Murder of 10 month old Shalhevet Pass
Tali Hatuel Family--8 month pregnant mother and her four daughters
Posted on 03/14/2011 11:53:18 AM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
One of the biggest mistakes the Israelis made was failing to ANNEX the land they won fair and square after they were attacked in 1967, make it part of Israel proper, and completely expel the murderous camel humpers. They would have been much better off had they raised a giant middle finger to 'world opinion' then.
Hopefully they can hold off until we get rid of the Kenyan usurper ... then we should dust off B-52s parked in Davis-Monthan, paint Stars of David on them, fill them up with napalm, fly them to Israel, turn them over to the IAF, and let them take care of the cancer in Gaza and the West Bank once and for all.
Seeing the pictures of three of their children brought it home, big time.
If those pigs love death so much, if killing brings them so much joy-what kind of a God do they worship? A God who applauds the brutal slaying of tiny children for no other reason than being born into a family of Jewish folk? Oh my gosh....I am beginning to think Allah is a terrorist in, for a muslim, (fake) God-like clothing.
What kind of an animal would worship a God who finds joy in the slaughter of children?
I hope there is a clarion cry from the world regarding this act.
Mohammed really pulled a big one over many- millions have bought into it...none of them ever studying how that jerk enriched himself off the backs of his own followers. I mean...virgins as a reward for slaughter? Are muslims barbarians?
Amen to that..
True. TROP has been at war with the rest of the world for more than 1400 years..
“When this was reported, there was rejoicing in the streets in Gaza, and candy and sweets were given out to little Muslim children by their festive mothers.”
There’s photos of that here plus a link to photos of the crime scene. The photos were released with the approval of the family.
Murder of 10 month old Shalhevet Pass
Tali Hatuel Family--8 month pregnant mother and her four daughters
This is morally comparable to knifing a family. It is a crime, and is to be condemned.
Who's going around using nuclear weapons though? Having them and using them are two very different things. Seeking them to possess as a deterrent and seeking them to use are two very different things. I don't understand your point. Perhaps you can clarify.
Way to focus on the real atrocity. You stay classy.
Let me give you an analogy that comes from real life.
A guy I actually know (or knew 20 years ago) was an armed robber who had been tried and convicted more than once for this crime. He-- call him "Dean" --- repeatedly told me, with indignant sincerity, that he was not guilty of these charges, that he was in fact nonviolent, because he never discharged his weapon, and never intended to discharge it.
Dean may not have "discharged" the weapon, but he "used" the weapon nevertheless, because its use was in making a terroristic threat: unless you do such-and-such, I will inflict catastrophic damange on you.
The use of a deterrent nuke is the same, but 100,000 times more morally grave: unless you do such-and-such, I will inflict catastrophic damage on you, your granddad, wife, four brothers, baby daughter, all your blameless, sleeping neighbors, the whole greater metropolitan area, flambeau.
Which you don't have a right to do. Because nobody has a right to kill, or threaten to kill, all these people.
Your analogy is lacking. Clearly, Dean was rationalizing. We agree there. However, his use of a weapon to threaten others is not analogous to the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, or even their deployment against an aggressor. A better analogy would be the guy on the other side of the store counter who has a shotgun ready for just such an encounter. He owns that shotgun so he can respond to threats from men like Dean. Doing so is both appropriate and necessary.
Let me clarify. You're right. The possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is only effective if you're willingness to use them is credible. However, there is some distance between being willing to deploy nuclear weapons in response to an imminent existential threat and being willing to use them to threaten other nations, just as there is a difference between Dean waving a gun around demanding cash and the victim responding with lethal force.
You're right that in my analogy, Dean's armed robbery tactic is morally flawed from the git-go because he is an aggressor; the analogy (like all analogies) is spotty. The spot where the analogy does fit, though, is that Dean does not have the right to shoot that rifle at the guy on the other side of the counter, and for that reason does not have the right to threaten to shoot the guy.
Your analogy is better in that the counter-guy does have a right to have a shotgun, and use it, either as a threat or (failing that) in practice. But use it on whom? On the aggressor --- or on the aggressor's wife, family, and nieghbors?
So let's try a third analogy (this is going to be complicated in a contrived way, but let's see if we can make sense of it): Dean comes in the store with a sharp butcher knife in his right hand (I changed it to "knife" to make the thing seem physically do-able), and the store owner's baby cradled in his left arm. "Give me all the money or I'll knife your baby."
The store owner has a shotgun but can't get a clear shot at Dean without endangering the baby. So he says, "You put that baby down and back off, or I will kill your kid. And he aims his shotgun at close range at Dean's 3-year-old cowering in the corner.
Does he have a right to do that? I say no. He would have no right to shoot the child, so he has no right to threaten to shoot him as part of a desperate attempt at deterrence.
A further analogy: say the homeowner on Third Avenue knows that the Seventh Avenue Salvatruchas are threatening him and his family. So he posts a sign: "If any Salvatrucha comes looking for trouble on Third Avenue, I will blow up Seventh Avenue from 10th Street to 95th Street." And for months he's been creatively spending his spare time laying mines on Seventh Avenue for 85 blocks: he could actually pull it off.
Justified? I say no. He cannot morally threaten it, nor take steps to do it, because he could not morally do it: he could not indiscriminately kill everybody on Seventh Avenue: Salvatruchas, Supermercado crowds, all the people at the Seventh Avenue Street Festival, and the whole congregation of the Seventh Avenue Iglesia de Dios.
And that shows up another problem with a program of deterrence. It only "works" --- IF it does, when it does --- IF the other side is rational and will calculate how best to protect its people and assets. If the other side is drunk, on drugs, nihilistic, bloody-allah-obsessed or batshit crazy, the deterrent won't work. The aggressor will say, "Go ahead. Bismillah! I love death! The dead infidels will go to hell, the dead jihadis will all be blessed shahids, Allah will love us, and I'm ready to roll with my 72 virgins."
Let’s dispense with the analogies. As you point out, they’re becoming rather convoluted.
I’m still having trouble understanding your point. What is the practical application of your position? Are you saying Israel shouldn’t have nuclear weapons?
The question is not "which weapons do you choose?" but "which targets do you choose?"
The objective moral law is not against "nuclear" weapons, per se but against any weapons used in a targeting strategy which either directly targets noncombatants, or which is intentionally indiscriminate.
If it’s possible to have “smart nukes”? Do such things exist? I mean nukes which can be effectively focused on destroying actual aggressors and enemy military assets, and sufficiently precise to spare (most) civilians and the things needed for the civilians’ survival. I would be a big supporter of that. There is a moral obligation for nations, including Israel, to defend themselves from aggressors, with lethal force if need be. There is also a moral obligation of nations to shield noncombatants as much as they possibly can.
Do you see the distinction I’m making here?
That’s why, at my entry into this discussion, I raised the point about the nuclear weapons. Not because they are “nuclear,” but inasmuch as they are indiscriminate.
If they are sufficiently targeted on enemy troops, weapons, equipment and supplies, I have no objection. On the other hand, if they are intended to destroy a city, or a geographical area together with its inhabitants (which is what strategic nuclear weapons do), then their use as a deterrent would include an immoral threat against noncombatants, and their use as a weapon would constitute murder.
By the way, I read The Right ro Exist (Link), a moral defense of Israel’s wars by Yaacov Lozowick. He makes a good case that the Israelis have mostly adhered to the ethic of blasting military targets, and sparing noncombatants.
He doesn’t address the nuclear question per se, and I wonder what he would say about it, in the light of this ethic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.