Skip to main content

View Diary: Israel's Bombing Campaign Should Be Justified On Its Merits (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How many and for how long would you endure (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LostLibertarian, mll

    rockets landing around you and your family before you responded?

    And would you calculate on a piece of paper the level of response you would engage in or would you want to do whatever it takes to stop the people from targeting you and your family?

    •  This is the question I'm declaring irrelevant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo

      Those taking actions should defend them on the merits and not by comparison.

      •  Such a declaration may ease your own conscience (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IndieGuy

        but does nothing to detract from the relevance of the question.

        I look forward to your defense of targeting and attacking innocent civilians with rocket fire.

        •  How many? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, AgavePup, corvo

          How many bombs dropped on your homes?

          How many innocent lives taken?

          How many bullets fired?

          How many homes bulldozed on your land, to make way for foreign settlers?

          How long a fence around the worlds largest ever concentration camp?

          If these things were done to YOU, on your land, in YOUR country, by a foreign power,  would YOU fight?

          In all of the world's problems religion has never been the solution

          by Tailgunner30uk on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 09:15:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would not target innocent children with rocket (0+ / 0-)

            fire.

            No, I would not do that.

            Would you?

            •  Would I? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              corvo

              Picture,

              A child running from a burning village in a foreign country, her clothes burned from her body, her parents dead in that napalmed village. Then look in a mirror and ask yourself that question.

              Picture a burnt and blackened landscape, with the shadows of the dead burnt into the few still standing walls, 35,000 civilians in an undefended city of no military value vaporized in a few seconds, and ask yourself that question.

              And as an Israeli pilot in an American made F16 drops an American made laser guided bomb through the roof of a hospital or a school, or some anonymous house, ask YOURSELF that question...

              In all of the world's problems religion has never been the solution

              by Tailgunner30uk on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 10:29:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you are going to put up bogeymen for innocents (0+ / 0-)

                being targeted by USA why not just jump to the big one (or two actually).

                Our targeting of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

                The intentional targeting of civilians, which is happening now, as we speak, with rockets being fired into Israel are war crimes and should be condemned by all without equivocation.  

                Arguing over the innocent civilians being hurt or killed as a result of strikes on military targets is a good discussion to have in the context of reducing civilian deaths during a war.

                But there is no moral comparison to one side targeting civilians as part of a campaign of terror attacks and another causing civilian injuries as a result of military targets being struck.

                •  Too subtle.. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  corvo

                  A burned and blackened wasteland, the shadows of the dead etched into the few still standing walls,   The United States, STILL after 65+ years the only nation to use a nuclear weapon in war, deployed two, against the CIVILIAN populations of two undefended cities, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, estimates of the final death toll were in excess of 200,000 when the effects of radiation were taken into account.

                  These weapons were used to strike terror into the population of Japan, not aimed against any military target.  Why?  Because the American government feared the death toll from invading the home islands.  The targets were chosen deliberately for this purpose.

                  Ask the Palestinians, as they watch their home of generations being bulldozed to make way for another illegal settlement or the husband of a wife taken and used by Israeli soldiers as a human shield as they smash their way through a village, or a father carrying the body of his 11 month old son killed by an American made bomb, what they think of American morality.  Not me.

                  I will ask you again as I did at the beginning, given the same overwhelming imbalance of power, if it was your home, your family, YOUR land would you fight, would you resist any way you could?  

                  Or would you just accept your fate.

                  The answer, I think, lies in the first paragraph of this comment.

                  In all of the world's problems religion has never been the solution

                  by Tailgunner30uk on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 12:01:11 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  your argument is just as silly as the israeli (0+ / 0-)

                    argument

                    Instead of "what would you do if you were having rockets lobbed at you"

                    it's "what would you do if you were being occupied"

                    Both sidestep the real debate which should be over the morality of the occupation, the morality actually firing the rockets into Israel, and the morality of Israel's response to those rockets.

                    •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

                      Silly to defend yourself.

                      Silly to defend your home.

                      Silly to defend your family, your heritage, your life.

                      Silly to swear an oath to defend your country from all enemies without and within.

                      Silly to stand up to the army of a King.

                      Silly to fight and die at Gettysburg.

                      Silly to fight to the last man and the last bullet at the Alamo.

                      Silly to fight across the Pacific, across the fields and rivers of France and Germany.

                      No that is not silly, silly is debating a moral justification for genocide.  Silly is equating the actions of the oppressor with the actions of the oppressed.  Silly is employing legal argument when real people are dying in a war funded and supported by the American taxpayer.

                      I lived through the "Troubles" in England of the 1970s and 80s, the bombings, mortar attacks, shootings.  It continued until both sides had to face reality, the IRA with  funding and support starting to dry up, and the British Government facing pressure from other nations. Both parties facing that reality started to talk to each other and find a way to peace.  

                      Israel will not come to the peace table for as long as it knows America "has it's back"  Hamas and the Palestinian people understand from past experience that Israel will not negotiate in good faith until that situation changes.

                      And therefore bombs will continue to fall, and rockets continue to fly, politicians will continue to lie and the innocent on both sides will continue to die.

                      There is no morality in war.  There is no moral justification for the actions of either side.  There is only a moral imperative to seek peace, and that, unfortunately, at the moment lies in the hands of the U.S.A.

                      In all of the world's problems religion has never been the solution

                      by Tailgunner30uk on Mon Nov 19, 2012 at 01:25:23 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Look--it's clearly RELEVANT (0+ / 0-)

          I misspoke

          It's just not valid reasoning.

          I think the Helen of troy example is a pretty good counter-factual to that line of reasoning. Instead of simply repeating the question of what would I do, maybe a response on the merit of my diary would make more sense.

          I do not defend targeting or attacking innocent civilians with rocket fire--obviously.  And so that statement is preposterous.  

          •  That preposterous action has been happening for (0+ / 0-)

            months now without ending.

            How many artillery shells/mortars/rockets were fired into Turkey before that country responded militarily?

            And how many more would they allow to continue to be fired into their country without further action?

            A perfect world has perfect actions and responses.

            I wish we lived there.

            •  The problem with all your reasoning by comparison (0+ / 0-)

              besides the fact that it isn't valid (as argued in the diary)

              Is that if both sides adhere to that logic, nobody will ever have to actually stop and consider the morality of their present actions...or the efficacy of their present actions

              Israel is in dire need of a more effective way to respond to these situations--I think you would agree?

              •  Do you understand how one can read an effort (0+ / 0-)

                at minimizing the terror by calling rocket attacks on civilians a 'situation'?  

                Not that I don't disagree there should be a more effective way to respond to terror attacks, there should.  There should be negotiations for peace that are ongoing.  But there are not because both sides will not do so.

                What response is appropriate when your adversary continues to attack you and will not sit down at a negotiating table to achieve a more effective course of action for both sides?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site