Israel, Palestine and Iran

[VILLAMARV]

10 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

There's a credible allegation that Hamas beheaded babies - it's been corroborated by some of the non-IDF volunteer organisations on the scene, and repeated by the President of the USA. Clearly it may well still prove to be untrue, but equally there's also a real possibility that it actually happened. The discussions taking place were about what the ramifications of that would be if it had occurred, not necessarily saying it has.

As Ive already said, I'll personally reserve comment on specific events until they have been confirmed/corroborated. Im well aware of the conversation. You're just repeating the last post I quoted just in longer form.

Quote

However several people were claiming that beheading was no worse than bombing, or just blandly saying that killing is wrong no matter which side does it. I can quote them if you want but you can read them on pages 106-107.

The thing I asked you about was the bit about you claiming people saying it 'didnt matter'. There are different ways of wording things if what you were referring to was what they were saying - that the method of the murder is inconsequential in establishing horrific murders have taken place. Saying 'people' said 'it didnt matter' has more than a hint of minimisation added in to what was being said. Backed up by your assertion that the posts were made "as if it doesn't matter either way whether it actually happenned" That's not what people were saying at all. They were saying their level of disgust would remain constant regardless of the method. You're either disgusted or you're not.

Quote

The question I asked was "what would the reaction be if Israeli soldiers did this instead of Hamas?" and I really don't see how that's an extreme hypothetical scenario unless you just think Israel is far more morally pure than Hamas is.

There's no other way to reply to this other than to just say no you didnt. You made a statement. And you constructed a fallacious argument. The extreme bit being the beheading of children, the hypothetical being the Israeli troops doing it to kids in Gaza, the invented response being the thing you said 'they' would say and the vague group is "people". Moral purity has precisely FA to do with it. You can base an argument or point or response around such things if you choose but I'll call it out for what it is every time I see it or hear it.

Quote

You'd be utterly outraged if Israeli troops went into Palestinian houses and beheaded babies when they move into Gaza, right? I would be.

Not being a psychopath or sociopath or suffering from psychosis the answer is obviously yes, but I dont need a hollow man argument to know that. Everyone else who posted about the method of killing would answer yes too. It's a rather obvious question.

Quote

Because although I appreciate the ultimate outcome is the same, it's a more barbaric act than indirectly killing the same baby by switching off the power to Gaza or by them dropping a bomb on a Hamas team firing rockets into Israel from the building next door (although switching the power off to Gaza is itself a war crime).

What about the point raised in response to you about intentionally killing people? Is premeditated murder A better or worse than premeditated murder B?

Quote

As you say yourself, the principle of some deaths being worse than others is an established part of our law and ethics system. It's worse to brutally and deliberately kill someone than it is to lose control of your car and kill a pedestrian. It's similarly a big part of the laws of war - e.g. it's morally acceptable to shoot an enemy soldier, but not to shoot that same enemy soldier if they are unarmed and have surrendered. The same applies to the scenarios outlined above. Deliberately torturing and murdering civilians is worse than them ending up dead as part of a legitimate military engagement of enemy forces, and so on. I don't think you need to have a complete set of moral equations in front of you to accept that.

Actually I didn't. What I said was that it is part of the sentencing structure of our legal system. I'm not sure what our ethics system is? Apples are different to oranges though that much is true. I think you might have the word morally confused with the word legally though. As above, Is intentional murder A worse than intentional murder B? If your response to this is to appear to respond to my argument but in a way that you construct your own point and answer that instead, it has a name.

If we don't know the rules of your moral calculus how can we follow them or interact with you about them?

[Awol]

Arguing about whether babies were shot, stabbed, beheaded, or burned, seems to be missing the most important point, imho. 

[Chindie]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

Arguing about whether babies were shot, stabbed, beheaded, or burned, seems to be missing the most important point, imho. 

It is and it isn't.

The murder of babies is absolutely abhorrent, obviously.

The decapitation of babies is worse. It's more barbaric, more brutal, more inhuman. Which then allows you to dehumanise the perpetrators much more. Which then let's you justify whatever you want to do. Which is why it's been spread around, to gain traction of support, to spread the story with the eye catching grim details.

[Awol]

14 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It is and it isn't.

The murder of babies is absolutely abhorrent, obviously.

The decapitation of babies is worse. It's more barbaric, more brutal, more inhuman. Which then allows you to dehumanise the perpetrators much more. Which then let's you justify whatever you want to do. Which is why it's been spread around, to gain traction of support, to spread the story with the eye catching grim details.

The perpetrators have raped, beheaded, tortured, and released their sadistic snuff videos to prove it. Is beheading a baby worse than torching it alive in its crib?  I’m not sure who makes that judgement, how, or why they’d want to?

 Murdering a baby is an objectively evil and psychopathic act, designed to cause maximum horror. If anyone thinks that the people who did so have any humanity left to lose, I’d humbly disagree. 

 

[blandy]

12 hours ago, Chindie said:

Well you did completely misunderstand my position and deride it as 'crap' before mocking a comment about apparent cancellation of commentators by suggesting it was a huge BBC conspiracy, which you pulled out of your arse

I did not deride your position as crap, I said an example you cited as perfect was a crap one. I may not understand your position though I try to, genuinely, nor did I make any reference to BBC conspiracy. That was something you said you’d read - that the media had all agreed to reduce Palestinian interviews. Nor pull anything out of my arse.  I didn’t agree with you on the uk media take. That’s all. I have no quarrel with you or your opinion. I did not mock or intend to mock you. I see things  a little differently, but that’s all.

[blandy]

Today’s media slating is the tories and Tory press angry at broadcasters for not calling Hamas terrorists. The broadcasters say they’re following the OFCOM code.

[blandy]

And a different Tory has a spine. Writing to his own government to say

Quote

In light of the catastrophic situation currently unfolding in Gaza, and clear evidence that Israel has committed war crimes and is on the verge of committing mass atrocity crimes in Gaza, this letter is provided to the UK Government in order to emphasise that under international criminal law and its jurisprudence on individual criminal responsibility, support provided to perpetrators of international crimes can be investigated and prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.”…

…attacks in Gaza have not complied with the requirement under international law for proportionality and distinction leading to children being indiscriminately killed and injured “Entire residential housing blocks have been levelled to the ground, killing all inside. Reports document entire families being killed; with all members of the family – from every generation, young to old, being killed. Over 500 children have already been killed since 7 October – in the span of only 6 days. It adds that under the Geneva Convention It must be remembered that the prohibition against collective punishment is absolute.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/oct/14/israel-hamas-war-live-un-says-tens-of-thousands-have-fled-south-in-gaza-israel-strikes-hezbollah-target-in-lebanon-says-idf?page=with:block-652a42968f081db094840fa1#block-652a42968f081db094840fa1

[Panto_Villan]

16 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

As Ive already said, I'll personally reserve comment on specific events until they have been confirmed/corroborated. Im well aware of the conversation. You're just repeating the last post I quoted just in longer form.

The thing I asked you about was the bit about you claiming people saying it 'didnt matter'. There are different ways of wording things if what you were referring to was what they were saying - that the method of the murder is inconsequential in establishing horrific murders have taken place. Saying 'people' said 'it didnt matter' has more than a hint of minimisation added in to what was being said. Backed up by your assertion that the posts were made "as if it doesn't matter either way whether it actually happenned" That's not what people were saying at all. They were saying their level of disgust would remain constant regardless of the method. You're either disgusted or you're not.

There's no other way to reply to this other than to just say no you didnt. You made a statement. And you constructed a fallacious argument. The extreme bit being the beheading of children, the hypothetical being the Israeli troops doing it to kids in Gaza, the invented response being the thing you said 'they' would say and the vague group is "people". Moral purity has precisely FA to do with it. You can base an argument or point or response around such things if you choose but I'll call it out for what it is every time I see it or hear it.

Not being a psychopath or sociopath or suffering from psychosis the answer is obviously yes, but I dont need a hollow man argument to know that. Everyone else who posted about the method of killing would answer yes too. It's a rather obvious question.

What about the point raised in response to you about intentionally killing people? Is premeditated murder A better or worse than premeditated murder B?

Actually I didn't. What I said was that it is part of the sentencing structure of our legal system. I'm not sure what our ethics system is? Apples are different to oranges though that much is true. I think you might have the word morally confused with the word legally though. As above, Is intentional murder A worse than intentional murder B? If your response to this is to appear to respond to my argument but in a way that you construct your own point and answer that instead, it has a name.

If we don't know the rules of your moral calculus how can we follow them or interact with you about them?

There’s almost no difference between the scenario I initially outlined and the question “what would be the reaction if Israel did what Hamas was accused of when they go into Gaza?” In both cases it’d be the IDF doing it, in both cases in Gaza, and in both cases I’m interested in what response the people in this thread would have. I embellished things slightly by making it a public beheading rather than it occurring in the homes of the babies concerned (which I shouldn’t have done) but I really don’t see how that suddenly transforms the whole situation into a ridiculous straw man argument.

No, I’ve never accused people of saying beheading babies is fine. I’ve accused them of not caring about different reasons and circumstances around the deaths, and drawing false equivalence between them (ie. saying it doesn’t matter if beheading happened as opposed to shooting, as the outcome is the same).

We care about the way people died and the reasons behind it when looking at a murder case outside of a warzone, and the same applies in wartime too. For example there’s a clear difference to me between Hamas deliberately beheading a baby and a baby being killed by an Israeli bomb. In that second instance, you can draw further distinction between whether the baby dies because Israel fired a huge bomb at a civilian area that may or may not contain militants, or whether a Hamas team firing rockets into Israel were deliberately using the baby as a human shield.

Anyone who considers those three scenarios and says “I’m equally horrified about a baby dying either way” is just carrying water for terrorists as far as I’m concerned (as well as indirectly justifying any war crimes by the IDF).

To answer to your question about premeditated murder A or B being worse - yeah, obviously which is worse depends on the context and circumstances, and I’m curious why this apparently applies everywhere except in this conflict.

As for the ethics points, no, I’m not confused between “morally” and “legally”. The reason why the legal distinctions between different kinds of killing exist is because they reflect generally-held human moral / ethical views on the topic. If that idea bothers you just replace any use of the word “morally” with “legally” and the point is generally the same.

Anyway, I think I’m done discussing the topic. I’d like to think most of the people I’m referring to don’t actually think that way and were just using loose language, and my initial post was just an attempt to point that out.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Panto_Villan

[Jareth]

Strikes me that Israel are currently operating with a dysfunctional intelligence agency. They missed the attacks, and the IDF appear to be blowing stuff up on a whim. They have no hope of finding and destroying Hamas if Hamas choose to slip away and fight later. Unless the plan is to just raze the North then raze the South - looks that way.  

[VILLAMARV]

 @Panto_Villan Rather than reply to each point I'll just say I find your reply rather disingenuous but I'm happy to leave it there and on the record.

[Mic09]

5 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Strikes me that Israel are currently operating with a dysfunctional intelligence agency. They missed the attacks, and the IDF appear to be blowing stuff up on a whim. They have no hope of finding and destroying Hamas if Hamas choose to slip away and fight later. Unless the plan is to just raze the North then raze the South - looks that way.  

If it's dysfunctional, the high officers will lose their jobs. If it's intentional, we carry on. 

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Strikes me that Israel are currently operating with a dysfunctional intelligence agency. They missed the attacks, and the IDF appear to be blowing stuff up on a whim. They have no hope of finding and destroying Hamas if Hamas choose to slip away and fight later. Unless the plan is to just raze the North then raze the South - looks that way.  

I can’t imagine what the plan is at the moment other than angry response.

Didn’t they destroy Hamas its weapons and its network of tunnels back in 2014? It’s not an achievable aim, unless there is half a plan to govern or seize the northern piece of Gaza. I can’t imagine governing and policing it is something Israel would want to get bogged down in.

I think the best they can hope for here is to buy themselves a decade, until the next generation growing up in a camp with no family no education and no future are old enough to do something similar again. Which they will, they will commit some ridiculous foul atrocity for which there can be no justification, and then Israel will go in and flatten it and bomb the tunnels and declare this to be the third complete wipe out of Hamas.

Fascinating how long the blood thirsty on both sides can continue this.

[FrenchVillaLova]

Just had one of those Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs advertisements on YouTube.

WTF is that ?!?! 

[icouldtelltheworld]

4 minutes ago, FrenchVillaLova said:

Just had one of those Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs advertisements on YouTube.

WTF is that ?!?! 

It's an advert for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs 

Edited October 14, 2023 by icouldtelltheworld

[sne]

The Hasbara will be going into overload now when the complete annihilation of Gaza starts. Bit surprised the guy on here isn't back yet.

[Pongo Waring]

What's with the Free Palestine protest outside the BBC offices? Do they expect Gary Lineker & Huw Edwards to fly to Gaza on a rescue mission and end the war and save the people and free Palestine?

Also throwing red paint at the BBC offices solves nothing 

[sne]

5 minutes ago, Pongo Waring said:

What's with the Free Palestine protest outside the BBC offices? Do they expect Gary Lineker & Huw Edwards to fly to Gaza on a rescue mission and end the war and save the people and free Palestine?

Also throwing red paint at the BBC offices solves nothing 

Worth a shot I guess

[TheAuthority]

22 minutes ago, Pongo Waring said:

What's with the Free Palestine protest outside the BBC offices? Do they expect Gary Lineker & Huw Edwards to fly to Gaza on a rescue mission and end the war and save the people and free Palestine?

Also throwing red paint at the BBC offices solves nothing 

Purely guess work on my end, but the BBC has on the whole been positive toward Israel and Israel’s right to defend itself. Those who are pro-Palestine I imagine view this as propaganda and so the BBC offices represent a target where they can vent their anger and frustration.

 

[Rustibrooks]

Seems like the language used/attitudes towards the conflict is slightly changing from the media and politicians over here

[TheAuthority]

I spoke to a friend in NYC yesterday who said the city is mainly like a ghost town. There were pro-Palestinian protests outside the Israeli embassy and pro Israel protests in various locations.

With a large Jewish population in NYC and a mainly liberal population to boot, there are a lot of very strong feelings about the current events (heck just reading this thread people are obviously very invested on VT.)

My friend said it feels like a tinder box in the city right now.