I didn't actually write that as an appeal to emotion, but to shine a light on the idea that it is far easier to support "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." when you are not the killer. One who sees the reality.
It might seem tactically sound to toss a frag into a bunch of kids if an enemy combatant pops up in their midst, but…
I didn't actually write that as an appeal to emotion, but to shine a light on the idea that it is far easier to support "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." when you are not the killer. One who sees the reality.
It might seem tactically sound to toss a frag into a bunch of kids if an enemy combatant pops up in their midst, but it is strategically foolish. If you kill one of my daughters in callous disregard (bug splat) you will not end my will to fight you, you will create it. Israel is creating enemies faster than they can kill them.
America used napalm and Willie Peter in Vietnam, but I never saw WP used as an airburst, let alone over a village. But when I saw these pictures, nobody had to tell me what it was. Excuse my French, but my instant thought was, "Those mother f****rs!" It takes a lot of balls to deny that that was white phosphorus with such an obvious bold-faced lie and 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐭? Try to tell me that this is a tactical attack on a military target and not terrorism aimed at a civilian population.
Dave, I think we can all agree, 100% of us reading this substack, that it would be harder to intentionally kill a child in cold blood (for some greater purpose), than for somebody else to do it. Can we just stipulate that, and move to other issues?
For example, would Israel returning to the 1949 armistice borders make a more catastrophic war more or less likely in the next decade or two - the answer to that does not depend on whether it's harder or easier to kill a person while looking them in the eye.
You are welcome to condemn the excesses of Israelis and of Palestinians; in nearly every case I would agree with you. I just don't tend to think that curated atrocities tend to bring out the wisest parts of human being seeking the least awful outcomes for millions of people. Analysis is best done dispassionately (while connected to underlying humane values in the larger picture). It may take a lot of passion to implement even well thought out policies, but that's a separate step.
As a side question, you cite an article from 2009. Are you recounting your reaction from seeing that photo in 2009, or your outrage today in seeing a 2009 photo? Or was your reaction of "Those MF's" in response to 2023 photos which you did not reference?
I saw it then and that is what I thought at the time. Now I have seen video of large buildings collapsing into their footprint like the World Trade Center in the first days of response and Gaza laid to waste like Carthage now. Israel has always been disproportionate in its response. Has it caused its enemies to stop attacking our to do increasingly spectacular attacks?
I have not taken sides in this, but I call out both sides when I see what they are doing as wrong. I'm not a fan of the US sending 2000 pound bombs for use in a counter incergency in a city. The biggest round that has exploded near me was a 1000 pounder.
The people who tried and failed to catapult it and blew themselves up didn't see any of their friendlies in my proximity. I don't hold it against them or think it wrong. It was an unexploded bomb intended to be used on them that they collected after ASP1 blew up. 18 hours of boom, boom, boom that widely distributed a lot of ordinance sent back to us with bad intentions. I wouldn't want someone to try to kill my next door neighbor with one.
Thank you too. My original point was that it is easier to kill the faceless, and an armchair warmonger. As the conversation went on, I couldn't help but mention that I think (just my opinion) that Israel is doing a large-scale terror campaign. That is not a whatabout to defend the Hamas unambiguous terror attack.
It goes to something I wrote previously about the difference in counterinsurgency and war against nations. But even with that difference, with occupations terror tactics like rape take place that are not like bombing factories with civilian workers. I do think there is space for moral lines to be drawn and it should be.
I didn't actually write that as an appeal to emotion, but to shine a light on the idea that it is far easier to support "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." when you are not the killer. One who sees the reality.
It might seem tactically sound to toss a frag into a bunch of kids if an enemy combatant pops up in their midst, but it is strategically foolish. If you kill one of my daughters in callous disregard (bug splat) you will not end my will to fight you, you will create it. Israel is creating enemies faster than they can kill them.
America used napalm and Willie Peter in Vietnam, but I never saw WP used as an airburst, let alone over a village. But when I saw these pictures, nobody had to tell me what it was. Excuse my French, but my instant thought was, "Those mother f****rs!" It takes a lot of balls to deny that that was white phosphorus with such an obvious bold-faced lie and 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐲 𝐢𝐭? Try to tell me that this is a tactical attack on a military target and not terrorism aimed at a civilian population.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/0114/p07s01-wome.html
I am not a pacifist, but a revenge terror campaign is too much and that is what it has become as I see it.
Dave, I think we can all agree, 100% of us reading this substack, that it would be harder to intentionally kill a child in cold blood (for some greater purpose), than for somebody else to do it. Can we just stipulate that, and move to other issues?
For example, would Israel returning to the 1949 armistice borders make a more catastrophic war more or less likely in the next decade or two - the answer to that does not depend on whether it's harder or easier to kill a person while looking them in the eye.
You are welcome to condemn the excesses of Israelis and of Palestinians; in nearly every case I would agree with you. I just don't tend to think that curated atrocities tend to bring out the wisest parts of human being seeking the least awful outcomes for millions of people. Analysis is best done dispassionately (while connected to underlying humane values in the larger picture). It may take a lot of passion to implement even well thought out policies, but that's a separate step.
As a side question, you cite an article from 2009. Are you recounting your reaction from seeing that photo in 2009, or your outrage today in seeing a 2009 photo? Or was your reaction of "Those MF's" in response to 2023 photos which you did not reference?
I saw it then and that is what I thought at the time. Now I have seen video of large buildings collapsing into their footprint like the World Trade Center in the first days of response and Gaza laid to waste like Carthage now. Israel has always been disproportionate in its response. Has it caused its enemies to stop attacking our to do increasingly spectacular attacks?
I have not taken sides in this, but I call out both sides when I see what they are doing as wrong. I'm not a fan of the US sending 2000 pound bombs for use in a counter incergency in a city. The biggest round that has exploded near me was a 1000 pounder.
The people who tried and failed to catapult it and blew themselves up didn't see any of their friendlies in my proximity. I don't hold it against them or think it wrong. It was an unexploded bomb intended to be used on them that they collected after ASP1 blew up. 18 hours of boom, boom, boom that widely distributed a lot of ordinance sent back to us with bad intentions. I wouldn't want someone to try to kill my next door neighbor with one.
> "I have not taken sides in this, but I call out both sides when I see what they are doing as wrong."
That commonality is why we can calmly discuss this. Thanks.
Thank you too. My original point was that it is easier to kill the faceless, and an armchair warmonger. As the conversation went on, I couldn't help but mention that I think (just my opinion) that Israel is doing a large-scale terror campaign. That is not a whatabout to defend the Hamas unambiguous terror attack.
It goes to something I wrote previously about the difference in counterinsurgency and war against nations. But even with that difference, with occupations terror tactics like rape take place that are not like bombing factories with civilian workers. I do think there is space for moral lines to be drawn and it should be.
A sarcastic paraphrasing of Numbers 285 from the Skeptics annotated Bible: "𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘎𝘰𝘥'𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴' 𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴: "𝘏𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦? 𝘒𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘮. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘮, 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴." 𝘚𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴 (𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘎𝘰𝘥) 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘴. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘵 32,000 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘴 -- 𝘞𝘰𝘸! (𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘺 -- 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘴.) 31:1-54"
When religion becomes an OK for the despicable to take place it does
https://youtu.be/5y2FuDY6Q4M?si=0K3B19vAjA72IBlI