the USA, Israel, and national interest

I guess that pretty much includes all wars ever?

Not really

Well, sorry, I don't see it that way. I think sometimes bad things result from necessary actions. I don't think all of our actions can be pure of negative consequences, and often we just need to hedge them to get the most positive consequences. This isn't some Kantian ideology, I understand, but it's what I believe. I wish the other way worked, but I don't think it's pragmatic. I don't think the Allies could have won WW2 without some civilians dying. You should obviously try to limit these deaths to a minimum and take as many precautions as possible.

But certainly if you believe IDF officers ordering attacks that result in civilians dying is depraved, then you agree with me that Hamas is depraved?

I mean, a fortiori.

no Mordy, only one side is allowed to be bad. we need good guys in this movie.

Depraved is not a word I throw about much

spost to Mordy

OK, that's a defensible position, but you are saying we will kill x amount of people for y aim, and its worth it. Hamas are saying we will kill x amount of people for y aim (although x is a very small number here) and its worth it.

To pretend these are somehow morally different is infantile.

So you get down to what are the aims, and how effective are all these deaths in acieving them.

Then you start weeping at the horror of it all.

I said before that I don't think it helps throwing words like depraved around, but do I think Hamas's actions are wrong? Yes. Do I think Israel's actions are wrong? Yes.

There are no good guys.

But that's not equivalent. Israel doesn't say we will kill x amount of people for y aim. Ie: They never say, "We need to kill 20 random people to instill fear in the Gaza population." Ideally, they wouldn't kill anyone, and they take precautions (maybe not enough) to not kill civilians. Hamas says "We will kill 20 random people to instill fear in the S'derot population."

Hamas are saying we will kill x amount of people for y aim (although x is a very small number here)

I agree with your overall sentiment, but I'm pretty sure that the "although x is a very small number here" isn't their reason for killing people.

There is a difference between direct, intended action and indirect, unintended action. Ie: Different criminal penalties for accidental manslaughter or reckless manslaughter or murder.

This could get circular, but it's not an accident if you KNOW it's going to happen. That is a direct predictable consequence of ones actions.

Mordy I don't consider it my position to excuse or not excuse anyone's actions.

I was just trying to figure out what unbelievable mindset one would have get oneself into in order to think that human shields are a good idea, or that blowing oneself up is the best possible course of action to take. Have you ever thought about that?

I have. I've also wondered what it would take to get someone to gas a bunch of innocents and then burn their bodies in furnaces. I've found Arendt's explanation the easiest to understand; their unconsciousness and thoughtlessness has lead to depravity. The banality of evil. I don't think we need to excuse it, though.

And to Jamie; Voluntary manslaughter isn't an accident either. It's still distinguishable from murder.

DING DING DING DING GODWIN'S LAW ACHIEVED

Uh, that's not Godwin's Law.

Oh, it is (looking it up). Still, nothing wrong with that. But for Nazi, you can substitute any behavior that obviously beyond the parity of human ethics.

What would it take for the Spanish Crown to burn people at the stake for not converting to Catholicism? I used Nazis because that is who Arendt was writing about.

I was just trying to figure out what unbelievable mindset one would have get oneself into in order to think that human shields are a good idea, or that blowing oneself up is the best possible course of action to take. Have you ever thought about that?

since when is religious extremism an unbelievable mindset?

Mordy, have you not spotted a teeny little power imbalance between, say, the Catholic Church (or Nazism) and Hamas? Or do you think that's irrelevant when discussing military desperation?

iatee, many Israelis are religious extremists too, but they don't blow themselves up. Have you ever wondered why?

Tracer, I think (and this /is/ Kantian influenced) that some actions are depraved no matter what the extenuating circumstances. It's never cool to intentionally, consciously, and willfully kill a child. No matter what the circumstances. Ever.

cause they realize that tanks and bombs are more efficient?

Because their religious beliefs say that suicide under any circumstances is a sin? And Muslim doctrine does not say the same?

Muslims invented martyrdom, that's a fact

Mind you, I don't think Jewish religious extremists or Christian extremists are good and Muslim extremists are bad. Fuck all religious extremists. (Again, no matter the circumstances.)

I didn't say they invented it? Wtf dude?

I didn't say you said it

It's never cool to intentionally, consciously, and willfully kill a child. No matter what the circumstances. Ever.

Do you think I'm arguing this??

Yes, I think you're trying to excuse Hamas murder of children (either Israeli children, or their own children by negligence) by citing their circumstances and desperation.

Also, martyrdom is dying for your beliefs. Not suicide bombing.

Many xposts

I would say the argument that Israel uses, which amounts to it refusing to take moral responsibility for its actions (and which Mordy has echoed here), is a clear example of "unconsciousness and thoughtlessness" leading to "depravity".

If you have the guts to say we are killing these children and it's worth it because it will secure Israel that's one thing, but if you say these are regrettable and unintended consequences of our other, more justifiable, actions, then it becomes a much easier argument to make. And because it's easier to think that way, evil actions happen.

Jamie, you're not addressing the argument I'm making in any substantive way. I said that we distinguish between murder and manslaughter. We understand there are differences in intention, in motive. That these things are important. We code our legal statutes to reflect this. I don't see how this is a misleading case to make.

I'm really not sure what the difference is, except "we are killing these children and it's worth it" probably doesn't sound so great on CNN

The difference is that Israel doesn't set out to kill children. If they could adjust their plans to not kill children, but still accomplish protecting their old children, they would. If I found out that an Israeli leader said that we SHOULD kill their children as retribution, and not as accident, then yes, I'd say he's evil. But I can distinguish between the two people.

their own* children

We could try some pathos arguments on each other, but it seems to me the logos really ends here. I think we can distinguish between the two, and you don't. I understand your position, I even sympathize with it. I don't agree with it though. If you'd like, I can try to better explain my position, but I think I've tried that already. I'm not sure where else this can go...

To Tracer: people use the tactics available to them. If you lined up in uniform and took on Israel you would die, quickly. If as a state you take on Israel, you will lose. Hence non-state actors emerge, and use non-traditional tactics. People call them "weapons of the weak". It's completely predictable and it has little to do with religious fundamentalism, as the same or similar tactics have been adopted in other contexts.

None of this makes it right, though, does it? Blowing yourself up on a bus full of ordinary people is plain wrong.

I suppose I'm just not very interested in the psychology of the individuals.

This could get circular, but it's not an accident if you KNOW it's going to happen.

posts that sum up threads

xpost to Mordy - I did say it could get circular, so I will leave it there.

xpost

Is killing children worse than killing other human beings?

That seems to be the consensus here

but only when israelis do it

They are the ultimate "non-combatants" I suppose

^^^^^ hahaha right

Some adults are non-combatants

Some children are combatants, and / or have strong political beliefs or passions

Don't even know why I'm spelling this out, but to: the pinefox, not necessarily. But thematically (and literarily) children are symbols for pure innocence. Obv, caveats apply: not all children are innocent, not all adults have guilt. It's just shorthand - a stand-in. I assume this is obvious?

I mean, do we need to start deconstructing all rhetorical devices we use when we make arguments? I assume we have a common language here.