israel doesn't commit war crimes.

[catholichomeschooler]

Yeh. Right.
That's why they have systematically occupied Palestinian territory and just as frequently scuppered peace talks as the other side.

There are sufficiently influential players on both sides who do not want peace.

You are wrong.

Israel just wants to be left alone.

 

[ebia]

You are wrong. Israel just wants to be left alone.

All the evidence indicates otherwise.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

All the evidence indicates otherwise.

What evidence?

Israel abandoned Gaza. Israel is perfectly content to go on building new corporations and building better lives for their citizens.

 

[Gunny]

what about hamas using its own people as shields,what about the rockets going into Israel
im sure that God promised that land to the Jews

In my humble opinion these statements are correct.

Unfortunately, Hamas was voted into power. Hamas, is a terrorist organization that states in its official charter for the eradication/destruction/elimination of Israel.

I apologize for posting in this thread. I did not know it was for Catholics only, which I am not.

 

[brewmama]

In my humble opinion these statements are correct.

Unfortunately, Hamas was voted into power. Hamas, is a terrorist organization that states in its official charter for the eradication/destruction/elimination of Israel.

I apologize for posting in this thread. I did not know it was for Catholics only, which I am not.

You can post here, just not argue about Catholic doctrine

 

[Gunny]

You can post here, just not argue about Catholic doctrine

Thank-you, and God bless you for the information.

 

[MikeK]

"Everyone"? I think you'll find that Israel could do much, much more damage and death if it chose to.

If your attacker comes at you with a knife, would you put down your gun and grab a knife?

No, but I would not shoot that attacker's child. In fact, I would rather lose my life in the attack than respond in a manner likely to kill his innocent child. If I can eliminate the threat, with or without deadly force against the attacker I would. If it meant putting innocents at risk of grave harm I hope I would have the courage to abstain. My life is not more valuable than that child's and I have no right to take that child's life, even if it might extend mine.

I am pro-life, including those extremely rare cases where an abortion would save the mother's life. If I would risk killing a child to save myself I would be the world's greatest hypocrite.

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

No, but I would not shoot that attacker's child. In fact, I would rather lose my life in the attack than respond in a manner likely to kill his innocent child. If I can eliminate the threat, with or without deadly force against the attacker I would. If it meant putting innocents at risk of grave harm I hope I would have the courage to abstain. My life is not more valuable than that child's and I have no right to take that child's life, even if it might extend mine.

While you're abstaining, who protects your wife and child, who are also innocent?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I'm sure that Catholicism is against the practice of using civilians as human shield "martyrs" while firing rockets indiscriminately into a country. I just have to look to see where I can find where it talks about it.

 

[MikeK]

I'm sure that Catholicism is against the practice of using civilians as human shield "martyrs" while firing rockets indiscriminately into a country. I just have to look to see where I can find where it talks about it.

Of course using human shields is a grave evil. You seem very focussed on talking about Hamas, when nobody is really suggesting that Hamas should use human shields or attack Israel. Hamas being wrong (which for the millionth time, they absolutely are) doesn't make Israel right.

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

Originally Posted by brewmama

You can post here, just not argue about Catholic doctrine
​

Thank-you, and God bless you for the information.


+1

 

[LivingWordUnity]

So basically, because Israel can stop most of the attacks from harming their civilians they shouldn't make a full effort to stop them from being shot in the first place?

Imagine if other countries were held to that expectation. Or imagine if the police were never allowed to fire back at someone who is shooting at them but instead were only allowed to duck and dodge the bullets for as long as the shooter wanted to fire at them.

 

[MikeK]

Imagine if other countries were held to that expectation. Or imagine if the police were never allowed to fire back at someone who is shooting at them but instead were only allowed to duck and dodge the bullets for as long as the shooter wanted to fire at them.

I've been "the police" and what I suggest is exactly what we trained to do. We would not serve warrants on dangerous criminals in their homes with innocents present, we patiently waited until they were moving about and we could capture them (or yes, kill them if the situation got ugly) without putting innocent people at undue risk.

Things would be different if it was an active shooter situation, then we'd be forced into accepting more risk both to ourselves and putting innocents more at risk. While Israel faces sustained attacks, they are not from steady quarters. Israel is not counterstriking upon detecting rocket launches, they are making delayed strikes that are not immediately time sensitive.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

MikeK,

If an armed criminal is holding an innocent person close to them, trying to hide behind them while shooting randomly into a nearby crowd of innocent civilians, can a cop take a shot at the criminal even though there's a chance that the innocent one that's being held might get shot?

 

[MikeK]

MikeK,

If an armed criminal is holding an innocent person close to them, trying to hide behind them while shooting randomly into a nearby crowd of innocent civilians, can a cop take a shot at the criminal even though there's a chance that the innocent one that's being held might get shot?

From a "what is the policy?" perspective I really don't know, that never came up. If you're asking for my opinion, I'd say that's a snap judgement that the responding officer will have to make very quickly based on what he assesses the likelihood of innocents being harmed by the shooter and what he figures his chances are of stopping the attack with and without hitting the hostage. It is a difficult question to answer. We know that we cannot do evil that good may come of it, so another monkeywrench in the mix is whether it is evil (not merely ill-advised) to knowingly discharge a firearm in such a manner that a child would likely be harmed or killed. That starts drawing parallels to the reasons that abortion is wrong even if it happened to save the mother's life, or even if one abortion somehow saved 100 lives.


Edited: you said innocent person, I imagined the "child" part. It makes no difference to my thought process in this case.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

From a "what is the policy?" perspective I really don't know, that never came up. If you're asking for my opinion, I'd say that's a snap judgement that the responding officer will have to make very quickly based on what he assesses the likelihood of innocents being harmed by the shooter and what he figures his chances are of stopping the attack with and without hitting the hostage. It is a difficult question to answer. We know that we cannot do evil that good may come of it, so another monkeywrench in the mix is whether it is evil (not merely ill-advised) to knowingly discharge a firearm in such a manner that a child would likely be harmed or killed. That starts drawing parallels to the reasons that abortion is wrong even if it happened to save the mother's life, or even if one abortion somehow saved 100 lives.


Edited: you said innocent person, I imagined the "child" part. It makes no difference to my thought process in this case.

Since abortion by definition is the deliberate killing of a child in the womb the Church says that it's never allowable. It would be like if the cop deliberately took aim at the innocent hostage. But it's my understanding that in that situation if the cop, who we are assuming has been well trained in marksmanship, aims at the aggressor and in the process the innocent one gets killed then that would be the ethical principle of double effect since the death or injury of the innocent one was an unintended consequence of trying to save lives and was not an attempt to take an innocent life. I think it's comparable to if a mother is pregnant but has cancer. If she receives radiation treatment for the cancer, and the child dies as a result, it was an unintended double effect. The Church says that this is ethical. And I think what Israel is doing is like that.

 

[ebia]

MikeK, If an armed criminal is holding an innocent person close to them, trying to hide behind them while shooting randomly into a nearby crowd of innocent civilians, can a cop take a shot at the criminal even though there's a chance that the innocent one that's being held might get shot?

At the very least one would imagine that would depend on the risk. If the risk of the cop taking out an child is greater than the risk posed by the criminal then one clearly can't take the shot.

What we have is more akin to a criminal throwing stones and the cop spraying bullets into the crowd to stop him.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

At the very least one would imagine that would depend on the risk. If the risk of the cop taking out an child is greater than the risk posed by the criminal then one clearly can't take the shot.

What we have is more akin to a criminal throwing stones and the cop spraying bullets into the crowd to stop him.

In the scenario, the criminal is firing indiscriminately into a crowd of innocent civilians that are nearby. It happens during a major crowd drawing event, and too fast for anyone to have warning or time to clear the area. But he's trying to hide behind a hostage while he's doing the shooting. What should the cop, who is well-trained and an expert sharp-shooter, do?

 

[Armoured]

Imagine if other countries were held to that expectation.

Other countries are held to that expectation. That's what LOAC are.

Or imagine if the police were never allowed to fire back at someone who is shooting at them but instead were only allowed to duck and dodge the bullets for as long as the shooter wanted to fire at them.

If the shooter were standing in a room full of innocent children, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what people would expect the police to do.

 

[MikeK]

In this scenario, what are the rough odds that the gunman will gravely injure someone?