im not trying to “refute your parallel” i’m expressing displeasure at the pointlessly convoluted and painful method of making points which seems to be favored on this forum. For example instead of talking about cars you could have skipped right to “Proper blame only comes through acknowledging liability for a crime or atrocity” and then examining which party is liable for the particular crime or atrocity. You may believe you can trick people into overcoming their biases by removing the issue from its context, but you are underestimating the ability of a biased mind to suppressfactswhich cause ideological dissonance.
That seemed like the first nine pages.
A dangerous but noble pursuit. Worth a shot, no?
“Peace activists” is not really the term I’d use for this situation. A demonstration becomes a riot when people hurl rocks at the police in my opinion.
Fair enough, you draw the line at peace activists… so just say the IDF has the right to kill “rioters” if you think that’s the case… my point is that obfuscating the actual argument with random analogies is why this thread has been going in endless circles for months.
Agreed. My personal stance is that the IDF (or any defence organisation) has the right to kill anyone who presents themselves as a direct threat to lives of personel. Not to say that lethal options should be the first choice, but I don’t think it makes sense to wait until people start to be hurt till you try defending yourselves.
The problem there, I think, becomes when the protesters feel that their lives are in danger and then fight back against the defense force in perceived “self defense”. Then you’ve got a clusterfuck. Which is possibly how the protesters on that ship felt; that the Israelis were threatening their life.
At least, that can be a great excuse.
“Ned, it’s coming right for us!”
Tbh, the Israeli boarders were soldiers, who are expected to risk their lives, while the people on the ships were civilians. The soldiers could have left the ships instead of pulling out their guns.
Interesting. Do you also think your own government/military has the right to kill Australian rioters? I know in America, rioting isn’t a capital offense, and it’s pretty rare/controversial when police kill people during riots. Australia must have an “interesting” political culture if it’s commonly accepted that your military is allowed to kill people to stop a riot.
I don’t see why soldiers shouldn’t be allowed to return fire if they’re getting bricks and petrol bombs thrown at them. However, most riots here don’t get to that and responses rarely go beyond tear gas grenades. It’s all about appropriate response.
Hm. Quick question, baconeggs:
If the riot police just started killing people, what would be the appropriate response from the rioters (who weren’t throwing bricks and petrol bombs at them)? Perhaps start throwing bricks and petrol bombs?
(This is how war sometimes start.)
You misunderstand me. The response should be appropriate to the offence. If a crowd starts to become unruly the first method shouldn’t be to fire into them. If they become violent then lethal force may become justified for self defence.
I’m not arguing in favour of brutal crackdowns, but I don’t think it makes sense to force peacekeepers to put themselves at risk when they don’t have to. The troops react to the crowd, if it’s the other way then it isn’t riot control.
Okay, let’s say this then:
You have rioters. They’re throwing bricks and petrol bombs (I use that because you used that). Riot police respond by opening fire. Rioters increase their attacks. Riot police increase theirs. And on it goes.
Rioters don’t begin with bricks and petrol bombs. They get to that point because of the actions of the riot police which are reacting to the actions of the rioters which are reacting to the actions of the riot police…and on down the line until you get to one seemingly insignificant act that spurred that whole debacle.
See what I mean? Those with the superior manpower/legal backing are required to act better than the rioters. Only respond at all if their or others’ lives are in danger. Otherwise, you’ve got protection from rocks and such. You don’t need to let your emotions get the better of you.
Except, you see riot police frequently using force larger than the rioters ever would have access to.
On the flotilla (which is what we were talking about), Israel had the responsibility, as the larger force (they had the guns, the flotilla had pieces of their ship), to simply block access to the flotilla. If they needed to board to check the ship, then only board when it’s feasible. You don’t invade a ship that you have under your control. Eventually, you’ll “wear them down” to a point where you can enter the ship without resistance. It’s not like they were a threat to you. Instead, if you burst down the door with guns in tow, you’re going to get resistance. And the flotilla people felt they were acting in self-defense when they picked up pipes against the invading force.
The flotilla shouldn’t have tried to run the blockade. Israel should not have used undue force. It’s all about appropriate response and I don’t think that Israel acted appropriately.
And neither did the flotilla.
But the flotilla -did- go through the blockade, and Israel -did- try to persuade them to turn around several times (the fact they put up a blockade was the first obvious warning), but the flotilla people thought they were gods and just kept going, until Israel said “fuck it, let’s show them who’s boss”.
So the Israeli soldiers boarded with guns and full equipment (another one of those “don’t fuck with us”-warnings), and were met with violence… Violence to which they responded.
You are right when you say that both parties are wrong. The flotilla people shouldn’t have tried to penetrate the blockade, and Israel shouldn’t have put up that blockade in the first place… But the reaction of Israel was justified after the actions of the flotilla.
No, the reaction of Israel was not justified. They could’ve stopped the rogue ship from the flotilla and kept them in custody until they could’ve entered the ship without the “don’t fuck with us” bravado.
Riot police don’t try to kill anyone. It’s the rioters who react wrongly and hurl shit first. If every protest started with the demonstrators aware that crowd control units were there to disperse, not annihiliate mobs then we’d see a lot deaths.
But we’re getting way off track here.
Israel shouldn’t have been on the ship, but the activists didn’t need to respond the way they did.
I believe that the activists might’ve felt that they were in danger. They were unarmed (except for what they could turn into weapons) and they were being boarded by armed men who, for all the activists know, ARE there to kill them. Remember, there’s a whole shitload of mistrust on both sides. Israel should’ve treaded lightly. They didn’t.
The activists shouldn’t have attempted to penetrate the blockade. That’s where they were wrong.
No, but…
It’s surprising how easily an inferred message changes by reversing the proposition order.
I believe sangeo summed up the essence of the debate amazingly with the following statement:
Nine humanitarians dead and several dozen wounded, versus seven commandos injured, highlights a response of disproportion. The means of the rioters are grossly nonlethal, and were intended to keep the Israelis off of the boat, or continue to drive them off once prevention had failed.
I understand the use of firearms to defend oneself, but this is not defending:
That represents intent to kill. The slaying of nine civilians by trained marksmen does not express attempts to incapacitate.
Well fair enough about intent to kill, i don’t know the details of the incident. If they aimed for the head as they ran it definitely was more of a raid than an inspection.
If I wander into a police impound I shouldn’t be there, but it doesn’t mean that any guards there should try to shoot me on sight. (at least in Australia)
In Vice City it certainly does.
Because police officers are legally bound to use…
dingdingding
…that’s right, something called restraint when faced with civilians of lesser (or even equal) firepower.