Israeli Duty to Warn? What unmitigated gall (chutzpah)

[jbg]

^ all the intellectual insight and depth of a paper plate

Do you think just insulting a statement makes a point?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Limiting civillian casualties is essential for any war, however just the cause. However Israel will of course not warn of airstrikes as it will defeat the purpose of catching Hamas terrorists by surprise. So I am not seeing any way out of civillian deaths as Hamas militants will disperse themselves among civilians as they usually do.

There is currently no way for civilians to leave Gaza even if they wanted, and it is a densely populated area. In the current situation and without prior warnings of incoming strikes, airstrikes would kill a disproportionate number of civilians and injure many more compared to the number of combatants (like Hamas members) that they would kill. How could this be justified? If the airstrikes are intended to take out Hamas for their attacks on civilians, it seems to me that killing as many or even more civilians in return should also be condemned and avoided as much as it possibly could be.

What do you suggest should be done? Because indiscriminately bombing a densely populated civilian area knowing what that would cause is, in my opinion, quite indefensible.

 

[Bthoth]

There is currently no way for civilians to leave Gaza even if they wanted, and it is a densely populated area. In the current situation and without prior warnings of incoming strikes, airstrikes would kill a disproportionate number of civilians and injure many more compared to the number of combatants (like Hamas members) that they would kill. How could this be justified? If the airstrikes are intended to take out Hamas for their attacks on civilians, it seems to me that killing as many or even more civilians in return should also be condemned and avoided as much as it possibly could be.

What do you suggest should be done? Because indiscriminately bombing a densely populated civilian area knowing what that would cause is, in my opinion, quite indefensible.

Few actually skip the idea that killing more civilians will create more HAMAS terrorists.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Few actually skip the idea that killing more civilians will create more HAMAS terrorists.

I'm also seeing a lot of one-dimensional arguments that overlook the 75-year history of the relations between Israel and Palestinians and frame this war as if it were some isolated event that didn't fester and originate due to multiple factors, some of which go back several decades.

 

[sayak83]

There is currently no way for civilians to leave Gaza even if they wanted, and it is a densely populated area. In the current situation and without prior warnings of incoming strikes, airstrikes would kill a disproportionate number of civilians and injure many more compared to the number of combatants (like Hamas members) that they would kill. How could this be justified? If the airstrikes are intended to take out Hamas for their attacks on civilians, it seems to me that killing as many or even more civilians in return should also be condemned and avoided as much as it possibly could be.

What do you suggest should be done? Because indiscriminately bombing a densely populated civilian area knowing what that would cause is, in my opinion, quite indefensible.

The problem is if civilians are allowed to leave, the Hamas fighters will leave first. And Egypt must be e willing, which they are not. It is theoretically possible for an arrangement with Egypt to create large refugee centers where women and children can go from Gaza.

I am not certain what the Israel bombing is achieving. I think Israel is destroying known centers or possible blockage points for an eventual ground based assault.

 

[jbg]

There are some lessons from history worth heeding. If WW II was going to end and not just end in another quasi-Armistice like WW I, Dresden and Hiroshima were necessary.

War is hell. There is no doubt about that. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.

Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, people demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to forsake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.

The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theaters on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopeless. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

There are, of course, exceptions. The War of 1812 ended in a standstill truce which persists to this day. However, the nations on either side of the border were prepared to live with the other permanently. That is not the case with most current war zones. Russia is not reconciled to Ukrainian independence or for that matter the freedom of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe. Hamas does not want a Jewish state of Israel.

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater agony and death.

 

[Bthoth]

I'm also seeing a lot of one-dimensional arguments that overlook the 75-year history of the relations between Israel and Palestinians and frame this war as if it were some isolated event that didn't fester and originate due to multiple factors, some of which go back several decades.

Correct, the divide is very old. I just pointed out, that killing more civilians will make it worse. To flip that over, HAMAS doing the stupid caused israel to blow up even more GAZA. The snow ball is evidence of why the divide has not ended

 

[Dimi95]

Late Christopher Hitchens explained very well what Islam produces as a religion in one of his debates:
"At this moment it is very clear to me , the most toxic form religion takes is Islamic form , the horrible idea of wanting to end with Sharia , the state of religious law and the best means of getting there is Jihad,holy war and the Muslims have the special right to feel aggrieved enough to demand this.
I think it's apsolute obscene wickedness, and i think their religion is nonsense.
God spesks to some illiterate merchant warlord in Arabia, and it contains the answers to all humankind.
Don't waste my time!It's bull****..
Also that Archangel Gabriel spesks in Arabic..
All religions claim to be revealed truth , but Islam rather dangerously claims, ours is the last and final one.There can't by anymore after this,This is God'slast word.
Now , that's straightaway a temptation of violence,intolerance and if you note that's a temptation they are quite willing to fall on.
Every Allahu Akbar reminds people that we sre in a very serious struggle with a very depraved religion".

 

[Ebionite]

“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades.

 

[Ebionite]

Now , that's straightaway a temptation of violence,intolerance and if you note that's a temptation they are quite willing to fall on.

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Quran 2:256

 

[Bthoth]

“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” Avner Cohen, a former Israeli religious affairs official who worked in Gaza for more than two decades.

I am wondering what the qualifiers are for that statement.

 

[Bthoth]

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Quran 2:256

Would allah approve of what HAMAS has done or will you choose not to put that answer into writing?

 

[Ebionite]

Would allah approve of what HAMAS has done or will you choose not to put that answer into writing?

Shedding innocent blood is condemned.

 

[Sargonski]

Would allah approve of what HAMAS has done?

Don't know about allah but YHWH certainly would ..

 

[Bthoth]

Shedding innocent blood is condemned.

is there a way to consider civilians as not innocent?

For example: was the 911 world trade center murder of innocent lives, someone twisted up to make them non innocent?

Or is the christian method of considering 'all have sinned' a method of circumventing that rule?

As you can see, i am asking a direct inquiry even though i comprehend that each and everyone can be found guilty of something if the scales are changed.

 

[Bthoth]

Don't know about allah but YHWH certainly would ..

What establishes such certainty?

Be kind and give a fair answer.

 

[Ebionite]

is there a way to consider civilians as not innocent?

It could be argued that civilians who support a criminal government or criminal political organization share the culpability as accessories.

For example: was the 911 world trade center murder of innocent lives, someone twisted up to make them non innocent?

The presumption of innocence applies. 9/11 was probably the most misrepresented terrorist event in U.S. history, but AFAIK nobody has suggested that those who died who were not alleged suicide bombers were to blame for the event.

Or is the christian method of considering 'all have sinned' a method of circumventing that rule?

No, the doctrine of original sin is based on the misrepresentation of David's sin.

As you can see, i am asking a direct inquiry even though i comprehend that each and everyone can be found guilty of something if the scales are changed.

Unjust judgement tends to follow from false accusations. Historically these were associated with the devil or the sons of Belial.

False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge [things] that I knew not.
Psalms 35:11

 

[Bthoth]

It could be argued that civilians who support a criminal government or criminal political organization share the culpability as accessories.

So there is a way to circumvent rational thought.

The presumption of innocence applies. 9/11 was probably the most misrepresented terrorist event in U.S. history,

So you have a better explanation?

but AFAIK

What fake, the building is gone, people died?

nobody has suggested that those who died who were not alleged suicide bombers were to blame for the event.

Such as?

No, the doctrine of original sin is based on the misrepresentation of David's sin.

Cain/Abel. Did you forget the original sin, murder.

Unjust judgement tends to follow from false accusations. Historically these were associated with the devil or the sons of Belial.

No such thing as a devil. Likewise, no blaming another for the crimes that the rude commit.

False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge [things] that I knew not.
Psalms 35:11

False witness often create even more sins. I consider a lie as jinn misleading the drunkeness of stupid actions. For example blaming a devil for an atrocity, is down right lying. And woe to the scribes and pharisee that preach the misleading doctrine.

 

[Ebionite]

So there is a way to circumvent rational thought.

No, The fact that a group has a political objective doesn't mean that they have immunity from the consequences of their acts.

So you have a better explanation?

Turing concrete to dust takes a lot of energy. Assuming that the the top and bottom sections of the towers turned to dust at the same rate, there should have been at least half of them remaining. Controlled demolition is the only viable explanation for the debris field.

What fake, the building is gone, people died?

Yes, those are facts. What was fake was the media's blaming of bin Laden.

Cain/Abel. Did you forget the original sin, murder.

Seth wasn't responsible for Cain's sin, and Abraham was a descendant of Seth, not Cain. The doctrine of original sin refers to Adam's sin, not Cains's.

No such thing as a devil.

Slander exists. The devil is a name for the slanderer.

False witness often create even more sins. I consider a lie as jinn misleading the drunkeness of stupid actions. For example blaming a devil for an atrocity, is down right lying. And woe to the scribes and pharisee that preach the misleading doctrine.

You mean something like the idea that the devil made me do it?

 

[Bthoth]

No, The fact that a group has a political objective doesn't mean that they have immunity from the consequences of their acts.

Voting for a politician should not make the individuals responsible for their actions. ex....Seth is not responsible for cain's action

Turing concrete to dust takes a lot of energy. Assuming that the the top and bottom sections of the towers turned to dust at the same rate, there should have been at least half of them remaining. Controlled demolition is the only viable explanation for the debris field.

With them heights, i dont see it

Yes, those are facts. What was fake was the media's blaming of bin Laden.

I never dug into the issue that deep

Seth wasn't responsible for Cain's sin, and Abraham was a descendant of Seth, not Cain.

Just as our politicians made and make mistakes, but condemning US is wrong. The same with HAMAS, I cannot blame palestinians for what they did.

The doctrine of original sin refers to Adam's sin, not Cains's.

Some read it that way, I dont.

Slander exists. The devil is a name for the slanderer.

OK. Even so, slander is not a reason to commit an atrocity

You mean something like the idea that the devil made me do it?

A lie is not a devil. Close to jinn. A misleading information, causing an evil. Religions cause that all over the world.