Couple with six children killed in Palestine

IrishTrajan · 10-10-2015 3:38pm

No

tayto lover wrote: »

It might if he's farming someone else's land after the real owners were forced off it.

Then why isn't the Republic openly ethnically cleansing Unionists from Northern Ireland? Oh, that's right, because they're civilians and that is amoral, evil, and a nonsensical way to think. Not even the IRA believed in ethnically cleansing every Protestant from the North.

IrishTrajan · 10-10-2015 3:42pm

No

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How are the settlement areas vital to their survival?

I don't agree with the settlements, but Israel requires a buffer zone (akin to when they took over the Golan Heights and the Sinai) to add depth to their country. Think about it, it's 7km across from the West Bank to the Mediterranean. A group of guys with RPGs and AK-47s could run that and essentially cut Israel in two.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, by what criteria? They are part of an invasion force. They use violence to help their government colonise neighbouring territory. I'm not seeing a distinction.

The law. Common sense. Morality. Pick any of them if you want.

RustyNut · 10-10-2015 4:16pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The law. Common sense. Morality. Pick any of them if you want.

Do you not accept the Palestinian people's right to resist the illegal occupation.

end of the road · 10-10-2015 4:59pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It wasn't a Freudian slip. I've been open in my disgust towards the Settlers, a lot of them are vile human beings... But that in no way makes them military targets or justifies the murder of two parents while their children watch.

Why do you people always think it's a bipolar scenario? One can hate the settlers' actions and the Palestinian replies, y'know.

Israel was attacked first.

they weren't. with their military now they don't need that land, its not vital to their survival. they are keeping it because they want a bigger state. nothing more

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I don't agree with the settlements, but Israel requires a buffer zone (akin to when they took over the Golan Heights and the Sinai) to add depth to their country. Think about it, it's 7km across from the West Bank to the Mediterranean. A group of guys with RPGs and AK-47s could run that and essentially cut Israel in two.

they don't need a buffer zone. they never needed a buffer zone. they wanted a bigger state so went to war and are continuously slaughtering and stealing in the name of achieving that goal. anything outside the 1948 borders is not israel. they should be forced back by being left out in the cold by the international community

hatrickpatrick · 10-10-2015 5:09pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I don't agree with the settlements, but Israel requires a buffer zone (akin to when they took over the Golan Heights and the Sinai) to add depth to their country. Think about it, it's 7km across from the West Bank to the Mediterranean. A group of guys with RPGs and AK-47s could run that and essentially cut Israel in two.

If they want a buffer zone, they can take it out of their own land and not somebody else's.
Everyone is talking about what Israel "needs" as if that justifies theft. Am I justified in mugging somebody on the DART because I need money for rent?

The law. Common sense. Morality. Pick any of them if you want.

You're just blatantly refusing to give any specifics here, but I'll keep pressing it. In terms of actions, what differentiates Hamas from settlers? Both use violence against civilians to get what they want. You have refused to answer that simple point.

Remember I don't approve of killing full stop, I am merely confused by the blatant hypocrisy of regarding Hamas civilians as fair game because they use violence against Israeli civilians, but not regarding settlers as fair game even though they use violence against Palestinian civilians.

hatrickpatrick · 10-10-2015 5:11pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Israel was attacked first.

In 1967 they were not, unless one uses Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz's doctrine that a pre-emptive strike on somebody who you think might attack you counts as self defense. Rather like George Zimmerman's attack on Trayvon Martin, in fact.

hatrickpatrick · 10-10-2015 5:15pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Then why isn't the Republic openly ethnically cleansing Unionists from Northern Ireland? Oh, that's right, because they're civilians and that is amoral, evil, and a nonsensical way to think. Not even the IRA believed in ethnically cleansing every Protestant from the North.

That's because the plantation happened hundreds of years ago and there are now (a) no people left alive who were directly displaced, and (b) no people left alive who were directly involved.

It's different in Israel. The majority of the settlers are not second or third generation, they are people who actively chose to move into those areas knowing full well that the areas were stolen from other civilians. They can go to hell.

IrishTrajan · 10-10-2015 5:21pm

No

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In 1967 they were not, unless one uses Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz's doctrine that a pre-emptive strike on somebody who you think might attack you counts as self defense. Rather like George Zimmerman's attack on Trayvon Martin, in fact.

Wasn't Zimmerman acquitted of any wrong doing? You might want to pick a better analogy.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're just blatantly refusing to give any specifics here, but I'll keep pressing it. In terms of actions, what differentiates Hamas from settlers? Both use violence against civilians to get what they want. You have refused to answer that simple point.

Hamas is a militant organization. Settlers are not. If there was a group of Settlers who banded together and went around shooting people, you'd have a point, they'd be militant.

But civilians are not legitimate military targets.

A civilian under the laws of war (also known as international humanitarian law) is a person who is not a legitimate member of the armed forces to a conflict. This is a slightly different from a non-combatant, because some non-combatants are not civilians (for example military chaplains attached to the armed forces), and some civilians, such as mercenaries, are unprivileged combatants.

Unless those settlers are in the IDF or are members of a militant group, you can not classify them as military targets under international law.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Remember I don't approve of killing full stop, I am merely confused by the blatant hypocrisy of regarding Hamas civilians as fair game because they use violence against Israeli civilians, but not regarding settlers as fair game even though they use violence against Palestinian civilians.

What are you even talking about? Palestinian civilians should not be targeted, and nobody can justify that. Hamas is a militant group, they deliberately target civilians and they deliberately carry arms to fight a war.

The two are in no way comparable.

IrishTrajan · 10-10-2015 5:23pm

No

RustyNut wrote: »

Do you not accept the Palestinian people's right to resist the illegal occupation.

By targeting parents in front of their children? By blowing up buses full of school children? That's not resisting occupation, that's being a murdering fúcking scumbag. If they want to fight, target the IDF, not god damned civilians.

hatrickpatrick · 10-10-2015 5:25pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Wasn't Zimmerman acquitted of any wrong doing? You might want to pick a better analogy.

He was acquitted, but not because he didn't do it, just because his state's ridiculous laws made it legal to do so.
International law is very clear that what Israel did was not legal.

Hamas is a militant organization. Settlers are not. If there was a group of Settlers who banded together and went around shooting people, you'd have a point, they'd be militant.

Again, how is banding together to shoot people any different from banding together to steal from people? Is violent theft not on a similar level to violent assault?

Unless those settlers are in the IDF or are members of a militant group, you can not classify them as military targets under international law.

Again, why not? And why can you classify Hamas as such since they are not part of any state army?

What are you even talking about? Palestinian civilians should not be targeted, and nobody can justify that. Hamas is a militant group, they deliberately target civilians and they deliberately carry arms to fight a war.

As do settlers, they deliberately target civilians in order to steal their property.

The two are in no way comparable.

Explain how, without resorting to your "because they just are" argument.

IrishTrajan · 10-10-2015 5:25pm

No

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's because the plantation happened hundreds of years ago and there are now (a) no people left alive who were directly displaced, and (b) no people left alive who were directly involved.

Oh, okay. So it's fine to target civilians so long as the plantation is currently ongoing? It's just amoral to target civilians after the fact?

hatrickpatrick · 10-10-2015 5:27pm

Actually here's an analogy, since somebody brought up NI:

When the plantations were actually happening, when the Brits were sending over boat loads of their own citizens, backed by a military force, to steal land here, would those people who came with the intention of colonising Ireland have been legitimate targets in your mind? Or only the military force which accompanied them?

And if they wouldn't, then what would the appropriate response have been? Just accept that once they landed on Irish shores, nothing could be done about them because they weren't technically part of the military, even though they were part of a military operation?

hatrickpatrick · 10-10-2015 5:28pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Oh, okay. So it's fine to target civilians so long as the plantation is currently ongoing? It's just amoral to target civilians after the fact?

The issue is that we differ on what counts as a civilian. If you are part of an invading force, military or not, you are not a civilian.

And bear in mind that I have repeatedly stated that I do not condone killing of any kind. I merely take issue with those who display hypocrisy with regard to it.

IrishTrajan · 10-10-2015 5:31pm

No

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, how is banding together to shoot people any different from banding together to steal from people? Is violent theft not on a similar level to violent assault?

No. It isn't. That's why we have different charges for different crimes.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, why not? And why can you classify Hamas as such since they are not part of any state army?

They're a god damn militant organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union,[13][14] Canada,[15] Israel,[16] Egypt,[17] Japan,[18][19][20][21][22] and the United States.[23] Australia and the United Kingdom have designated the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization.[24][25] The organization is banned in Jordan.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As do settlers, they deliberately target civilians in order to steal their property.

I've already said I don't agree with the settlements, but that doesn't mean you can murder them. You arguing that theft and murder are one in the same is ridiculous.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Explain how, without resorting to your "because they just are" argument.

International law. You can keep saying "yea but how????" like a broken robot all you want, but that will not change the facts.

Civilians are not legitimate military targets.

IrishTrajan · 10-10-2015 5:31pm

No

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The issue is that we differ on what counts as a civilian. If you are part of an invading force, military or not, you are not a civilian.

And bear in mind that I have repeatedly stated that I do not condone killing of any kind. I merely take issue with those who display hypocrisy with regard to it.

That's just it, you're wrong. And international law says you are wrong.

hatrickpatrick · 10-10-2015 5:33pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No. It isn't. That's why we have different charges for different crimes.

They're still crimes.

They're a god damn militant organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

The settlers are militant as well, they're just not an organisation.

I've already said I don't agree with the settlements, but that doesn't mean you can murder them. You arguing that theft and murder are one in the same is ridiculous.

People were murdered to accomplish the theft.

International law. You can keep saying "yea but how????" like a broken robot all you want, but that will not change the facts.

Forget international law, I'm asking you to morally justify it.

Civilians are not legitimate military targets.

Settlers are not civilians.

IrishTrajan · 10-10-2015 5:34pm

No

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually here's an analogy, since somebody brought up NI:

When the plantations were actually happening, when the Brits were sending over boat loads of their own citizens, backed by a military force, to steal land here, would those people who came with the intention of colonising Ireland have been legitimate targets in your mind? Or only the military force which accompanied them?

No, they wouldn't have been legitimate military targets.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And if they wouldn't, then what would the appropriate response have been? Just accept that once they landed on Irish shores, nothing could be done about them because they weren't technically part of the military, even though they were part of a military operation?

It's not an "all or nothing" scenario. Neutralize the military and then send them back to Britain.

And no, they aren't on a military operation, they're not part of the military. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

IrishTrajan · 10-10-2015 5:36pm

No

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They're still crimes.

Would you rather be stolen from or murdered? Murder and theft are not the same.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Forget international law, I'm asking you to morally justify it.

Stop trying to change the goal posts. You tried to argue that they were legitimate targets. International law says they're not, and now you're asking me to justify why they're not legitimate targets?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Settlers are not civilians.

Yes they are. International law says they are.

Find something to prove otherwise (and don't say "muh feelings" or "in my opinion" because that's a load of rubbish) and I'll continue discussing this with you.

hatrickpatrick · 10-10-2015 5:37pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

No, they wouldn't have been legitimate military targets.

It's not an "all or nothing" scenario. Neutralize the military and then send them back to Britain.

And no, they aren't on a military operation, they're not part of the military. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

We'll have to agree to differ then I guess. As far as I'm concerned if you take part in a military operation (and colonising another territory on behalf of your government is a military operation and nothing more), you are on the same level as the soldiers who accompany you to do it. You don't agree, that's fair enough.

It's a silly argument one way or another since I've repeatedly stated that I don't condone killing. I just don't differentiate between the official military wing of an invading force and the "civilians" who form the bulk of that military operation by squatting on the lands which the military have cleared of civilians by force. They're in no way less scummy than the IDF soldiers who cleared the areas for them.

Dan_Solo · 10-10-2015 5:57pm

Since Israel consistently refuses to recognise Palestine as a country, with their US lapdogs only too eager to bend over and take it, then there is technically no Palestinian state military at all, is there? Every last person in Gaza is a civilian by Israel's own insistence.

Nodin · 10-10-2015 6:20pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

That doesn't make them military targets, no more than a farmer with a shotgun makes him a military target..

They're farmers with shotguns on somebody elses Farm.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

You do know there's more to a military than just civilians in buildings, right? Strategic depth refers to the military's ability to defend the State from penetration.

Settlers being civilians, and the IDF being interested in strategic depth are not mutually exclusive terms.

Settlers are colonists. The civillians are on the Israeli side of the 1967 borders.

Nodin · 10-10-2015 6:22pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Britain took .............the region.

Leaving out the Balfor Declartion and the promise of independence to the Arabs there.

BlaasForRafa · 10-10-2015 6:44pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Forget international law, I'm asking you to morally justify it.

Your for international law when it comes to getting settlers out of the west bank but you want to forget about international law when they get murdered. Hypocrisy?

RustyNut · 10-10-2015 6:59pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

By targeting parents in front of their children? By blowing up buses full of school children? That's not resisting occupation, that's being a murdering fúcking scumbag. If they want to fight, target the IDF, not god damned civilians.

They don't want to fight, they have no choice. They are living under a brutal, oppressive, murderous occupation. The occupation is enforced with brutal violence, including the deliberate targeting of UN schools that were being used as shelters for civillians. Lets not also forget the targeting of kids playing on the beach just to send a message.

The zionist war machine are the ones with the choices in this colonization/occupation. The people of Palestine are entitled to resist this illegal colonization/occupation by any means possible.

Dan_Solo · 10-10-2015 7:03pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Your for international law when it comes to getting settlers out of the west bank but you want to forget about international law when they get murdered. Hypocrisy?

Can you explain please how Palestine, which Israel insists is not a state, can have a state military?

hatrickpatrick · 10-10-2015 7:42pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Your for international law when it comes to getting settlers out of the west bank but you want to forget about international law when they get murdered. Hypocrisy?

I've already stated that I don't condone killing of any kind. What I'm asking is how some morally justify the killing of Palestinian militants but not Israeli ones.

Nodin · 10-10-2015 8:01pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Your for international law when it comes to getting settlers out of the west bank but you want to forget about international law when they get murdered. Hypocrisy?

Given the denial of recourse to law to the Palestinians, its a bit much to be expecting them to be playing by the "rules" as dictated by Israel. This why as a general rule its best to settle things as peaceably as possible.

Zebra3 · 10-10-2015 8:07pm

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I don't agree with the settlements, but Israel requires a buffer zone (akin to when they took over the Golan Heights and the Sinai) to add depth to their country. Think about it, it's 7km across from the West Bank to the Mediterranean. A group of guys with RPGs and AK-47s could run that and essentially cut Israel in two.

If Israel wants a buffer zone, fine. Let them have a buffer zone inside Israel, not by stealing other people's land.

And please stop lying in this thread, Israel at its thinnest is 15km, but for some reason you lie about this twice, reducing the figure by over 50%.

You also seem to be completely unbothered by the fact that the Palestinian Territories have been cut in two due to the effects of Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing.

"I don't agree with the settlements, but...." :rolleyes:

IrishTrajan · 10-10-2015 8:08pm

No

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Can you explain please how Palestine, which Israel insists is not a state, can have a state military?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Security_Forces

Zebra3 · 10-10-2015 8:09pm

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Your for international law when it comes to getting settlers out of the west bank but you want to forget about international law when they get murdered. Hypocrisy?

Where under international law does it say that these criminals are protected?

And they weren't murdered. They were criminals taking part in a criminal military operation who were killed by those resisting the occupation and colonisation of their land.

Couple with six children killed in Palestine

Comments