Islam And The West

9 Comments on “It Is Permissible To Kill Innocents”

1. 
   James Howard Shott
   August 5th, 2006 at 15:01

   That sentiment seems to be shared by today’s Musim terrorists and, indeed, all terrorists.

   The Geneva Conventions were intended to impose some degree of civility on an uncivilized activity. They cover the armed forces of participating nations, who pledged to follow their terms in conflicts among themselves.

   As I read the Conventions, they do not specify how a signatory nation is supposed to behave in a conflict with combatants who, like al-Qaeda, Hamas, ETA, the IRA and Hezbollah, are neither an armed force of a nation, signatories of the Conventions, and who themselves do not follow the Conventions.

   I do not recall the Conventions asking that opposing forces notify the enemy where it plans to attack, as Israel has been doing in this conflict.

   It is quite clear that the Geneva Conventions are inadequate for the sort of guerillas and terrorists we see plaguing the world today.

2. 
   21st Century Kashmiri Nomad
   August 5th, 2006 at 15:10

   Mr. Shott you fell for the bait. I see you make no mention of the fact that you do not condemn those that would kill civilians.. if you read the article on Ynetnews.com it refers to civilians not non-combatants.

3. 
   James Howard Shott
   August 5th, 2006 at 22:23

   I didn’t realize that there was an article; I didn’t recognize the link until I read your comment. However, you asked: “I wonder what the Geneva conventions on the laws of war have to say about this?” and I answered your question.

   I used the term “non-combatants” because the term “civilians” can also apply to the likes of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah members, who are not members of a national military, and are in that sense civilians. They are not, however, in any sense “non-combatants.” Given that the discussion I was involved in focused on the Geneva Conventions, a document that deals with “military” personnel as distiinctly different from “civilians,” I believe my use of the term “non-combatants” is proper.

   You didn’t ask my opinion about killing non-combatants/civilians, but just so you will know, I do not favor indiscriminate killing of civilians/non-combatants, as they are not involved in the actual conflict, and I regret the loss of innocent life. But I recognize that the tactics of al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are deliberately directed at “civilians,” and that both of those dastardly groups routinely store munitions among “civilians” and launche attacks from among “civilians,” and they do so with the clear understanding that “civilians” will be hurt and killed. I further realize based upon centuries of history that “collateral” damage is unavoidable in war.

4. 
   21st Century Kashmiri Nomad
   August 6th, 2006 at 12:09

   Mr.Shott my understanding of the edict from the Yesha Rabbinical Council is this :

   It is permissble to the “enemy” which in the current situaiton is Hezbollah and also it is permissible to kill the “innocents of the enemy” meaning Lebanese women and children. The point is not whether it is desirable to kill civilans or not. The point is that according to the edcit if “innocents of the enemy” are killed there is no sin upon those that do the killing.

5. 
   21st Century Kashmiri Nomad
   August 6th, 2006 at 12:33

   Also Mr.Shott the edict as far as I understand makes it clear that in times of war… whether that war be aganist groups like Hezbollah or armies it is permissible to kill civilians.

6. 
   James Howard Shott
   August 6th, 2006 at 15:14

   You can read that to mean at least two different things: 1) that it is okay to kill civilians, which might be interpreted to mean that deliberate killing of civilians is alright, or 2) that if civilians are inadvertently killed that that is just an undesirable consequence of war and that the inadvertent killing of civilians is not a “crime.” Two very different interpretations.

   Naturally, you chose the interpretation that is the most negative toward Israel.

7. 
   Nuri
   August 7th, 2006 at 10:05

   You both seem to be trying to find some humanity in something as brutal and destructive as war. There’s not much point. I think we’re always lied to. By governments by everything. War is destruction and death. They keep telling us about “intelligent” weapons and showing us properly guided missiles but I believe wars are about killing. Innocent or not. They have to masquerade the truth so that our poor well intentioned minds accept it to some degree. I read recently that the Spanish civil war was one of the firsts in which civilians were openly targeted. The purpose was to bring death AND fear. Terror. That’s all they are about. I don’t believe their lies. I don’t believe in “clean” wars.

8. 
   Nuri
   August 7th, 2006 at 10:08

   Another thing, have you ever seen those pictures of tanks and a priest praying? I think the tanks and soldiers are being blessed. I never understood that image. How can a man of God actually bless a killing machine???
   I’ve seen them in pictures of the Vietnam war and others.

9. 
   21st Century Kashmiri Nomad
   August 7th, 2006 at 17:15

   I agree with you Mononoke war cannot be sanitized. After all it is about killing others.

Leave a Reply