Isreal Takes Down the Terrorists

[Miss P]

So you admit Nasrallah is a terrorist?

The fact that Israel has killed more people does not refute the fact that Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians and hides amongst civilian populations because it believes civilian deaths advance their cause.

And the fact that Hezbollah believes (alas, correctly) that civilian deaths advance its cause does not refute the fact that Israel is responsible for some of these deaths -- whether or not you think that's acceptable.

[Miss P]

So you admit Nasrallah is a terrorist?

The fact that Israel has killed more people does not refute the fact that Hezbollah intentionally targets civilians and hides amongst civilian populations because it believes civilian deaths advance their cause.

And the fact that Hezbollah believes (alas, correctly) that civilian deaths advance its cause does not refute the fact that Israel is responsible for some of these deaths -- whether or not you think that's acceptable.

no it is NOT.  had Hezbollah not kidnapped Israeli soldiers by invading Israel, there would be no lebanese deaths.  hezbollah, Iran, and the entire Arab world that funds it are responsible.  but hey, what are a few dead lebanese to the savages, in the long term goal of destroying Israel, as the godfather of terrorism Arafat had so delicately stated when he was still killing Jews whenever he could?

Trollik, you are arguing, essentially, that any action Israel takes in response to Hezbollah's transgression -- a hideous, criminal act -- would be on Hezbollah's hands?  This is actually a genuine question; I am trying to push the limits of the underlying argument.  If so, if Israel did do something irrational and very dangerous, such as dropping a nuclear bomb on Tehran, this, too, would be solely attributable to Hezbollah?

[Miss P]

it would be attributable to Iran.  if the IDF felt that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel, as they rightly feel Hezbollah's long range missles do, they have a moral imperative to take out that threat by any means necessary.

Okay, but say I have a legitimate reason to believe you are going to punch me and give me a black eye (and if we were in the same time zone, I very well might) -- does this make it your fault if I cut off your arm and shoot your dog, even if I could just walk away and shut the door, or maybe punch you back (the option I'd probably choose at this point)?  I ask because I think this may be the heart of our disagreement, the other issues being either aesthetic or borne of this issue.  I believe it is one's responsibility to minimize the harm s/he inflicts on others.  Inflicting harm is justified for self-defense, but only to the extent absolutely necessary for that self-defense.

EDIT: And I would attribute that minimally necessary response to you, but anything in excess of the minimum would be on my hands.

[Miss P]

it would be attributable to Iran.  if the IDF felt that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel, as they rightly feel Hezbollah's long range missles do, they have a moral imperative to take out that threat by any means necessary.

By the way, as an aside, I really hate this usage of "existential."  Would you consider using "existing," "existent," or "extant" in the future?  I scare-quoted it once before when you used it, but I'm sure that was too subtle. 

[Miss P]

it would be attributable to Iran.  if the IDF felt that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel, as they rightly feel Hezbollah's long range missles do, they have a moral imperative to take out that threat by any means necessary.

Okay, but say I have a legitimate reason to believe you are going to punch me and give me a black eye (and if we were in the same time zone, I very well might) -- does this make it your fault if I cut off your arm and shoot your dog, even if I could just walk away and shut the door, or maybe punch you back (the option I'd probably choose at this point)?  I ask because I think this may be the heart of our disagreement, the other issues being either aesthetic or borne of this issue.  I believe it is one's responsibility to minimize the harm s/he inflicts on others.  Inflicting harm is justified for self-defense, but only to the extent absolutely necessary for that self-defense.

EDIT: And I would attribute that minimally necessary response to you, but anything in excess of the minimum would be on my hands.

the difference, you see, is that the death of 1 Israeli soldier by the hands of Islamist fanatics, to Israel, is the same as the deaths of any number of Israelis.  Thus, "punching" is very much not an apt analogy.  Israel will protect every last citizen to its fullest capability.  Period.

and I'd say al-Faqr missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, as soon as Hezbollah expressed an intent, obviously from a green light from puppet masters in Tehran to use them, pose an existential threat.  if Iran gets close to acquiring nukes which the current Iranian administration would have no qualms of deploying as a means of destroying Tel Aviv and Haifa when developed, and the only way to take them out is a nuclear strike on Tehran, than that is Israel's moral imperative.  i hope it doesn't come to that.

Well, of course, I hope it doesn't come to that, too.  I think that in retrospect, we will look back on the war in Iraq as being a very dangerous move, allowing Iran to rise unchecked.  It's terrifying.

You're missing the boat on the punching analogy, however.  Let's say we're talking all-out destruction: I know of your "existential" plan to kill me and everyone I love -- savages, you know.  Now, in order to stop you, depending on the situation, I might have to kill you.  If I do, we can agree that you bear the responsibility for that.  But if I choose to torture you first, or if I choose also to kill your family, or if I let you go but kill people you love, that's not on you, is it?  These acts would be the products of my own recklessness or violent instincts or very irrational calculations, not of your threats.

[Miss P]

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column I posted in the other thread?

[Miss P]

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column I posted in the other thread?

this depends on whether you're looking from the eyes of current and future Israelis or current and future lebanese.  so we can never agree.  i answer yes to all three.

I'm not sure that's the variable.  There are plenty of current Israelis who agree with me on at least one if not all three of those tests.

[Miss P]

Also, aren't you supposed to be all anti-relativist?

[oldskewlphool]

it would be attributable to Iran.  if the IDF felt that Iran posed an existential threat to Israel, as they rightly feel Hezbollah's long range missles do, they have a moral imperative to take out that threat by any means necessary.

Okay, but say I have a legitimate reason to believe you are going to punch me and give me a black eye (and if we were in the same time zone, I very well might) -- does this make it your fault if I cut off your arm and shoot your dog, even if I could just walk away and shut the door, or maybe punch you back (the option I'd probably choose at this point)?  I ask because I think this may be the heart of our disagreement, the other issues being either aesthetic or borne of this issue.  I believe it is one's responsibility to minimize the harm s/he inflicts on others.  Inflicting harm is justified for self-defense, but only to the extent absolutely necessary for that self-defense.

EDIT: And I would attribute that minimally necessary response to you, but anything in excess of the minimum would be on my hands.

the difference, you see, is that the death of 1 Israeli soldier by the hands of Islamist fanatics, to Israel, is the same as the deaths of any number of Israelis.  Thus, "punching" is very much not an apt analogy.  Israel will protect every last citizen to its fullest capability.  Period.

and I'd say al-Faqr missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, as soon as Hezbollah expressed an intent, obviously from a green light from puppet masters in Tehran to use them, pose an existential threat.  if Iran gets close to acquiring nukes which the current Iranian administration would have no qualms of deploying as a means of destroying Tel Aviv and Haifa when developed, and the only way to take them out is a nuclear strike on Tehran, than that is Israel's moral imperative.  i hope it doesn't come to that.

Well, of course, I hope it doesn't come to that, too.  I think that in retrospect, we will look back on the war in Iraq as being a very dangerous move, allowing Iran to rise unchecked.  It's terrifying.

You're missing the boat on the punching analogy, however.  Let's say we're talking all-out destruction: I know of your "existential" plan to kill me and everyone I love -- savages, you know.  Now, in order to stop you, depending on the situation, I might have to kill you.  If I do, we can agree that you bear the responsibility for that.  But if I choose to torture you first, or if I choose also to kill your family, or if I let you go but kill people you love, that's not on you, is it?  These acts would be the products of my own recklessness or violent instincts or very irrational calculations, not of your threats.

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

I don't think the phrase "Religion of Peace" is trademarked. I looked it up on the Patent Office's website and could'nt find it, could you post a link to it? thanks.

[TrojanChispas]

now the analogy is apt, and really, exactly what Israel is doing.  however, since savages hide amongst their woman and children, what is the responsibility of the Israeli gov't to protect her own civilians from the Religion of Peace (TM) will inevitably come with collateral damage, since the Religion of Peace (TM) does not abide by the Geneva Conventions.  Neither can Israel, if it expects to survive.

In order for us to agree about who bears the responsibility for the bloodshed and destruction, then, we would have to determine whether Israel's approach (a) has the potential of disabling Hezbollah; (b) is narrowly tailored to that purpose; and (c) is the least harmful feasible approach.  I would say no to all three.  Thus, I do not believe that everything that is happening in Lebanon is on Hezbollah's hands; it is much more complex than that.  Israel is responsible for some of the casualties of this war.

Did you read the Pape column I posted in the other thread?

I believe that (a) Israel already has put a large dent in Hezbollah; whether they can completely destroyed is irrelevant because the question is whether the threat can be minimized to an acceptable level.  If Israel cannot destroy Hezbollah completely, then pushing them into the mountains might be just as good. (b) Israel has narrowly taylored their strikes as much as is possible when fighting an enemy which hides amongst civilians.  (c) Israel's options include much more destructive means (nuclear, or total war), thus Israel has chosen the path of least possible harm.