Did I start a meme or something?
So you’re saying it’s ethical (or legal? get your story straight) for cops to shoot people in order to stop them from speeding, in order to prevent crashes? Or, to get even more specific, it’s ethical for an American cop to shoot a speeding driver in Canada to prevent them from speeding in the US? Poor choice of analogy, bro.
Is it ethical for cops to shoot someone who is running towards them with a baseballbat with the purpose of inflicting damage to said cop? I’d say yes. No matter where.
No, you are twisting the analogy. I changed the embargo breaking to speeding, so the shooting should change as well.
It’s ethical if the cop is in your home without a warrant?
Nope.
More like the cop is in the street outside his house without a warrant.
Also, warrant = legality, warrant =/= ethics.
Yes. Selfdefense is always ethical. But that doesn’t mean that the cop wasn’t in fault as well. Both were in fault, difference is that the cop had a weapon that could kill in one hit, while the basbeballbatwielding guy probably needs 6-7 hits to kill the cop.
Or you know, the cops could’ve used the, y’know…nightstick.
Do you guys see the problem with using retarded analogies yet? The actual issue we’re talking about is very simple, but the actual causality makes you uncomfortable so you’re changing the subject to dumb irrelevant shit which is meaningless when any one arbitrary detail in your “analogy” is changed.
For the millionth time, why is it so hard for you to admit in plain English that you think Israel has the right to take any lethal action anywhere in the world (obviously regardless of legality) in order to maintain the humanitarian siege on Gaza, in order to punish their civilian population for electing a government Israel doesn’t like?
I don’t think they have the right to. Like Bolteh said earlier, if they keep up at this rate they’re gonna lose some support.
That’s what the argument in this thread is about. People who think they have the right VS people who don’t think so. Except the people who think they have the right will not admit that is what they are arguing in favor of, because it’s so obviously wrong when you describe it accurately.
I know. I just wanted to voice my opinion…and I kinda thought you where talking to me.
Some times ethical=legal. What you are stating is that Israel can attack whoever they want wherever they want.
Well that was uncalled for. I’m actually doing a Middle Eastern politics unit at Uni right now. Last week we had a video call with someone living in Tel Aviv, and the leader of a pro-Palestine group. That is all to say that I do know quite a lot of what’s happening in the Middle East. And Israel ≠ all of the Middle East, just FYI. Other shit happens there than just the Palestinians fighting with the Israelis.
So with that out of the way, let’s deal with the first point about how terrorists don’t give Israel the right to invade aid ships. Firstly, those ships weren’t there primarily to deliver aid. They were protesters making a political point; even a US diplomat (I forget his name…somewhere in an article I read) criticised the protesters for not delivering aid through the proper channels (i.e. the UN).
Secondly, the aid they delivered wasn’t even stuff that was in short supply; if you’re talking about alleviating the suffering of the Gazans, this wasn’t the way to do it. Thirdly, there were arms on the ships (see here and the above link), and even if there wasn’t any weapons they still shouldn’t’ve done what they did.
Lastly, let’s deal with the idea of terrorists. Clearly you misunderstood my point about terrorists and thought that I was saying Al Qaeda = Hamas. That’s not true. Hamas is a nationalist organisation that embraces violent means to gain political capital, much like the IRA did in Ireland. They frequently launch missiles in Israeli settlements with the goal of killing unarmed Israeli civilians. Please explain why Israel does not have the right to stop the supplying of arms to terrorists.
I’m not saying that Hamas’s cause isn’t just, nor am I saying that they shouldn’t employ violence, I’m just saying that if you do what the protesters did, you need to expect to get shot. Or at least tazered.
So basically your solution to the conflict is to say to Israel: “Yeah, we know that Hamas is launching rocket attacks at Israeli settlements, but you should just let them have all of the shit they want to make more bombs so they can increase attacks on Israel. Sound good?” Because everything’s just fine and dandy in Israel, right?
Furthermore, that’s extremely simplistic analysis. What would Israel possibly achieve by “punishing” the Gazans? Similarly, how do you reconcile that aim with this article?
This video was particularly chilling for me.
You’re quoting the Israel military justifying their own actions and asking me how I “reconcile” it? And what do you mean “even a US diplomat criticized the protesters,” surely you realize US backing is the only reason Israel can undertake this kind of military action with impunity? I thought you were studying this stuff?
More on quotes from Israeli officials describing why they are “punishing” the Gazans in a few minutes…
This just in; The Israeli ambassador to Ireland apparently made a speech saying that the interception of the boat in international waters was legal, as according to maritime law it is legal if;
The boat’s registered destination is under blockade.
The boat’s crew are given ample warning.
The boat is given the opportunity to land elsewhere.
These are all fulfilled. If this turns out to be true, then you can all suck it.
I thought you said you were talking about the ethics and not about legality?
Contrary posts are confusing.
lol