Israel has the most moral army in the world

[Billo_Really]

Like I said, you would have to set down a set of "morals" if you want answers to your OP.

Why? What is "moral" in one belief system, may very well be "immoral" in another. Shoot, you can even get that in the divisions of Christians, because some of them believe that it is okay to go dancing and have a drink or two, where as other denominations consider that to be a venal sin.

Otherwise, all you're going to have here instead of a discussion is people shouting about what THEY believe is "moral".

And.................fwiw....................I don't have any morals. I have a belief system and I have values and ethics that I have taken on from that belief system for myself. Morals are values and ethics imposed on the individual by the group collective, whereas values and ethics that are chosen by the individual themselves are much more likely to be followed.

How could anyone possibly rationalize shooting at people fishing to be a moral act?

 

[Billo_Really]

OMG! And then he defends it. As though the measure of morality is in how one treats inanimate objects. Unbelievable.

A persons home, means more to them, than an inanimate object.

A moral person, would be aware of that fact.

A moral person, would ask themselves how would they like their home treated in that manner?

(And btw, YOU were the one who said that ALL Israelis in the OPT are fair game. Not me. Not Israel. Unbelievable).

Hey, how 'bout that? You didn't lie this time.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like I said, you would have to set down a set of "morals" if you want answers to your OP.

Why? What is "moral" in one belief system, may very well be "immoral" in another. Shoot, you can even get that in the divisions of Christians, because some of them believe that it is okay to go dancing and have a drink or two, where as other denominations consider that to be a venal sin.

Otherwise, all you're going to have here instead of a discussion is people shouting about what THEY believe is "moral".

And.................fwiw....................I don't have any morals. I have a belief system and I have values and ethics that I have taken on from that belief system for myself. Morals are values and ethics imposed on the individual by the group collective, whereas values and ethics that are chosen by the individual themselves are much more likely to be followed.

How could anyone possibly rationalize shooting at people fishing to be a moral act?

You obviously haven't been paying attention to my posts, because otherwise you wouldn't have made the wild ass assertion that I have rationalized anything that I've posted here. You are trying to press your views into what I said as a way to justify your hatred.

I asked (both times) for the OP to define what they consider "moral", because the definition of that word means many different things depending on what religion or belief system you have. I even pointed out where Christians themselves differed on what is "moral", as some consider drinking and dancing to be okay, whereas other denominations don't.

I haven't tried to rationalize anything, it's just your desperate projection on my posts that make you believe I did.

 

[Shusha]

Like I said, you would have to set down a set of "morals" if you want answers to your OP.

Why? What is "moral" in one belief system, may very well be "immoral" in another. Shoot, you can even get that in the divisions of Christians, because some of them believe that it is okay to go dancing and have a drink or two, where as other denominations consider that to be a venal sin.

Otherwise, all you're going to have here instead of a discussion is people shouting about what THEY believe is "moral".

And.................fwiw....................I don't have any morals. I have a belief system and I have values and ethics that I have taken on from that belief system for myself. Morals are values and ethics imposed on the individual by the group collective, whereas values and ethics that are chosen by the individual themselves are much more likely to be followed.

I see your point. I hope you continue to participate on this thread, 'cause I like your thoughts and I think they contribute highly to the discussion.

We are trying to build a scale here which defines the most heinous acts of immorality and quantifies them in terms of severity and frequency.

Can we all agree that breaking an inanimate object (even in order to punish a person by that act) is LESS severe of an infraction of morality than killing a human?

 

[Tehon]

Ooooh. And scared the children.

Yes, thank you for validating my statement.

 

[Shusha]

Hey, how 'bout that? You didn't lie this time.

Awww. Thanks, dear. Do I get a prize?! I wanna prize!

 

[Shusha]

Ooooh. And scared the children.

Yes, thank you for validating my statement.

Sure, so your claim is that scaring the children makes a much more immoral army than murdering half a million people and displacing seven million does?

Come on. We are not arguing that armies, or individuals in armies, commit immoral acts. We are trying to create a system to evaluate the MOST immoral army in the world.

Scaring children does not cut it compared to murdering half a million or six million people.

 

[Boston1]

Billo has trouble with basics.

He's trying to build a false equivalency between a child being scared by the police coming to arrest his/her criminal father or brother and the Assad regime dropping chlorine bombs on its own people.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like I said, you would have to set down a set of "morals" if you want answers to your OP.

Why? What is "moral" in one belief system, may very well be "immoral" in another. Shoot, you can even get that in the divisions of Christians, because some of them believe that it is okay to go dancing and have a drink or two, where as other denominations consider that to be a venal sin.

Otherwise, all you're going to have here instead of a discussion is people shouting about what THEY believe is "moral".

And.................fwiw....................I don't have any morals. I have a belief system and I have values and ethics that I have taken on from that belief system for myself. Morals are values and ethics imposed on the individual by the group collective, whereas values and ethics that are chosen by the individual themselves are much more likely to be followed.

I see your point. I hope you continue to participate on this thread, 'cause I like your thoughts and I think they contribute highly to the discussion.

We are trying to build a scale here which defines the most heinous acts of immorality and quantifies them in terms of severity and frequency.

Can we all agree that breaking an inanimate object (even in order to punish a person by that act) is LESS severe of an infraction of morality than killing a human?

You know, I consider the unnecessary breaking of someone else's property to be immoral in the context of the military, because it shows a lack of good order and discipline.

Conversely, I believe that killing someone who is shooting at you and your fellow military members to be "moral" in the sense that I am saving my own.

So, like I said, maybe this conversation could be helped along if you could define exactly what is moral and not, because otherwise it is just going to go round and round, with little actual debate and discussion, just a whole bunch of name calling and saying you're wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

You obviously haven't been paying attention to my posts, because otherwise you wouldn't have made the wild ass assertion that I have rationalized anything that I've posted here. You are trying to press your views into what I said as a way to justify your hatred.

I asked (both times) for the OP to define what they consider "moral", because the definition of that word means many different things depending on what religion or belief system you have. I even pointed out where Christians themselves differed on what is "moral", as some consider drinking and dancing to be okay, whereas other denominations don't.

I haven't tried to rationalize anything, it's just your desperate projection on my posts that make you believe I did.

I wasn't saying you did.

The question was rhetorical.

 

[Shusha]

Like I said, you would have to set down a set of "morals" if you want answers to your OP.

Why? What is "moral" in one belief system, may very well be "immoral" in another. Shoot, you can even get that in the divisions of Christians, because some of them believe that it is okay to go dancing and have a drink or two, where as other denominations consider that to be a venal sin.

Otherwise, all you're going to have here instead of a discussion is people shouting about what THEY believe is "moral".

And.................fwiw....................I don't have any morals. I have a belief system and I have values and ethics that I have taken on from that belief system for myself. Morals are values and ethics imposed on the individual by the group collective, whereas values and ethics that are chosen by the individual themselves are much more likely to be followed.

I see your point. I hope you continue to participate on this thread, 'cause I like your thoughts and I think they contribute highly to the discussion.

We are trying to build a scale here which defines the most heinous acts of immorality and quantifies them in terms of severity and frequency.

Can we all agree that breaking an inanimate object (even in order to punish a person by that act) is LESS severe of an infraction of morality than killing a human?

You know, I consider the unnecessary breaking of someone else's property to be immoral in the context of the military, because it shows a lack of good order and discipline.

Conversely, I believe that killing someone who is shooting at you and your fellow military members to be "moral" in the sense that I am saving my own.

So, like I said, maybe this conversation could be helped along if you could define exactly what is moral and not, because otherwise it is just going to go round and round, with little actual debate and discussion, just a whole bunch of name calling and saying you're wrong.

Ah. You make good sense. I will bow to your wisdom, gracefully, and compile a list I feel appropriate and will invite others to add or refine should I miss something. It might take a while. I have to go teach a class this evening. Back later.

 

[Billo_Really]

Awww. Thanks, dear. Do I get a prize?! I wanna prize!

Okay, pick an avatar. Any kind you want and I'll use it for one day.

Just post the picture and I'll take from there.

For not lying, you deserve it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Aw fuck, man! Now I can't be an asshole!

Stop being nice!

 

[Shusha]

Awww. Thanks, dear. Do I get a prize?! I wanna prize!

Okay, pick an avatar. Any kind you want and I'll use it for one day.

Just post the picture and I'll take from there.

For not lying, you deserve it.

Add the caption "My ass is showing".



I was going to make you do something pro-Israel, but you deserve a little Irish-to-Irish respect.

 

[Tehon]

Ooooh. And scared the children.

Yes, thank you for validating my statement.

Sure, so your claim is that scaring the children makes a much more immoral army than murdering half a million people and displacing seven million does?

Come on. We are not arguing that armies, or individuals in armies, commit immoral acts. We are trying to create a system to evaluate the MOST immoral army in the world.

Scaring children does not cut it compared to murdering half a million or six million people.

Sure, so your claim is that scaring the children makes a much more immoral army than murdering half a million people and displacing seven million does?
I didn't say anything of the sort. I was just responding to the thread title. Israelis find that interrogating children in the middle of the night is morally acceptable.....it speaks for itself, don't get so defensive. Sorry to interrupt your attempt to justify your immoralities......count me out.

 

[Shusha]

Ooooh. And scared the children.

Yes, thank you for validating my statement.

Sure, so your claim is that scaring the children makes a much more immoral army than murdering half a million people and displacing seven million does?

Come on. We are not arguing that armies, or individuals in armies, commit immoral acts. We are trying to create a system to evaluate the MOST immoral army in the world.

Scaring children does not cut it compared to murdering half a million or six million people.

Sure, so your claim is that scaring the children makes a much more immoral army than murdering half a million people and displacing seven million does?
I didn't say anything of the sort. I was just responding to the thread title. Israelis find that interrogating children in the middle of the night is morally acceptable.....it speaks for itself, don't get so defensive. Sorry to interrupt your attempt to justify your immoralities......count me out.

So, you are saying there is an army out there which is more moral than Israel and which, possibly, demonstrates an complete lack of "immorality"? Do tell.

We are not trying to demonstrate an army which lacks ANY immorality here, in word or deed by ANY individual member. We are trying to establish a criteria which defines morality and a sliding scale of what is the most moral army.

 

[Phoenall]

So, on another thread, Israel was accused of having the most immoral army in the world. I believe that to not only be a false accusation, but would argue that Israel has the most moral army in the world.

How would we objectively measure the morality of an army? And if you claim that Israel is more or less moral than another army, what evidence would you bring to support your conclusion?

You call trashing Gazan homes just for kicks, moral?

Testimony 35 – Vandalism

Soldiers “took out notebooks and text books and ripped them. One guy smashed cupboards for kicks, out of boredom….The deputy company commander’s staff wrote ‘Death to Arabs’ on their walls.” Lip service only was paid to looting. Don’t ask, don’t tell was how it was.
​

How about no regard for basic hygiene; you call that moral?

Testimony 37 – House Demolitions & Vandalism

Houses were entered with live gunfire, grenades, and other destructive force. Extensive damage was done. Soldiers inside did much more. They had no regard for “even the simplest most basic sanitary stuff like going to the toilet, basic hygiene. I mean you could see they had defecated anywhere and left the stuff lying around.” No one cared.
​

You call getting your kicks out of vandalizing Gazan homes, moral?

Testimony 39 – Vandalism

Doors inside houses were blasted open. Contents were smashed, television and computer screens. Things of value were looted. “The guys would simply break stuff. Some were out to destroy and trash the whole time. They drew a disgusting drawing on the wall. They threw out sofas. They took down (pictures) just to shatter (them).” They did what they wanted. Who’d stop them? The assumption was “everyone is a terrorist (so) it’s legitimate to do just anything we please.”
​

Most moral army my ass!

Testimony 44 – Vandalism

Houses were cleared with live fire and people inside taken away. There was no control. Soldiers did what they wanted. At times, they “went crazy.” They did “unnecessary damage to property, smashing stuff, looting. Commanders didn’t care.
​

You want more? I got more!

And of course you have the IDF rule book that shows this to be standard operational procedures,


Your source for these alleged breaches has admitted that they have no evidence to support their claims other than the arab muslims. No documented evidence of then having taken place, but still they reported them as if they were 100% factual and proven

Yes you have more, and in every case the source is the same and has been proven to be false. Repeating a LIE is worse than starting the LIE, more so when you have been shown the LIE is a LIE.

 

[Phoenall]

Depends on your definition of "moral" and how far you are willing to push it.

By one definition, it would be a disciplined force that follows the Geneva Conventions, and is fair in how they treat their prisoners.

But, by another definition, you could consider the Israeli army to be "immoral" because they allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, and they also don't discriminate based on a persons sexuality.

We need a definition from the OP as to what they consider "moral" behavior.

You want a definition of moral?

moral = Not the IDF!​

Then you have no idea as to what moral means in this context.

Your use of proven LIES shows that you don't have any morals

 

[Phoenall]

FANTASTIC point! But I don't want to define it for others. I would like others to create their own definitions. Maybe we can come to a consensus.

But that, honestly, is part of the reason why I created this thread. People make sweeping statements and other, one could argue more reasonable, people say, wait a minute! what does that even mean?

The IDF is so disgusting, so over the top, that this is actually a joke thread.

So they must be just underneath you who is 10 down from hamas, fatah and islam

 

[Phoenall]

Israeli morality is scaring children in the middle of the night.

Standard operational procedure. The British police break down doors and enter houses in the middle of the night if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has taken place. Most of these homes have children in them and are immediately handed to social services.

The Palestinians just mass murder the children so they cant grow up to fight against them.