|
On August 03 2014 12:35 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 11:33 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 11:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 10:19 iDope wrote:The guys harping about Israel's "right" to do what it's doing, how is this defending them against more rocket attacks (or future fighters willing to die to deal some damage to Israel) http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=2314#.U9qUwPldV8FA location which is a point of refuge for civilians and mostly women and children, which is operated by the UN and has also been conveyed to the Israeli government as a point of shelter for already traumatized and displaced civilians. I am really amazed at how easily so many are just willing to justify each and every thing Israel is doing under the cover of "the Palestinians started it" or "Hamas is hiding bombs everywhere so Israel should bomb everywhere". I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying "Israel doesn't care about civilians?" Probably not very much, no. So then can you explain why they're invading on foot, and not just bombing from the sky? Can you explain why they call houses and roof knock before they destroy the weapons inside? Can you explain why they are willing to divert missiles when civilians are around? Can you explain why Israel is willing to treat non-Israeli refugees in their hospitals? And don't give me any "They're only doing that because of international pressure". Neither you nor I are able to dig into the heads of the generals to tell what their motivations are. But fact is that Israel is putting in significant effort to lessen civilian casualties. What ever the cause, the result is that Hamas' army have done less civilian destruction than Israel. So in this war, the Israelite army is the lesser moral constitution here.
Hold up, I'm not in favor of Israel's latest actions any more than the next guy, but this is both bad reasoning and morally bankrupt.
You can argue (I do) that Israel has acted disproportionately. You can argue (I do) that they have been reckless in disregard for civilian life. You can argue (I do) that the real crime is the unwillingness to actually take real steps toward peace because you prefer an unjust and violent status quo.
But you can't argue that number of civilians killed by each side determines who was right and who was wrong. The Western Front in WWII would like to have a word. There are way too many other factors.
And most importantly, it's crazy to think Israel's government is worse than Hamas. They are better in almost every way. But that doesn't absolve them of moral responsibility, or even make them "good guys." Being "not as bad as those other guys" is a really weak defense for pretty much everything, unless you really believe you live in a Manichean world composed entirely of you and some irreconcilable other who must be destroyed.
|
On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:33 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:28 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:25 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:23 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:02 soon.Cloak wrote:
I'll be more clear. We have the question of "Why is Israel doing these things that protect civilians". The answer is "Because they care about civilians". Now we can ask "Why do they care", but that question is pure speculation. Feel free to give a different answer to the first question, if you want. Just don't forget that caring in this context means having done anything at all at least once. You can still be classified as caring about a group if you save one person but kill a thousand others, by this definition. Indeed, I could claim to care about your opinion even if I never read anything else you said. Because I've already read some of your posts so I clearly care to some extent. And arguing whether I care enough doesn't sound particularly productive. At this point, I'm not even sure if we're arguing...or if we are, what we're arguing about... Cool. What do you want to do about it? Er...well, in general, I feel I'm more the responsive type, not the start an argument type. We can...wish each other well? I thought wishing well was implied  Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:10 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:03 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 12:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 12:35 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 11:33 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 11:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 10:19 iDope wrote:The guys harping about Israel's "right" to do what it's doing, how is this defending them against more rocket attacks (or future fighters willing to die to deal some damage to Israel) http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=2314#.U9qUwPldV8FA location which is a point of refuge for civilians and mostly women and children, which is operated by the UN and has also been conveyed to the Israeli government as a point of shelter for already traumatized and displaced civilians. I am really amazed at how easily so many are just willing to justify each and every thing Israel is doing under the cover of "the Palestinians started it" or "Hamas is hiding bombs everywhere so Israel should bomb everywhere". I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying "Israel doesn't care about civilians?" Probably not very much, no. So then can you explain why they're invading on foot, and not just bombing from the sky? Can you explain why they call houses and roof knock before they destroy the weapons inside? Can you explain why they are willing to divert missiles when civilians are around? Can you explain why Israel is willing to treat non-Israeli refugees in their hospitals? And don't give me any "They're only doing that because of international pressure". Neither you nor I are able to dig into the heads of the generals to tell what their motivations are. But fact is that Israel is putting in significant effort to lessen civilian casualties. What ever the cause, the result is that Hamas' army have done less civilian destruction than Israel. So in this war, the Israelite army is the lesser moral constitution here. Let me get this straight. You are arguing that the army that does less civilian destruction is the more moral army? Seriously? I just want to confirm that's what you're saying before I bother arguing how unintelligent that is. On August 03 2014 12:40 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2014 12:32 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 12:28 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2014 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 11:33 hypercube wrote:
[quote]
Probably not very much, no. So then can you explain why they're invading on foot, and not just bombing from the sky? Can you explain why they call houses and roof knock before they destroy the weapons inside? Can you explain why they are willing to divert missiles when civilians are around? Can you explain why Israel is willing to treat non-Israeli refugees in their hospitals? And don't give me any "They're only doing that because of international pressure". Neither you nor I are able to dig into the heads of the generals to tell what their motivations are. But fact is that Israel is putting in significant effort to lessen civilian casualties. A flimsy excuse is still an excuse. Plausible deniability is all you need! What is the "flimsy excuse" that you are referring to? Israelis: We totally care about human life! Look, we could just carpet bomb the Gaza Strip to solve problems, but instead we're launching strikes on a bunch of locations. The civilian casualties are so low! Instead of 80% being the casualty rate for the entire population of the Gaza Strip, it's just the civilian casualty rate. The absolute number is also much lower, we're doing a great job! You are arguing against an argument I did not make. I said that Israel cares about civilians, as is demonstrated by the lengths they are willing to go to LESSEN civilian casualties. If Israel really did not care about civilians, then the civilian casualty rate would be much higher. I never said that this operation would be perfectly clean, and I don't think anyone can expect that, because of how much Hamas has dug themselves into civilian areas, hiding rockets in schools, mosques, and homes, and because of how dense Gaza is in the first place. So yes, Israel does care about civilian casualties.
Apologies if this is an inappropriate comparison, but at Auschwitz, the Nazis didn't outright kill the Jews. I mean, they could have carpet bombed that too, but instead they just engineered an environment where it was likely many of them would die. That made them no less culpable from the deaths that ensued.
Ya, in spite of your apology, that's a disgusting analogy. Putting Jews in gas chambers isn't "likely many would die". Working Jews to death isn't "just engineered an environment". It's out and out genocide. Give me an analogy if you want, but don't resort to any comparison between what Israel is doing and what the Nazis did. You are clearly the one lacking both critical thinking and moral values here by arguing that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition. Take your unmoral stance and gtfo. ... I suggest taking logic 101, and learning about concepts like converse and inverse, before you start shoving words in my mouth. Also, the word you're looking for is "immoral", not "unmoral". Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated.
No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond.
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
On August 03 2014 13:46 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 12:35 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 11:33 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 11:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 10:19 iDope wrote:The guys harping about Israel's "right" to do what it's doing, how is this defending them against more rocket attacks (or future fighters willing to die to deal some damage to Israel) http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=2314#.U9qUwPldV8FA location which is a point of refuge for civilians and mostly women and children, which is operated by the UN and has also been conveyed to the Israeli government as a point of shelter for already traumatized and displaced civilians. I am really amazed at how easily so many are just willing to justify each and every thing Israel is doing under the cover of "the Palestinians started it" or "Hamas is hiding bombs everywhere so Israel should bomb everywhere". I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying "Israel doesn't care about civilians?" Probably not very much, no. So then can you explain why they're invading on foot, and not just bombing from the sky? Can you explain why they call houses and roof knock before they destroy the weapons inside? Can you explain why they are willing to divert missiles when civilians are around? Can you explain why Israel is willing to treat non-Israeli refugees in their hospitals? And don't give me any "They're only doing that because of international pressure". Neither you nor I are able to dig into the heads of the generals to tell what their motivations are. But fact is that Israel is putting in significant effort to lessen civilian casualties. What ever the cause, the result is that Hamas' army have done less civilian destruction than Israel. So in this war, the Israelite army is the lesser moral constitution here. Hold up, I'm not in favor of Israel's latest actions any more than the next guy, but this is both bad reasoning and morally bankrupt. You can argue (I do) that Israel has acted disproportionately. You can argue (I do) that they have been reckless in disregard for civilian life. You can argue (I do) that the real crime is the unwillingness to actually take real steps toward peace because you prefer an unjust and violent status quo. But you can't argue that number of civilians killed by each side determines who was right and who was wrong. The Western Front in WWII would like to have a word. There are way too many other factors. And most importantly, it's crazy to think Israel's government is worse than Hamas. They are better in almost every way. But that doesn't absolve them of moral responsibility, or even make them "good guys." Being "not as bad as those other guys" is a really weak defense for pretty much everything, unless you really believe you live in a Manichean world composed entirely of you and some irreconcilable other who must be destroyed.
Context here, I specifically said "[...]in this war[...]". The government of Israel might be even evangelical to other institutions but due to the damage dealt by them in terms of population density, Israelite army is clearly the victor here.
In another note:
"Israel broadened its assault on Gaza on Tuesday, reportedly wrecking the region's only power plant and killing more than 125 Palestinians.
The shelling of the power plant, which Palestinian officials described as taking a devastating hit, will bring additional hardship. The lack of electricity will make existing problems with water and sewage far worse.
"We need at least one year to repair the power plant, the turbines, the fuel tanks and the control room," Fathi Sheik Khalil of the Gaza energy authority told the Guardian. "Everything was burned.""
Source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/29/336386340/israeli-bombing-destroys-gazas-only-power-plant
|
On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:33 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:28 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:25 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:23 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:02 soon.Cloak wrote:
I'll be more clear. We have the question of "Why is Israel doing these things that protect civilians". The answer is "Because they care about civilians". Now we can ask "Why do they care", but that question is pure speculation. Feel free to give a different answer to the first question, if you want. Just don't forget that caring in this context means having done anything at all at least once. You can still be classified as caring about a group if you save one person but kill a thousand others, by this definition. Indeed, I could claim to care about your opinion even if I never read anything else you said. Because I've already read some of your posts so I clearly care to some extent. And arguing whether I care enough doesn't sound particularly productive. At this point, I'm not even sure if we're arguing...or if we are, what we're arguing about... Cool. What do you want to do about it? Er...well, in general, I feel I'm more the responsive type, not the start an argument type. We can...wish each other well? I thought wishing well was implied Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:10 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:03 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 12:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 12:35 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 11:33 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 11:02 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying "Israel doesn't care about civilians?" Probably not very much, no. So then can you explain why they're invading on foot, and not just bombing from the sky? Can you explain why they call houses and roof knock before they destroy the weapons inside? Can you explain why they are willing to divert missiles when civilians are around? Can you explain why Israel is willing to treat non-Israeli refugees in their hospitals? And don't give me any "They're only doing that because of international pressure". Neither you nor I are able to dig into the heads of the generals to tell what their motivations are. But fact is that Israel is putting in significant effort to lessen civilian casualties. What ever the cause, the result is that Hamas' army have done less civilian destruction than Israel. So in this war, the Israelite army is the lesser moral constitution here. Let me get this straight. You are arguing that the army that does less civilian destruction is the more moral army? Seriously? I just want to confirm that's what you're saying before I bother arguing how unintelligent that is. On August 03 2014 12:40 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2014 12:32 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 12:28 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2014 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
So then can you explain why they're invading on foot, and not just bombing from the sky?
Can you explain why they call houses and roof knock before they destroy the weapons inside?
Can you explain why they are willing to divert missiles when civilians are around?
Can you explain why Israel is willing to treat non-Israeli refugees in their hospitals?
And don't give me any "They're only doing that because of international pressure". Neither you nor I are able to dig into the heads of the generals to tell what their motivations are. But fact is that Israel is putting in significant effort to lessen civilian casualties. A flimsy excuse is still an excuse. Plausible deniability is all you need! What is the "flimsy excuse" that you are referring to? Israelis: We totally care about human life! Look, we could just carpet bomb the Gaza Strip to solve problems, but instead we're launching strikes on a bunch of locations. The civilian casualties are so low! Instead of 80% being the casualty rate for the entire population of the Gaza Strip, it's just the civilian casualty rate. The absolute number is also much lower, we're doing a great job! You are arguing against an argument I did not make. I said that Israel cares about civilians, as is demonstrated by the lengths they are willing to go to LESSEN civilian casualties. If Israel really did not care about civilians, then the civilian casualty rate would be much higher. I never said that this operation would be perfectly clean, and I don't think anyone can expect that, because of how much Hamas has dug themselves into civilian areas, hiding rockets in schools, mosques, and homes, and because of how dense Gaza is in the first place. So yes, Israel does care about civilian casualties.
Apologies if this is an inappropriate comparison, but at Auschwitz, the Nazis didn't outright kill the Jews. I mean, they could have carpet bombed that too, but instead they just engineered an environment where it was likely many of them would die. That made them no less culpable from the deaths that ensued.
Ya, in spite of your apology, that's a disgusting analogy. Putting Jews in gas chambers isn't "likely many would die". Working Jews to death isn't "just engineered an environment". It's out and out genocide. Give me an analogy if you want, but don't resort to any comparison between what Israel is doing and what the Nazis did. You are clearly the one lacking both critical thinking and moral values here by arguing that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition. Take your unmoral stance and gtfo. ... I suggest taking logic 101, and learning about concepts like converse and inverse, before you start shoving words in my mouth. Also, the word you're looking for is "immoral", not "unmoral". Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond.
That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors.
If I must, behold logic 101:
1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q
2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q)
3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q (or, in this case, it is possible that P and ~Q)
4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q
Which is what you said I said. Follow?
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done.
Edit: And good job bringing in a news piece from Tuesday, instead of the one from Friday, where, you know, Hamas broke the truce 90 minutes into it.
|
On August 03 2014 14:02 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:33 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:28 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:25 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:23 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:02 soon.Cloak wrote:
I'll be more clear. We have the question of "Why is Israel doing these things that protect civilians". The answer is "Because they care about civilians". Now we can ask "Why do they care", but that question is pure speculation. Feel free to give a different answer to the first question, if you want. Just don't forget that caring in this context means having done anything at all at least once. You can still be classified as caring about a group if you save one person but kill a thousand others, by this definition. Indeed, I could claim to care about your opinion even if I never read anything else you said. Because I've already read some of your posts so I clearly care to some extent. And arguing whether I care enough doesn't sound particularly productive. At this point, I'm not even sure if we're arguing...or if we are, what we're arguing about... Cool. What do you want to do about it? Er...well, in general, I feel I'm more the responsive type, not the start an argument type. We can...wish each other well? I thought wishing well was implied Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:10 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:03 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 12:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 12:35 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 11:33 hypercube wrote:
[quote]
Probably not very much, no. So then can you explain why they're invading on foot, and not just bombing from the sky? Can you explain why they call houses and roof knock before they destroy the weapons inside? Can you explain why they are willing to divert missiles when civilians are around? Can you explain why Israel is willing to treat non-Israeli refugees in their hospitals? And don't give me any "They're only doing that because of international pressure". Neither you nor I are able to dig into the heads of the generals to tell what their motivations are. But fact is that Israel is putting in significant effort to lessen civilian casualties. What ever the cause, the result is that Hamas' army have done less civilian destruction than Israel. So in this war, the Israelite army is the lesser moral constitution here. Let me get this straight. You are arguing that the army that does less civilian destruction is the more moral army? Seriously? I just want to confirm that's what you're saying before I bother arguing how unintelligent that is. On August 03 2014 12:40 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2014 12:32 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 12:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
A flimsy excuse is still an excuse.
Plausible deniability is all you need!
What is the "flimsy excuse" that you are referring to? Israelis: We totally care about human life! Look, we could just carpet bomb the Gaza Strip to solve problems, but instead we're launching strikes on a bunch of locations. The civilian casualties are so low! Instead of 80% being the casualty rate for the entire population of the Gaza Strip, it's just the civilian casualty rate. The absolute number is also much lower, we're doing a great job! You are arguing against an argument I did not make. I said that Israel cares about civilians, as is demonstrated by the lengths they are willing to go to LESSEN civilian casualties. If Israel really did not care about civilians, then the civilian casualty rate would be much higher. I never said that this operation would be perfectly clean, and I don't think anyone can expect that, because of how much Hamas has dug themselves into civilian areas, hiding rockets in schools, mosques, and homes, and because of how dense Gaza is in the first place. So yes, Israel does care about civilian casualties.
Apologies if this is an inappropriate comparison, but at Auschwitz, the Nazis didn't outright kill the Jews. I mean, they could have carpet bombed that too, but instead they just engineered an environment where it was likely many of them would die. That made them no less culpable from the deaths that ensued.
Ya, in spite of your apology, that's a disgusting analogy. Putting Jews in gas chambers isn't "likely many would die". Working Jews to death isn't "just engineered an environment". It's out and out genocide. Give me an analogy if you want, but don't resort to any comparison between what Israel is doing and what the Nazis did. You are clearly the one lacking both critical thinking and moral values here by arguing that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition. Take your unmoral stance and gtfo. ... I suggest taking logic 101, and learning about concepts like converse and inverse, before you start shoving words in my mouth. Also, the word you're looking for is "immoral", not "unmoral". Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond. That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors. If I must, behold logic 101: 1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q 2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q) 3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q 4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q Which is what you said I said. Follow? Show nested quote +
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done.
No I completely understood it.
Right there on the 2), that's your mistake. You are assuming in your wildest imagination that it is not true but in reality, it is.
This is simple as it is. The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil than another that murdered less. The fact that you are arguing against it displayed how separated you are from the reality. Way to avoid it.
|
On August 03 2014 14:11 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 14:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:33 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:28 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:25 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:23 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:02 soon.Cloak wrote:
I'll be more clear. We have the question of "Why is Israel doing these things that protect civilians". The answer is "Because they care about civilians". Now we can ask "Why do they care", but that question is pure speculation. Feel free to give a different answer to the first question, if you want. Just don't forget that caring in this context means having done anything at all at least once. You can still be classified as caring about a group if you save one person but kill a thousand others, by this definition. Indeed, I could claim to care about your opinion even if I never read anything else you said. Because I've already read some of your posts so I clearly care to some extent. And arguing whether I care enough doesn't sound particularly productive. At this point, I'm not even sure if we're arguing...or if we are, what we're arguing about... Cool. What do you want to do about it? Er...well, in general, I feel I'm more the responsive type, not the start an argument type. We can...wish each other well? I thought wishing well was implied Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:10 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:03 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 12:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 12:35 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 11:41 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
So then can you explain why they're invading on foot, and not just bombing from the sky?
Can you explain why they call houses and roof knock before they destroy the weapons inside?
Can you explain why they are willing to divert missiles when civilians are around?
Can you explain why Israel is willing to treat non-Israeli refugees in their hospitals?
And don't give me any "They're only doing that because of international pressure". Neither you nor I are able to dig into the heads of the generals to tell what their motivations are. But fact is that Israel is putting in significant effort to lessen civilian casualties. What ever the cause, the result is that Hamas' army have done less civilian destruction than Israel. So in this war, the Israelite army is the lesser moral constitution here. Let me get this straight. You are arguing that the army that does less civilian destruction is the more moral army? Seriously? I just want to confirm that's what you're saying before I bother arguing how unintelligent that is. On August 03 2014 12:40 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 03 2014 12:32 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
What is the "flimsy excuse" that you are referring to? Israelis: We totally care about human life! Look, we could just carpet bomb the Gaza Strip to solve problems, but instead we're launching strikes on a bunch of locations. The civilian casualties are so low! Instead of 80% being the casualty rate for the entire population of the Gaza Strip, it's just the civilian casualty rate. The absolute number is also much lower, we're doing a great job! You are arguing against an argument I did not make. I said that Israel cares about civilians, as is demonstrated by the lengths they are willing to go to LESSEN civilian casualties. If Israel really did not care about civilians, then the civilian casualty rate would be much higher. I never said that this operation would be perfectly clean, and I don't think anyone can expect that, because of how much Hamas has dug themselves into civilian areas, hiding rockets in schools, mosques, and homes, and because of how dense Gaza is in the first place. So yes, Israel does care about civilian casualties.
Apologies if this is an inappropriate comparison, but at Auschwitz, the Nazis didn't outright kill the Jews. I mean, they could have carpet bombed that too, but instead they just engineered an environment where it was likely many of them would die. That made them no less culpable from the deaths that ensued.
Ya, in spite of your apology, that's a disgusting analogy. Putting Jews in gas chambers isn't "likely many would die". Working Jews to death isn't "just engineered an environment". It's out and out genocide. Give me an analogy if you want, but don't resort to any comparison between what Israel is doing and what the Nazis did. You are clearly the one lacking both critical thinking and moral values here by arguing that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition. Take your unmoral stance and gtfo. ... I suggest taking logic 101, and learning about concepts like converse and inverse, before you start shoving words in my mouth. Also, the word you're looking for is "immoral", not "unmoral". Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond. That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors. If I must, behold logic 101: 1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q 2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q) 3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q 4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q Which is what you said I said. Follow?
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done. No I completely understood it. Right there on the 2), that's your mistake. You are assuming in your wildest imagination that it is not true but in reality, it is. This is simple as it is. The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil than another that murdered less. The fact that you are arguing against it displayed how separated you are from the reality. Way to avoid it.
And we're back where we started. You claim "The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil", as an absolute statement. Want some counterexamples?
1) A woman getting raped kills her rapist in self-defense. She is more moral, but according to your definition, she's not.
2) A man almost beaten to death shoots the person beating him. The killer is more moral, but according to your definition, he's not.
3) Yoav's example above.
Seriously, that is the most simplistic definition of "moral" you can possibly have come up with.
|
On August 03 2014 14:16 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 14:11 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:33 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:28 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:25 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:23 hypercube wrote:
[quote]
Just don't forget that caring in this context means having done anything at all at least once. You can still be classified as caring about a group if you save one person but kill a thousand others, by this definition.
Indeed, I could claim to care about your opinion even if I never read anything else you said. Because I've already read some of your posts so I clearly care to some extent. And arguing whether I care enough doesn't sound particularly productive. At this point, I'm not even sure if we're arguing...or if we are, what we're arguing about... Cool. What do you want to do about it? Er...well, in general, I feel I'm more the responsive type, not the start an argument type. We can...wish each other well? I thought wishing well was implied Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:10 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:03 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 12:40 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 12:35 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
What ever the cause, the result is that Hamas' army have done less civilian destruction than Israel.
So in this war, the Israelite army is the lesser moral constitution here. Let me get this straight. You are arguing that the army that does less civilian destruction is the more moral army? Seriously? I just want to confirm that's what you're saying before I bother arguing how unintelligent that is. On August 03 2014 12:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
Israelis: We totally care about human life! Look, we could just carpet bomb the Gaza Strip to solve problems, but instead we're launching strikes on a bunch of locations. The civilian casualties are so low! Instead of 80% being the casualty rate for the entire population of the Gaza Strip, it's just the civilian casualty rate. The absolute number is also much lower, we're doing a great job! You are arguing against an argument I did not make. I said that Israel cares about civilians, as is demonstrated by the lengths they are willing to go to LESSEN civilian casualties. If Israel really did not care about civilians, then the civilian casualty rate would be much higher. I never said that this operation would be perfectly clean, and I don't think anyone can expect that, because of how much Hamas has dug themselves into civilian areas, hiding rockets in schools, mosques, and homes, and because of how dense Gaza is in the first place. So yes, Israel does care about civilian casualties.
Apologies if this is an inappropriate comparison, but at Auschwitz, the Nazis didn't outright kill the Jews. I mean, they could have carpet bombed that too, but instead they just engineered an environment where it was likely many of them would die. That made them no less culpable from the deaths that ensued.
Ya, in spite of your apology, that's a disgusting analogy. Putting Jews in gas chambers isn't "likely many would die". Working Jews to death isn't "just engineered an environment". It's out and out genocide. Give me an analogy if you want, but don't resort to any comparison between what Israel is doing and what the Nazis did. You are clearly the one lacking both critical thinking and moral values here by arguing that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition. Take your unmoral stance and gtfo. ... I suggest taking logic 101, and learning about concepts like converse and inverse, before you start shoving words in my mouth. Also, the word you're looking for is "immoral", not "unmoral". Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond. That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors. If I must, behold logic 101: 1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q 2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q) 3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q 4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q Which is what you said I said. Follow?
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done. No I completely understood it. Right there on the 2), that's your mistake. You are assuming in your wildest imagination that it is not true but in reality, it is. This is simple as it is. The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil than another that murdered less. The fact that you are arguing against it displayed how separated you are from the reality. Way to avoid it. And we're back where we started. You claim "The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil", as an absolute statement. Want some counterexamples? 1) A woman getting raped kills her rapist in self-defense. She is more moral, but according to your definition, she's not.2) A man almost beaten to death shoots the person beating him. The killer is more moral, but according to your definition, he's not. 3) Yoav's example above. Seriously, that is the most simplistic definition of "moral" you can possibly have come up with.
Okay I'll let you have that one.
But the situation here. On one side, you have Israel, a country with the world's most advanced army vs a third world country that in Gaza. Israel is not in the process of getting raped metaphorically nor is it almost beaten to death. But yet in the midst, Israel still heartlessly killed more civilian density than Hamas did.
This is where your counterexamples fails.
|
On August 03 2014 14:23 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 14:16 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:11 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:33 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:28 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:25 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
At this point, I'm not even sure if we're arguing...or if we are, what we're arguing about... Cool. What do you want to do about it? Er...well, in general, I feel I'm more the responsive type, not the start an argument type. We can...wish each other well? I thought wishing well was implied Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:10 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:03 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 12:40 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
Let me get this straight. You are arguing that the army that does less civilian destruction is the more moral army? Seriously? I just want to confirm that's what you're saying before I bother arguing how unintelligent that is.
[quote]
You are arguing against an argument I did not make. I said that Israel cares about civilians, as is demonstrated by the lengths they are willing to go to LESSEN civilian casualties. If Israel really did not care about civilians, then the civilian casualty rate would be much higher. I never said that this operation would be perfectly clean, and I don't think anyone can expect that, because of how much Hamas has dug themselves into civilian areas, hiding rockets in schools, mosques, and homes, and because of how dense Gaza is in the first place. So yes, Israel does care about civilian casualties.
[quote]
Ya, in spite of your apology, that's a disgusting analogy. Putting Jews in gas chambers isn't "likely many would die". Working Jews to death isn't "just engineered an environment". It's out and out genocide.
Give me an analogy if you want, but don't resort to any comparison between what Israel is doing and what the Nazis did. You are clearly the one lacking both critical thinking and moral values here by arguing that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition. Take your unmoral stance and gtfo. ... I suggest taking logic 101, and learning about concepts like converse and inverse, before you start shoving words in my mouth. Also, the word you're looking for is "immoral", not "unmoral". Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond. That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors. If I must, behold logic 101: 1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q 2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q) 3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q 4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q Which is what you said I said. Follow?
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done. No I completely understood it. Right there on the 2), that's your mistake. You are assuming in your wildest imagination that it is not true but in reality, it is. This is simple as it is. The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil than another that murdered less. The fact that you are arguing against it displayed how separated you are from the reality. Way to avoid it. And we're back where we started. You claim "The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil", as an absolute statement. Want some counterexamples? 1) A woman getting raped kills her rapist in self-defense. She is more moral, but according to your definition, she's not.2) A man almost beaten to death shoots the person beating him. The killer is more moral, but according to your definition, he's not. 3) Yoav's example above. Seriously, that is the most simplistic definition of "moral" you can possibly have come up with. Okay I'll let you have that one. But the situation here. On one side, you have Israel, a country with the world's most advanced army vs a third world country that in Gaza. Israel is not in the process of getting raped metaphorically nor is it almost beaten to death. But yet in the midst, Israel still heartlessly killed more civilian density than Hamas did. This is where your counterexamples fails.
Ah, so now you're arguing something else. Instead of arguing "Since Israel killed more people, it must be more immoral than Hamas", you're arguing "Since Israel killed a greater ratio of civilians than Hamas did (I assume that's what you mean by "civilian density"), it's more immoral?
Which is still completely ridiculous. According to that definition, if A kills 1000 civilians and 1 soldier, and B kills 1 civilian, B must be more immoral. Which is obviously not true (in many circumstances).
I'm not giving analogies to the current Israel-Gaza conflict. I'm giving situations where, according to your definition of morality, the more moral one is really acting less morally. So this definition of morality is also wrong. Try again?
|
On August 03 2014 14:29 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 14:23 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:16 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:11 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:33 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:28 hypercube wrote:
[quote]
Cool. What do you want to do about it? Er...well, in general, I feel I'm more the responsive type, not the start an argument type. We can...wish each other well? I thought wishing well was implied Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:10 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:03 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
You are clearly the one lacking both critical thinking and moral values here by arguing that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition. Take your unmoral stance and gtfo. ... I suggest taking logic 101, and learning about concepts like converse and inverse, before you start shoving words in my mouth. Also, the word you're looking for is "immoral", not "unmoral". Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond. That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors. If I must, behold logic 101: 1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q 2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q) 3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q 4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q Which is what you said I said. Follow?
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done. No I completely understood it. Right there on the 2), that's your mistake. You are assuming in your wildest imagination that it is not true but in reality, it is. This is simple as it is. The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil than another that murdered less. The fact that you are arguing against it displayed how separated you are from the reality. Way to avoid it. And we're back where we started. You claim "The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil", as an absolute statement. Want some counterexamples? 1) A woman getting raped kills her rapist in self-defense. She is more moral, but according to your definition, she's not.2) A man almost beaten to death shoots the person beating him. The killer is more moral, but according to your definition, he's not. 3) Yoav's example above. Seriously, that is the most simplistic definition of "moral" you can possibly have come up with. Okay I'll let you have that one. But the situation here. On one side, you have Israel, a country with the world's most advanced army vs a third world country that in Gaza. Israel is not in the process of getting raped metaphorically nor is it almost beaten to death. But yet in the midst, Israel still heartlessly killed more civilian density than Hamas did. This is where your counterexamples fails. Ah, so now you're arguing something else. Instead of arguing "Since Israel killed more people, it must be more immoral than Hamas", you're arguing "Since Israel killed a greater ratio of civilians than Hamas did (I assume that's what you mean by "civilian density"), it's more immoral? Which is still completely ridiculous. According to that definition, if A kills 1000 civilians and 1 soldier, and B kills 1 civilian, B must be more immoral. Which is obviously not true (in many circumstances). I'm not giving analogies to the current Israel-Gaza conflict. I'm giving situations where, according to your definition of morality, the more moral one is really acting less morally. So this definition of morality is also wrong. Try again?
No at the beginning, I explicitly said "[...]in this war[...]" nor have I edited that part out. And later I've explained the context to Yoav. Then at the spurt of a moment, I've went to the absolute route which my emotions got the better of me. So the majority of the time, my definition in this context of morality is still absolutely correct.
However, here you are not even willing to adhere to the origin of the argument. In which you were strongly against. So yes, you are still wrong about the morality issue in the current Israel-Gaza conflict.
|
On August 03 2014 14:42 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 14:29 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:23 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:16 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:11 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:On August 03 2014 13:33 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
Er...well, in general, I feel I'm more the responsive type, not the start an argument type. We can...wish each other well? I thought wishing well was implied Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:10 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
...
I suggest taking logic 101, and learning about concepts like converse and inverse, before you start shoving words in my mouth.
Also, the word you're looking for is "immoral", not "unmoral". Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond. That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors. If I must, behold logic 101: 1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q 2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q) 3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q 4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q Which is what you said I said. Follow?
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done. No I completely understood it. Right there on the 2), that's your mistake. You are assuming in your wildest imagination that it is not true but in reality, it is. This is simple as it is. The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil than another that murdered less. The fact that you are arguing against it displayed how separated you are from the reality. Way to avoid it. And we're back where we started. You claim "The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil", as an absolute statement. Want some counterexamples? 1) A woman getting raped kills her rapist in self-defense. She is more moral, but according to your definition, she's not.2) A man almost beaten to death shoots the person beating him. The killer is more moral, but according to your definition, he's not. 3) Yoav's example above. Seriously, that is the most simplistic definition of "moral" you can possibly have come up with. Okay I'll let you have that one. But the situation here. On one side, you have Israel, a country with the world's most advanced army vs a third world country that in Gaza. Israel is not in the process of getting raped metaphorically nor is it almost beaten to death. But yet in the midst, Israel still heartlessly killed more civilian density than Hamas did. This is where your counterexamples fails. Ah, so now you're arguing something else. Instead of arguing "Since Israel killed more people, it must be more immoral than Hamas", you're arguing "Since Israel killed a greater ratio of civilians than Hamas did (I assume that's what you mean by "civilian density"), it's more immoral? Which is still completely ridiculous. According to that definition, if A kills 1000 civilians and 1 soldier, and B kills 1 civilian, B must be more immoral. Which is obviously not true (in many circumstances). I'm not giving analogies to the current Israel-Gaza conflict. I'm giving situations where, according to your definition of morality, the more moral one is really acting less morally. So this definition of morality is also wrong. Try again? No at the beginning, I explicitly said "[...]in this war[...]" nor have I edited that part out. And later I've explained the context to Yoav. Then at the spurt of a moment, I've went to the absolute route which my emotions got the better of me. So the majority of the time, my definition in this context of morality is still absolutely correct. However, here you are not even willing to adhere to the origin of the argument. In which you were strongly against. So yes, you are still wrong about the morality issue in the current Israel-Gaza conflict.
It still doesn't make any sense. You used "in this war", in the sense of "Since in this war Hamas has killed less civilians, they are more moral". That still relies on the absolute rule of "If you kill less civilians, you are more moral", which you just admitted isn't true.
And I'll be happy to adhere to whatever definition of moral you want, but as it stands, you haven't given one yet that even you agree with. Kind've hard to argue who is more or less moral when you are using a definition of morality that you haven't stuck with.
|
On August 03 2014 14:47 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 14:42 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:29 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:23 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:16 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:11 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:38 hypercube wrote:[quote] I thought wishing well was implied Anyway, I don't think the discussion can be saved at this point, so I happy with just ending it here. Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like. On August 03 2014 13:37 Xiphos wrote:[quote] Listen, its okay to admit defeat instead trying to weasel your way out by bringing out off-topic concepts in a unwinnable situation. " mor·al ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/ adjective 2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. "he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person" " Source: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=moral&safe=offYou clearly lost this one. If I can admit that I have misspelled that word, why can't you? Are you really that petty? How long have you exhibited such loser-esque behavior? You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to? I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much. You won't get anywhere in life with this attitude. Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond. That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors. If I must, behold logic 101: 1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q 2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q) 3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q 4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q Which is what you said I said. Follow?
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done. No I completely understood it. Right there on the 2), that's your mistake. You are assuming in your wildest imagination that it is not true but in reality, it is. This is simple as it is. The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil than another that murdered less. The fact that you are arguing against it displayed how separated you are from the reality. Way to avoid it. And we're back where we started. You claim "The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil", as an absolute statement. Want some counterexamples? 1) A woman getting raped kills her rapist in self-defense. She is more moral, but according to your definition, she's not.2) A man almost beaten to death shoots the person beating him. The killer is more moral, but according to your definition, he's not. 3) Yoav's example above. Seriously, that is the most simplistic definition of "moral" you can possibly have come up with. Okay I'll let you have that one. But the situation here. On one side, you have Israel, a country with the world's most advanced army vs a third world country that in Gaza. Israel is not in the process of getting raped metaphorically nor is it almost beaten to death. But yet in the midst, Israel still heartlessly killed more civilian density than Hamas did. This is where your counterexamples fails. Ah, so now you're arguing something else. Instead of arguing "Since Israel killed more people, it must be more immoral than Hamas", you're arguing "Since Israel killed a greater ratio of civilians than Hamas did (I assume that's what you mean by "civilian density"), it's more immoral? Which is still completely ridiculous. According to that definition, if A kills 1000 civilians and 1 soldier, and B kills 1 civilian, B must be more immoral. Which is obviously not true (in many circumstances). I'm not giving analogies to the current Israel-Gaza conflict. I'm giving situations where, according to your definition of morality, the more moral one is really acting less morally. So this definition of morality is also wrong. Try again? No at the beginning, I explicitly said "[...]in this war[...]" nor have I edited that part out. And later I've explained the context to Yoav. Then at the spurt of a moment, I've went to the absolute route which my emotions got the better of me. So the majority of the time, my definition in this context of morality is still absolutely correct. However, here you are not even willing to adhere to the origin of the argument. In which you were strongly against. So yes, you are still wrong about the morality issue in the current Israel-Gaza conflict. It still doesn't make any sense. You used "in this war", in the sense of "Since in this war Hamas has killed less civilians, they are more moral". That still relies on the absolute rule of "If you kill less civilians, you are more moral", which you just admitted isn't true. And I'll be happy to adhere to whatever definition of moral you want, but as it stands, you haven't given one yet that even you agree with. Kind've hard to argue who is more or less moral when you are using a definition of morality that you haven't stuck with.
No, you are encapsulating here. You are missing the key contextual condition here. It akin to saying "You will absolutely get burned by taking out the pizza without gloves." and missing the "[...] without gloves." part.
And originally, you can't deny that you didn't call it "[...] unintelligent." in which now you are moving the goal post to a newly definition. So while I didn't add a context in a quote, you are still wrong about the morality issue in the current Israel-Gaza conflict.
|
On August 03 2014 14:58 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 14:47 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:42 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:29 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:23 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:16 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 14:11 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 14:02 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 03 2014 13:55 Xiphos wrote:On August 03 2014 13:46 soon.Cloak wrote:
[quote]
Mhm, i meant it more as a "nice talking to you, bye", than I "I never was wishing you well". But if you have an argument, and you think I was just misunderstanding you, feel free to try it out again, if you're so inclined. But ya, we can end it here if you'd like.
[quote]
Congratulations, you have utterly confused me. I was trying to weasel my way out of what again? Did we ever disagree about the dictionary definition of "moral"? What did I "clearly lose" again? What word am I supposed to admit I misspelled? When did I act petty? What loser-esque behavior are you referring to?
I don't remember the last time a post confused me so much.
[quote]
Gee, thanks life coach Xiphos. Your concern is, as always, greatly appreciated. No you were saying that it is illogical by your "I suggest taking logic 101 [...]" quote that that the army that does more civilian damage to the other side have more moral than an army that does less to its opposition where it is the completely and utterly logical in which you were unable to respond. That is the second time you have accused me of saying something I didn't see. Feel free to read Yoav's post above mine. You cannot simply say that the army that does more or less civilian damage is more or less moral. That is a gross oversimplification, as there are many other factors. If I must, behold logic 101: 1) (Your statement) If an army does less civilian damage, it is more moral. Or, P -> Q 2) (My statement) That is not true. Or, ~(P->Q) 3) (Which is the same as) P and ~Q 4) (Which is not at all the same as) ~P -> Q Which is what you said I said. Follow?
From there, it showcased your lack of understanding to the word "moral". And as aforementioned the quote "[...] and learning about concepts like converse and inverse." is your mechanism of evading the problem at hand by bringing extraneous topics.
This is the poster boy of pettiness.
So it seems that, instead of understanding my response, you assumed I was evading the question. Well done. No I completely understood it. Right there on the 2), that's your mistake. You are assuming in your wildest imagination that it is not true but in reality, it is. This is simple as it is. The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil than another that murdered less. The fact that you are arguing against it displayed how separated you are from the reality. Way to avoid it. And we're back where we started. You claim "The one who murdered more people is of course the bigger devil", as an absolute statement. Want some counterexamples? 1) A woman getting raped kills her rapist in self-defense. She is more moral, but according to your definition, she's not.2) A man almost beaten to death shoots the person beating him. The killer is more moral, but according to your definition, he's not. 3) Yoav's example above. Seriously, that is the most simplistic definition of "moral" you can possibly have come up with. Okay I'll let you have that one. But the situation here. On one side, you have Israel, a country with the world's most advanced army vs a third world country that in Gaza. Israel is not in the process of getting raped metaphorically nor is it almost beaten to death. But yet in the midst, Israel still heartlessly killed more civilian density than Hamas did. This is where your counterexamples fails. Ah, so now you're arguing something else. Instead of arguing "Since Israel killed more people, it must be more immoral than Hamas", you're arguing "Since Israel killed a greater ratio of civilians than Hamas did (I assume that's what you mean by "civilian density"), it's more immoral? Which is still completely ridiculous. According to that definition, if A kills 1000 civilians and 1 soldier, and B kills 1 civilian, B must be more immoral. Which is obviously not true (in many circumstances). I'm not giving analogies to the current Israel-Gaza conflict. I'm giving situations where, according to your definition of morality, the more moral one is really acting less morally. So this definition of morality is also wrong. Try again? No at the beginning, I explicitly said "[...]in this war[...]" nor have I edited that part out. And later I've explained the context to Yoav. Then at the spurt of a moment, I've went to the absolute route which my emotions got the better of me. So the majority of the time, my definition in this context of morality is still absolutely correct. However, here you are not even willing to adhere to the origin of the argument. In which you were strongly against. So yes, you are still wrong about the morality issue in the current Israel-Gaza conflict. It still doesn't make any sense. You used "in this war", in the sense of "Since in this war Hamas has killed less civilians, they are more moral". That still relies on the absolute rule of "If you kill less civilians, you are more moral", which you just admitted isn't true. And I'll be happy to adhere to whatever definition of moral you want, but as it stands, you haven't given one yet that even you agree with. Kind've hard to argue who is more or less moral when you are using a definition of morality that you haven't stuck with. No, you are encapsulating here. You are missing the key contextual condition here. It akin to saying "You will absolutely get burned by taking out the pizza without gloves." and missing the "[...] without gloves." part. And originally, you can't deny that you didn't call it "[...] unintelligent." in which now you are moving the goal post to a newly definition. So while I didn't add a context in a quote, you are still wrong about the morality issue in the current Israel-Gaza conflict.
Your original post:
What ever the cause, the result is that Hamas' army have done less civilian destruction than Israel.
So in this war, the Israelite army is the lesser moral constitution here.
Shortened:
Hamas' army have done less civilian destruction than Israel.
So in this war, the Israelite army is the lesser moral constitution here.
And again:
Hamas has done less damage. Therefore, in this war, Israel is less moral
That statement is the equivalent of saying "The one that does less damage is more moral. Hamas has done less damage. Therefore, they are more moral". You still need the absolute statement, so it's still wrong.
And what I called unintelligent was the absurd absolute statement that YOU AGREED was incorrect. I never tried to define "moral"- you did. And you so far have given, and retracted, two definitions. So I'm not sure how I can argue who is more or less moral when you keep changing what you mean by moral.
|
soonCloak: You are making the mistake of assuming everybody observes evidence, reasons, and comes to a conclusion, rather than taking positions based on identity politics and coming up with justifications after the fact. If someone persistently refuses to be pinned down on premises (even the ones already laid out in the argument), there is literally no reasoning to be had. Obviously his initial statement was morally insane. The rest has been backtracking and dodging the issue. If someone thinks saying "in this case" gets them off the hook for absolute statements in the fashion shown above, there probably is no way to get them to see reason.
|
Why is Israel even invading Gaza when there goal is to destroy tunnels into Israel?
I mean if there are tunnels to Israel (and there are) isn't it easier to get in from the Israeli side, load it with explosives and blow them up?
I mean if they do not know where the tunnels end on the Israeli side, how come they know where they end on the Palestinian side? And isn't it really easier and less invasive to search on the Israeli side then to go in *hostile* territory with ground troops and aerial assaults and artillery?
I mean yes even the fact that this tunnels exist is an act of aggression, because they are an offensive weapon not a defensive one that can not be taken too lightly, but it does not justify this massive reaction.
That's like the Netherlands suffering hundreds of casualties by Ukraine separatists, and in turn overreacting and declaring war on them and bombing and invading eastern Ukraine.
|
On August 03 2014 16:07 Holy_AT wrote:
Why is Israel even invading Gaza when there goal is to destroy tunnels into Israel?
I mean if there are tunnels to Israel (and there are) isn't it easier to get in from the Israeli side, load it with explosives and blow them up?
I mean if they do not know where the tunnels end on the Israeli side, how come they know where they end on the Palestinian side? And isn't it really easier and less invasive to search on the Israeli side then to go in *hostile* territory with ground troops and aerial assaults and artillery?
I mean yes even the fact that this tunnels exist is an act of aggression, because they are an offensive weapon not a defensive one that can not be taken too lightly, but it does not justify this massive reaction.
That's like the Netherlands suffering hundreds of casualties by Ukraine separatists, and in turn overreacting and declaring war on them and bombing and invading eastern Ukraine.
The casualties would be much higher if they just blew up half of Gaza from beneath.
Also it's extremely risky to send soldiers into the tunnels. They'd suffer way more losses to their soldiers like that.
|
They have tried that in the past but it has several problems.
1) Israeli tunnel entrances are not completly finished or extremly well concealed making them harder to find (even tho georadar should find them?)
2) You need to blow the entire length of the tunnel or its very easy to repair which means placing c4 at intervals all they way.
3) Entering enemy tunnels is extremly dangerous due to booby traps combined with enemy figthers. Israel would take massive casulties clearing the tunnels.
So its easier to secure both ends first, then clear traps with dogs/robots then mine it and finally blow.
|
On August 03 2014 18:01 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
They have tried that in the past but it has several problems.
1) Israeli tunnel entrances are not completly finished or extremly well concealed making them harder to find (even tho georadar should find them?)
2) You need to blow the entire length of the tunnel or its very easy to repair which means placing c4 at intervals all they way.
3) Entering enemy tunnels is extremly dangerous due to booby traps combined with enemy figthers. Israel would take massive casulties clearing the tunnels.
So its easier to secure both ends first, then clear traps with dogs/robots then mine it and finally blow.
And the entrances are not concealed on the Palestinian side?
So its easier to kill over 1700 people wound 9000 people and destroy more then 10.000 buildings up until now than to search for 20 maybe 30 tunnels to Israel and blow them up ?
Or flood them with water or flood them with gasoline and light it up then or vent teargas trough them or do whatever else shit experts could come up with?
|
On August 03 2014 18:28 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 18:01 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
They have tried that in the past but it has several problems.
1) Israeli tunnel entrances are not completly finished or extremly well concealed making them harder to find (even tho georadar should find them?)
2) You need to blow the entire length of the tunnel or its very easy to repair which means placing c4 at intervals all they way.
3) Entering enemy tunnels is extremly dangerous due to booby traps combined with enemy figthers. Israel would take massive casulties clearing the tunnels.
So its easier to secure both ends first, then clear traps with dogs/robots then mine it and finally blow. And the entrances are not concealed on the Palestinian side? So its easier to kill over 1700 people wound 9000 people and destroy more then 10.000 buildings up until now than to search for 20 maybe 30 tunnels to Israel and blow them up ? Or flood them with water or flood them with gasoline and light it up then or vent teargas trough them or do whatever else shit experts could come up with?
The experts came up with "go into Gaza and destroy the tunnels from there".
|
Regarding Israels policy with un-proportional retaliation which it has used in the past as well:
The concept in israeli society and especially within military ranks and the political right is that disproportionate retaliation creates greater deterrence for your enemies. Imagine a poker player getting allined every time he raises, he'll be less likely to raise as a result.
While this approach may have been adequate for the earlier wars where Israel was in fact in existential jeopardy whenever a war was declared (being far outnumbered both in soldiers and attacking countries), this situation is completely different.
However the military ranks and the right still employ the same thinking as regards to this notion as well as some others.
One of the main criticism in the Israeli media nowadays is that this war failed to create deterrence.
|
On August 03 2014 18:28 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 18:01 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
They have tried that in the past but it has several problems.
1) Israeli tunnel entrances are not completly finished or extremly well concealed making them harder to find (even tho georadar should find them?)
2) You need to blow the entire length of the tunnel or its very easy to repair which means placing c4 at intervals all they way.
3) Entering enemy tunnels is extremly dangerous due to booby traps combined with enemy figthers. Israel would take massive casulties clearing the tunnels.
So its easier to secure both ends first, then clear traps with dogs/robots then mine it and finally blow. And the entrances are not concealed on the Palestinian side? So its easier to kill over 1700 people wound 9000 people and destroy more then 10.000 buildings up until now than to search for 20 maybe 30 tunnels to Israel and blow them up ? Or flood them with water or flood them with gasoline and light it up then or vent teargas trough them or do whatever else shit experts could come up with?
Concealed is different from "last 10 m not dug yet" which is the normal way to do tunnels.
And yes, it's easier that way. Have you ever trained with city fighting techniques? Do you know how hard it is to breach a safe structure with only one entrance? One guy in cover with a machine gun is close to impossible to dislodge. There's a reason you use forbidden weapons like flamethrowers and WP (which the US used in Falluja for example).
And the problems is the tunnels are to long to use fire effectively which you would probably be citing as a breach on the Geneva convention if Israel even went that way.
You'd be fighting through every tunnel against fortified enemies who are guarding booby traps (so you can't disarm them properly) while loosing all your advantages of your higher tech weapons like airstrikes and artillery.
|
On August 03 2014 18:45 Bulugulu wrote:
Regarding Israels policy with un-proportional retaliation which it has used in the past as well:
The concept in israeli society and especially within military ranks and the political right is that disproportionate retaliation creates greater deterrence for your enemies. Imagine a poker player getting allined every time he raises, he'll be less likely to raise as a result.
While this approach may have been adequate for the earlier wars where Israel was in fact in existential jeopardy whenever a war was declared (being far outnumbered both in soldiers and attacking countries), this situation is completely different.
However the military ranks and the right still employ the same thinking as regards to this notion as well as some others.
One of the main criticism in the Israeli media nowadays is that this war failed to create deterrence.
I like your way of describing things. It seems like a very objective analysis of a situation that is usually analyzed in anything but objective terms.
A question regarding Israely media: How divided are they on the current actions? The information here would indicate that some kind of action is seen as a necessity against Hamas' tunnels and weapon supplies either today or in the near future, leaving the point of contention at the proportionality question and thus deterrence by fear vs. very targeted actions to avoid too much radicalisation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
