moral equivalence

[DodgyAgent]

Moral equivalence

DA: I think there is a big difference between accidentally killing non-combatants and deliberately targeting civilians.

That is my point threaded. Unfortunately the pinkos believe that killing someone is the same whether it is Hitler killing Jews or "collateral" killings carried out by US soldiers in Iraq.

My main point is that soldiers from a western democracy are held to account in a way that terrorists are not. Not only are they held to account but so are their leaders. A prime example of this is the case of the Brazilian who was killed by the police.
So indiscriminate targeting of "innocent people" even during war is not allowed. This applies to Israel as much as it applies to US/UK forces.
OK the Israelis, as spod says, may hate the Palestinians but the Israeli population will not authorise their government to strategically target children, whereas Hamas do.
Even if Israeli forces step out of line and get away with what I call inhumane acts of warfare, they are held to account by their trading partners and allies (the West) in a way that terrorists with no popular mandate are not.
"Intent" is very much part of western law, as it should also be when killings are judged in acts of defence and warfare. The "useful idiots" like George Galloway and ALM ( and not so wise when he is sober) neatly sidestep the concept of intent in order to impose their guilt and envy upon everyone else.
Of course, as I pointed out earlier, according to their argument there is no difference between a policeman "accidentally" killing a Brazilian immigrant to Hitler gassing a few million Jews.

[DodgyAgent]

Arabs

Xog, apologies for having offended you. I stand by my argument that people's beliefs are by and large subjective, and are formulated by their own personal prejudices, anvy, guilt whatever. Mine certainly are, but my values are different from yours in as much as I dont suffer from thid guilt thing.
As far as the Palestinians are concerned you are at least now explaining their "cause" that may or may not justify the deliberate killing of women and children on buses. My view is that nothing justifies this, for if a society is prepared to go to such lengths to secure independence then just what will they do with their power when they get it.
The problem with Palestine is that there is no single body.govt with who Israel or anyone else can negotiate. as soon as a treaty is agreed along come another so called Palestinian group to blow up another bus. This plays neatly into the hands of Israels neighbours (particularly Saddam when he was in power) who use Israel as a focus of hatred in order that Arab leaders can keep control of their own populations.

[Not So Wise]

"collateral" killings

That is a term i hate with a passion because these days it is a term to excuse any military action

Lets give you a senario, those bombers cought yesterday, say they did not surrender peacefully and there had been a few more of them and people did not know exactly what building they were in just the area.

So the powers that be decided ok we are not going to risk any of our forces, bomb/mortar the whole area, yep innocent people will die but at least we are not risking our own people, so the innocents are "acceptable collateral damage".

So your "checkpoint" of not directly targeting the innocent to specificlly kill them would be covered but how would actually feel about them doing that virtually right on your doorstep.

I think you would be outraged and demanding the head of whoever ordered it.

Well thats whats happening virtually every day in Iraq.

And thats why the allies cannot really win in Iraq (though when they pull out they will call it a win) nor could they win in vietnam

[threaded]

Your example does seem a little contrived.

[Not So Wise]

How so? Because as i said this is exactly what is happening in Iraq and this is why the "insurgency" is getting worse not better (imagine what would happen over here if gov tried same thing)

Or do you mean it's contrived because it would never happen here? Yes with that i agree, but that just shows the double standards our "great society" works under.

Who cares if we kill a load of innocent "rag heads" half way around the world while "bringing them freedom", it's all in the name of a good cause and they are acceptable colateral damage

But god help the person who trys same over here for any cause.

And that is why i have general disgust towards western society, not because what it stands for on paper but because how happly and readly it breaks/ignores the rights/laws and common standards when it suits, like the "good cause" of spreading it's society, aka the very rights/laws and common standards it is breaking to do so

[threaded]

Double standards are a fiction. Are not British soldiers who are suspected of commiting crimes in Iraq tried in a court of law and punished if found guilty?

[Not So Wise]

Double standards are a fiction. Are not British soldiers who are suspected of commiting crimes in Iraq tried in a court of law and punished if found guilty?

LOL not if sun readers have their way

And not talking about "crimes" here as military don't consider it a crime to mortar a whole neighbourhood to flush out a few of the enemy to them that SOP and regreatable but nessary collateral damage (and from a military perpective i agree with them, soldiers under your command more imporant than any other man, woman or child)

The Military and military law has little to nothing to do with "demoracy and civil/moral rights" which makes them the worst canidates for "spreading" such

[threaded]

Well, Sun readers apart, soldiers in Iraq do follow rules of engagement. The rules of engagement are set by their political masters. These politicians are democratically elected and have to obey the law, or else. Cannot see mortaring a whole neighbourhood to get a couple of suspected suicide bombers happening anywhere.

In Iraq British soldiers are often put in harms way, such as commands to remove helmets etc. So the safety of the soldiers is balanced with the prospect of frightening the locals.

There is no essential difference between military and civilian law. There are laws for the military, but they are created in the same way as for other laws. There are laws for contracts, torts, people who won't get on nicely with their neighbours. Saying there are different laws for soldiers than for other people is to missunderstand the legal system.

[xoggoth]

You never really offend DA, just annoy.

"My view is that nothing justifies this, for if a society is prepared to go to such lengths to secure independence then just what will they do with their power when they get it."

I really don't understand this at all and can't square it with your stated views of standing up for one's own beliefs. You mean if England had been occupied in a similar way you would not fight to get it back? If you do not have a real army, and that is impossible in an occupied and subjugated territory, then terrorism is practically the only means that one has left. The alternative is just to give up and put up with everything the other side feels like imposing.

Where I would quarrel with the Palestians is their tendency to treat terrorism as some sort of stupid holy struggle instead of using it a means to an end to force concessions in a war which they have no chance whatever of winning. Because they have never shown any willingness to compromise in the past when there were hopeful signs they have probably thrown away all chance that the Israelis will ever think it worth trying to reach a settlement with them in the future. The IRA has shown far more sense.

[DodgyAgent]

You never really offend DA, just annoy.

"My view is that nothing justifies this, for if a society is prepared to go to such lengths to secure independence then just what will they do with their power when they get it."

I really don't understand this at all and can't square it with your stated views of standing up for one's own beliefs. You mean if England had been occupied in a similar way you would not fight to get it back? If you do not have a real army, and that is impossible in an occupied and subjugated territory, then terrorism is practically the only means that one has left. The alternative is just to give up and put up with everything the other side feels like imposing.

Where I would quarrel with the Palestians is their tendency to treat terrorism as some sort of stupid holy struggle instead of using it a means to an end to force concessions in a war which they have no chance whatever of winning. Because they have never shown any willingness to compromise in the past when there were hopeful signs they have probably thrown away all chance that the Israelis will ever think it worth trying to reach a settlement with them in the future. The IRA has shown far more sense.

Xog, you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you are applauding the terrorist acts of the Palestinians (which includes the deliberate killing of Israeli women and children, plus any muslims who happen to be in the wrong place at the right time) because they are a hopeless and defenceless people, and have no other means of fighting than through terorism. Then on the other hand you acknowledge that the Palestinian terrorists have no real political objective. Well I disagree, I think that the Palestinian terrorists (as opposed to the Palestinian people) are dedicated only to the total destruction of Israel and its people.

So where does that leave Israel? I suggest in an impossible situation. So the answer is with the assistance of the USA in particular is to create a democratic state of Palestine that will be accountable and therefore free to negotiate compromises with Israel. This of course would marginalise Hamas and others and revealing them as nothing other than terrorist criminals with no mandate of support other than from some Islamic fanatics.

This left wing "hatred of Israel" is either a failure to grasp the political realities of the region or it is all about personal guilt being offloaded onto Israel.

Not so wise. You are right that "collateral damage" can be too easily overlooked. But, as threaded correctly points out, our soldiers and our leaders are part of a democratically controlled line of command that is answerable to UK law. People in Western democracies do not like sseing innocent people being killed by their own soldiers. Link that to the power of the media (nothing can be easily hidden) then "Bobs Your Uncle".

As Cherie Blair correctly points out. It is when politicians begin ignoring their own laws (shoot to kill) and imposing illiberal legislation that we begin to lose the moral high ground.

As for your pathetic "hatred of the West" -typical of the self loathing-but happy to enjoy the affluent lifestyle brigade, why dont you f*** off and go and live in Afghanistan?