collateral damage II

Yourish writes:

Next time, drop the one-ton bomb. They don't care. We shouldn't, either.

Amish Tech Support writes in response:

One ton isn't enough. Two tons isn't enough.

It's time to end the silence about the Israeli nuclear program. Fuck the Arab League. Fuck the UN. And, as much as it hurts to say it, fuck America. (emphasis mine)

I don't give a shit if Yassin and his evil bastards are meeting in the basement of a Gaza hospital next door to a kindergarten and an old folks home... the time for using lighter explosives to minimize collateral damage is over.

PULL THE SETTLERS IN GAZA OUT, AND NUKE THE PLACE. TURN GAZA'S BEACHES AND THE VICIOUS EVIL INFECTION THAT FESTERS IN ITS PURGATORIAL BURROWS INTO GLASS.

hmm. intent matters?

after my last post, Conrad commented:

i) Acts of suicide bombing which kill civilians expressly with that intent successfully are morally wrong.

ii) Targeted assassinations, whose main function is that of political reprisals, that kill (wilfully or otherwise) uninvolved civilians are morally wrong.

iii) In terms of equivalence, (i) and (ii) are equal to each other in moral terms.

iv) No real ordinal measurement of morality can be reached so (i) and (ii) cannot be compared in any quantitative way despite both being immoral.

v) Despite (iv) above and difficulties in comparison, both (i) and (ii) and not equivalent, though they are both deeply immoral and cannot be justified in any moral fashion.

Now I think we both agree on (i) and (ii) and you argue for (iii) while I think either (iv) or (v) are tenable positions and (iii) is not.

We do indeed agree on (i) and (ii) but I think you've mis-stated my position on (iii). When I say "morally equivalent" I am not invoking a quantitative measure. The morality of killing is binary. It either is immoral, or it is moral, to kill someone.

Therefore i reject the statement (iv) that a comparison cannot be made. I feel that trying to argue on semantic terms about "quantitative" comparisons is dodging the issue.

Conrad goes on to argue:

How from this can you think that either of the former two can somehow lead to justifications of suicide-bombing is not clear to me. Deliberate targeting of civilians is wrong, as is lack of concern for their safety when carrying out military operations. Neither can ever (as far as I can see) ever be morally defended, though they may well be necessary; however saying that they are not morally equivalent to each other does not imply some sort of acceptance for either, latent or otherwise. To argue otherwise seem a variant of the Orwellian 'objectively pro-fascist' argument abused so frequently these days; I may not use an absolute moral viewpoint to condemn both acts equally, it does not follow from this that I support or would support either course of action as morally justifiable.

From my reading of these comments, it seems that Conrad thinks that I am advocating ascribing legitimacy to suicide bombings if the Israelis insist on carrying out bombing of civilian targets. If so, he owes me an apology, because the absolute wrongness of suicide bombing is inviolate, regardless of whether Israel willingly jumps into the sea or whether they proceed to tear the heads of all puppy dogs in the region.

I have repudiated suicide bombing many times. That is a moral and religious argument which is completely independent of Israel. The reason suicide bombing of cvivilans is wrong is not related to Israel in any way. It can be considered in a vacuum, and to the standard of the Qur'an 5:32-33.

Likewise, the attitude of Yourish and Amish is wrong, regardless of what happenned today in Jerusalem. The attitude of the IDF in dropping bombs of any size on civilian targets in an attempt to kill a single target is wrong.

The reason it is wrong is the same reason - killing innocents is wrong. That is the universal principle of morality being applied.