Quote:
Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden
This was talked about early in the conflict. Discourse plays a very important role in war and perceptions of it. I think semantic arguments are valid for that reason.
The public conscious of 1st world countries is that the civilian causality risk of intense bombing campaigns is acceptable.
Truth is, Isreal could or any other 1st world air force could kill millions of people without ever having too look them in the eyes.
The prospect of that is horrific and worth debating in times of peace and war. I think we've forgotten how good we've become at killing.
|
Absolutely. Semantic arguments are valid, and any time killing innocent people is being justified, that justification should receive the utmost scrutiny we can muster.
“Human shields” is not a justification without limits and conditions that make it acceptable. Nor is a terrorist attack carte blanche to respond in any manner the attacked see fit.
I think anyone who dismisses these questions or conversations as semantics (or worse, trolling), is in the wrong. We should always question them.
In the past few weeks I’ve seen an Israeli baby who was burnt to death by Hamas and a Palestinian baby who was blown in half by an IDF bomb. If someone is going to say with a straight face that one is right and one is wrong, we should at least be able to questions the justifications that decided one of those was right. And “they made me do it” is about as piss-poor of an excuse there is.
Because, quite honestly, they looked equally horrific to me.