Israel

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Israel

Postby Yakk » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:53 pm UTC

A human being with a brain is a dangerous weapon.

And yes, if the USA chose to shoot people who snuck into the country over the boarder, that's acceptable if it was the most reliable way to stop the individual.

Boarder security is well within the moral authority of the state.

It would be far more practical to harness the wish for people to be in the USA and redirect it to an official immigration system. But if the USA wants to build a fortress on it's boarder and prevent people from coming in with lethal force, it can be foolish and do so.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby mosc » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:53 pm UTC

zar wrote:No, not if it's an unarmed civilian. Shooting unarmed, defenceless people does nothing to help your security situation.


How do you tell the difference between a woman with a bomb strapped under her blouse and one who's just a little chubby from 500 yards? Answer: You can't.

You're not in some idealistic border where "civilian" and "soldier" are descriptive terms any longer. The other side frequently uses WOMEN and CHILDREN as human friggin bombs.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:A human being with a brain is a dangerous weapon.

And yes, if the USA chose to shoot people who snuck into the country over the boarder, that's acceptable if it was the most reliable way to stop the individual.

Boarder security is well within the moral authority of the state.

If you really believe that's acceptable to kill unarmed civilians, then I have nothing else to say.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Israel

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:11 pm UTC

If you really believe someone should be expected to not defend themselves against suicide bombers, theres not much else to say.

EDIT: As it pertains to the original discussion, not to Mexican illegal immigrants. Thus nullifying my comment.
Last edited by Izawwlgood on Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:13 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:12 pm UTC

I wasn't aware that there were high numbers of Mexican suicide bombers.

Edit:
I'm stressing this point because I want to make it clear that (most) of us can agree that illegally going to another country is not sufficient grounds for killing them. You have to come up with a better justification than that, like, perhaps, the potential of them being a suicide bomber, as now has been pointed out. If you want to hold that all illegal immigration can be punishable by death, you make your position look much weaker than it is.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Israel

Postby Yakk » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:39 pm UTC

No, I'm saying that border security can morally be enforced with lethal force, if that is the most effective option.

I'm not saying that it is a good idea to do it, I'm just saying that it is morally acceptable.

Practically, defending the boarder with barriers to entry, sensors and patrols will probably be more effective. And the cost (in terms of mobilized violent fighting men) to enforce border security with lethal force isn't usually worth it (I'm not just talking about direct financial cost here!)

Do you really think it is never acceptable to kill an unarmed civilian? Do you count cars and fists as "arms"? Is the only reason you can justify killing someone is that you are absolutely certain that they threatening to kill someone else immediately?
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:13 pm UTC

zar wrote:I wasn't aware that there were high numbers of Mexican suicide bombers.

Edit:
I'm stressing this point because I want to make it clear that (most) of us can agree that illegally going to another country is not sufficient grounds for killing them. You have to come up with a better justification than that, like, perhaps, the potential of them being a suicide bomber, as now has been pointed out. If you want to hold that all illegal immigration can be punishable by death, you make your position look much weaker than it is.


The issue isn't with punishment. 'illegally going to another country is not sufficient grounds for killing them' might be true, but neither is being an innocent civilian sufficient grounds for not being killed while illegally going into another country.

When you cross a border illegally in a war zone, whether innocent or not, you become a potential threat, and the opposing country does have the right to act upon that potential threat. Furthermore, in cases of 2 hostile entities, neither one owes the other the benefit of the doubt.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:04 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:No, I'm saying that border security can morally be enforced with lethal force, if that is the most effective option.

I'm not saying that it is a good idea to do it, I'm just saying that it is morally acceptable.

I'm not just saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying it's morally unacceptable. I don't give a damn how effective it is. Nuking Mexico and killing everyone in the country would probably be the most effective way of dealing with the problem of illegal immigrants. I guess that would be called genocide. So genocide would be the most effective option of securing the U.S/Mexican border. By your reasoning it's morally acceptable. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in disagreeing with that.

yoni45 wrote:The issue isn't with punishment. 'illegally going to another country is not sufficient grounds for killing them' might be true, but neither is being an innocent civilian sufficient grounds for not being killed while illegally going into another country.

When you cross a border illegally in a war zone, whether innocent or not, you become a potential threat, and the opposing country does have the right to act upon that potential threat. Furthermore, in cases of 2 hostile entities, neither one owes the other the benefit of the doubt.

Anything and anyone is a potential threat, war zone or not. You can use that reasoning to justify killing anyone. Again, you'll have to do better than that.

How big does the potential threat need to be to justify killing someone? How is the supposed threat measured? Who makes the decision? These are the questions that you need to address to make your case. I'll state again, in case it has been forgotten, that I'm taking no position on the rightness or wrongness of the actions of Israel. I'm just pointing out that the arguments you are presenting are severely lacking. Surely you can give a better justification for the killing of people illegally crossing the border than them simply being a "potential threat". Such a statement tells me absolutely nothing.
Last edited by zar on Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby westcydr » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:26 pm UTC

zar wrote:
Yakk wrote:No, I'm saying that border security can morally be enforced with lethal force, if that is the most effective option.

I'm not saying that it is a good idea to do it, I'm just saying that it is morally acceptable.

I'm not just saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying it's morally unacceptable. I don't give a damn how effective it is. Nuking Mexico and killing everyone in the country would probably be the most effective way of dealing with the problem of illegal immigrants. I guess that would be called genocide. So genocide would be the most effective option of securing the U.S/Mexican border. By your reasoning it's morally acceptable. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in disagreeing with that.

yoni45 wrote:The issue isn't with punishment. 'illegally going to another country is not sufficient grounds for killing them' might be true, but neither is being an innocent civilian sufficient grounds for not being killed while illegally going into another country.

When you cross a border illegally in a war zone, whether innocent or not, you become a potential threat, and the opposing country does have the right to act upon that potential threat. Furthermore, in cases of 2 hostile entities, neither one owes the other the benefit of the doubt.

Anything and anyone is a potential threat, war zone or not. You can use that reasoning to justify killing anyone. Again, you'll have to do better than that.

If mexicans were coming into the US and suicide bombing cities, Americans would scream to the mountain tops to kill every single person that comes over the border, not just the ones that fit a certain demographic most likely to be terrorists..
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:30 pm UTC

That's quite possible. What's your point?

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby mosc » Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:55 pm UTC

the point is that the borders are totally dissimilar because one is peaceful and the other is a complete warzone and there are different expectations. Crossing a border in a warzone almost completely forfeits your "civilian" status.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Israel

Postby Maurog » Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:10 pm UTC

Umm, getting shot at illegal border crossing is not discriminating in any way, not by race, gender, age, citizenship or any other thing. If an Israeli snuck out somehow, then tried to climb the security fence, he'd probably be shot. It's a bloody country border fence, there's a rather wide mine field, afterwards a clear strip of dust (to make any tracks visible), and then the fence itself, tall and electric, sending an alarm message if anything tries to climb it. There are regular patrols, and they are very edgy, especially when the political situation is shaky (and when it isn't?) Seriously, you don't try to cross one of those things if you want to live.

Counts as suicide in my opinion.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:49 am UTC

zar wrote:Anything and anyone is a potential threat, war zone or not. You can use that reasoning to justify killing anyone. Again, you'll have to do better than that.


You missed a vital part of my post already addressing that. Where between two friendly nation the benefit of the doubt is implicitly mutually owed, between 2 hostile entities, it isn't.

zar wrote:How big does the potential threat need to be to justify killing someone? How is the supposed threat measured? Who makes the decision?


In a scenario such as a war-zone? It's basically if the soldier is *not* sure that the individual is beyond a reasonable doubt harmless, then he can act against the individual as a threat.

In the case of the IDF, the standard is to warn the individual in Arabic, Hebrew, and English before acting further (my cousin in the IAF who occasionally does patrols has a pretty good handle on how to say "Stop right there or I'll open fire" in all 3 languages... ^_^)
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Israel

Postby Yakk » Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:11 am UTC

zar wrote:
Yakk wrote:No, I'm saying that border security can morally be enforced with lethal force, if that is the most effective option.

I'm not saying that it is a good idea to do it, I'm just saying that it is morally acceptable.

I'm not just saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying it's morally unacceptable. I don't give a damn how effective it is. Nuking Mexico and killing everyone in the country would probably be the most effective way of dealing with the problem of illegal immigrants. I guess that would be called genocide. So genocide would be the most effective option of securing the U.S/Mexican border. By your reasoning it's morally acceptable. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in disagreeing with that.


Zar, why are you in favor of killing babies and having biblical knowlege of their dead flesh?

Oh, you protest, you didn't say that?

Well I didn't say that nuking Mexico was morally acceptable either. Strange how offensive inventing words and putting them into other people's mouths is, isn't it?

...

Boarder security consists, among other things, of controlling the flow of things and people into your country.

This occurs at the Boarder.

Mexico city ... isn't at the boarder. Not surprisingly, nuking Mexico city is not part of Boarder security.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:51 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby Number 6 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:21 am UTC

I think the problem lies here: most of us will agree that border-control is the responsibility of national governments. The fact that we have discovered who is responsible for this task does not mean that we have established that this authority can fulfill it's task in any way it deems fit. The fact that there is no higher legal authority for a certain task than X does not mean that X has absolute moral authority on how to fulfill this task. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that does seem to be your argument.

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:
zar wrote:
Yakk wrote:No, I'm saying that border security can morally be enforced with lethal force, if that is the most effective option.

I'm not saying that it is a good idea to do it, I'm just saying that it is morally acceptable.

I'm not just saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying it's morally unacceptable. I don't give a damn how effective it is. Nuking Mexico and killing everyone in the country would probably be the most effective way of dealing with the problem of illegal immigrants. I guess that would be called genocide. So genocide would be the most effective option of securing the U.S/Mexican border. By your reasoning it's morally acceptable. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in disagreeing with that.


Zar, why are you in favor of killing babies and having biblical knowlege of their dead flesh?

Oh, you protest, you didn't say that?

Well I didn't say that nuking Mexico was morally acceptable either. Strange how offensive inventing words and putting them into other people's mouths is, isn't it?

...

Boarder security consists, among other things, of controlling the flow of things and people into your country.

This occurs at the Boarder.

Mexico city ... isn't at the boarder. Not surprisingly, nuking Mexico city is not part of Boarder security.

It's your reasoning, not mine. You lethal force was acceptable if it was the most "effective" option. Nothing could be more effective than simply killing all of the potential crossers ahead of time.

User avatar
westcydr
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:20 pm UTC
Location: By my computer
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby westcydr » Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:07 pm UTC

zar wrote:
Yakk wrote:
zar wrote:
Yakk wrote:No, I'm saying that border security can morally be enforced with lethal force, if that is the most effective option.

I'm not saying that it is a good idea to do it, I'm just saying that it is morally acceptable.

I'm not just saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying it's morally unacceptable. I don't give a damn how effective it is. Nuking Mexico and killing everyone in the country would probably be the most effective way of dealing with the problem of illegal immigrants. I guess that would be called genocide. So genocide would be the most effective option of securing the U.S/Mexican border. By your reasoning it's morally acceptable. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in disagreeing with that.


Zar, why are you in favor of killing babies and having biblical knowlege of their dead flesh?

Oh, you protest, you didn't say that?

Well I didn't say that nuking Mexico was morally acceptable either. Strange how offensive inventing words and putting them into other people's mouths is, isn't it?

...

Boarder security consists, among other things, of controlling the flow of things and people into your country.

This occurs at the Boarder.

Mexico city ... isn't at the boarder. Not surprisingly, nuking Mexico city is not part of Boarder security.

It's your reasoning, not mine. You lethal force was acceptable if it was the most "effective" option. Nothing could be more effective than simply killing all of the potential crossers ahead of time.
So you are good at taking an argument to absurdity.... Good thing that in most real debate formats, they actually try to talk about the issues, instead of play make believe...
---------------------------
ICQ/AIM 5683738
יששכר
"Who needs a quote in a signature, anyways?"

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:55 pm UTC

Using a reductio ad absurdum is perfectly valid logic and a great tool for finding flaws in reasoning. Before addressing the issues, your reasoning must be sound. If you don't have that, you have no argument.

yelly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:25 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem, The Original One.

Re: Israel

Postby yelly » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

zar wrote:Clearly you don't think it's that terrible if you are apparently trying to defend it. Can you name even a single real case where your hypothetical situation has ever happened? Do you even have any evidence that torture is a reliable means of obtaining information?

If not, then have the basic human decency to condemn it. No throat clearing, no dancing around it, just say it's wrong and unacceptable, no matter who's doing it.
You apparently misread the bit in my post where I said I oppose torture. I was just raising a thought.
And how am I supposed to name a case where the secret services torturing someone worked? There is a reason they are called the secret services. I can tell you that attacks on Israel are prevented all the time.
zar wrote:Using a reductio ad absurdum is perfectly valid logic and a great tool for finding flaws in reasoning.

I don't see how nuking mexico city is reductio ad absurdum of shooting people who cross a hostile border.

I've also noticed a recurring theme of people talking about decision you make in war like decision you make in a courtroom. In war you are guilty until proven innocent. If someone is approaching your border and you suspect he might have a kalatchnikov on his back and 15kg of explosives strapped to his belly, you shoot him.
...
"So there are 3 guards, one always tells the truth, one always lies and the third answers randomly"
"But I only want to know the fucking time!"

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:32 pm UTC

yelly wrote:I don't see how nuking mexico city is reductio ad absurdum of shooting people who cross a hostile border.

I've explained this twice already. The reasoning laid out for the morality of shooting people crossing the border was that whatever is most effective in preventing illegal immigration, including killing people, is morally acceptable. Can you name anything that would be more effective than simply eliminating the population?

By the way, do you want to condemn all torture, including that done by Israel, or not? The bulk of my response to you was addressing that, hoping to get a clear response, but it seems to have been ignored.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Israel

Postby Maurog » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:53 pm UTC

zar, did you ever take a logic course?

Let me give you a brief explanation of why your example doesn't work at all. Preventing illegal immigration means preventing people who enter the country, illegally, from doing so. The percentage of such people in Mexico is small. Nuking Mexico will prevent illegal immigration, but it will kill people that have nothing to do with it. Hence, the argument doesn't work.

Compare with this: Criminals are bad. It is morally allowed to use freedom restriction on them and put them into jail. Your argument is: let's put everyone into jail, then all the criminals will be in jail. Then you proceed to say: this is ridiculous, therefore it's unacceptable to put criminals in jail. But it is, your argument just isn't valid.

Hope this helps.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

yelly
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:25 am UTC
Location: Jerusalem, The Original One.

Re: Israel

Postby yelly » Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:58 pm UTC

zar wrote:
yelly wrote:I don't see how nuking mexico city is reductio ad absurdum of shooting people who cross a hostile border.

I've explained this twice already. The reasoning laid out for the morality of shooting people crossing the border was that whatever is most effective in preventing illegal immigration, including killing people, is morally acceptable. Can you name anything that would be more effective than simply eliminating the population?

Shooting people who try to cross the perimeter fence is not to stop immigration, it is to defend the country. Shooting people to prevent immigration is stupid, and I think we have already reached that conclusion.
NINJA'D: Maurog makes a good point.

zar wrote:By the way, do you want to condemn all torture, including that done by Israel, or not? The bulk of my response to you was addressing that, hoping to get a clear response, but it seems to have been ignored.

I would like to condemn all torture, including that done by Israel, but like in any moral dilemma, non of the involved principles is absolute. In this case, a decision has to be made between a person's right not to be tortured and a bunch of people's right to safety and life.
...
"So there are 3 guards, one always tells the truth, one always lies and the third answers randomly"
"But I only want to know the fucking time!"

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:17 pm UTC

Maurog wrote:zar, did you ever take a logic course?

Let me give you a brief explanation of why your example doesn't work at all. Preventing illegal immigration means preventing people who enter the country, illegally, from doing so. The percentage of such people in Mexico is small. Nuking Mexico will prevent illegal immigration, but it will kill people that have nothing to do with it. Hence, the argument doesn't work.

Compare with this: Criminals are bad. It is morally allowed to use freedom restriction on them and put them into jail. Your argument is: let's put everyone into jail, then all the criminals will be in jail. Then you proceed to say: this is ridiculous, therefore it's unacceptable to put criminals in jail. But it is, your argument just isn't valid.

Hope this helps.

You are ignoring what I'm responding to.

Here's the quote again:
No, I'm saying that border security can morally be enforced with lethal force, if that is the most effective option.

I'm not saying that it is a good idea to do it, I'm just saying that it is morally acceptable.

This is what I'm directing my comments at. I am not the one reasoning incorrectly.


The proper analogy would be someone saying "Whatever is most effective in putting all criminals behind bars is morally acceptable" and me responding by saying, "But then it follows that it is moral to arrest everyone, as that would be the most effective way of getting all criminals". The conclusion follows. The problem is with the original assertion. It's clear that how effective something is doesn't make it moral. A simple point, I thought, but it seems to be getting lost on everyone here.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby Azrael001 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:31 pm UTC

Every country has the right to defend it's borders. If they don't want certain people in they are allowed to keep them out, their reasons are irrelevant. They have the right to defend their borders however they see fit, so long as the defense of the border happens at the border.

I don't think that people should be shot while trying to enter a country illegally, but they can be without that country being outside of their rights. In the case of someone trying to enter a country from a border which is currently contested, especially when much of the time "non-combatants" are used as suicide bombers, it is understandable that the defending country would use lethal force to defend itself.

Also zar, when it seems like everyone is wrong but you, it is time to take a good look at yourself.
23111

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:33 pm UTC

Respond to my argument and prove me wrong then. I don't care if you have a gut feeling against what I'm saying, I care if you have an actual argument. So let's hear it.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby Azrael001 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:52 pm UTC

...
You have not made a rational argument, that is why everyone is jumping down your throat. You are picking at one part of one post, and ignoring the actual argument. I didn't even realize that that was what you had a problem with, it is such an insignificant part of the main point of the tread. This whole part of the discussion is a tangent, and your argument is tangent to that.
23111

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:54 pm UTC

If you didn't know what I was responding to, then I'm quite puzzled as to how you knew I was wrong. If you didn't even bother to see what the argument is (like many others who are jumping in) might I suggest refraining from saying that I'm wrong until you actually do understand the argument.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby Azrael001 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

I was going by your arguments following the one tiny point. What I should have said was: At first I didn't even realize...

Anyways, I knew your overarching arguments were weak, but I didn't realize that you had built your shaky arguments on such a flimsy point.
23111

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:35 pm UTC

zar wrote:Respond to my argument and prove me wrong then. I don't care if you have a gut feeling against what I'm saying, I care if you have an actual argument. So let's hear it.


For the record, everyone jumped down your throat after your inapplicable analogy to Mexico, not after you pointed out the flaw in Yakk's argument...
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Number 6
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:51 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby Number 6 » Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:54 pm UTC

Azrael001 wrote:Every country has the right to defend it's borders. If they don't want certain people in they are allowed to keep them out, their reasons are irrelevant. They have the right to defend their borders however they see fit, so long as the defense of the border happens at the border.

I don't think that people should be shot while trying to enter a country illegally, but they can be without that country being outside of their rights. In the case of someone trying to enter a country from a border which is currently contested, especially when much of the time "non-combatants" are used as suicide bombers, it is understandable that the defending country would use lethal force to defend itself.

Also zar, when it seems like everyone is wrong but you, it is time to take a good look at yourself.


I strongly disagree. Yes, every country has the right to defend it's borders but no, not however they see fit. No country is an island (err, you get what I mean :P ). This Machiavellian style of thought is that of an era that is now gone or should be, since it doesn't fit todays world. And I'm glad at that.

That doesn't mean that Israelean defenders should needlesly endanger themselves, it's just important for them to realise that not every action taken to defend the border is at most morally neutral. The procedure described above of asking them to stop 3 times sounds fine to me, though.

zar
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:26 pm UTC

Re: Israel

Postby zar » Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:07 pm UTC

Azrael001 wrote:I was going by your arguments following the one tiny point. What I should have said was: At first I didn't even realize...

Anyways, I knew your overarching arguments were weak, but I didn't realize that you had built your shaky arguments on such a flimsy point.

What, exactly is shaky about my argument? If you want to argue against what I'm saying, go for it. Saying "you have a shaky argument" isn't an argument and contributes nothing. So stop simply insulting me and make your case, if you have one.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Israel

Postby Maurog » Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:41 pm UTC

zar, I finally got your point, and you're just nitpicking.
You have a problem with this:
No, I'm saying that border security can morally be enforced with lethal force, if that is the most effective option.

But you don't have a problem with that:
Border security can morally be enforced with lethal force.

The use of the phrase "effective" riled you up so much that you dragged everyone along with you until the thread was derailed. You know what, you're blocked. The worst kind of argument is arguing about nothing at all, and turning everything to be about you. It's not about you. It's not about you so much I don't want to hear what you say ever again. You might be able to make valid points, but for some reason chose not to do so. And you're not gonna stop. That's too bad.

Let's hope normal discussion of actual points can resume in this thread sometime in the future.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby Azrael001 » Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:53 am UTC

zar wrote:
Azrael001 wrote:I was going by your arguments following the one tiny point. What I should have said was: At first I didn't even realize...

Anyways, I knew your overarching arguments were weak, but I didn't realize that you had built your shaky arguments on such a flimsy point.

What, exactly is shaky about my argument? If you want to argue against what I'm saying, go for it. Saying "you have a shaky argument" isn't an argument and contributes nothing. So stop simply insulting me and make your case, if you have one.


I didn't feel the need to repeat four or five other people. I was simply trying to sum everything up since you didn't get their points.

Also, I agree with everything Maurog just said. I almost posted only this: "What he said", but then I thought better of it.
23111

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel

Postby Dream » Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:36 am UTC

Going back to the original post by Yakk:

I think that because the mere act of crossing a border cannot endanger the life of anyone inside that border, immediate lethal force is unjustified. Furthermore, if an illegal migrant is found within a country's borders after the fact, a capital crime has not been committed. Thus lethal force is not justified in preventing successful illegal migration. These arguments hold for the Mexico-US border.

However, in some cases there is a risk that those crossing the border are bent on immediately harming those within the border, or those patrolling it, and are for practical purposes indistinguishable from innocent civilians. This holds for the Israeli borders, at least in times when suicide bombing is current. I have some experience of crossing fortified borders (Northern Ireland, 1980's and early 90's). It is possible, and I have experienced it, to search, scan or profile every single person crossing a busy border post. It takes huge investment, and rigorous application, but it is possible. If my mother and a couple of small boys merit cover by several machine guns, and heavily armoured, bomb proof border installations, it should be possible to treat all potential crossings with such strict inspection. (And, might I add, service with a smile from the British Army. Always nice to us, even with a rifle slung between me and him...)

If enough control is exercised over border crossings, it should be much more feasable to assume some accuracy in assumptions of threat levels in random civilians. At the moment it is not, and thus deliberate killings are unwarranted. If it were, then arguments based on state's moral rights to defend their borders would hold more water.

tl;dr, you can't have a policy of killing people unless every possible effort has been made to ascertain the immediate necessity of lethal force. I don't see that in much of Israel/Palestine.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:23 am UTC

Dream wrote:It is possible, and I have experienced it, to search, scan or profile every single person crossing a busy border post. It takes huge investment, and rigorous application, but it is possible. If my mother and a couple of small boys merit cover by several machine guns, and heavily armoured, bomb proof border installations, it should be possible to treat all potential crossings with such strict inspection. (And, might I add, service with a smile from the British Army. Always nice to us, even with a rifle slung between me and him...)


Um, I'm pretty sure that the border posts are precisely what said potential terrorists are trying to *avoid*... Israel has numerous checkpoints as you describe (in fact, Israel gets regular condemnation for it). This isn't in regards to said checkpoints, it's in regards to infiltration outside of such a checkpoint. Which, as noted prior, in a war-zone, the standard tends to be 'guilty until proven innocent'.

The idea that in a war-zone soldiers are expected to exhaust all possible options to *ensure* that an individual is an actual threat is absurd. I can only imagine American soldiers in Iraq making sure that a seemingly hostile individuals rifle is in fact not a toy, that it is in fact aimed at them accurately, that it is in fact loaded, and that the individual being faced does in fact have intent to fire before engaging the target...
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Israel

Postby Yakk » Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:35 am UTC

zar wrote:Here's the quote again:
No, I'm saying that border security can morally be enforced with lethal force, if that is the most effective option.

I'm not saying that it is a good idea to do it, I'm just saying that it is morally acceptable.

This is what I'm directing my comments at. I am not the one reasoning incorrectly.


The proper analogy would be someone saying "Whatever is most effective in putting all criminals behind bars is morally acceptable"


The statement I made, and the statement "Whatever is most effective in putting all criminals behind bars is morally acceptable" ARE NOT ALL THAT RELATED. I did not say "whatever is most effective".

If you invent things that I don't say, don't expect me to pay attention to your refutations of things I didn't say.

Border security is important. I consider it to be within the mandate of a nation to defend it's borders with lethal force.

I don't consider "only the immediate threat of death justified lethal force" to be a morally acceptable axiom.

When you say things like:
zar wrote:The reasoning laid out for the morality of shooting people crossing the border was that whatever is most effective in preventing illegal immigration, including killing people, is morally acceptable.


You are making shit up.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel

Postby Dream » Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:33 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:Um, I'm pretty sure that the border posts are precisely what said potential terrorists are trying to *avoid*... Israel has numerous checkpoints as you describe (in fact, Israel gets regular condemnation for it). This isn't in regards to said checkpoints, it's in regards to infiltration outside of such a checkpoint. Which, as noted prior, in a war-zone, the standard tends to be 'guilty until proven innocent'.
How, if there is no possibility of ascertaining someone's civilian status, is there any way to ascertain them as being militants? There is no more evidence of one than the other. The implication of that is the policy of the miltary concerned is not "guilty until proven innocent", but "we regularly shoot dead people we know nothing about". Which I consider barbaric. On the other hand, if not all border crossers are shot, that implies some kind of discernment, based, one would assume, on some information. Thus there is some grey area, and that carries with it some responsibility for those who decide who is shot and who is not.
The idea that in a war-zone soldiers are expected to exhaust all possible options to *ensure* that an individual is an actual threat is absurd. I can only imagine American soldiers in Iraq making sure that a seemingly hostile individuals rifle is in fact not a toy, that it is in fact aimed at them accurately, that it is in fact loaded, and that the individual being faced does in fact have intent to fire before engaging the target...
Well, as you said above, I was talking about checkpoints in regard to this, and I think an occupying force that sets up a checkpoint they know will be used chiefly by legitimate civilians has a much higher burden of proof than one on a patrol in a hostile area, or on a battlefield. The checkpoint situaition is created by the occupier, and supposedly is controlled by them. If you deliberately create a concentration of civilians that you suposedly are in control of, that's a different situation to a general conflict.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:15 pm UTC

Dream wrote:How, if there is no possibility of ascertaining someone's civilian status, is there any way to ascertain them as being militants? There is no more evidence of one than the other. The implication of that is the policy of the miltary concerned is not "guilty until proven innocent", but "we regularly shoot dead people we know nothing about". Which I consider barbaric. On the other hand, if not all border crossers are shot, that implies some kind of discernment, based, one would assume, on some information. Thus there is some grey area, and that carries with it some responsibility for those who decide who is shot and who is not.


Except we do know something about them: they are breaching a border in a war zone. Considering the situation, they are a reasonable potential threat.

In a war zone dealing with enemy hostiles, the standard does indeed become 'guilty until proven innocent' (or in responding to your first sentence, 'militant until proven civilian'). You mention that there is some kind of discernment; well, yes, that'd be the 'proven innocent' part. If an individual comes out with a white flag and follows orders and doesn't do anything suspicious, that'd be 'proving [himself] innocent (or at least not threatening)'.

Dream wrote:Well, as you said above, I was talking about checkpoints in regard to this...


I don't mean to be rude (and I actually mean that sincerely), but in that case, that's largely irrelevant to what we're talking about. We're not talking about individuals who legitimately (or even illegitimately) pass through checkpoints. This line of argument is in regards to individuals who are breaching borders (outside of any checkpoints).
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel

Postby Dream » Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Dream wrote:How, if there is no possibility of ascertaining someone's civilian status, is there any way to ascertain them as being militants? There is no more evidence of one than the other. The implication of that is the policy of the miltary concerned is not "guilty until proven innocent", but "we regularly shoot dead people we know nothing about". Which I consider barbaric. On the other hand, if not all border crossers are shot, that implies some kind of discernment, based, one would assume, on some information. Thus there is some grey area, and that carries with it some responsibility for those who decide who is shot and who is not.


Except we do know something about them: they are breaching a border in a war zone. Considering the situation, they are a reasonable potential threat.

In a war zone dealing with enemy hostiles, the standard does indeed become 'guilty until proven innocent' (or in responding to your first sentence, 'militant until proven civilian'). You mention that there is some kind of discernment; well, yes, that'd be the 'proven innocent' part. If an individual comes out with a white flag and follows orders and doesn't do anything suspicious, that'd be 'proving [himself] innocent (or at least not threatening)'.
I think you're oversimplifying a little. The gulf between white flag waving and gun-toting is very wide, and contains within it unarmed, unthreatening innocent people. I still see no compelling reason that these people are lumped in with the militants rather than with the civilians. Perhaps if Israel had a clean, straight border, well thought out with respect to local communities, there would be a stronger case for assuming the reasonable suspicion of people who go near or attempt to cross it. As it is, the border is complex, and divides communities and families, giving ordinary civilians a reason to cross it, illegally and peacefully at one and the same time.
Dream wrote:Well, as you said above, I was talking about checkpoints in regard to this...


I don't mean to be rude (and I actually mean that sincerely), but in that case, that's largely irrelevant to what we're talking about.
I know, I was just finishing my point with respect to your objection to it. I was considering flagging it as off-topic myself.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel

Postby yoni45 » Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:41 pm UTC

Dream wrote:I think you're oversimplifying a little. The gulf between white flag waving and gun-toting is very wide, and contains within it unarmed, unthreatening innocent people. I still see no compelling reason that these people are lumped in with the militants rather than with the civilians. Perhaps if Israel had a clean, straight border, well thought out with respect to local communities, there would be a stronger case for assuming the reasonable suspicion of people who go near or attempt to cross it. As it is, the border is complex, and divides communities and families, giving ordinary civilians a reason to cross it, illegally and peacefully at one and the same time.


It might be 'complex', but it's by no means unclear. This isn't a parking lot fence you can hop over, it's a high fence, barbed wire, patrolled roads with fine sand used to check for footprints around it. It's not a 'maybe' fence, it's a 'DON'T FUCK AROUND' kind of fence.

Furthermore, the fence in question also happens to be the Gaza perimeter fence, which *is* 'clean', 'straight', and doesn't divide any communities.

And finally, you're right: there is a gulf between white flag waving and gun-toting. In a war-zone, it's the individual's responsibility to ensure they stay out of that gulf and stick towards the white flag waving side.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests