Notice: Welcome to Minichan, an account has automatically been created and assigned to you, you don't have to register or log in to use the board, but don't clear your cookies unless you have set a memorable name and password. Alternatively, you can restore your ID.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago#114,041
Just consider how absurd it would be to reverse the logic of human shields in this case. Imagine the Israelis using their own women and children as human shields against Hamas. Recognize how unthinkable this would be, not just for the Israelis to treat their own civilians in this way, but for them to expect that their enemies could be deterred by such a tactic, given who their enemies actually are. Again, it's easy to lose sight of the moral distance here. Take a moment to actually do the cognitive work. Imagine the Jews of Israel using their own women and children as human shields. And then imagine how Hamas, or Hezbollah, or al-Qaeda, or ISIS, or any other jihadist group would respond. The image you should now have in your mind is a masterpiece of moral surrealism. It is preposterous. It is a Monty Python sketch where all the Jews die. Do you see what this asymmetry means? Do you see how deep it runs? Do you see what it tells you about the ethical difference between these two cultures? There are not many bright lines that divide good and evil in our world, but this is one of them.
Of course there's much more to talk about when considering the ethics of war and violence. And there's much more to be confused about. For intance, as this war proceeds, many people will consider the deaths of non-combatatants on the Palestinian side to be morally equivalent to the kids who were tortured and murdered at the peace concert by Hamas; or to the hostages who may yet be murdered, and their murders broadcast on social media. But they're not. There is a difference between collateral damage, which is of course a euphamism for innocent people killed in war, and the intentional massacre of civilians for the purpose of maximizing horror. Simply counting the number of dead bodies is not a way of judging the moral balance here. Intentions matter. It matters what kind of a world people are attempting to build. If Israel wanted to perpetrate a genocide of the Palestinians, it could do that easily, tomorrow. But that isn't what it wants. And the truth is, the Jews of Israel would live in peace with their neighbours, if their neighbours weren't in thrall to genocidal fanatics.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,262,295
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Trust Kook to miss the point entirely and repeat the same line about body counts. Did you even read this?
> are you the anon who asked for proof
That was me. Who would have thought, more than one person thinks Hamas are evil bastards and understands the meaning of "human shields".
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,262,301
@previous (Throckmorton !dxiFV8kfVg) > Israel told Palestinian civilians to evacuate south, then bombed them when they did.
You left out the crucial bit - comma, "Hamas says."
I mean, Hamas are know for their honesty and integrity, aren't they? Oh well, if Hamas says so, it must be true.
Can you name a war with a higher casualty rate among civilians?
Most people don't base their assessment on the actual death rate, but make conclusions based on emotional reports of one tragic bombing or bad actor in the war. One awful soldier, or strike that went off target isn't going to skew the overall results.