Fine! But International Law and Geneva Conventions agree. And I care about that more.

So let me get this straight one last time. You disagree that Israel is occupying Palestinian land? You disagree that settlements are wrong?

If a state wants to act to defend law and order, it can not transgress the laws it wants to defend whithout loosing all legitimacy. On another scale that principle is upheld for instance when evidence has been obtained illegally : that evidence cannot be used anymore.

There are many recent examples of states transgressing the laws they wanted to protect : Germany coping with the Baader-Meinhof "terrorists", the USA in Guantanamo and Israel coping with the palestinian people...

Once one holds as a principle that once law is transgressed anything goes in retaliation, one is condoning the transgression of law by others...

Israel could show its strength and legitimacy by respecting international law. It does not, but still wants support and sympathy. Not from me.

Jacob

[quote=R.D. Silverman;158933]If Israel, in *defending itself against a crime* causes "collateral damage",
then the responsibilty must lie with those committing the crime in the
first place, not Israel.[/quote]
Don't forget that by letting civilians occuppy the Palestinian territories which Hamas are sending their rocekts against, Israel is committing the first crime. When Israel use civilians as an occupation force, which is illegal, are those civilians valid targets? Or is it allowed to occuppy foreign land as long as you use military force to remove the inhabitants and then move in civilians to keep the land occuppied? If the Palestinian children are valid tartgets, then why isn't the civilian Israeli occupation force a valid taget? I don't get your logic.
[quote]Secondly, the militants themselves can mitigate all collateral damage
by separating themselves from the civilian population. It is they who
bear the blame for civilian deaths because like cowards, they are hiding
behind women and children. Any responsibility for civilian deaths
is theirs.[/quote]You have simply not been paying much attention, have you? Bombing hospitals is not allowed in war or at any time, no matter how many wounded militants it contains. Never. More than 1/3 of the dead are children. You don't hit that many children if you don't try. I simply can't see any evidence that Israel is even trying to find militants. The numbers speak for themselves. Israel are bombing at random at best.

Why do you defend the murder of small children, Mr. Silverman? Do you hate children?
[quote]Finally, as a philosophical principle, allow me to say that the notion
that one can separate civilians from the military in modern warfare
is archaic and unrealistic. Civilians provide supplies, munitions, food,
and other logistical support for the military and thus are an inherent
part of any war. I think the distinction between 'civilian' and military is
not realizable in modern warfare. Anyone who believes otherwise is
living in fantasy land. We no longer have battles where the armies
separate themselves from civilians and do isolated battle on some field.
When the military does things like storing munitions among civilians,
those munitions are legitimate targets and the civilians must pay the
consequences. When civilians build bombs in factories, the factories
and the people building the bombs are legitimate targets.
[/quote]I would not be alive if the Germans had the same ideas as you during WWII. My grandfather hid weapons and was captured early in the war. He was sent to a work camp in Germany, served his time and came back. Following your logic the Germans should have bombed his farm with terrible weapons, kill his children and bombed the cemetary of his grandparents. And te hospital as well, just in case there were other people there who were helping the resistance. (More or less everybody helped the resistance in some way or another btw.)

Civilians are civilians, and it is not accepted to kill them or their children even if they help the Palestinian resistance.

[quote=garo;158927]Would you care to reply to my post-script in that posting then?[/quote]The post-script was:

[quote]PS: My comment to the interested reader was not a "biased" one. I was inviting the reader to apply the same standards to both sides in this argument. The innuendo there was in your mind, not in my words. Parse them again carefully.[/quote]I refrained from commenting on it because that would carry on the sidetrack. But, okay, it's not all sidetrack --

But I need you first to answer these:

1. "My"-which-"comment"?
2. Meaning of "interested reader", please?
3. "in this"-which-"argument"?
4. Parse which words, exactly, again?

Without specifics, I run the risk of mistaking the antecedents of each of your subsequent pronouns and generalities. What's clear, to you, isn't necessarily, to me; so I need a restatement with more specifics.

- -

As for the innuendo not being in your words:

It most certainly [U]is[/U] in your words!

You wrote, "Which of these devices has been used in this thread by which poster is left to the interested reader as an exercise" as a preamble to an article listing a number of verbal devices with the clear message that their use was to be looked-down-upon.

By saying, "Which ... by which ... is left to the interested reader as an exercise", you clearly imply that you do have specific devices and specific posters in mind, but you do not state which/who they are. In other words, you "veil" your accusation(s) rather than stating them directly so that we can all understand what you mean without guessing.

From Webster's:

[quote][B]innuendo[/B] ... [B]1 :[/B] veiled, oblique, or covert allusion to something not directly named [B]:[/B] HINT, INSINUATION; [I]esp[/I] [B]:[/B] veiled or equivocal allusion reflecting upon the character, ability, or other trait of the person referred to[/quote] and here it gives the examples

"try to undermine him by innuendo -- [I]Kiplinger Washington Letter[/I]"

and

"how difficult it is to set up a proper defense against innuendo -- M.S.Watson"

In order for that post #53 not to be innuendo, you'd have to say which specific devices you thought had been used by which specific posters.

By not having done that, you've cast a pall of unseemliness over all those who've differed with you in this thread, without having taken responsibility for your accusation(s) so that the accused can properly defend themselves.

If you continue in your protestation against having used innuendo, and refuse either to withdraw and apologize for it, or to substitute specific accusations, I can be more blunt in my explanation so that it's crystal-clear (and sarcastic). If you honestly still don't understand "innuendo", seek assistance from someone who does before making any more protest about not having used it.

Innuendo isn't an unforgivable mortal sin; one can recover from its exposure if one is willing to do so.

- - -

Let me point out that I'm trying to teach here, just as I was taught in certain forums when I was younger (though I'm trying to be gentler). I'm quite willing to allow that garo has not deliberately and knowingly used the verbal device of innuendo with full knowledge of the consequences, if he will show willingness to learn or repent (as the case may be).

garo,

I apologize for some excessive belligerence in my previous posting. :redface: I shouldn't have logged on while I was upset earlier.

cheesehead, I read your previous two posting but refrain from making any responses as regular readers of the mersenneforum know where that usually leads us. Now how is that for innuendo? :smile:

Are you going to simply state in a direct manner which of the tactics listed in the article you think have been used, and by which posters, in this thread?

[quote=cheesehead;158206]

Gaza doesn't have a constitution with

"Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law."

[/quote]

Nor evidently does Israel.

[QUOTE]With the overseas media allowed into Gaza for the first time since before the Israeli operation began on 27 December, more details emerged of the extent of the damage caused to civilian buildings where the fighting was fiercest.
In Zeitoun, on the southern edge of Gaza City, a number of apartment blocks and homes were damaged by tank shells or machine gun fire, or completely destroyed. Among these was a flattened house identified as having belonged to the extended Samouni family, 48 of whom are believed to have been killed when their home was repeatedly shelled by Israeli forces.
Nearby was another home that had evidently been used as a base by Israeli troops. Inside it was littered with bullet casings and ration packs, and walls were daubed with slogans including "Arabs need to die" and "Arabs: 1948 to 2009".
[/QUOTE]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Proper negotiation can find ways of allowing both sides to back off from their extreme statements, instead of solidifying around them. Then, the more each treats the other as fully human and deserving of life, the more progress can be made toward a peaceful resolution.

I agree with everything you say in the post.
[quote=cheesehead;159374]Two wrongs don't make a right.[/quote]

I never said that. Now before you say that you never said that I ever said that, starting a response to my post with the statement can create that impression so you should explicitly state that your remark is neutral in tone and not directed at me.

My point is that people refer to extremist statements by Hamas all the time. I am just drawing attention to a similar statement by Israeli soldiers. Their politicians also make such statements. Also, many commentators use extremist statements by Hamas as a reason to not negotiate with them. That is a foolish viewpoint.

Meantime from what I can gather there is some sort of ceasefire.
Hamas will stop firing rockets for a week to give the Israelis time to
get out.
The bad news is that Hamas has vowed to rearm, which suggests
that their ceasfire was motivated by running out of rockets.

David