The Hamas Argument

[Phil25]

I won't be. Deal with it.

Then isnt Israel's current actions the best regarding the situation, when you cant come up with a better solution.

 

[Thruve]

Then isnt Israel's current actions the best regarding the situation, when you cant come up with a better solution.

Thank you ^^ someone sees it the way I do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then isnt Israel's current actions the best regarding the situation, when you cant come up with a better solution.

This is a very good example of the logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. Without knowing what all the alternatives are, how can you argue that any particular alternative is best?

 

[Thruve]

This is a very good example of the logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. Without knowing what all the alternatives are, how can you argue that any particular alternative is best?

Hey, hey you. Yea you, come closer. (Come closer) Come back to reality.

Would you suggest that the Jews pack their bags and leave? Go occupy another area of the world? That'd be an alternative solution, but we all know that's not going to happen.

C'mon son, give us other alternative solutions.

 

[xkatz]

When the US Military captured Osama Bin Laden, after discovering that he was living in a house in a populated civilian neighbourhood in Pakistan, they took the decision to send in a small elite unit to capture him.

1) This assumes that somehow the IDF knows the identity of EVERY SINGLE Hamas and Islamic Jihad operative.

2) Pakistan is not hostile terrority. Gaza is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I'm being objective, and know that this air strike is necessary, then yes. I would approve it.

How would we go about determining whether an air strike is "necessary"?

yes, that's exactly what I said...

Then we'll probably end up talking past each other. I'm not sure what to say to someone who doesn't think we should behave ethically.

simple. What more could he do?

Not carry out the air strike? Wait? Attack some other target? Carry out the attack by other means? Those options come immediately to mind. I'm sure there are others.

and what level would that be?

I'm not sure exactly where the line should be, but can we agree that the line does exist? I mean, you don't think that it wouldn't have been justified for Norway or its allies to nuke Israel over the Lillehammer affair, do you? It would probably have prevented any further risks to its citizens from Mossad, but it would have been disproportionate... right?

they should matter up to the extent that it endangers the lives of his civilians. I've said this multiple times already...

But what you're saying is just a collection of meaningless buzzwords. The only world where no Israeli civilian is endangered at all by anyone else would be a hypothetical world with only one inhabitant, and that inhabitant happens to be Israeli. Anything beyond that is a matter of varying degrees of risk.

I've been saying that they used the best means at their disposal. They couldn't, to my knowledge, do better.

Could be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1) This assumes that somehow the IDF knows the identity of EVERY SINGLE Hamas and Islamic Jihad operative.

No, it doesn't. It assumes that the IDF knows the location of a number of valid targets.

... and since they're carrying out air strikes against a large number of such locations, I would hope that this assumption is correct.

 

[dantech]

This is a very good example of the logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. Without knowing what all the alternatives are, how can you argue that any particular alternative is best?

Because something had to be done, and now! So presently, as it stands, it was indeed the best solution, wasn't it?

 

[dantech]

Then we'll probably end up talking past each other. I'm not sure what to say to someone who doesn't think we should behave ethically.

I don't have the time to answer the rest right now, but I thought you should know I was being sarcastic on that particular reply.

 

[Thruve]

I guess IDF has years to capture/kill specific targets like it took us. Er..

 

[xkatz]

No, it doesn't. It assumes that the IDF knows the location of a number of valid targets.

... and since they're carrying out air strikes against a large number of such locations, I would hope that this assumption is correct.

I was talking about the idea of a Navy-SEALs style operation, not targeted air strikes.

 

[Mycroft]

Then isnt Israel's current actions the best regarding the situation, when you cant come up with a better solution.

What evidence do you have that indicates that they couldn't come up with a better solution?

 

[Mycroft]

I do think it is in Israel's best interests. Terrorism cannot be tolerated, or incessant rocket attacks of any kind.

Define terrorism.

 

[Mycroft]

1) This assumes that somehow the IDF knows the identity of EVERY SINGLE Hamas and Islamic Jihad operative.

You don't need to. You just need to be able to locate and identify missile sites (the IDF can easily do this) and then send in a team to neutralise that site quietly and efficiently.

2) Pakistan is not hostile terrority. Gaza is.

Right. So why should the IDF care if they bomb innocent people? But that is the same attitude Hamas is using. Both sides are terrorists in this latest cycle.

 

[Alceste]

So if that's what you're not saying, then what should be done to stop Hamas from firing rockets, using tunnels to smuggle weapons and for infiltration?

An autonomous Palestinian state.

 

[Alceste]

So how exactly is it a better idea to sent a small unit of soldiers deep into enemy territory where they will be shot at from every direction, from the cover of civilians and ultimately be lynched than to simply sent a rocket at a rocket team?

Also you do realise that the second a school, hospital, whatever civilian house is being used to store weapons or used as cover to shoot at anyone it loses its status as a civilian building?

In before more propaganda pictures.





I agree. Lets ignore the tunnels who sometimes end a few hundred meters next to a small town.

Anything else that is too inconvenient which might annoy you?

I mean what could possibly go wrong.

The CIA and FBI had offices in the World Trade Centre. Are you saying that made it a legitimate military target?

 

[Thruve]

What evidence do you have that indicates that they couldn't come up with a better solution?

Rather, what other solution could they have come up with?

 

[xkatz]

An autonomous Palestinian state.

I agree there should be a Palestinian state, but Hamas (at the very least in it's current form) can't and shouldn't be a part of it's government.

 

[s2a]

Some people defend Israel's actions, it seems, my pointing to Hamas using populated urban areas as shields. They claim that they do this intentionally and that, in defense of Israel, this is why civilians are being killed.

It is an argument that is, very possibly true.

But if it were true, the question becomes this: Why does Israel continue to attack knowing this?

Israel may accuse Hamas of firing missiles into civilian populated areas, but what's Israel's excuse for doing the same thing? Whether in retaliation or not? You can claim Hamas is a terrorist organisation all you like, but that does not excuse Israel from acting in exactly the same fashion.

I am not familiar with military protocol. But I would hazard to guess that in a situation where, perhaps, british or American troops were fired with a missile from the roof of a hospital, we would not retaliate by firing a missile at that populated hospital. We have military units such as Navy SEALS, Delta Force, the SAS who can quietly infiltrate the hospital and take out the baddies with no loss of civilian life.

In other words, we find it unacceptable to maximise civilian deaths in the pursuit of destroying a target. So why are people making excuses for Israel doing exactly this?

*face palm*

Talk about evasion of the most obvious...

Why would any people or "cause" accept, or even acknowledge implementing "human shields" as a rationale for "righteous" cause?

ANY?

Let's be fair in evaluating motivations here.

Israel oppresses the people of Gaza as an occupational force. The people of Gaza hate their Israeli oppressors, and democratically elect Hamas as their spokespeople. Hamas then chooses impotence as a tool to shame their oppressors with ineffective rocket attacks that invites inevitable retaliation from their oppressors. Hamas has only PR and wartime propaganda to (in hopes) to then shame their overwhelming adversaries into some contrition.

"You are killing the non-combatants from areas which we employ to launch rockets upon your civilian populations!"

"Shame on you murderers!"

Israel, for better or worse, is "forced" into two equally ugly options. Either do nothing, or retaliate.

Do nothing,,,and the happenstance rocket from Hamas gets though and murders innocent Israelis.

Do something, and MANY more innocent Palestinians die whilst hiding in UN shelters.

Do the people of Gaza have a cause, and a voice to be heard? YES! Is Hamas that loudspeaker? Nope.

You get what you vote for.

I can appreciate the frustration of a people unfairly oppressed and held captive.

I just know that Hamas is not their venue of escape, nor their representation that seeks any compromise for eventual peace. When you purposefully seek war as a solution, that is all you will receive.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree there should be a Palestinian state, but Hamas (at the very least in it's current form) can't and shouldn't be a part of it's government.

How exactly can that be decided, Xkatz?

I think saying so (for all that I may agree) requires the exact kind of self-empowerment that may just as easily be used to say that Israel has no right to keep existing.