I don't think anyone disagrees that terrorism is horrible.

It needs to be said that Israel is doing things that are absolutely intollerable as well though.

As in many many situations, where 2 people fight, 2 people are to blame.

I call you both trolls.

No original posts while I was away from either of you.

And then when I am back, posts.

I call evil what it is. If you hide behind the baby yes the baby may die, so may you, but your action is wrong, where the man who fired at you had little choice.

Hitler hid behind the idea that it would cost more lives to fight him in his early years. He took and built up his military. Only the invasion of Poland woke the allies up.

It would take your mother and other family dying before you would wake up to what is true evil, and what is good trying to fight versus an evil that will do anything to make the good look evil.

Case in point: England thought the US cheated at the American Revolution.  How dare we order troops to hide behind trees instead of lining up 5,000 troops against 15,000 British troops...

Perhaps the question of military ethics is only something respected by the otherwise more powerful side.  Perhaps nations use the concept of military ethics as a tool to gain tactical advantages in the battlefield, and we simply accept the idea later due to its convenience applicability...

Just thinking out loud...

Not sure if I agree with you.  I'm just throwing out ideas and seeing what people say...

Still no response?

So it's perfectly normal, and acceptable, to slaughter 300 children?

If I hide a super nuke, in... hmmm what city appeals to the left... aha... in San Fransisco... in a school, with 1000 children in it. I have tied them all to it, in a way that if any are removed, it goes off. There is a timer, and only 5% of the city will be able to evacuate before it goes off... the only solution available is to blow the building up in a way that will guaranteed destroy the nuke, but also kill all the children.

What choice do you choose?

When Israel attacks a Mosque, a School, a Home, a whatever... they are forced into these decisions... by terrorists who chose to put them into these decisions, instead of fighting in the open (ever hear of camouflage Hamas?)... They do this for the POLITICAL GAIN that they can receive when an Israeli makes this choice.

I will blow the school up, and cry later. I will want the terrorists to be tortured for 1000 days before being executed. I would want them to see their families die even, though calmer heads would say no... But that school would die to save the greater number.

> Define "slaughter,"

"the savage and excessive killing of many people"

or maybe

"massacre: kill a large number of people indiscriminately"

> explain the application of the answer to this question in relation to...
> well... whatever this question is supposed to serve within this debate.

My point is that not everything is black-and-white. And Israel certainly
isn't some holy saviour of peace and justice.

Flint is heavily misguided. He somehow believes that Israel can do no
wrong, and that "Israel" is some ally of strength and liberty.

Of course this probably stems from Flint's uncontrollable desire to belong
to a group or organisation, or "social community" if you will, and to follow the
beliefs and rules of such a group to the letter. I believe this is why he is
constantly posting so many things on this forum. He needs to belong.

Flint then has an obnoxious need to protect his new-found group of brethren
from the "enemy" or opposing groups. These opposing groups (classified by
Flint through terms such as "left-wing" and "lefties") must be morally and
ethically lesser then Flint's chosen group.

Now this is interesting because Flint decides that he needs to rationalise the
death of school children in order to defend the morale superiority of his social
group. This is inhibited within the following paragraph:

> If I hide a super nuke...What choice do you choose?

By placing the unrealistic propositions of a movie-like scenario Flint has indeed
created a proposition where he can rationalise the slaughter of children. Taking
this rationalisation, Flint is then able to defend the morale superiority of one-part
of his social group: Israel.

His then use of the phrases "forced into these decisions... by terrorists who
chose to put them into these decisions" to further rationalise such an act, and even
finishes his statement by blaming an opposing group for forcing any immoral
actions to be taken:

> They do this for the POLITICAL GAIN that they can receive when an
> Israeli makes this choice.

And Flint really proves my point of forced rationalisation within his very last words:

> that school would die to save the greater number

So in conclusion:
- I am tired. Spelling and words might not make sense :-P.
- Flint wants to belong to a social group. He wants meaning and importance.
- Flint is trying to rationalise the slaughtering of children by placing the
   blame on an opposing social group.

Any questions?

Its not about right or wrong in the relative sense, Flint. Its about wrong in the absolute
sense: Blowing up innocent children who are attending school is wrong. Plain and simple.

Which was my point about shifting blame. Instead of recognising the fact that Israel might
actually be responsible for a terrible act, you try to rationalise the situation and blame an
opposing social group.

> I know I would never put a civilian in danger, so that Hamas has to choose to die or
> to fire into the civilian to hit me.

Like i said in the previous post, it isn't this black and white. Israel does put civilians in danger,
or don't you see that?

> Why cannot Hamas choose the same?

Mainly because you are talking about a metaphorical situation.

if you check properly i haven't posted much in any forum at all flint

also, sure, hiding in schools and behind babies and whatnot is horrible

but so is firing phosphorus shells into cities.

> I force the children to keep attending the schools, at gun point.

The children weren't being forced to go to school. You are still trying to blame an
opposing social group for a terrible act Israel has committed.

> but so is firing phosphorus shells into cities.

Rockets have killed more civilians...

> If Hamas stops, guess what... Israel stops... wow what a concept!!!

Firstly no, since another organisation will take its place.

Secondly Israel is an armed country with international backing and a full military
operation.

> If Hamas stops, we can have peace in the region.

You are still trying to rationalise Israel's terrible acts. Hamas isn't to blame, and didn't
order Israel to blow up schools, U.N. buildings, and innocent children. Israel did that
all on it's lonesome. Hamas might have instigated a conflict, but Israel chose the terms
of engagement.

These terms included the slaughtering of some 300 children, and (i think?) 1,200
total civilians.

> Your ideals are intolerable, and your support for Hamas is why there will be
> deaths there for decades.

I have never, ever supported Hamas.

> If Hamas stops, and Israel does not, I will advocate NUKING
> Israels population IRL because then they will be the wrong party.

This is just weird. And absurd. There will always be Guerrilla warfare. Particularly where
a people is oppressed, such as the ravished state of Palestine. Remember this is a country
whose borders are controlled by Israel, and whose imports are severely limited.

I have stated my ethics, you seem to think both are evil and all should be killed. I disagree.

There will be no convincing you, unless one day you are subjected to a horror where you see the wrongs of your current viewpoint.

The rockets should end, when they do end for a while, then peace is possible. Until Hamas and Hezzbollah end the rockets, Israel should not be forced to sit back and accept any deaths they get.

Phosphorous shells are allowed against buildings, obstructions, and weapons (like an artillery piece or rockets)

They are not specifically allowed directly at soldiers, except as part of engaging something else.

However Hamas and Hezzbollah routine call tracer fire as 'phosphorous' attacks. This is due to either propoganda or a lack of an education... meh, propaganda for sure.... no one except a few in this forum are that dumb after all...

Tracers can be fired at soldiers, since tracers help with accuracy, and barely have any phosphorous in them.