "acceptability". It is about the fact that Europe recognizes and admits to the tragic loss of life from the liberation and Israel (and their supporters) just don't fucking care.

You're still evading the question.

Why was it acceptable in the case of Europe but unacceptable in the case of Israel? Especially since the ratio of civilians to combatants is a lot higher in WWII than in Israel.

You are begging the question, and not even wrong. The question is not relevant in the context, and assumes a position.

Still nothing about why I'm supposedly wrong.

We have a claim: Killing civilians in wartime is wrong.

I'm presenting two situations, Israel and Europe. Why does it only apply to the former? What's the difference?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How was the liberation of Europe acceptable but Israel defending itself not acceptable?

Israel is (a) defending land it (or jewish immigrants to be exact) colonised as recently as 70 years ago, including displacing the existing non-jewish inhabitants, often forcibly and (b) defending land it took by force and (c) expanding its territory. It's not exactly a secret, because that's what Zionism openly said it wanted to do beforehand.

It's like if I came to your house and ejected you and claimed it as mine, you'd try to dislodge me somehow, except that in order to be consistent, you wouldn't. You'd be asserting my right to keep your house and defend it from your attempts to move back in.

Except it was the Arab attack that caused the displacements, not the "colonization".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How are you still not getting this: it is not about "acceptability". It is about the fact that Europe recognizes and admits to the tragic loss of life from the liberation and Israel (and their supporters) just don't fucking care.

You're still evading the question.

Why was it acceptable in the case of Europe but unacceptable in the case of Israel? Especially since the ratio of civilians to combatants is a lot higher in WWII than in Israel.

He is saying it is unacceptable in both cases.

So we shouldn't have liberated Europe?

 

[laughing dog]

He is saying it is unacceptable in both cases.

So we shouldn't have liberated Europe?

Your Q does not follow from your P.

 

[bilby]

You are begging the question, and not even wrong. The question is not relevant in the context, and assumes a position.

Still nothing about why I'm supposedly wrong.

We have a claim: Killing civilians in wartime is wrong.

I'm presenting two situations, Israel and Europe. Why does it only apply to the former? What's the difference?

You are attacking a straw man.

The claim is: Targeting civilians in wartime is wrong.

And it applies to all nations and circumstances, including wars, incursions, police actions, conflicts, battles, and military engagements.

The killing of civilians as an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of a justified military action is sad, but tolerable.

The choice to explicitly target civilians, even as part of a wider justified conflict, is a crime.

Invading Europe to liberate it from the Nazis was justified. The bombing of Dresden, and the strategic plan to shorten the war by targeting civilians of which the Dresden raid was a part, were war crimes.

Being on the right side doesn't necessarily make you a 'good guy', doesn't mean that absolutely anything you do in pursuit of your justified objective is automatically acceptable, and doesn't give you immunity from criticism - even though being on the winning side might give you immunity from prosecution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He is saying it is unacceptable in both cases.

So we shouldn't have liberated Europe?

Your Q does not follow from your P.

Saying that doesn't make it so. You guys just keep evading the question:

Why was killing civilians in the liberation of Europe acceptable but killing civilians in the defense of Israel not?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are begging the question, and not even wrong. The question is not relevant in the context, and assumes a position.

Still nothing about why I'm supposedly wrong.

We have a claim: Killing civilians in wartime is wrong.

I'm presenting two situations, Israel and Europe. Why does it only apply to the former? What's the difference?

You are attacking a straw man.

The claim is: Targeting civilians in wartime is wrong.

And it applies to all nations and circumstances, including wars, incursions, police actions, conflicts, battles, and military engagements.

The killing of civilians as an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect of a justified military action is sad, but tolerable.

The choice to explicitly target civilians, even as part of a wider justified conflict, is a crime.

Invading Europe to liberate it from the Nazis was justified. The bombing of Dresden, and the strategic plan to shorten the war by targeting civilians of which the Dresden raid was a part, were war crimes.

Being on the right side doesn't necessarily make you a 'good guy', doesn't mean that absolutely anything you do in pursuit of your justified objective is automatically acceptable, and doesn't give you immunity from criticism - even though being on the winning side might give you immunity from prosecution.

And you haven't established that Israel is targeting civilians.

Note that anyone engaged in combat activities is not a civilian no matter what Hamas claims. Most of the Palestinian "civilians" that die are later revealed to be members of terrorist organizations or not due to Israeli actions in the first place.

 

[laughing dog]

Your Q does not follow from your P.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

In this case it does.

You guys just keep evading the question:

Why was killing civilians in the liberation of Europe acceptable but killing civilians in the defense of Israel not?

You keep evading the clear unequivocal answers to your bullshit question. I have repeatedly said it was unacceptable in both cases. For some reason you seemed unable to understand that basic statement, even though other posters did understand it.

So, I rephrased my response in the hopes you might understand that it was acceptable in the liberation of Europe as it is in the defense of Israel. For some reason you seemed unable to understand that basic statement.

Moreover, a number of posters, have made the point that bibly so eloquently made and that I will repeat
"Being on the right side doesn't necessarily make you a 'good guy', doesn't mean that absolutely anything you do in pursuit of your justified objective is automatically acceptable, and doesn't give you immunity from criticism - even though being on the winning side might give you immunity from prosecution. "

Moreover, at least two posters have repeatedly said that instead of making up excuses for unacceptable actions, people should take responsibility for their choices and their actions instead of blaming the civilian victims.

No one is evading your bullshit question. You are evading the answers.