Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1) Yeah, there's no defense for killing when it's not necessary.And it's worse when this is the justification:In other words, Israel should treat protesters the way terrorists treat people who oppose their goals.
2) What? None of the methods listed in the post surt responded to were based on determining who was or wasn't a threat.
3) You're just avoiding the question. What plays into terrorists' hands more:
A. Killing protesters and giving reason for civilians to want revenge via terrorism
B. Incapacitating protesters, giving people less reason to want revenge via terrorism.
I assume you're not going to try and argue option 2 pisses people as much as option one does.
4) . "People"is rendundant. All at risk here are the "soilders", people who have willingly agreed to risk their safety to keep others safe. Why should soilders, who again, have been given the power to kill, in exchange for their willingness to risk their safety, decide their safety is worth killing protesters?
If you are going to use special privileges to kill others for your personal interest, then you shouldn't have those privileges. If a solider isn't willing to risk his life, then he shouldn't have the power to take another life.
Frankly, I'm disappointed in how many people on this thread are willing to side with figures who abuse their authority over those who protest against them, but I guess principles don't mean anything if they aren't convenient for the narratives we want to push.
1) First, let me say that I think NONE of us (or at least none of us that aren't vile human beings) are glad about the innocent deaths/suffering (f*ck the terrorists killed or hurt, tho) which were the result of the recent violent protests. It is a sad and tragic event and I stand with you in the fact that such things shouldn't happen.
I don't agree with Surtur as well. And I agree that I also think Israel should invest heavily in non-lethal crowd control where they can. I, however, do not have boots on the ground so I cannot be a good judge on what tactics would have worked for this situation.
I, however think we disagree on what constitutes "necessary" and "justifiable" for the use of potentially lethal force.
IMO, it becomes necessary when the aggressing side has the means to kill you such as molotov cocktails, firebombs and sheer numbers.
IMO, it becomes justifiable when the aggressing side has the demonstrated the intent to hurt/kill you and are acting upon it (basically self-defense or the defense of others).
I think the problem a lot of ppl have is that the Israeli military is demonstrably just so much better at inuring/killing in an open fight than Hamas.
2) I don't get this reply. That part of my comment that you quoted had nothing to do with any of Surt's post. I was merely outlining the options available to the Israeli policymakers and the resulting tactics terrorists can use to exploit them (to further emphasize my point). Which basically proves that no matter what we do, there is always a means for them to exploit it.
3) Both plays into terrorists' hands. Like I said, flexibility of tactics allows terrorists to be fluid in their goals. They just adjust to what is available (see my previous reply).
Thing is, one policy risks the lives of their own people/soldiers, the other makes them look bad in the eyes of the world. But the thing is, they already look bad so coming from a strategic standpoint, one would think the prior option would be more appealing.
Also, believe it or not, ppl lose property, dignity and even their loved ones to injustices all the time and NOT resort to terrorism and instead look for justice in whatever (non-terroristy) avenue they can. IMO, those who think that terrorism is a just recourse is part of the problem.
4) News flash: Soldiers are people, too (and many commanders would call their soldiers their "people", at least over here). They want to live and many of them have families. And you seem to be suffering from a misconception: soldiers aren't there to keep "others" "safe". They are there to fight for their country. Which means to protect their citizens, their borders and their country's assets. Their safety is not "worth killing protesters". The soldiers themselves follow the orders of their superiors and it is their superiors that decide if the safety and lives of their soldiers are worth risking for the sake of what they see as hostile, foreign aggressors.
And let's be real here. Those were not simply "protesters" in the traditional sense. There were many terrorists mixed in with these "protesters" whose sole purpose was to incite violence from both ends. Sadly, both sides fell for it, and will continue to fall for it. If anyone is to take the a big chunk of the blame, it is them.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) First, let me say that I think NONE of us (or at least none of us that aren't vile human beings) are glad about the innocent deaths/suffering (f*ck the terrorists killed or hurt, tho) which were the result of the recent violent protests. It is a sad and tragic event and I stand with you in the fact that such things shouldn't happen.I don't agree with Surtur as well. And I agree that I also think Israel should invest heavily in non-lethal crowd control where they can. I, however, do not have boots on the ground so I cannot be a good judge on what tactics would have worked for this situation.
And let's be real here. Those were not simply "protesters" in the traditional sense. There were many terrorists mixed in with these "protesters" whose sole purpose was to incite violence from both ends. Sadly, both sides fell for it, and will continue to fall for it. If anyone is to take the a big chunk of the blame, it is them.
What don't you agree with? I've never said I want innocents dead. I never said Israel is without fault. And I don't feel like them investing in non-lethal methods to try to deal with these people is bad.
My problem is it seems some people here(not you) would have rather Israel had done nothing, let these people get violent and attack and burn and plant mines...because there were also protesters who weren't getting violent caught up in the mix.
I find it very strange some people just can't admit both sides are not equal. Or if they do they have to phrase it like "Hamas is bad, but Israel is very nearly just as bad". I do not get it. And then we have Rocky say this:
"Frankly, I'm disappointed in how many people on this thread are willing to side with figures who abuse their authority over those who protest against them, but I guess principles don't mean anything if they aren't convenient for the narratives we want to push. "
*He* is disappointed people are siding with figures who abuse authority. As opposed to the actual terrorists on the other side of this lol. All logic has left the building. We're talking about people who bring babies to violent protests. They are paying people for getting shot. They are burning crops with kite firebombs with swastikas (kitewaffe?). Obviously not all protesters were like that, but then we had like 40,000 people and 62 deaths. So...yeah.
I wonder if anyone on the left is thinking "Okay so my hatred for Trump has me on the verge of defending Hamas and MS-13, maybe I should rethink this". Probably not.
Originally posted by Surtur
What don't you agree with? I've never said I want innocents dead. I never said Israel is without fault. And I don't feel like them investing in non-lethal methods to try to deal with these people is bad.My problem is it seems some people here(not you) would have rather Israel had done nothing, let these people get violent and attack and burn and plant mines...because there were also protesters who weren't getting violent caught up in the mix.
I find it very strange some people just can't admit both sides are not equal. Or if they do they have to phrase it like "Hamas is bad, but Israel is very nearly just as bad". I do not get it. And then we have Rocky say this:
[b]"Frankly, I'm disappointed in how many people on this thread are willing to side with figures who abuse their authority over those who protest against them, but I guess principles don't mean anything if they aren't convenient for the narratives we want to push. "
*He* is disappointed people are siding with figures who abuse authority. As opposed to the actual terrorists on the other side of this lol. All logic has left the building. We're talking about people who bring babies to violent protests. They are paying people for getting shot. They are burning crops with kite firebombs with swastikas (kitewaffe?)
I wonder if anyone on the left is thinking "Okay so my hatred for Trump has me on the verge of defending Hamas and MS-13, maybe I should rethink this". Probably not. [/B]
I disagreed with you on the specific statement Rocky quoted (w/c is why I number these things):
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm all for this, after Hamas makes the switch to nothing but rubber bullets and water cannons first. And we go a year without a single incident from them that has anything but those things used. Then, sure.
Like I said, even with the fact that Hamas won't likely change their tactics, Israel should be obliged to invest heavily in nonlethal options and use those options whenever possible. I, however, also acknowledged that I do not have boots-on-the-ground knowledge of what is going on so I cannot speak with any authority on the tactical viability of said options.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I disagreed with you on the specific statement Rocky quoted (w/c is why I number these things):Like I said, even with the fact that Hamas won't likely change their tactics, Israel should be obliged to invest heavily in nonlethal options and use those options whenever possible. I, however, also acknowledged that I do not have boots-on-the-ground knowledge of what is going on so I cannot speak with any authority on the tactical viability of said options.
I understand. I will say that comment was meant as sarcasm. I know there is no chance of any of that happening.
But what non-lethal options do you want?
Originally posted by Surtur
I understand. I will say that comment was meant as sarcasm. I know there is no chance of any of that happening.But what non-lethal options do you want?
At this point, I'll be honest. The traditional ones (riot gear, tear gas, batons, tasers, mace, firehose etc) have been tried and likely weren't very effective.
Even the more cutting edge ones (a tank that uses a wall to corner violent protestors, for example) won't likely be very effective against the type of numbers and aggression they are facing. And even if they were, terrorists would still find ways around them (again: flexibility of tactics). Hell, they would likely just cause casualties from their own side via causing a stampede and likely the blame would still go to Israel.
I think it's purely gestural at this point for PR purposes, but they should still place considerable investment into it (not saying they haven't).
Originally posted by Nibedicus
At this point, I'll be honest. The traditional ones (riot gear, tear gas, batons, tasers, mace, firehose etc) have been tried and likely weren't very effective.Even the more cutting edge ones (a tank that uses a wall to corner violent protestors, for example) won't likely be very effective against the type of numbers and aggression they are facing. And even if they were, terrorists would still find ways around them (again: flexibility of tactics). Hell, they would likely just cause casualties from their own side via causing a stampede and likely the blame would still go to Israel.
I think it's purely gestural at this point for PR purposes, but they should still place considerable investment into it (not saying they haven't).
It really does feel like Israel can't win no matter what. That to appease people they need to waste money on things that aren't even effective, all so they appear to be treating terrorists with respect.
But where does that end? Once the stuff is shown to not be effective won't they just be expected to spend more time and resources trying to change that?
Originally posted by Surtur
It really does feel like Israel can't win no matter what. That to appease people they need to waste money on things that aren't even effective, all so they appear to be treating terrorists with respect.But where does that end? Once the stuff is shown to not be effective won't they just be expected to spend more time and resources trying to change that?
Likely.
Can't say I have any workable solution here. But if Israel doesn't want international sympathy to go to their enemies, they need to at least appear like the good guys.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Surt logic:Should people
A. Refrain from killing
B. Kill people because someone else, who isn't one of the people being killed, kills peopleChoose b.
What Surt doesn't get, aside from Israel lowering itself to the level of terrorists, choosing B also plays right in the hands of terrorists who canuse this kind of action to inspire action based on the justified rage of Palestinians.
Thankfully, Surt isn't president.
Not so thankfully, someone who thinks like surt, is.
Bingo
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yeah, there's no defense for killing when it's not necessary.And it's worse when this is the justification:In other words, Israel should treat protesters the way terrorists treat people who oppose their goals.
What? None of the methods listed in the post surt responded to were based on determining who was or wasn't a threat.
You're just avoiding the question. What plays into terrorists' hands more:
A. Killing protesters and giving reason for civilians to want revenge via terrorism
B. Incapacitating protesters, giving people less reason to want revenge via terrorism.
I assume you're not going to try and argue option 2 pisses people as much as option one does.
"People"is rendundant. All at risk here are the "soilders", people who have willingly agreed to risk their safety to keep others safe. Why should soilders, who again, have been given the power to kill, in exchange for their willingness to risk their safety, decide their safety is worth killing protesters?
If you are going to use special privileges to kill others for your personal interest, then you shouldn't have those privileges. If a solider isn't willing to risk his life, then he shouldn't have the power to take another life.
Frankly, I'm disappointed in how many people on this thread are willing to side with figures who abuse their authority over those who protest against them, but I guess principles don't mean anything if they aren't convenient for the narratives we want to push.
You act like civilians don't have agency.
If you are a civilian screwing around with a cop, ignore commands, and reach into your pocket, you're making a choice. The cop also has to make a choice.. Whether to do nothing, and hope you aren't about to pull a gun and shoot him/her dead. Or act on a percieved threat.
Maybe you're willing to dehumanize service men on the basis they chose to risk their lives, but I'm sure many have a reasonable belief that everyone, regardless of occupation, has a right to defend their lives.
Bottom line, civilians have a brain, and should be expected to use them.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
ent and I stand with you in the fact that such things shouldn't happen.I don't agree with Surtur as well. And I agree that I also think Israel should invest heavily in non-lethal crowd control where they can. I, however, do not have boots on the ground so I cannot be a good judge on what tactics would have worked for this situation.
My primary point was regarding how awful surt's ultamitum was. TBH, I can't really argue either way for the practicality of such measures,
That said, I maintain that those who shot protestors maintain guilt because of the actions they've taken to provoke such protests:
-> moving the embassy on a day thousands of people got evicted from their homeland
-> continuing to take the land of the people they evicted.
Israel and Trump both deserve blame for either
A. Stupidity(if this was accidental)
B. Doucheness(if they wanted the reaction)
and Israel deserves extra blame becuase of the actions it has been doing for year after year taking people's land.
These protests are a culmination of frustrated people who've been cast out and oppressed being shown a middle finger. It's absurd not to blame the oppressors showing the middle finger.
I, however think we disagree on what constitutes "necessary" and "justifiable" for the use of potentially lethal force.
2) I don't get this reply. That part of my comment that you quoted had nothing to do with any of Surt's post. I was merely outlining the options available to the Israeli policymakers and the resulting tactics terrorists can use to exploit them (to further emphasize my point). Which basically proves that no matter what we do, there is always a means for them to exploit it.
3) Both plays into terrorists' hands. Like I said, flexibility of tactics allows terrorists to be fluid in their goals. They just adjust to what is available (see my previous reply).
That both do it is irrelevant, if one does it less, then it's a better course of action.
And you seem to be suffering from a misconception: soldiers aren't there to keep "others" "safe". .
I could accept this except for the fact that the Israeli military has been taking Palestinian land. It's bad to take people's land, it's worse to take people's land and then not take responsibility for the people you displace. If you want to take Palestinian land, at a minimum, you need to take responsibility for the people you displace.
Also, believe it or not, ppl lose property, dignity and even their loved ones to injustices all the time and NOT resort to terrorism and instead look for justice in whatever (non-terroristy) avenue they can. IMO, those who think that terrorism is a just recourse is part of the problem.
If you are a civilian screwing around with a cop, ignore commands, and reach into your pocket, you're making a choice. The cop also has to make a choice.. Whether to do nothing, and hope you aren't about to pull a gun and shoot him/her dead. Or act on a percieved threat.
If you aren't willing to wait for the weapon, then you have no business using authority the state has given you over me.
Bottom line, civilians have a brain, and should be expected to use them.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1) I should open explaining the context of the initial post you responded to.
As you saw, i was responding to a statement from surt which itself was arguing for non lethal alternatives.My primary point was regarding how awful surt's ultamitum was. TBH, I can't really argue either way for the practicality of such measures,
2) That said, I maintain that those who shot protestors maintain guilt because of the actions they've taken to provoke such protests:
-> moving the embassy on a day thousands of people got evicted from their homeland
-> continuing to take the land of the people they evicted.3) Israel and Trump both deserve blame for either
A. Stupidity(if this was accidental)
B. Doucheness(if they wanted the reaction)4) and Israel deserves extra blame becuase of the actions it has been doing for year after year taking people's land.
5) These protests are a culmination of frustrated people who've been cast out and oppressed being shown a middle finger. It's absurd not to blame the oppressors showing the middle finger.
I, however think we disagree on what constitutes "necessary" and "justifiable" for the use of potentially lethal force.
Because the post you responded to initially was following that thread of conversation. Someone presented non lethal alternatives, and surtur said "if hamas doesn't do, israel doesn't have to!"
6) No, you're gonna have to be specific. Explain to me why incapacitating people inspires terrorism more than killing them?
That both do it is irrelevant, if one does it less, then it's a better course of action.
7) I could accept this except for the fact that the Israeli military has been taking Palestinian land. It's bad to take people's land, it's worse to take people's land and then not take responsibility for the people you displace. If you want to take Palestinian land, at a minimum, you need to take responsibility for the people you displace.
8) I never argued it was, but okay.
1) And I said I agree with the non-lethal method argument. What I do not agree with is the equivalence that somehow Israel lowered themselves to that of the terrorist. Do not agree. They maybe lowered themselves to that of greedy bankers but terrorist is way too far.
2) Sorry, but the soldiers didn't make the decision to land grab or move the embassy. The US government and their government did. They were given the orders to protect lives/property/territory of their country. Which they did so, albeit a bit on the overkill IMO. But again, neither you nor I had boots on the ground so we really are not the best to judge the level of force needed for the situation. But I cannot blame the soldiers for not wanting to be swarmed, beaten, burned then killed by an angry mob.
3) I would say B. They're big stinking douches. Do not blame Israel pls. There are tons of ppl in Israel that do not agree with their government. Say Israel gov and Hamas so we can keep the blame on the ppl who deserve it.
I will, however, keep an eye to see where they believe this decision will take them. For all we know, this might end the aggression on both sides (doubt it). I will condemn them for the provocation but will keep an open mind and a hopeful attitude that this might (if we're very lucky) diffuse the situation somehow (again, I have huge doubts).
4) It's a complicated issue. When researching both sides, the best I can make sense of it is that the Israel government has been very shrewd with how they approached their alleged land grabs, it seems that historical and legal claims are on their side when they did so (at least in the example I provided) and seems to be why the validity (or lack thereof) of their land grabs haven't been covered as much by the media (this is from my own research however, if ppl have better info pls provide it). While it does not excuse kicking out an already poor and oppressed minority from their homes (which is morally wrong), I will say that it does seem as simple as a lot of the media is making it sound.
5) Israel's government is not blameless here. I reiterated that over and over. In fact, that should not be in question at all.
Like I said, I disagree with the actions of their government. What I do not disagree with is their defensive policy. The job of the military is to protect the ppl and the soldiers themselves. Them being not so deluded as to adopt a lenient stance and risk their own safety for the safety of foreign aggressors who are extremely flexible in their tactics (essentially, you would lose in some way no matter what, why take the path where you lose more?). We should at least agree on that.
One thing tho, the whole "they forced them into terrorism due to oppression" narrative is ludicrous. Anyone who decides to become a terrorist, regardless of whatever oppression or suffering they underwent, are scum and deserves no pity or understanding or any kind of sympathy.
I just hate it when ppl go "the Israel government caused them to become terrorists due to oppression". No level of oppression could ever excuse terrorism or make it a reasonable path. And I wish the media would abandon such an irresponsible notion.
6) Because "victories" inspire recruitment. And there is nothing more "victorious" than defeating/killing a stronger enemy. And lenient tactics risk the lives of your soldiers.
There is enough hate for the Jews beyond their land grabbing as to basically draw from an endless pool of recruits.
A strong stance scares the cowards (the opportunists). A weak stance emboldens them. And I always feel that terrorism is the path of the cowardly or the insane (or insanely angry). I, however believe, that of those that hate, there are more cowardly ones than insane ones.
Edit. Just to be clear: I do believe they should try their best to incapacitate their targets whenever possible (and I feel like they did try given the casualty:kill rate).
7) I agree. It is a disgusting issue. That is why I hate both sides.
8) Just pointing out that if you want someone who is truly to blame, then blame Hamas.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) And I said I agree with the non-lethal method argument. What I do not agree with is the equivalence that somehow Israel lowered themselves to that of the terrorist. Do not agree. They maybe lowered themselves to that of greedy bankers but terrorist is way too far.2) Sorry, but the soldiers didn't make the decision to land grab or move the embassy. The US government and their government did. They were given the orders to protect lives/property/territory of their country. Which they did so, albeit a bit on the overkill IMO. But again, neither you nor I had boots on the ground so we really are not the best to judge the level of force needed for the situation. But I cannot blame the soldiers for not wanting to be swarmed, beaten, burned then killed by an angry mob.
3) I would say B. They're big stinking douches. Do not blame Israel pls. There are tons of ppl in Israel that do not agree with their government. Say Israel gov and Hamas so we can keep the blame on the ppl who deserve it.
I will, however, keep an eye to see where they believe this decision will take them. For all we know, this might end the aggression on both sides (doubt it). I will condemn them for the provocation but will keep an open mind and a hopeful attitude that this might (if we're very lucky) diffuse the situation somehow (again, I have huge doubts).
4) It's a complicated issue. When researching both sides, the best I can make sense of it is that the Israel government has been very shrewd with how they approached their alleged land grabs, it seems that historical and legal claims are on their side when they did so (at least in the example I provided) and seems to be why the validity (or lack thereof) of their land grabs haven't been covered as much by the media (this is from my own research however, if ppl have better info pls provide it). While it does not excuse kicking out an already poor and oppressed minority from their homes (which is morally wrong), I will say that it does seem as simple as a lot of the media is making it sound.
5) Israel's government is not blameless here. I reiterated that over and over. In fact, that should not be in question at all.
Like I said, I disagree with the actions of their government. What I do not disagree with is their defensive policy. The job of the military is to protect the ppl and the soldiers themselves. Them being not so deluded as to adopt a lenient stance and risk their own safety for the safety of foreign aggressors who are extremely flexible in their tactics (essentially, you would lose in some way no matter what, why take the path where you lose more?). We should at least agree on that.
One thing tho, the whole "they forced them into terrorism due to oppression" narrative is ludicrous. Anyone who decides to become a terrorist, regardless of whatever oppression or suffering they underwent, are scum and deserves no pity or understanding or any kind of sympathy.
I just hate it when ppl go "the Israel government caused them to become terrorists due to oppression". No level of oppression could ever excuse terrorism or make it a reasonable path. And I wish the media would abandon such an irresponsible notion.
6) Because "victories" inspire recruitment. And there is nothing more "victorious" than defeating/killing a stronger enemy. And lenient tactics risk the lives of your soldiers.
There is enough hate for the Jews beyond their land grabbing as to basically draw from an endless pool of recruits.
A strong stance scares the cowards (the opportunists). A weak stance emboldens them. And I always feel that terrorism is the path of the cowardly or the insane (or insanely angry). I, however believe, that of those that hate, there are more cowardly ones than insane ones.
Edit. Just to be clear: I do believe they should try their best to incapacitate their targets whenever possible (and I feel like they did try given the casualty:kill rate).
7) I agree. It is a disgusting issue. That is why I hate both sides.
8) Just pointing out that if you want someone who is truly to blame, then blame Hamas.
Bingo, number 8 is truly all that needs to be said.