BF2S Forums Disproportionate use of force and the loss of civilians

I'm getting the feeling you have no idea what 'proportionate' means.

It DOESN'T mean return in equal measure - that's 'retaliation' or 'revenge' or some other word that I can't recall right now.

It means that you can return to him an act which is justified by what he's done to you. The definition of 'justified' is up for debate - and that's the purpose of our whole legal system - to work out just what is 'justified'. However, there are some obvious ones.

Almost killing someone because they played a prank on you is disproportionate (this was the example given to me by my teacher when I learnt about Jus ad bellum - he was the one doing the almost-killing.)
Destroying two massive buildings and killing 3000 because you don't like the way they live is disproportionate (I'm trying to be as neutral as possible here. That means no wild adjectives - but what I just wrote has to be the biggest understatement in the history of mankind)
Obliterating an entire nation to kill a few militants who kidnapped two of your soldiers is disproportionate.

Sombo wrote:

And about your liberals being saviors,

I never said that.

Sombo wrote:

guess again!

I'm not guessing.  I'm using logic, reason, and rational thought.  You should try it sometime.

Sombo wrote:

Now keep in mind that i am all for better working conditions but since the the "better working conditions" became demands that companies could not acquiesce to

No:  conditions which they were unwilling to acquiese to.

Sombo wrote:

This perpetuates the human suffering

Or provides money to those countries so that they don't starve to death.

Sombo wrote:

and dependance on the Government for assistance as well

So, we should live in poor conditions to save the government money?

Sombo wrote:

anger towards buisnesses for making smart decisions

There is a difference between smart and morally sound.

Sombo wrote:

in the face of greedy (mostly union) Americans.

Oh, yes, how greedy of people to not want to work so long they barely get to see their kids, whilst barely making enough to support their family.  I mean, seriously, how dare they have a little extra cash at the expense of corporations who give huge profits to managers.

Sombo wrote:

Your argument doesnt hold water my freind

To quote Sha Na Na: You ain't no friend of mine.

Sombo wrote:

i know your well intentioned

That doesn't even make sense.  How can someone be well intentioned in an argument?

Sombo wrote:

but you cant keep putting bandaids on a severed head.

Yeah, I think you'll find that people without heads tend to be dead.  And yet, despite the best efforts of us gosh-darned Communist Liberal Hippies, the Capitalist world thrives.  That is, the West where people have little things like minimum wage.

Back on topic, go here.  That is the reason response should be proportionate.

Dersmikner wrote:

"Just War". That is a classic oxymoron.

By the way, about the guy with the pint: If he's a member of the Madlibs, a mostly decent enough group of people who live on one block in a scary part of town, and occasionally some of them end up sneaking into bars and causing shit with otherwise peaceful patrons, yeah, I think somebody should waltz into that neighborhood with a billy club and beat the shit out of all the Madlibs they can find until the pint-pushing provocation ends.

I guess my attitude about retaliation is just different than most of yours.

I run a company that also consults for other companies in Texas. We teach them how to do X, Y, and Z. Well, it so happens that there are vendors, who rely sometimes ENTIRELY on my clients for their existance, who are useful to us only if they follow certain rules.

Unfortunately, sometimes the staffs of these companies feel like they don't have to follow my clients' rules. The owners usually get it, the managers often get it, but the rank and file employees don't give a shit.

So, here lately a company of about 24 employees wasn't following the rules. We warned them. We warned them again. The owner whined "I'm having trouble controlling my employees, please don't hose us."

By the third time I got a report that showed them lacking, I slashed, burned, and ultimately put that company out of business. In 3 months time they went from 24 employees to ZERO. Closed the office. Absolutely no business in this area. Disproportionate use of force.

I bet the next time any of those assholes are working at a company that depends entirely on getting business from my clients they do what we ask.

Uh. Let me summarize.
1. You are racist.
2. You have a brutal mentality and little compassion. To the extent that acting on your ideas should end in jail.
3. That is an example of proportionate force. Disproportionate force would be if you had killed all the employees that would not follow directions.

Our whole justice system is dependent on the concept of justifiable action and proportionate force. If someone starts a fight with you, unarmed, you will not be convicted for retaliating. You will be convicted for killing the man. This result is unnecesary and wholly unjustified, anyone who thinks otherwise is undeserving of society's gains.

Dersmikner wrote:

jonsimon, yup that's it. I'm racist. I bet my family photos might change that opinion, but maybe not...

Anyway, PureFodder, if the rapist were living in my house, or say in the alley behind it, and I knew about it, I'd (1) call the police, and if the police did nothing to stop this man from raping people in the alley behind my home, and someone were threatening to burn down all the trees in the alley, and possibly my home in the process, I'd (2) take his ass out myself.

"If he's a member of the Madlibs, a mostly decent enough group of people who live on one block in a scary part of town, and occasionally some of them end up sneaking into bars and causing shit with otherwise peaceful patrons, yeah, I think somebody should waltz into that neighborhood with a billy club and beat the shit out of all the Madlibs they can find until the pint-pushing provocation ends."

Prejudice on lines with racism. Anyone can be racist or prejudiced in any way, no matter what they look like.

Sombo wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's not a great example of diproportionate use of force, how about:

In a bar someone spills your beer, do you;

A) Get them to buy you another one.
B) Punch them in the face.
C) Grind the base of the broken beer glass into their face until you feel better about it.
D) Pull the leg off your bar stool and beat them to death with it.

I'd say options C and D are certainly disproportionate use of force and option B is a little on the harsh side. Option A is a perfectly rational reasonable response (maybe combined with a bit of abuse).

This is what people mean when they talk about proportionate force and anyone can't see that some of these responses are irrational should not be a part of civilised society.

It is far more complex with Hezbollah and Israel, but the principle still holds true.

Forgive me for i mean no offense, but your example isn't really a good one either. The gentleman or lady who knocked the beer out of your hand was obviously done by accident, if i take your meaning right. So yes those reactions would seem a bit excessive, The original example is still a very good example (put in very simple terms that even the dimmest intelect could understand if not agree with).

You clearly haven't read the earlier responses to that post, where I have explained all this (including the deliberate misrepresentation in the analogy, trying to show how analogies rarely do political situations justice). Are you saying killing someone for deliberately spilling your beer would be acceptable behaviour? If you are then - which I hope you're not - then that will have to be an end to this debate, because we obviously have very different ideas of what is morally and socially acceptable.

Sombo wrote:

however slugging a gent over a pint is appropiate considering the circumstances. And Israel bombing strategic parts of Lebonon for unwarented attacks by Hezbollah is the same basic gist just on a much more elevated scale.

Before you would (before I would at least) hit someone for deliberately spilling your pint, I would try to resolve the situation without hitting them and hope that the implied threat of violence getting them to replace it, whilst being relatively uncivil would avoid any need for hitting them, if not then hitting them is fine - killing or mutilating them is still not acceptable.

Israels 'strategic bombing' of Lebannon hit civilian targets. They killed very few Hezbollah militants. The launch sites for the rockets (which are quite big) were not in towns, but on remote hilltops. The IDF did not target these - which would have been an appropriate response - but targeted towns and Lebanese infrastrucure (airports, bridges, hospitals (at least on hospital was a deliberate target by the IDF)).  It shows that the rocket launch sites had not been effectively targeted by the fact that Hezbollah were able to launch rockets at full capacity until a ceasefire was called. In fact the intensity of the rocket attacks increased as the Israeli assault progressed.

Why bomb a Lebanese airport, to stop Hezbollah fighter jets? No, of course not. To cause damage to the Lebanese governments infrastruture.

Why bomb a Lebanese hospital?

Why create ecological disasters along the Lebanese coast popular with tourists and then prevent clean up crews from entering the area?

It's obvious really, the Israelis wanted to damage as much Lebanese infrastruture as possible to hurt the government and civilians financially.

Dersmikner wrote:

"Just War". That is a classic oxymoron.

In what way is "Just War" an oxymoron. War is not by it's very essence unjust. Therefore it is not an oxymoron.

jonsimon, I'm going to teach you a VERY important lesson about the difference between prejudice and racism. I'm serious. I'm not trying to be a smartass, I want you to read this and think about it.

Prejudice means to "pre judge".

We do it every day, in every facet of our lives. We prejudge that when we step on the accelerator our carS will move forward, because the odds are that they will. Of the 500,000 times you've stepped on the accelerator in your life, the car moved 499,985 times.

When you see a man in a courtroom in a blue jumpsuit, you prejudge that he's a prisoner. You're playing the math.

When I see two kids, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or other, wearing baggy pants that hang down where you can see their underwear, with chains hanging off them, wearing ribbed sleeveless t-shirts, hats cocked off to the side, dragging their feet, I'm not thinking "CEO of IBM". As a matter of fact, I'm thinking there's a better chance of those kids robbing me than a clean cut guy in a suit, irrespective of his race.

That's being prejudiced. I am. You are. We all HAVE TO BE. If I see a truck in front of me with a HUGE rebel flag, a bumber sticker that says "touch my truck I'll whip your ass" and other such stuff, I'm prejudging that the person driving that truck is probably racist, not college educated, potentially violent, and more than likely a wife-beater with a DWI conviction.

I see Mexicans on the street at the day labor camp here and they don't speak any English and I prejudge that they don't pay taxes, don't speak English, are Catholic, and have a Mexican flag in their home but probably no Stars and Stripes.

There's a difference in that and racism.

Racism is disliking someone based on their race. If you're a clean cut, wine drinking businessman who wears a suit to work and you don't want to sit down and have a drink with a clean cut, wine drinking businessman in a suit whose skin is black, you're a racist.

There is a HUGE difference.

I am prejudiced. That's why I won't fly in a plane with more than two Arab males. However, I'm not racist, which is why the next door neighbor, Mo (yes, short for Mohammed) was one of the guys at my house watching the Astros blow another fucking lead last night.

Pug wrote:

Ok, now with all that said:
Israel should have negotiated, correct?

Are there any terms which will appease both sides?

I'm not even necessarily saying that.

I'm quite anti-Israeli, because of the behaviour in the history of this conflict over the past century, but that does not mean I think Israeli citizens should not have the right to be defended from terror attacks.

Israel should have destroyed the rocket launch sites. Sites which where not located in towns but on remote hilltops. If they had asked the US for assistance with intelligence, between MOSAD and the CIA I'm sure they could have discovered the locations of the launch sites and destroyed them. Any war on terrorism is fought first and foremost by intelligence services. This would have led to a much more satisfactory outcome for all concerned. The rocket attacks would have stopped, the IDF would have looked good for a change, Israels international approval would have increased (not decreased as it has done), many hundreds of Lebanese civilians would still be alive and Israel would have created fewer potential terrorists.

Pug wrote:

Are there any terms which will appease both sides?

Nope, but then, failure to negotiate is a secondary issue.

That wouldn't suit Israel (support Palestine, release prisoners), or Hamas/Hizballah (Israel still exists).

DeadboyUSMC wrote:

Kill 'em all.

Blood makes the grass grow.

Bubbalo wrote:

Pug wrote:

Are there any terms which will appease both sides?

Nope, but then, failure to negotiate is a secondary issue.

Attempts to read mind....is it...no...welll...no...ahh screw it.

Want to clarify for me?

I guess I'm kind of implying that they certainly had plenty of years to try to make things better and both sides chose not to.

(Now if you want to look at the current situation, Hamas' demands were not equal in Israel's opinion so the ceasefire was called off...a failure in diplomacy on both ends.  Unless I'm mistaken, the Hez opened a 2nd front on their own.  But then Israel deserved it...and so the circle goes).

I guess the main point is: didn't everyone think eventually they'd fight?  At some point the fingers get pointed at both sides.  Frankly I'm surprised the world didn't have a contingency plan ready.

Dersmikner wrote:

"Just War". That is a classic oxymoron.

By the way, about the guy with the pint: If he's a member of the Madlibs, a mostly decent enough group of people who live on one block in a scary part of town, and occasionally some of them end up sneaking into bars and causing shit with otherwise peaceful patrons, yeah, I think somebody should waltz into that neighborhood with a billy club and beat the shit out of all the Madlibs they can find until the pint-pushing provocation ends.

I guess my attitude about retaliation is just different than most of yours.

I run a company that also consults for other companies in Texas. We teach them how to do X, Y, and Z. Well, it so happens that there are vendors, who rely sometimes ENTIRELY on my clients for their existance, who are useful to us only if they follow certain rules.

Unfortunately, sometimes the staffs of these companies feel like they don't have to follow my clients' rules. The owners usually get it, the managers often get it, but the rank and file employees don't give a shit.

So, here lately a company of about 24 employees wasn't following the rules. We warned them. We warned them again. The owner whined "I'm having trouble controlling my employees, please don't hose us."

By the third time I got a report that showed them lacking, I slashed, burned, and ultimately put that company out of business. In 3 months time they went from 24 employees to ZERO. Closed the office. Absolutely no business in this area. Disproportionate use of force.

I bet the next time any of those assholes are working at a company that depends entirely on getting business from my clients they do what we ask.

The idea of just war is that there is always two sides to a coin. If you go in and rape and kill everyone, what's to stop them doing that to you?