Palestinian child shot dead by Israeli soldiers

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by wes: Also, I am sure most here would condemn Hamas and what they do (there utter scum, and so are Fatah and the Israeli leadership).

Confused by this wes. Who should govern the Palestinian people then? Hamas did win an election in the West Bank did they not?

wes

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Confused by this wes. Who should govern the Palestinian people then? Hamas did win an election in the West Bank did they not?

Them winning an election, doesn't make them nice people. Also, I never said they shouldn't be allowed to govern the Palestinians, but they should respect laws of war and not attack Israeli civilians and they need to respect the rights of there own people as well.

Mayo Exile

Posted by wes: Them winning an election, doesn't make them nice people.

They wouldn't be on their own then! Israel will do a deal with Hamas eventually. Strength not popularity dictates tactics. All this waffle about "terrorism" and "men of violence" and "we will defeat the enemy" are sound bites for the middle class to hear on the six o'clock news. Remember in the run up to the Good Friday Agreement the SDLP asked the British why were they talking to Sinn Fein so much and were told rather bluntly that "you don't have any guns".

Posted by wes: laws of war and not attack Israeli civilians

No rules/laws in war. You make them up as you go along. Actual targeting of civilians is a policy in warfare. Sherman is one of the first examples of this where in the American Civil War in his march from "Atlanta to the Sea" he destroyed every farm, house etc to break the back of the South's economic capacity support its war effort and no doubt killed civilians along the way.

RAF bombing policy in WWII deliberately targeted civilians who may or may not have been armaments workers. "Bomber" Harris also thought it might break the "average" German's morale in that war. The appearance of "smart" weapons, I think has given the illusion that civilians are no longer targeted in war. If on a battlefield, another Stalingrad scenario appeared today no one would give a tuppence if civilians were in the area or not. From the 2003 Gulf War I always remember a scene caught on telly where a U.S commander ordered his men to destroy all houses where enemy fire was coming from, regardless of civilian casualties. "Rubbelise" them, I think, was the actual term he used.

Manic Moran

Actual targeting of civilians is a policy in warfare <snip>

From the 2003 Gulf War I always remember a scene caught on telly where a U.S commander ordered his men to destroy all houses where enemy fire was coming from, regardless of civilian casualties. "Rubbelise" them, I think, was the actual term he used.

I won't go quite as far as you do, at least from the perspective of a first-rate military power. I have little issue with the idea of not attacking civilians for the sake of attacking civilians. If they're in the way when attempting to attack a military target, so be it, and that's the way the current laws of warfare work,* but a general beating up on civilians without a direct military intent is, I think, pushing it.

*Famous dead guy quote:

Now, philanthropists may easily imagine there is a skilful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the art of War. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are just the worst.

Clausewitz.

NTM

Mayo Exile

No problem there Manic. Deliberate targeting of civilians shouldn't happen but the nature of warfare itself is naturally unpleasant. An offensive force will attack civilians if it sees it can hinder the enemy's war effort e.g. strafing fleeing civilian columns to clog roads so a defending army can't bring up reinforcments.

Remember Caen in July 1944. Just before the attack the Allied air forces bombed the crap out of it in preparation for a ground offensive. Thousands of French civilians died. What about the 2006 Israel/Hezbollah war? Israel's bombing policy, especially in Beirut raised questions. Some 1,200 died there I believe. Of course Hezbollah fired its rockets into Israel not really caring where they landed. Joe Public suffers the most in wars, past, present and future!

Better not to fight wars at all!

Quotes from other dead people.

Nathan Bedford Forrest (Confederate General): "War means fighting and fighting means killing."

Robert E. Lee at Fredericksberg in December 1862: "It is a good job that war is so terrible or we would grow too fond of it".

wes

Mayo Exile wrote: »

They wouldn't be on their own then! Israel will do a deal with Hamas eventually. Strength not popularity dictates tactics. All this waffle about "terrorism" and "men of violence" and "we will defeat the enemy" are sound bites for the middle class to hear on the six o'clock news. Remember in the run up to the Good Friday Agreement the SDLP asked the British why were they talking to Sinn Fein so much and were told rather bluntly that "you don't have any guns".

I am not saying Hamas need to be pacifists or anything of the like, but they do have a policy of attacking civilians, which they need to stop.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

No rules/laws in war. You make them up as you go along. Actual targeting of civilians is a policy in warfare. Sherman is one of the first examples of this where in the American Civil War in his march from "Atlanta to the Sea" he destroyed every farm, house etc to break the back of the South's economic capacity support its war effort and no doubt killed civilians along the way.

I suppose this is correct, but again a deliberate policy of attacking civilians is morally wrong and from the pov of there struggle, its counter productive as it give Israel an excuse to go after there people. Its create an endless cycle, where everyone basically is looking for pay back. So its firstly morally wrong and secondly pointless.

Hamas and Fatah would be better off following the examples of the Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

RAF bombing policy in WWII deliberately targeted civilians who may or may not have been armaments workers. "Bomber" Harris also thought it might break the "average" German's morale in that war. The appearance of "smart" weapons, I think has given the illusion that civilians are no longer targeted in war. If on a battlefield, another Stalingrad scenario appeared today no one would give a tuppence if civilians were in the area or not. From the 2003 Gulf War I always remember a scene caught on telly where a U.S commander ordered his men to destroy all houses where enemy fire was coming from, regardless of civilian casualties. "Rubbelise" them, I think, was the actual term he used.

I know the smart weapons business is nonsense, and that innocent people will die. I also know how viscous people can and do be to achieve there objectives and its probably next to impossible to expect people to try and respect the lives of civilians.