Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[ZGundam]

After following this for as long as it has gone on, I think it comes down to how far Israel is willing to go to follow their mantra 'Never Again'.

Yes, I understand that they were almost exterminated in WW2, but I think they are going overboard to the point where they are willing to do anything required to protect their territory and damn anyone who disagrees.

It is almost like a role reversal from WW2. That Israel is starting to play the part of Germany.

I'm a republican, but damn, they think to justify all their responses with 'but we are just making sure that we are not wiped off the face of the earth'.

It gets old real fast.

[Shroom Man 777]

I can understand Israeli troops, or anyone's troops, shooting at people (civilians or otherwise) rushing in with weapons, be it guns or axes or sharp sticks. If you rush at a soldier and try to hurt him, you get shot, simple. But how about the others who weren't "combatants"?

If it had been, say, a Somali pirate ship (every bit as civilian) and one pirate but not the others started shooting at a boarding party with his AK-47, would you, if you led that party, consider all the pirates enemies or just that one guy?

As long as they are part of the same crew on the same ship, they are counted as one unity. What law is there that establishes otherwise?

So if we board a ship, and one Shroomalian shoots at us, we kill him. What if there's a dozen other Shroomalians on the boat who aren't shooting at us, what if they're masturbating or shitting or fucking or kneeling on the ground begging and blubbering not to be murdered. Do we shoot them too? How about two dozen of these non-combatants? A hundred? As long as they are part of the same crew on the same ship, they are counted as one unity. What law is there that establishes otherwise? So let's just kill the whole bunch of these fucks, shoot everything that moves on the ship and if it's bleeding and crawling on the ground, just finish it off, man. Don't waste a bullet executing those wounded fucks by shooting them in the head, save your rounds and use your rifle butts to smash their fucking skulls open or put your bayonet in and cut their guts out. Waste those motherfuckers! They're all on the same boat, so let's kill them all, set the whole ship on fire, and sink it with a torpedo. Whatever floats up, we'll finish it off by killing the fuck out of those miserable shits and feeding their shot up shredded corpses to the sharks. Alright! Fuck yeah, you mother fucks!

[Darth Hoth]

Fucking. Unbelievable. I'm so glad you sonofabitches were discredited with Iraq. You deserve nothing more.

Eh? I opposed Iraq, not that it makes much difference, me not being an American citizen. I consider myself an isolationist. But if my own country were attacked as Israel was, I would not pull my punches on matters left to me.

As for law, while not identical with morality, they were (and are?) part of our ongoing discussion.

[Einzige]

After following this for as long as it has gone on, I think it comes down to how far Israel is willing to go to follow their mantra 'Never Again'.

Yes, I understand that they were almost exterminated in WW2, but I think they are going overboard to the point where they are willing to do anything required to protect their territory and damn anyone who disagrees.

It is almost like a role reversal from WW2. That Israel is starting to play the part of Germany.

I'm a republican, but damn, they think to justify all their responses with 'but we are just making sure that we are not wiped off the face of the earth'.

It gets old real fast.

Israel will do whatever Israel wants to do, and will continue to do it as long as we continue to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars of financial aid and military equipment to them. They aren't actually afraid of a second Holocaust, either from the Palestinians (who cannot do it) or the Arabs more generally (who will not do it). All that rhetoric is little more than badly-scripted PR.

[wautd]

The kinds of tactics you (Darth Hoth) and Shep propose might have been the way it was done... many decades ago.

I guess Israel is running behind with the times. That's why they must have tought that turning Gaza in a huge ghetto would have been a good idea.

[Darth Hoth]

See?
That's why you are an immoral asshole.

Civilans are NOT the enemy. Any moral military teaches that to it's soldiers - by the way, for a reason (very bad PR).

Civilians who attack you with axes and injure your fellows badly are not your enemy?

Al Qaeda/Taleban goons in Afghanistan are civilians. Are they not enemies when they pop out and start shooting at you?

Sorry if I will not buy that.

You would have tons of other options in that case, none of the threatening either your soldiers or your mission.

Which ones? They tried with riot grenades and paintball guns. It lead to several of their men being injured, two badly.

[Einzige]

Fucking. Unbelievable. I'm so glad you sonofabitches were discredited with Iraq. You deserve nothing more.

Eh? I opposed Iraq, not that it makes much difference, me not being an American citizen. I consider myself an isolationist.

You certainly don't sound like any isolationist I've ever met, and I would know, being one myself. Every other isolationist I've talked to about this has condemned Israel, some in language I'd be loathe to apply myself. What you sound like is a typically blundering, bloviating neo-con of the Sheppian stripe.

But if my own country were attacked as Israel was, I would not pull my punches on matters left to me.

Israel wasn't attacked. A few soldiers were attacked, with weapons which would hardly suffice in a bar fight. Learn the difference, fucktard.

[Coyote]

*Sigh* No one reads poor Hoth's posts?

I realize this. Pragmatically, such tactics are both stupid and impossible of actually carrying out.

That makes them no less morally right.

No, you are wrong. There is a reason why this crap went out of fashion. Once this sort of indiscriminate and disproportionate killing got publicized, there was a general outcry. Citizens back home put pressure on politicians that they want things handled differently. Your position now is in the minority.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Al Qaeda/Taleban goons in Afghanistan are civilians. Are they not enemies when they pop out and start shooting at you?

By your logic, then, we should carpet bomb villages in Afghanistan, because since some civilians are acting as combatants, we are morally obligated to kill all of them.

[wautd]

Civilians who attack you with axes and injure your fellows badly are not your enemy?

Aah so it where the civilians who boarded the Israeli ships? Well in that case the commandos had every right to defend themselves

[Darth Hoth]

You certainly don't sound like any isolationist I've ever met, and I would know, being one myself. Every other isolationist I've talked to about this has condemned Israel, some in language I'd be loathe to apply myself. What you sound like is a typically blundering, bloviating neo-con of the Sheppian stripe.

I cannot respect the right of sovereign nations to self-defence and be an isolationist? Where did I call for the US of A to send in the Valkyries to the rescue?

Israel wasn't attacked. A few soldiers were attacked, with weapons which would hardly suffice in a bar fight. Learn the difference, fucktard.

An attack on a nation's military by external aggressors is an attack on the nation, and usually an act of war.

No, you are wrong. There is a reason why this crap went out of fashion. Once this sort of indiscriminate and disproportionate killing got publicized, there was a general outcry. Citizens back home put pressure on politicians that they want things handled differently. Your position now is in the minority.

Is morality dependent on majority consensus?

[Zed]

You certainly don't sound like any isolationist I've ever met, and I would know, being one myself. Every other isolationist I've talked to about this has condemned Israel, some in language I'd be loathe to apply myself. What you sound like is a typically blundering, bloviating neo-con of the Sheppian stripe.

I cannot respect the right of sovereign nations to self-defence and be an isolationist? Where did I call for the US of A to send in the Valkyries to the rescue?

A blockade is self-defence?

Israel wasn't attacked. A few soldiers were attacked, with weapons which would hardly suffice in a bar fight. Learn the difference, fucktard.

An attack on a nation's military by external aggressors is an attack on the nation, and usually an act of war.

The military attacked the boat (that's what a boarding is) and was subsequently attacked in kind.

[Darth Hoth]

By your logic, then, we should carpet bomb villages in Afghanistan, because since some civilians are acting as combatants, we are morally obligated to kill all of them.

I was not aware a village's population was the ssame thing as the crew on a ship.

[Zed]

Pray tell, what gives a crew on a ship a special unitary status?

[Shroom Man 777]

Israel wasn't attacked. A few soldiers were attacked, with weapons which would hardly suffice in a bar fight. Learn the difference, fucktard.

That's not immoral. What's moral is the imperative of protecting my own men. Protection of the enemy is at the very most a secondary consideration. That they are "civilians" is completely irrelevant when they are combatants actually attempting to kill/murder my men. Even those who aren't armed and who aren't fighting and aren't "combatants" are part of the same crew on the same ship, they are counted as one unity. What law is there that establishes otherwise?

So they are the enemy, and to protect my men I'll order them to waste those motherfuckers. Cut them to pieces from machinegun fire, preferably from another ship so they can't hurt me with their sharpened sticks while we kill the fuck out of all of them. Then we can sink the ship, and whoever floats or runs to the lifeboats, well, too fucking bad for these combatants who threatened my men, we'll kill them then and there and since they're in the water, we won't be going down to bash the woundeds' brains out with our rifle butts or gut them like fishes with our bayonets, we'll just watch th sharks rip them to pieces and eat them instead. What law is there that establishes otherwise?

Is morality dependent on majority consensus?

No it's not. If this is what our enemies do -- if this is what Israel must fight -- Then we are always right! And anything we do is right!

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was not aware a village's population was the ssame thing as the crew on a ship.

Stop moving the goalposts you stupid fuck. You claim that since some of the civilians on the ship (note: the civilian passengers, NOT the crew) attacked the boarding Israeli forces, then they are morally obligated to take action against EVERYONE on the ship. Please demonstrate how the crew and other passengers of the ship are "the ssame thing" as the few passengers who acted aggressively.

[Shroom Man 777]

By your logic, then, we should carpet bomb villages in Afghanistan, because since some civilians are acting as combatants, we are morally obligated to kill all of them.

I was not aware a village's population was the ssame thing as the crew on a ship.

Why not? Is the morality of bombing an entire village's population dependent on majority consensus? We have the moral imperative of protecting our own men. Protection of the enemy is at the very most a secondary consideration. That they are "civilians" is completely irrelevant when they are combatants actually attempting to kill/murder our men. That village burns. Everyone in it dies.

[Einzige]

I cannot respect the right of sovereign nations to self-defence and be an isolationist? Where did I call for the US of A to send in the Valkyries to the rescue?

If this were a situation where one would need to invoke national self-sovereignty, sure. But it wasn't. This should have been treated as a policing action.

An attack on a nation's military by external aggressors is an attack on the nation, and usually an act of war.

Hahaha. "External aggressors". I'll remember that the next time I hear that Israel has slaughtered more independent Palestinians.

[Coyote]

No, you are wrong. There is a reason why this crap went out of fashion. Once this sort of indiscriminate and disproportionate killing got publicized, there was a general outcry. Citizens back home put pressure on politicians that they want things handled differently. Your position now is in the minority.

Is morality dependent on majority consensus?

That is a silly-ass strawman and you know it. It means that overly heavy-handed acts of retaliation are not tolerated by the people who are paying taxes to support the military, and who vote for the politicians who direct their military's usage.

Aware citizens will also realize that if their military is too brutal, it will actually create more resentment, more resistance, more conflict, and more war. Which in most peoples' minds is seen as a bad thing.

[salm]

If it had been, say, a Somali pirate ship (every bit as civilian) and one pirate but not the others started shooting at a boarding party with his AK-47, would you, if you led that party, consider all the pirates enemies or just that one guy?

As long as they are part of the same crew on the same ship, they are counted as one unity. What law is there that establishes otherwise?

Why would you see all the people on the ship attacked by the Israelis as "the crew"? Most of them were passangers or is there any evidence that there was some sort of erstablished hierarchy which would be necessary in order for a group of people to be a "crew".

[madd0ct0r]

[...

Injured, impaired for life, or killed. Just because their weapons are improvised, that makes them no less deadly. And yes, I would rather see a hundred enemies dead than one of my own men. Risking the lives of my soldiers to save those of enemies is utterly immoral....

I stopped repeating this after perhaps the third post, since I thought I had made it clear, but again:

Politically it would be crazy to do any of the things Sheppard or I suggested. From a pragmatic viewpoint, our measures would be a disaster, and it is fortunate that neither of us commanded that expedition. That is a whole other question, as compared to their morality.

arguing purely on the moral front (as you define it)

1- we are looking at the morality of the commander's actions

2- as a soldier and an officer your first duty is to your men, not to risk their lives unnecessarily.

3- There are some other things under the Geneva convention that you're supposed to pay attention to, but we'll neglect that for now. It's debatable and not necessary for this argument.

4- we will assume, as an officer in the isralie army, you have a slight inkling that a lot of Palestinians and peace-niks don't like you much and can get quite emotional about it.

5- further assume that the boats are full of such people

6- They have proclaimed they will attempt to run the blockade. they have further proclaimed they will peacefully and passively resist any intervention

7- It is clear they will not stop unless forced and you are asked to apply that force, remembering always, your moral obligation to your men.

8- Why the hell would you try dropping them off from a helicopter into a crowd of belligerent protesters?

9 - Lets assume the boat was impregnable from the sides or that a navy ship could not intercept in time. Let's further assume simply destroying their rudder/propulsion and leaving them to stew for a day before towing to port isn't an option.
That's a big fat load of assumptions required to rule out other, more sensible forms of engagement.

10 - You are not stupid, and can readily guess that something is very likely to go wrong when you drop your men into a crowd of pissed off protesters. This is in fact risking your men unnecessarily, and thus immorally. As you said, improvised weapons are still deadly.

11 - You may be counting on them 'coming quietly' with the option of a nice humiliating television shot. This is criminally stupid. Further, if you are risking your men for the PR stunt, then it is immoral.

12- this leaves only the option of massively disproportionate force as a moral option. (again, using your definition that it applies only, most particularly, to the men you command). Thus, I agree with you under those very limited conditions and definitions.

13- return to the set of assumptions at 9. If any one of these is false, then the Israeli action was not only immoral, but criminally stupid. If it was not stupidity, then why?

the only possible reason I can see was to provoke a belligerent response, injuring an Israeli soldier to justify a disproportionate response by Israel. again, criminally stupid, and since it risks your man, immoral.

EDIT. Jesus this is a fast moving thread. think still relevent delete if not.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Politically it would be crazy to do any of the things Sheppard or I suggested. From a pragmatic viewpoint, our measures would be a disaster, and it is fortunate that neither of us commanded that expedition. That is a whole other question, as compared to their morality.

Even from a morality perspective- presuming that 'morality' means 'saving my own men at the expense of everything else,' which I dispute- it's a fucking terrible idea. Okay, so you save six of your guys from being mobbed right now. Congratulations. You've probably just got them killed in the war you started for no fucking reason. Oops.

Your method won't save any of your own guys, and would probably ultimately end with more of them dead when the people you pissed off by murdering their civilians come to fuck up your country.

[Shroom Man 777]

Don't worry, Darth Hoth. I think your argument is totally sound which is why I am also using it in my posts.

[Vendetta]

Is morality dependent on majority consensus?

Yes. The very concept of morality is the set of actions and attitudes which enable one to live in harmony with a wider society, whether that is an individual in a society of individuals or a nation in a society of nations. It only exists because there is consensus on it.

[wautd]

Appearantly there still isn't a concensus on who will do the objective, impartial investigation on the matter, because the US is either incredibly stupid or incredibly naive to say that the investigation should be done by Israel (or maybe they like being Israel's bitch).
How on earth would Israel (or Turkey for that matter) be an objective investigator in this matter? It's like using the investigation of a suspect of his own trial. And even if Israel would do an impartial investigation (fat chance), the results would be worthless anyway because nobody would take the results serious.