Reply #41: Your post contains many errors. [View All]

[msmcghee]

breakaleg: More damage can be done with some weapons compared to another. While the weapons themselves aren't moral or not, there is a difference between a weapon designed to kill thousands versus a weapon designed to kill one person.

Your implication is that there is a "moral" difference between weapons that are designed to kill more vs. fewer people with a single use. Without dwelling on the obvious contradiction with your previous sentence, you are asserting that it is more moral to attack another country and only kill a few of their citizens - than it is to kill more than a few of the attacking nation's people in your defense. Your logic suggests that if Israel had held back and allowed more Israelis to die than Lebanese - then Israel could have earned the "moral high ground" - which of course is ridiculous. Perhaps next time Hisb'allah could just threaten to attack and Israel could execute a few hundred of her citizens so as to retain her honor on your scales of justice.

breakaleg: And again, a preemptive strike does not constitute defense. I think your argument is hampered by your definition of what defense is.

Are you still suffering under the delusion that Israel attacked Hizb'allah and started this war? Some intellectual honesty is needed if you really want to discuss these things. The only pre-emptive attack here was when Hizb'allah attacked Israel's patrol and again when they escalated by firing rockets into Israeli towns at civilians. Nisrallah has admitted to doing this pre-emptively. The UNIFIL report, usually heavily biased against Israel, spells this out explicitly.

breakaleg: Can you not see a difference between sending missiles in a general direction and and hoping they hit something but knowing many won't (which is what Hezbollah did) and sending in precision guided bombs that did hit their targets causing huge casualties(which is what Israel did)?

Imagine that in school a bully comes to you and says he wants your bike and he tries to kick your ass when your refuse. The fight is fairly bloody but you manage to defend yourself and even break his arm in the process - while you only suffer some scratches and bruises.

Now, he goes to the principle and says that even though he attacked you to steal your bike, that you beat him up unfairly and used your marshall arts skills, which he did not expect.

Now, imagine that the principle says that you were in the wrong for defending yourself too aggressively - so now you must give him your bike, that if you don't like that you will be expelled - and if there's a next time you better not use your marshall arts skills to defend yourself - that you better have at least as much blood on you as he has on him.

Rather than complain about the "effectiveness" of Israel's defense (which actually killed very few civilians based on the huge amounts of ordinance expended over a 34 day period) why not truly look for some moral justification for Nisrallah's pre-emptive attack on Israel - and not finding it - be prepared to condemn those who start wars and are the actual cause of all the death and suffering that occurs in them - if that is your true concern.

(Now, following the format, it's your turn to tell me that if Israel was not occupying the West Bank or whatever - that Hizb'allah would not have been forced to attack Israel pre-emptively. Go for it.)