Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arx]

Alaska may, amazingly, have produced a politician more moronic than Sarah Palin.

I'd just like to say that I love the fact that the article links to another article about how he'd be a terrible grief counselor.

[Sheb]

Well, if you claim anything else you're either calling the US military horrifically incompetent or essentially saying they're targeting civilians on purpose. It's pretty much the same situation as with Israeli military strikes, just that the elephant of anti-semitism is not in the room.

Come on Helgo, you're better than that. This is obviously a false choice. First of all, most of the drone strikes are run by the CIA, not the military. But more to the point, any actions involving missiles and targets will run a risk of killink civilians. Each institutions has to decide on the proper equilibrium between "killing targets" and "risking civilians' lives". In both Israeli and US strikes, I think it's fairly clear the balance is way to much on the "killing targets" side, using dodgy practice and secrecy to hide the true result.

Of course, in the US case there is the further issue that they launch their missiles at nations they're nominally at peace with. Even leaving collateral damages for a moment, don't you see a problem with the fact that the US executive basically decided it had the right to kill anyone anywhere without any real oversight?

[Helgoland]

CIA, US army - does the difference really matter? Maybe I should just say the US from now on.

Come on Helgo, you're better than that. This is obviously a false choice. First of all, most of the drone strikes are run by the CIA, not the military. But more to the point, any actions involving missiles and targets will run a risk of killink civilians. Each institutions has to decide on the proper equilibrium between "killing targets" and "risking civilians' lives". In both Israeli and US strikes, I think it's fairly clear the balance is way to much on the "killing targets" side, using dodgy practice and secrecy to hide the true result.

Looking back, I may have read more than was written there, but I'll try to answer regardless.
Yes, it is about the balance between civilian casualties and military impact.(Not killing targets! When killing an enemy soldier the acceptable (oh God, that sounds horrible) number of civilian casualties is much lower than when killing an enemy general.) Do we know how many civilians are really killed by drones, and how great their military value really is? No. Do we know what that balance looks like? No. Do we have a nagging feeling that it's not where it should be? Definitely when talking about drone strikes; we shouldn't get into that whole Israel discussion though. Does the US intentionally target weddings or similar gatherings without military reason? No. Are the majority of drone strikes conducted against weddings or similar gatherings? No. That last bit was what I wanted to emphasize. The secrecy surrounding drone deployment does not help in allaying suspicion, of course.

Of course, in the US case there is the further issue that they launch their missiles at nations they're nominally at peace with. Even leaving collateral damages for a moment, don't you see a problem with the fact that the US executive basically decided it had the right to kill anyone anywhere without any real oversight?

The concept of war as we know it - between sovereign states - was codified in the Peace of Weestphalia. Modern-day armed conflicts no longer adhere to that scheme: Nowadays non-government actors, such as terrorist organisations like Al-Kaida, radical parties like Hamas and Hezbollah, semi-state entities like IS, state-sponsored and -supported rebels like those in Eastern Ukraine, etc etc can wage 'war' on states, that is, use force in a military manner against that state's institutions with political goals. If you agree that the definition of war needs to be expanded to cover these instances as well, you'll see that your question has already been answered: War with an entity at its very core implies that you kill that entity's agents, wherever* they may be.

*This 'wherever' occasionally comes into conflict with the (outdated) concept of sovereignity, like during Operation Entebbe, in Western Pakistan, and in Israel's various clashes with Hezbollah. That's another debate however: I'd be inclined to say that anyone who shelters my enemy must either allow me to pursue him or be considered my enemy as well.

[Reelya]

Hezbollah was created specifically because of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. So, as a specific example of that principle, it fails. Basically it's saying if you invade someone and they fight back, that gives you the right to further oppress them.

If someone invaded your country what would you do?

[misko27]

Hezbollah was created specifically because of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. So, as a specific example of that principle, it fails. Basically it's saying if you invade someone and they fight back, that gives you the right to further oppress them.

If someone invaded your country what would you do?

Hezbollah has done a lot since 1985, Reelya. Their military efforts on behalf of Assad have had several setbacks, but no setback has been greater then them losing the freedom fighter image (killing rebels for other countries does not make you much of a resistance fighter). Besides, their influence in Lebanon is such that they are a part of the government now.

[Helgoland]

Hezbollah was created specifically because of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. So, as a specific example of that principle, it fails. Basically it's saying if you invade someone and they fight back, that gives you the right to further oppress them.

I merely listed them as an example of a non-state actor that is capable of waging war, Reelya. History doesn't come into what I said.

Furthermore I find your presentation of a terrorist organization a bit worrying, to be honest, but - again - I don't think we should go on a Middle Eastern politics derail.

[Rez]

Do you think what Reelya said differs from mainstream liberal opinion?  Anti-zionism is rampant in the US; Israeli students are made unwelcome on our campuses and expected to denounce their country to fit into the anti-Israel culture there.  Israel is a bully for not allowing itself to be destroyed and trying to prevent terrorist attacks on their soil.  Opposition to Israel's immoral existence and security is righteous and just, in the general opinion.  Therefore, Hezballah, an Iranian terrorist proxy, that has conducted terrorist attacks against Jews and civilians around the world, is seen as an organization of freedom fighters.

[nenjin]

Do you think what Reelya said differs from mainstream liberal opinion?  Anti-zionism is rampant in the US; Israeli students are made unwelcome on our campuses and expected to denounce their country to fit into the anti-Israel culture there.  Israel is a bully for not allowing itself to be destroyed and trying to prevent terrorist attacks on their soil.  Opposition to Israel's immoral existence and security is righteous and just, in the general opinion.  Therefore, Hezballah, an Iranian terrorist proxy, that has conducted terrorist attacks against Jews and civilians around the world, is seen as an organization of freedom fighters.

Er, which campus is that? Because generally I don't equate "US" and "Liberal" with Anti-Zionism. Israel's least biggest fan over here is the KKK and other white supremacist, neo-nazi groups and to call them liberal would be lying for effect. So I'm curious why you make this assertion.

[Dutchling]

Anti-Zionism != Anti-Semitism.

If Liberals aren't Anti-Zionist I don't know who are.

[Helgoland]

You'd be hard-pressed to find an anti-semitic Zionist though.
So it's anti-Semitism \subsetneq anti-Zionism, I guess.

[Frumple]

... I'm not really sure I'd call most liberals I've heard talking about the subject of israel anti-zionist, though. I've not really heard much ideological objection to the concept of a jewish state, or, strictly speaking, the continued existence of israel. Or even objection to anti-terrorist activities from it, necessarily. The beef that consistently comes up is the whole slaughter of non-combatants, destruction of civilian infrastructure, significant and consistently horrifically immoral action, etc., etc.

Wanting israel to stop being a gigantic dick isn't exactly wanting it to be leveled or whatev'. If all israel was doing was preventing terrorist attacks and maintaining its structural integrity, there would not be nearly as much complaint on the subject. But it's been doing considerably more than that, and with considerably more material support from the US end than a lot of americans would prefer, considering what that money's being used in support of.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You'd be hard-pressed to find an anti-semitic Zionist though.

As I recall, that's how most of the non-Jewish Zionists started. They wanted to get rid of the Jews in their countries and creating a nation for them all to go to would facilitate that.

[Sheb]

Yeah, I4ve yet to meet someone (Jewish or not), who can defend stuff ike Israel's settlements policy. Even that friend of mine who come to course with a Tsahal t-shirt thinks they're immoral.

[Rez]

Er, which campus is that?

UCLA and UC Davis are two examples with nationally acknowledged instances.

[Helgoland]

Yeah, I4ve yet to meet someone (Jewish or not), who can defend stuff ike Israel's settlements policy.

I think I could, but I'd have to be brutally honest and delve into depths of realpolitik usually reserved for the aftermaths of great wars. Not something I'd like to do, really, especially not in written form and while sober.