Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

CptJake wrote:Palestinian stabs Israel soldier.
SKIPPED STEP: Israeli Troops engage scum bags. One killed one laying on the ground wounded and at that point unarmed and not resisting.
Israeli soldier executes Palestinian.

At some point you transition from 'cap him' to 'okay, everything is secure, he is unarmed and not resisting, lets try to patch him up and send him to the interrogators'. Basically, once the objective area is secure, you are generally responsible for wounded bad guys, even if a couple of minutes before hand you were still trying to kill him.

At least that is the way I learned it, and the way I trained my guys.

Ultimately, I don't disagree with any of this. If the soldier broke the law by shooting the man, then he should face trial.

What I do disagree with is the general tone of the OP.

It is not tragic that the Palestinian died. It is not a fault on the part of Israelis that they aren't disturbed/upset about it. The Palestinian is not deserving of our sympathy.

The "right" to stand trial after stabbing an enemy soldier is a luxury of modern society with its modern jurisprudence [ultimately of Christian inspiration, may I add].

The Palestinian wasn't afforded the luxury. Too bad for him, but fact is, he had it coming. [I have similar sentiments about the Black Lives Matter protests.]

I'd dare you to travel back in time, integrate into the Carthaginian community, stab a Roman soldier, and then demand a trial...but I'm pretty sure we both know how that would work out for you.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm not opposed to violence in self-defense. Shooting an immobilized person lying on the ground in the head isn't self-defense, it's an execution.

I'd advocate in favour of policies that would help create a more equitable society where people aren't pushed to attacking soldiers with knives. That's not going to happen though; extremists on both sides will make sure that any negotiations in good faith are impossible.

Eye for an eye is why Israel and Palestine look like they do in the first place. You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.

Ok that was a nice idealist response, but it doesn't answer my question.

You are so fixated on the response of the soldier, and completely brushing aside the act that started everything in the first place.

You state you would like a more equitable society but it will never be equitable. Ever. Some will always have more than others, and others who will attempt to take from others. I don't care if it's political, economical, or whatever, so long as someone thinks that it's worth taking the action to hurt someone, at a cost they are comfortable, they will.

I am arguing that until that cost becomes so great, people will continue to take those risks.

So when you come up with some concrete ideas that can prevent innocent people from being murdered (this donkey-cave was not innocent), rape, child abuse, please let me know. In the meantime, I am not going to shed a tear for the donkey-caves who inflict this kind of hurt and pain on others, and pay the ultimate price for it.

And I am not some huge support of Israel btw. I don't care if this was between a Candian and an Eskimo.

KTG17 wrote:
You state you would like a more equitable society but it will never be equitable. Ever.

Fine, let's just throw our hands in the air then, no point in trying if it can't be perfect.

KTG17 wrote:

So when you come up with some concrete ideas that can prevent innocent people from being murdered (this donkey-cave was not innocent), rape, child abuse, please let me know. In the meantime, I am not going to shed a tear for the donkey-caves who inflict this kind of hurt and pain on others, and pay the ultimate price for it.

I dunno, not killing people because we're really pissed might be a good place to start. Is the soldier completely without agency? Is retaliation and eye for an eye a natural law, or can we, as thinking human beings, stop and realize that shooting a disarmed and injured assaliant only makes people angry?

It's hardly idealistic to accept the concept of the rule of law, if anything it's rather cynical to claim that it'll never work.

KTG17 wrote:
You are so fixated on the response of the soldier, and completely brushing aside the act that started everything in the first place.

The problem with that angle is that israeli encroachment on Palestinian land is what 'started everything in the first place'

Well, technically it was the British deciding to create a new state inside someone else's country that 'started everything in the first place', but i think you can get my point here.

The most concerning thing for me in this, is that nobody batted an eyelid - i hope this isn't the modus operandi for israeli forces.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How very Republican of you.

Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.

At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.

Palestine elected Hamas.....

 SirDonlad wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
You are so fixated on the response of the soldier, and completely brushing aside the act that started everything in the first place.

The problem with that angle is that israeli encroachment on Palestinian land is what 'started everything in the first place'

Well, technically it was the British deciding to create a new state inside someone else's country that 'started everything in the first place', but i think you can get my point here.

The most concerning thing for me in this, is that nobody batted an eyelid - i hope this isn't the modus operandi for israeli forces.

No, stop looking at this at a macro level. There is bs going on all over the world and not all of it is political. And it isn't Israel's encroachment, it's that they even exist in the first place.

I am just saying this attacker made a decision to take a life. And this soldier prob nothing to do with the political decisions of Israel as a whole. He was just doing his job. He has a family, friends, etc, and all that was trying to be taken from him.

I am looking at this at a very micro level. One guy tried to kill another, and got killed himself. Suits me.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.

This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.

This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable

We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.

 Frazzled wrote:


We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.

I didn't say it was completely true, I just said it was really quotable, cause it is Just rolls off the tongue nicely

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.

This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable

it is sad but true, which is why so many wars are lost. You either kill all the people take over completely and after 50 years and two generations they become your people or you lose. You cant kill a few then walk away and expect them to except that you where the good guy. The people left behind or the natives will hate you for the war and you will have a whole new wave of hate...isis.

Traditio wrote:

I'd dare you to travel back in time, integrate into the Carthaginian community, stab a Roman soldier, and then demand a trial...but I'm pretty sure we both know how that would work out for you.

Its almost as though the last 2 thousand years of incremental civilisation never happened.

The parts of the world where violence is the first, and usually only, response are also the parts of the world mired in gak. I wonder if there is a connection........

Your flag says Britain (notes to self number of times England used violence to "sort something out"...wow....long list).

"In Somalia, killing IS negotiation."
-some really cool actor.

 Frazzled wrote:
Your flag says Britain (notes to self number of times England used violence to "sort something out"...wow....long list).

I'm a Scot.

Violence is rapidly becoming obsolete in the modern world. Violent places and cultures are pretty much universally economically and/or socially backward, they sometimes intrude on the more civilised areas (politically and geographically) of course but the modern world is extremely complex and requires stability. State level violence of the kind that used to be common would readily bankrupt any country that went beyond sabre rattling due to the collapse of its economy and trade but also the staggeringly high cost of conducting military operations. The small scale Middle Eastern adventures and populist bombings that have been going on for the last 16 years or so are staggeringly expensive yet almost completely ineffective.

War no longer pays and violence begets violence.

On the social level civil violence in developed countries has also been dropping of, exactly why is hard to pin down but its a real phenomenon.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


Its almost as though the last 2 thousand years of incremental civilisation never happened.

The parts of the world where violence is the first, and usually only, response are also the parts of the world mired in gak. I wonder if there is a connection........

I am always amused when people think mankind has done any kind of progression. Civilized? Man hasn't changed in 1000s of years. Its been doing the same thing year after year, only with better tools. Most history books are loaded with wars and who invaded who and who killed who over religion or whatever, and there is no difference now than what was going on then. People are still stealing, raping, even enslaving in parts of the world just like they did 1000 years ago, only in most cases just better dressed. Now man is polluting the entire planet rather than in isolated areas as well as pissing on each other. And if anything, things will get a lot worse. Nationalism is on the rise, lines on maps being tested, military spending increasing. I think we're hitting a point to where the world was prior to WWI.

Just wait till populations have difficulty getting access to drinkable water and food. Then the fun will really start.

"I'm a Scot."
Be proud, if it weren't for Scots (or more properly their haggis) the Germans would have successfully invade England. Only the haggis launchers kept the Hun across the Channel...

"Violence is rapidly becoming obsolete in the modern world."
Er, really?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Your flag says Britain (notes to self number of times England used violence to "sort something out"...wow....long list).

I'm a Scot.

Violence is rapidly becoming obsolete in the modern world. Violent places and cultures are pretty much universally economically and/or socially backward, they sometimes intrude on the more civilised areas (politically and geographically) of course but the modern world is extremely complex and requires stability. State level violence of the kind that used to be common would readily bankrupt any country that went beyond sabre rattling due to the collapse of its economy and trade but also the staggeringly high cost of conducting military operations. The small scale Middle Eastern adventures and populist bombings that have been going on for the last 16 years or so are staggeringly expensive yet almost completely ineffective.

War no longer pays and violence begets violence.

On the social level civil violence in developed countries has also been dropping of, exactly why is hard to pin down but its a real phenomenon.

Violence will never be obsolete. It is hard written into our DNA and will always be that way. Your post reminded me of this quote.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

You can have your dreams of "obsolete" all you want, but it never will be. Have no fear though, because there will always be those who have the ability to stand ready to be violent, on your behalf.

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.

This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable

We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.

You're right, I should have written "violence alone" as opposed to "violence".

Judging by the fact that ISIS exists you didn't exactly solve the bin Laden issue just because you shot him though.

KTG17 wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


Its almost as though the last 2 thousand years of incremental civilisation never happened.

The parts of the world where violence is the first, and usually only, response are also the parts of the world mired in gak. I wonder if there is a connection........

I am always amused when people think mankind has done any kind of progression. Civilized? Man hasn't changed in 1000s of years. Its been doing the same thing year after year, only with better tools. Most history books are loaded with wars and who invaded who and who killed who over religion or whatever, and there is no difference now than what was going on then. People are still stealing, raping, even enslaving in parts of the world just like they did 1000 years ago, only in most cases just better dressed. Now man is polluting the entire planet rather than in isolated areas as well as pissing on each other. And if anything, things will get a lot worse. Nationalism is on the rise, lines on maps being tested, military spending increasing. I think we're hitting a point to where the world was prior to WWI.

Just wait till populations have difficulty getting access to drinkable water and food. Then the fun will really start.

"Humans act like animals, always have, for thousands of years. If people act like animals, they should be treated like animals. Don't want to be treated like animals, stop acting like animals. Humans can never not act like animals, it's nature. How dare people act like animals, they should stop. It will only get worse, can't be helped."

I think that post is like a Schrödinger's Post: barbaric violence is the cause and solution to all our problems.

KTG17 wrote:

I am always amused when people think mankind has done any kind of progression.

Once upon a time 30 was considered an old man, most people can now expect to live until their late 70's. Infant mortality used to be around 40%, now its around 0.001%. We live lives that are unbelievably comfortable compared to our ancestors (even recent ancestors), there are even people who actually live in space. No progress at all.....

 djones520 wrote:

Violence will never be obsolete. It is hard written into our DNA and will always be that way.

Yet its incidence is decreasing year on year in most (if not all) parts of the world with stable governments and economies. If you don't like obsolete how about obsolescent, that fits better.

Providing that our personal world is stable both economically and (broadly) socially there is no need for violence, that is at least as central to human behaviour as our capacity for violence. It's simple risk vs reward. Of course if the reward outways the risk....

I am aware that my view point sounds utopian but it really isn't. Chaos will destroy our extremely comfortable lives and the most certain way of bringing chaos is violence. Since WW2 there have been no 'real' wars between developed nations, lots of little brush wars and a few civil/colonial wars but nothing like their used to be. Its not economically worth it and people are simply not as jingoistic as they once were so popular support just isn't there. Of course nuclear weapons were a strong dampening factor as well.

 djones520 wrote:
Have no fear though, because there will always be those who have the ability to stand ready to be violent, on your behalf.

As a professional soldier that includes me. Given that the "big strong man with a stick" hasn't done more than chase disorganised militias around for the last few decades how long will it be before there is no need for that man at all?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How very Republican of you.

Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.

At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.

Palestine elected Hamas.....

Indeed, after Hamas was sponsored by Israel as a more hardline, strictly religious alternative to the increasingly moderate PLO. That worked much better than they had expected or wanted.

KTG17 wrote:

I am totally fine with an eye for an eye.

Let me stop you right there. You do realize this was not an "eye for an eye" type situation, right?

Dreadwinter wrote:Let me stop you right there. You do realize this was not an "eye for an eye" type situation, right?

Materially it was not; formally, it was.

I assume that it's purely accidental that the soldier didn't die. Presumably, the suspect intended to murder the soldier, not merely to batter him.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How very Republican of you.

Hamas exists and the Israelis have got to deal with them. Bombing and sniping hasn't worked and never will.

At some point it will have to be like Northern Ireland. Both sides will have to hold their noses, sit down at the negotiating table, and accept that there will be compromises in dealing with the crimes of the past in order to prevent the tit-for-tat exchange from extending indefinitely into the future.

Palestine elected Hamas.....

Indeed, after Hamas was sponsored by Israel as a more hardline, strictly religious alternative to the increasingly moderate PLO. That worked much better than they had expected or wanted.

Yeah you are about 90 percent wrong there

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.

This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable

We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.

Well, sort of. Violence was one aspect of the solution in these instances (which would have proven fruitless if not paired with other actions...like the Marshall Plan), and in a couple of those instances, the fundamental problems aren't solved just morphed into a new form (e.g. Bin Laden is dead...but global islamic terrorism is arguably stronger than ever).

Vaktathi wrote:Well, sort of. Violence was one aspect of the solution in these instances (which would have proven fruitless if not paired with other actions...like the Marshall Plan), and in a couple of those instances, the fundamental problems aren't solved just morphed into a new form (e.g. Bin Laden is dead...but global islamic terrorism is arguably stronger than ever).

Islamic terrorism has been around for a long time.

...

...

When did Mohammad forge his little book?

Traditio wrote:


Islamic terrorism has been around for a long time.

He specifically stated Global Islamic terrorism. Global Jihad is a fairly new concept (circa 19th century) spawned by a series of things; the rise of Pan-Islamism and Decolonization in particular. Prior to the later half of the 20th century, violent Jihadism existed most certainly and is very old, but it was a regional issue. We could be lazy and simply mark the outcome of the 6 Days War, Islamic Revolutions of the 1970s, and the first Intifada (EDIT: Afghanistan War too really, the Soviet one, not the later American one) as the major turning points that shifted this from a regional problem to a global one.

LordofHats wrote:He specifically stated Global Islamic terrorism. Global Jihad is a fairly new concept (circa 19th century) spawned by a series of things; the rise of Pan-Islamism and Decolonization in particular. Prior to the later half of the 20th century, violent Jihadism existed most certainly and is very old, but it was a regional issue. We could be lazy and simply mark the outcome of the 6 Days War, Islamic Revolutions of the 1970s, and the first Intifada as the major turning points that shifted this from a regional problem to a global one.

I'm pretty sure that Charles Martel would have disagreed with the bolded. All of those Catholics praying the rosary on behalf of their navy at Lepanto (by which (as well as by guns...lots and lots of guns)) was obtained a most glorious victory) would probably disagree with you, too.

"Convert the world or die (or make them die) trying" is as old as Islam itself.

"House of war," and all.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.

This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable

We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.

Well, sort of. Violence was one aspect of the solution in these instances (which would have proven fruitless if not paired with other actions...like the Marshall Plan), .

No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.

Traditio wrote:

I'm pretty sure that Charles Martel would have disagreed with the bolded. All of those Catholics praying the rosary on behalf of their navy at Lepanto would probably disagree with you, too.

Not all warfare/violence precipitated by Muslims in history is terrorism. How does the Battle of Tours even need to be differentiated from the current problem? That should be abundantly self evident.

LordofHats wrote:Not all warfare/violence precipitated by Muslims in history is terrorism. How does the Battle of Tours even need to be differentiated from the current problem? That should be abundantly self evident.

It's a purely accidental difference. The only reason "terrorism" is less common than outright warfare is because the Mohommedans don't have the manpower, the resources or the training to succeed in so doing.

The mentality behind modern terrorism is essentially the same as that behind historical "jihad" going back even to Mohammad himself.

If I might slightly adjust the lines of good ole Johnny Rebel:

"I like the West the way it is:
I'm sure that you do too...
Ole Mohammad thinks it's his:
I know he's wrong, don't you?"

Again: "house of war," and all.