Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 52 of 52

Thread: IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement

  1. #51
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    Changed my comment...responded to the posts out of order.
    My statement stands.
    The orders may not have been worded well, there may not have been sufficient oversight of the sniper, there may have been some degree of negligence on the part of the sniper, but there's NO moral depravity in the orders he was given.

  2. #52
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,400

    Re: IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is an absurd question. You can think of a zillion ways a sniper MIGHT have stopped people from entering an area, but to do this is only to try to deflect away from the issue.
    It's not an absurd question at all. You were deliberately trying to frame this argument in such a way as to excuse this snipers actions. Why were these orders ever given to begin with? His response to obeying this order was to kill unarmed women and children.

    Yes, that;s right. And so, absent that, its impossible to argue that the orders he was given were flawed, illegal, immoral or depraved.
    What? How can you say that if the orders he followed were orders that authorized him to shoot and kill unarmed women and children? At this point the wording is almost a moot point, the fact that his orders authorized him to do this at all is repugnant.

    I'm suggesting that the 'unarmed women and children' argument isnt iron-clad, given that 'unarmed women and children' often carry explosives.
    It's a hell of lot more iron clad than "shoot first, don't bother asking any questions."

    You DO agree that woment and children carrying explosives are a legitimate target, yes?
    Absolutely. What I don't agree with is gunning women and children down without first establishing they are carrying explosives.

    So, I ask again -- as the sniper, how do you make that determination?
    You WARN them to halt first. In any number of ways. You don't just arbitrarily decide to cut them down with no warning whatsoever. I'm pretty sure I already addressed this point.
    *insert profound statement here*

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •