And what general moral/ethical rule would that be that can be claimed justifying the act of knowingly continuing to kill innocents "by accident" on a continuous basis? I challenge both sides-Jewish Zionist and Arab Hezbollah in particular to respond to this ethics Q rationally. Others are also invited to respond constructively!
File TWH 08102006
2006-08-10 13:40:25 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Mel T you said: "We're 1000's of miles away watching video of tragedies in our home. That makes it much easier and much more comfortable to make moral judgements." That is factually true but we are aware of and are all affected by the events in the Mid East and we have a part to play in the matter since we are members of the same humaqn race and we all live on the same planet. So your point, minimizing our responsabilities to act ethically and encourage others to do so make your point irrelevant. I do not accept and hereby have refuted your indirect, ad hominem characterization of my impartial Q. TWH 08122006
2006-08-12 16:37:47 · update #1
no either side is not
2006-08-16 08:36:00 · answer #1 · answered by Mark 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it doesn't actually apply in the case of Hezbollah, because their targets are in fact civilians. When they lob a missile into the middle of a city, they probably figure it'll be non-combatents that die. The problem here is they don't believe any Jew can be "innocent", as they despise them all. Which leads to whether or not Israel in its justified paranoia is really crying buckets for Arab innocents. You can state platitudes like "war is immoral", but when both parties believe the other to be animals this moral line gets blurry and vague to those involved.
We're 1000's of miles away watching video of tragedies in our home. That makes it much easier and much more comfortable to make moral judgements.
Edit:
Fair enough response. I was trying to see through their eyes, because there is no understanding until you do that. We have two societies. Each believes the other to be the aggressor (and quite possibly animals or evil). We may appeal to their sense of morals, but we have to be realistic enough to know that that's not going to work, as their moral compass has been damaged in the wreckage. It's just not going to be successful. If both sides want the complete destruction of the other saying "war is immoral" is just not constructive no matter how true. Sometimes there's no peace without war and an actual victory.
Failing to accept does not mean refuted.
Interesting talk. Thanks.
2006-08-10 13:57:07 · answer #2 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Civilians (or rather, non-combatants) are just pawns, sheep caught in the crossfire between two wolves. Both sides will use their loss as propaganda. "Oh, look what the Jews are doing!" the Arabs will cry, as they dig the bodies of dead children out of the rubble. "Oh, look what Hezbollah is doing!" the Israelis will cry, as they dig the bodies of dead children out of the rubble.
Both sides will use the media to spin it to their liking. Sad.
And Jimmy, you're a dumbass. Some of those folks can't leave. Keep up with what's going on over there before you say something stupid.
2006-08-10 13:49:52 · answer #3 · answered by yo_momma_is_sweet 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a difficult question, look at WW2 they new innocents would die during the war, but think what would have happened to Europe and the ppl in it if we hadn't interfered with Hitlers plans, it would have been more immoral to let a man like that stay in power. It depends who u are fighting for and what u are fighting for, if u are fighting for the good of all ppl (not just ur own) then it may be slightly less immoral, but if it is for ur own selfish reasons then it is immoral. It's really a rather grey issue.
2006-08-10 13:50:09 · answer #4 · answered by bobatemydog 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is considered collateral damage..You can't claim morality in this latest instance however. All those people were given ample time to get out of the area. They either chose to stay or were prevented from leaving...Is entirely a propaganda tool by the terrorists, to get world sympathy.. while they continue to kill indiscriminently with their rockets.
It is mainly a propaganda war. To make Israel appear to be the bad apples.
2006-08-10 13:49:16 · answer #5 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are basic International Law rules for war, Israel is abiding by them, civilian casualties always happen. The guilty party is the one that starts the conflict. Hezbollah fire rockets indiscriminately at cities with the intentions of killing civilians, Israel does not.
2006-08-10 13:52:30 · answer #6 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is war. Innocents will suffer. But you can not blame the jews for responding to what hezbollah has done.
2006-08-15 16:22:45 · answer #7 · answered by DH 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Moral issues are not taken into consideration when you have wars!@
2006-08-15 06:55:30 · answer #8 · answered by nswblue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in a war if the innocent people are too stupid to leave an area that is under attack then they deserve to die, war is war, and in a war everyone is a potential enemy.
2006-08-10 13:47:44 · answer #9 · answered by Jimmy C 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
killing is bad period , very wrong for anyone who does it
2006-08-10 14:00:12 · answer #10 · answered by jojo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋