Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30

[AlHayatZween 2]

#######? you two should hug it out.

everybody can come to my house if they want to drink tea and we can argue it out then.

no one is named Mahmoud though, if that's okay...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Israel is targeting civilians. I hope all US citizens can sleep at night knowing that our administration is in full support of this.

There's a difference between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel may hit civilians from time to time (such as in this story), but they don't intend to kill civilians. It happens, but then again, civilian causalities are always present in war. The U.S. armed forces (and every other military in the world) has unintentionally caused civilian deaths. That's sad, but it's a fact of warfare.

The Palestinians, by contrast, purposefully set out to murder civilians. A "good day" is when as many Israelis as possible are killed in shopping centers, schools, discos, and of course, their homes. Once again, the primary difference here is that the Palestinian nutjobs fully intend to commit wholesale slaughter. Their acts are not one of human or computer miscalculation (as is the case with the Israelis).

Think of it this way -- is it in Israel's best interest to shoot at civilians? No, it's not. Doing so merely gains the Palestinians support through sympathy all around the world. Contrast that with the Palestinians, who don't give a damn what the world's perception is of them and look to the surrounding Middle Eastern countries for support. They're combined hatred of Israel (and by extension, Jews) is what fuels them and public acceptance is a moot point.

That's a false argument though. You can't drop a bomb on a densely populated area without having already had to rationalise the likely outcome. We're not talking "Whoops, I accidentally dropped a pile of plates here" - rather its "I deliberately dropped that pile of plates in order to break the specific one that I don't like".

Military planners generally factor in civilian casualties when planning operations (i.e. this is what we anticipate) - a UK friend of mine used to work for the MOD as a statistician doing precisely that. That of course is different from the commander who makes a decision that killing 10, 20, 30+ people via airstrike is acceptable in order to take out a single high profile individual.

What a person's original intent was, they still go through more or less the same process of rationalisation.

So... I guess the bombing strikes performed by both the USAAF and the RAF during WWII could be classified as terrorism?

What does WW2 have to do with what I said?

In WWII, the UK and the U.S. conducted bombing runs over Germany during the night and day. They were attempting to strike targets of military value, but they ended up killing many civilians instead (even when the intended target was blown up).

So if Israel's military actions are seen as "unwarranted" and "terrorism," the same would hold true for the allied forces in Europe during WWII.

You can't have it both ways. It's either terrorism or it's not.

Hamas intends to kill civilians - but their intent is scuppered by their capabilities with the result that they kill a handful of people that they were lucky enough to hit. Israel, with its modern weapons and technology doesn't intend to kill civilians, but the densely populated environment ensures it - and because of this they kill hundreds of people in airstrikes. I dunno about you - but good luck trying to draw an ethical distinction between the two.

I'm saying that intent is irrelevant when it comes to targetting civilian populations. Whether you do it exclusively because you hate them, or because someone makes a decision to sacrifice a market full of people to hit one guy, you still have to go through a process of rationalisation that results in a voluntary act. Quite simply - the outcome is more telling than the intent.

Now that you mention it though - the carpet bombing of Dresden, for example, during WW2 has been reappraised as falling within the definition of a war-crime. Simply put - you can't do that to a city without knowing in advance that you will, with absolute certainty massacre tens of thousands of people, most of whom are civilians.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Israel is targeting civilians. I hope all US citizens can sleep at night knowing that our administration is in full support of this.

There's a difference between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel may hit civilians from time to time (such as in this story), but they don't intend to kill civilians. It happens, but then again, civilian causalities are always present in war. The U.S. armed forces (and every other military in the world) has unintentionally caused civilian deaths. That's sad, but it's a fact of warfare.

The Palestinians, by contrast, purposefully set out to murder civilians. A "good day" is when as many Israelis as possible are killed in shopping centers, schools, discos, and of course, their homes. Once again, the primary difference here is that the Palestinian nutjobs fully intend to commit wholesale slaughter. Their acts are not one of human or computer miscalculation (as is the case with the Israelis).

Think of it this way -- is it in Israel's best interest to shoot at civilians? No, it's not. Doing so merely gains the Palestinians support through sympathy all around the world. Contrast that with the Palestinians, who don't give a damn what the world's perception is of them and look to the surrounding Middle Eastern countries for support. They're combined hatred of Israel (and by extension, Jews) is what fuels them and public acceptance is a moot point.

That's a false argument though. You can't drop a bomb on a densely populated area without having already had to rationalise the likely outcome. We're not talking "Whoops, I accidentally dropped a pile of plates here" - rather its "I deliberately dropped that pile of plates in order to break the specific one that I don't like".

Military planners generally factor in civilian casualties when planning operations (i.e. this is what we anticipate) - a UK friend of mine used to work for the MOD as a statistician doing precisely that. That of course is different from the commander who makes a decision that killing 10, 20, 30+ people via airstrike is acceptable in order to take out a single high profile individual.

What a person's original intent was, they still go through more or less the same process of rationalisation.

So... I guess the bombing strikes performed by both the USAAF and the RAF during WWII could be classified as terrorism?

What does WW2 have to do with what I said?

In WWII, the UK and the U.S. conducted bombing runs over Germany during the night and day. They were attempting to strike targets of military value, but they ended up killing many civilians instead (even when the intended target was blown up).

So if Israel's military actions are seen as "unwarranted" and "terrorism," the same would hold true for the allied forces in Europe during WWII.

You can't have it both ways. It's either terrorism or it's not.

Hamas intends to kill civilians - but their intent is scuppered by their capabilities with the result that they kill a handful of people that they were lucky enough to hit. Israel, with its modern weapons and technology doesn't intend to kill civilians, but the densely populated environment ensures it - and because of this they kill hundreds of people in airstrikes. I dunno about you - but good luck trying to draw an ethical distinction between the two.

I'm saying that intent is irrelevant when it comes to targetting civilian populations. Whether you do it exclusively because you hate them, or because someone makes a decision to sacrifice a market full of people to hit one guy, you still have to go through a process of rationalisation that results in a voluntary act. Quite simply - the outcome is more telling than the intent.

Now that you mention it though - the carpet bombing of Dresden, for example, during WW2 has been reappraised as falling within the definition of a war-crime. Simply put - you can't do that to a city without knowing in advance that you will, with absolute certainty massacre tens of thousands of people, most of whom are civilians.

What about the nukes used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Terrorist war crimes or acts of war?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Israel is targeting civilians. I hope all US citizens can sleep at night knowing that our administration is in full support of this.

There's a difference between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel may hit civilians from time to time (such as in this story), but they don't intend to kill civilians. It happens, but then again, civilian causalities are always present in war. The U.S. armed forces (and every other military in the world) has unintentionally caused civilian deaths. That's sad, but it's a fact of warfare.

The Palestinians, by contrast, purposefully set out to murder civilians. A "good day" is when as many Israelis as possible are killed in shopping centers, schools, discos, and of course, their homes. Once again, the primary difference here is that the Palestinian nutjobs fully intend to commit wholesale slaughter. Their acts are not one of human or computer miscalculation (as is the case with the Israelis).

Think of it this way -- is it in Israel's best interest to shoot at civilians? No, it's not. Doing so merely gains the Palestinians support through sympathy all around the world. Contrast that with the Palestinians, who don't give a damn what the world's perception is of them and look to the surrounding Middle Eastern countries for support. They're combined hatred of Israel (and by extension, Jews) is what fuels them and public acceptance is a moot point.

That's a false argument though. You can't drop a bomb on a densely populated area without having already had to rationalise the likely outcome. We're not talking "Whoops, I accidentally dropped a pile of plates here" - rather its "I deliberately dropped that pile of plates in order to break the specific one that I don't like".

Military planners generally factor in civilian casualties when planning operations (i.e. this is what we anticipate) - a UK friend of mine used to work for the MOD as a statistician doing precisely that. That of course is different from the commander who makes a decision that killing 10, 20, 30+ people via airstrike is acceptable in order to take out a single high profile individual.

What a person's original intent was, they still go through more or less the same process of rationalisation.

So... I guess the bombing strikes performed by both the USAAF and the RAF during WWII could be classified as terrorism?

What does WW2 have to do with what I said?

In WWII, the UK and the U.S. conducted bombing runs over Germany during the night and day. They were attempting to strike targets of military value, but they ended up killing many civilians instead (even when the intended target was blown up).

So if Israel's military actions are seen as "unwarranted" and "terrorism," the same would hold true for the allied forces in Europe during WWII.

You can't have it both ways. It's either terrorism or it's not.

Hamas intends to kill civilians - but their intent is scuppered by their capabilities with the result that they kill a handful of people that they were lucky enough to hit. Israel, with its modern weapons and technology doesn't intend to kill civilians, but the densely populated environment ensures it - and because of this they kill hundreds of people in airstrikes. I dunno about you - but good luck trying to draw an ethical distinction between the two.

I'm saying that intent is irrelevant when it comes to targetting civilian populations. Whether you do it exclusively because you hate them, or because someone makes a decision to sacrifice a market full of people to hit one guy, you still have to go through a process of rationalisation that results in a voluntary act. Quite simply - the outcome is more telling than the intent.

Now that you mention it though - the carpet bombing of Dresden, for example, during WW2 has been reappraised as falling within the definition of a war-crime. Simply put - you can't do that to a city without knowing in advance that you will, with absolute certainty massacre tens of thousands of people, most of whom are civilians.

What about the nukes used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Terrorist war crimes or acts of war?

Its the same process of rationalisation, and yes - there is a body of thought (expressed at the time actually) that the atomic bombings of Japan (certainly Nagasaki) were criminal acts.

Someone doesn't hit a button, tip-toe away and pretend that they had nothing to do with the resulting carnage. What I'm trying to explain to you is that someone has to go through an ethical process of rationalisation that massive death and destruction will inevitably result from their actions.

[HAL 9000 96]

Israel is targeting civilians. I hope all US citizens can sleep at night knowing that our administration is in full support of this.

There's a difference between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel may hit civilians from time to time (such as in this story), but they don't intend to kill civilians. It happens, but then again, civilian causalities are always present in war. The U.S. armed forces (and every other military in the world) has unintentionally caused civilian deaths. That's sad, but it's a fact of warfare.

The Palestinians, by contrast, purposefully set out to murder civilians. A "good day" is when as many Israelis as possible are killed in shopping centers, schools, discos, and of course, their homes. Once again, the primary difference here is that the Palestinian nutjobs fully intend to commit wholesale slaughter. Their acts are not one of human or computer miscalculation (as is the case with the Israelis).

Think of it this way -- is it in Israel's best interest to shoot at civilians? No, it's not. Doing so merely gains the Palestinians support through sympathy all around the world. Contrast that with the Palestinians, who don't give a damn what the world's perception is of them and look to the surrounding Middle Eastern countries for support. They're combined hatred of Israel (and by extension, Jews) is what fuels them and public acceptance is a moot point.

You mean Hamas is doing so.

I supopse if IDF wasn't not intending to kill Palestinian civilians but doing so anyway, then perhaps you couldn't include volumes of Palestinians sympathizing enough with Hamas to perpetuate more violence.

[alienlovechild 75]

Its the same process of rationalisation, and yes - there is a body of thought (expressed at the time actually) that the atomic bombings of Japan (certainly Nagasaki) were criminal acts.

Not many people were thinking that way at the time. Most people were glad the WWII was over. My Dad had orders to go to Okinawa for the invasion of Japan so I, for one, have no regrets that many more Americans and Japanese were saved by ending the war prematurely.

Someone doesn't hit a button, tip-toe away and pretend that they had nothing to do with the resulting carnage. What I'm trying to explain to you is that someone has to go through an ethical process of rationalisation that massive death and destruction will inevitably result from their actions.

Soldiers do have rules of engagement, a chain of command, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, civilian oversight and media questioning. I doubt there's much of an "ethical process" with Hamas. You can't question armed masked guys using your house as a rocket launch site in a revolutionary war of liberation or jihad- take your pick.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Israel is targeting civilians. I hope all US citizens can sleep at night knowing that our administration is in full support of this.

There's a difference between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel may hit civilians from time to time (such as in this story), but they don't intend to kill civilians. It happens, but then again, civilian causalities are always present in war. The U.S. armed forces (and every other military in the world) has unintentionally caused civilian deaths. That's sad, but it's a fact of warfare.

The Palestinians, by contrast, purposefully set out to murder civilians. A "good day" is when as many Israelis as possible are killed in shopping centers, schools, discos, and of course, their homes. Once again, the primary difference here is that the Palestinian nutjobs fully intend to commit wholesale slaughter. Their acts are not one of human or computer miscalculation (as is the case with the Israelis).

Think of it this way -- is it in Israel's best interest to shoot at civilians? No, it's not. Doing so merely gains the Palestinians support through sympathy all around the world. Contrast that with the Palestinians, who don't give a damn what the world's perception is of them and look to the surrounding Middle Eastern countries for support. They're combined hatred of Israel (and by extension, Jews) is what fuels them and public acceptance is a moot point.

You mean Hamas is doing so.

I supopse if IDF wasn't not intending to kill Palestinian civilians but doing so anyway, then perhaps you couldn't include volumes of Palestinians sympathizing enough with Hamas to perpetuate more violence.

Yes, you're right -- Hamas is doing the damage.

As for your other point... think about the media over there. Yes, ours can be biased, but we at least have the chance to search for more objective sources. At the very least, we can compare different sources. The Palestinians are told only what will motivate them to hate Israel and western nations. It's called indoctrination. It's been used many, many times before.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Hamas used the school as one big human shield.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hamas used the school as one big human shield.

So if a violent bank robber who gunned down several bystanders flees and hides into your neighborhood, you'll be okay if the police call in the national guard and bomb your area as an appropriate form of retaliation?

[Niels Bohr 72]

The time when the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki was settled afterwards with a peace treaty. The US helped moved survivors away from the city, and set up rehabilitation camps around both cities. The US accepted fault, so did the Japanese. Hence, peace have been created.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hamas used the school as one big human shield.

That's fast becoming the stock justification of choice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hamas used the school as one big human shield.

So if a violent bank robber who gunned down several bystanders flees and hides into your neighborhood, you'll be okay if the police call in the national guard and bomb your area as an appropriate form of retaliation?

To use someone as a human shield - you literally have to keep them in a building by force. That does happen, however its pretty dishonest to write off every instance of collateral damage as being the fault of the enemy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hamas used the school as one big human shield.

So if a violent bank robber who gunned down several bystanders flees and hides into your neighborhood, you'll be okay if the police call in the national guard and bomb your area as an appropriate form of retaliation?

To use someone as a human shield - you literally have to keep them in a building by force. That does happen, however its pretty dishonest to write off every instance of collateral damage as being the fault of the enemy.

Excellent point. In the event that hostages can flee to safety, law enforcement will always put their safety above the need to get the perpetrator.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In hostage situations sure. I just think its a hackneyed justification to cover every instance of civilian casualties.

Why admit to using bad Intel when you have this ready-made catch all.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Israel is targeting civilians. I hope all US citizens can sleep at night knowing that our administration is in full support of this.

Where was your outrage when Hamas was targeting Israeli civilians?

Random 60mm rockets versous F18s with 500lb bombs in civilian neighborhoods, bring on the nukes.

israel does not have f-18's

and those are bigger than 60mm

...................................Qassam 1.........Qassam 2...................Qassam 3

Length 79 cm (2 ft 7 in) 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) over 200 cm (6 ft 7 in)

Diameter 6 cm (2.4 in) 15 cm (5.9 in) 17 cm (6.7 in)

Weight 5.5 kg (12 lb) 32 kg (71 lb) 90 kg (198 lb)

Explosives Payload 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) 5–7 kg (11–15 lb) 10 kg (22 lb)

Maximum Range 3 km (1.9 mi) 8–10 km (5.0–6.2 mi) 10 km (6.2 mi)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rockets

Edited January 6, 2009 by charles!