[Potemkin]

How can a thinking person make a statement like that. Even leaving aside the question of our direct use of terrorism, I find the statement morally repulsive. Are you saying it was wrong to support the Mujaheddin against the Soviets? Are you saying the Dutch and British were wrong to support the Iroquois federation in their conflicts with the French?

Once again, I find myself agreeing with you, @Rich. I would also like to add another example to your long list - the French Maquis during the Second World War. We choose to call them “freedom fighters”, but they were clearly terrorists. And it’s a good thing that they were - some regimes should be terrorised.

[wat0n]

How can a thinking person make a statement like that. Even leaving aside the question of our direct use of terrorism, I find the statement morally repulsive. Are you saying it was wrong to support the Mujaheddin against the Soviets? Are you saying the Dutch and British were wrong to support the Iroquois federation in their conflicts with the French?

Targeting civilians is wrong, yes.

Supporting that is wrong.

[Rich]

Targeting civilians is wrong, yes.

Supporting that is wrong.

Targeting civilians is a wrong, but targeting soldiers is also a wrong. I see no fundamental distinction between killing civilians and killing soldiers. killing and injuring people in warfare is a bad thing, we justify that badness by a greater good. In WW2 we killed soldiers in order to gain military victory. We killed civilians in order to gain military victory. We killed German Civilians and we killed non German civilians. We even killed our own POWs. My father was one of those POWs targeted. He worked for a while in the Munich marshaling yards. The POWs were locked in cattle trucks during bomber attacks while the guards went down into the shelters.

Obviously my father was not specifically targeted, but does that really matter, in fact in warfare its only really snipers that study the enemy, observe their faces and choose their individual targets.

Now lets leave aside the rightness or wrongness of Hamas's cause. Let's take it as a given that rightly or wrongly they have decided to take up armed resistance against the Israeli State. Well they're obliviously not going to win by any sort of conventional military strategy, even a conventional guerilla strategy. They need to utterly enrage Israel in the hope of provoking such a response from Israel that it breaks open the situation. To achieve the necessary rage in Israeli society civilians need to be massacred.

Its like when people say Osama shouldn't have killed civilians on 9/11. How else was Osama to provoke the US into invading Afghanistan.

[wat0n]

Targeting civilians is a wrong, but targeting soldiers is also a wrong. I see no fundamental distinction between killing civilians and killing soldiers. killing and injuring people in warfare is a bad thing, we justify that badness by a greater good. In WW2 we killed soldiers in order to gain military victory. We killed civilians in order to gain military victory. We killed German Civilians and we killed non German civilians. We even killed our own POWs. My father was one of those POWs targeted. He worked for a while in the Munich marshaling yards. The POWs were locked in cattle trucks during bomber attacks while the guards went down into the shelters.

Obviously my father was not specifically targeted, but does that really matter, in fact in warfare its only really snipers that study the enemy, observe their faces and choose their individual targets.

Targeting someone who's unable and unwilling to fight is not justified. It does not fulfill any discernible goal.

What happened to your father is different, since he wasn't targeted.

Now lets leave aside the rightness or wrongness of Hamas's cause. Let's take it as a given that rightly or wrongly they have decided to take up armed resistance against the Israeli State. Well they're obliviously not going to win by any sort of conventional military strategy, even a conventional guerilla strategy. They need to utterly enrage Israel in the hope of provoking such a response from Israel that it breaks open the situation. To achieve the necessary rage in Israeli society civilians need to be massacred.

Its like when people say Osama shouldn't have killed civilians on 9/11. How else was Osama to provoke the US into invading Afghanistan.

Yes, and because of that it must be clear who targets civilians and who doesn't, and refuse to accept the fiction there is no difference between both. Or else, there will be those who will start a war by targeting civilians, and then try to get some political victory from the incidental killing of civilians used as human shields from the predictable response which will encourage a repeat of that behavior.

[Rich]

Yes, and because of that it must be clear who targets civilians and who doesn't, and refuse to accept the fiction there is no difference between both.

We keep getting this same old reasoning over and over. I remember we had the same sort of moralistic hysteria over the German U Boat campaign in WWI. Of course I recognise the difference between a surface fleet blockade and attempting to blockade through the use of U Boats. But the problem in warfare is there is always some level of asymmetry between combatants. The allies demanded a rule system for war that suited their militaries. The Allies were outraged by German's use of unrestricted submarine warfare, but the Alllies moral out rage was cheap for them, the Allies didn't rely on it, so there was little cost to their moral outrage.

I remember the outrage over the Nazi bombing of Rotterdam which killed about 50 people. There was no let off for the Nazis then because they hadn't specifically targeted any civilians. And then blow me down if the Allies didn't bomb Rotterdam themselves causing about 50 casualties.

Western Liberal countries including Israel make up a system of rules to suit themselves. Change the rules to suit themselves and half the time, can't even be bothered to keep to the rules they demand of everyone else. Israel can kill civilians any time they want. They just have to target suspected Hamas locations. Gaza civilians will be killed. I understand this "we don't target civilians" allows Israelis to feel good about themselves, but it won't make Gazans feel good about Israelis. Its just moral masturbation.

[wat0n]

We keep getting this same old reasoning over and over. I remember we had the same sort of moralistic hysteria over the German U Boat campaign in WWI. Of course I recognise the difference between a surface fleet blockade and attempting to blockade through the use of U Boats. But the problem in warfare is there is always some level of asymmetry between combatants. The allies demanded a rule system for war that suited their militaries. The Allies were outraged by German's use of unrestricted submarine warfare, but the Alllies moral out rage was cheap for them, the Allies didn't rely on it, so there was little cost to their moral outrage.

I remember the outrage over the Nazi bombing of Rotterdam which killed about 50 people. There was no let off for the Nazis then because they hadn't specifically targeted any civilians. And then blow me down if the Allies didn't bomb Rotterdam themselves causing about 50 casualties.

Western Liberal countries including Israel make up a system of rules to suit themselves. Change the rules to suit themselves and half the time, can't even be bothered to keep to the rules they demand of everyone else. Israel can kill civilians any time they want. They just have to target suspected Hamas locations. Gaza civilians will be killed. I understand this "we don't target civilians" allows Israelis to feel good about themselves, but it won't make Gazans feel good about Israelis. Its just moral masturbation.

Well, if we just do away with the protection of civilians or even trying to protect civilians in the end wars will be a lot more destructive than they need to be.

And Gazans would not feel good about Israelis, in fact, they would probably not feel anything at all because they'd just be dead.

[Rich]

Well, if we just do away with the protection of civilians or even trying to protect civilians in the end wars will be a lot more destructive than they need to be.

I'm not suggesting that we should just allow our armed forces to do what ever they want, to act like Genghis's tribesmen, quite the reverse. Attempts by the forces of liberal democracies to use terror directly almost always end badly, alienating the local population without cowering them. This was why during the occupation of Iraq, I was like one that cried out in the wilderness, unleash the Shia militias. The Shia militias were eventually unleashed and they proved highly competent at managing Iraq's Sunni Arab problem.

But please stop this absurd, its immoral to support terrorism. We do it all the time. We've never stopped doing it.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is literally impossible to support Zionism without supporting terrorism.

[wat0n]

I'm not suggesting that we should just allow our armed forces to do what ever they want, to act like Genghis's tribesmen, quite the reverse. Attempts by the forces of liberal democracies to use terror directly almost always end badly, alienating the local population without cowering them. This was why during the occupation of Iraq, I was like one that cried out in the wilderness, unleash the Shia militias. The Shia militias were eventually unleashed and they proved highly competent at managing Iraq's Sunni Arab problem.

But please stop this absurd, its immoral to support terrorism. We do it all the time. We've never stopped doing it.

What happens if those militias are unreliable and turn against you?

Proxy warfare is not always feasible and in any event it doesn't lead to the patrons to avoid alienation.

It is literally impossible to support Zionism without supporting terrorism.

It is literally impossible to support Palestine without supporting terrorism if we go by this logic.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is literally impossible to support Palestine without supporting terrorism if we go by this logic.

So you agree that Zionism also uses terrorism, and that mainstream supporters of Israel also end up supporting terrorism, and that the pose of not supporting terrorism is merely a sham and Zionists support terrorism and have no moral high ground in this area.

[wat0n]

So you agree that Zionism also uses terrorism, and that mainstream supporters of Israel also end up supporting terrorism, and that the pose of not supporting terrorism is merely a sham and Zionists support terrorism and have no moral high ground in this area.

No, we don't agree with that.

You seem desperate to be in agreement with me

[Pants-of-dog]

There is absolutely no counter argument for the claim that Zionism uses terrorism.

[wat0n]

There is absolutely no counter argument for the claim that Zionism uses terrorism.

Which Zionism exactly? There are different Zionist ideologies.

Just like there are different Palestinian nationalist movements, not all of which support terrorism.

[Pants-of-dog]

The current Israeli government is a descendant of a terrorist group, and uses terrorism.

So, mainstream Zionism is the one that uses terrorism and is supported by mainstream westerners.

[wat0n]

The current government doesn't use terrorism, though.

[Pants-of-dog]

The current Israeli government uses terrorism.

The assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists was done under the current government.

Likewise, the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure by the IDF in the occupied territories has been described as state terrorism.

This is why students wish to divest.

[wat0n]

The nuclear scientists are working in a military project. Civilian contractors working for a military can be attacked.

Hamas shouldn't use that civilian infrastructure for shielding, that makes it lose its special protections.

[Deutschmania]

Your whole schtick is to lie in order to protect your favorite cause: reactionary moneyed politics.

And Pants likes to accuse you of lying - but in a polite way.

The content of both your posts is purely incidental and this is why it so boring to follow your "debate" on any subject. It goes nowhere and reads like a transcript of the most boring Abbott and Costello exchange.

"Who's on First?"

"I refuse to answer your manipulative question."
The Study says that What is on Second Base."

"That so-called study was done by I Don't Know."

Zzzzzzz.....

This is what happens when a good faith actor , like @Pants-of-dog , sets out to engage in civil discourse with a bad faith actor , such as @wat0n . This is why I haven't been directly engaging with @wat0n , I do not wish to get bogged down in a malicious maligning of my character , that accomplishes nothing but wasting my time . If @Pants-of-dog wants to continue such a drawn out defamatory debate , with no end in sight , he can be my guest , but I just don't see the point of it . And so , letting this video be my guide , I refuse to participate in bad faith arguments .

[wat0n]

This is what happens when a good faith actor , like @Pants-of-dog , sets out to engage in civil discourse with a bad faith actor , such as @wat0n . This is why I haven't been directly engaging with @wat0n , I do not wish to get bogged down in a malicious maligning of my character , that accomplishes nothing but wasting my time . If @Pants-of-dog wants to continue such a drawn out defamatory debate , with no end in sight , he can be my guest , but I just don't see the point of it . And so , letting this video be my guide , I refuse to participate in bad faith arguments .

Weren't you the one claiming anyone would have participated in the October 7 massacre - an obvious attempt to justify it, both the killings and the rapes - even though Holocaust survivors and European Jews did not retaliate against German civilians during and after the Holocaust? And then you somehow got offended by pointing out you support the massacre and everything that happened in it.

If that isn't a bad faith claim, I don't know what it is. It is also a bad faith argument according to the video you presented yourself.

[QatzelOk]

This is what happens when a good faith actor , like @Pants-of-dog , sets out to engage in civil discourse with a bad faith actor , such as @wat0n ...

Thank you for confirming that this isn't just my imagination.

But what I don't really understand is, if Pants-of-dog is a good-faith actor seeking civil discourse, why does he seem addicted to the sterile, ad hom responses from wat0n?

Why does he seem to "need" to continue the troll-a-thon to the point of cluttering up entire threads with the same regurgitated smear strategies and pretend "I don't hear you arguments" from wat0n?