holyland red
"Holier-than-thou fundamentalist"
Do you support destruction of houses as a form of collective punishment @Colin129?
What collective punishment? It's the homes of murderers that are being demolished here.
Do you support destruction of houses as a form of collective punishment @Colin129?
What collective punishment? It's the homes of murderers that are being demolished here.
Their families aren't murderers. What if someone else wanted to move into the home after? If someone blew up a house on my street because a suspected (as is often the case) or even convicted murderer lived there i wouldn't be too happy.
It's undeniably a collective punishment.
What collective punishment? It's the homes of murderers that are being demolished here.
Yup, the houses of murderers have never been destroyed before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3593137.stm
Edit: That's a bad example
Yup, the houses of murderers have never been destroyed before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3593137.stm
Edit: That's a bad example
Their families aren't murderers. What if someone else wanted to move into the home after? If someone blew up a house on my street because a suspected (as is often the case) or even convicted murderer lived there i wouldn't be too happy.
It's undeniably a collective punishment.
Its often the case that family members are unaware of an individual's actions or intentions. In Europe, you have all these young men joining ISIS much to the bemusement and shock of their families. It would be unfair to collectively punish other people because of one person's actions. These men might have left behind a wife and children who were oblivious to their intentions, but now have to be homeless because their home's destroyed.
As someone has already alluded too, destroying the homes of their families is akin to a suicide bomber carrying out an attack in a public place to target someone specific.
Can you direct me to those often occuring cases? Whether you'd be happy or not at the punishment depends on whether this punishment would potentially prevent the slaughter of your loved ones.
I'm on my phone so searching for links is a bit difficult right now but I'm pretty sure the one i posted earlier was a suspect not convicted.
I still don't see how it helps save anyone to destroy a house and you haven't expained it to me.
You put murderers in prison, you don't blow up their houses.
I'm sure you could distinguish between taking one's home or life. Killing the terrorist is also a collective punishment in the form of grief to his loved ones, whether oblivious to his murderous intentions or not.
If effective in preventing loss of life, I'm all for demolishing murderers' homes. As I have already pointed out I would apply the same procedure to Arab and Jewish murderers.
The chap from the story you had posted was a murderer released from prison, who then went on to murder again. I'm quite happy with seeing his home being demolished.
First of all, it's not just one person. Homes were demolished of 3 suspects and I can't see anywhere in the story that it says they had been convicted. Suspects and alleged were the words used.
The murderers from Tuesday's massacres haven't been convicted either. Still, in these borderline circumstances I'd support home demolition subject to the procedure actual effectiveness.
You could use this to justify anything. Why don't we just rape the daughters of anyone terrorists we kill? They'll already be upset that their love one is dead so it's not like it matters and it could save lives.
Punishing murderers with house arrests would be the equivalent of your ridiculous suggestion here. It would guarantee that the culprit does not murder again, and at the same time preserve the integrity of his kids' nuclear family.
So seeing as there is no proof that is effective, I'm guessing you don't support it now?
I'm sure you could distinguish between taking one's home or life. Killing the terrorist is also a collective punishment in the form of grief to his loved ones, whether oblivious to his murderous intentions or not.
If effective in preventing loss of life, I'm all for demolishing murderers' homes. As I have already pointed out I would apply the same procedure to Arab and Jewish murderers.
I didn't say it wasn't. I am not familiar with the data. As I said earlier, this is hotly debated between different security agemcies here. Supreme Court ruling also suggests that evidence is equivocal.
Killing a terrorist can be justified on the premise of it being defensive (as was the case with recent events) and also debately a form of punishment (depending on where you morally stand on a death penalty). The point is, you're directly punishing those held responsible.
I also don't see how demolishing a family home makes you any more safer, if anything it'll only further radicalise and serve as more propaganda for those genuinely trying to kill you. It serves no practical benefit to the safety of Israel's people.
We've been going in circles here. The Shin Bet supports home demolition as a deterrent, while the IDF claims it's not effective. I reiterate my disagreement with the notion that demolishing homes of murderers radicalizes a society. As long as murders and murderers are celebrated and supported by the Palestinian administration(s) demolishing a dozen homes is not going to make a difference in that respect.
This notion that nothing Israel does to the Palestinians can possibly change the opinions and actions of those people for the worse seems naive to me.
What would you call the notion that sparing murderers homes is going to outweigh years of antisemitic indoctrination, from school textbooks to mosque sermons, from official media outlets to Hamas summer camps?
Bizarre policy as it seems to dehumanize Palestinian families, which of course would seem to only further radicalize those who may be considering similar acts.
Yanks should know a thing or two about radicalization. Mission accomplished.
You could use this to justify anything. Why don't we just rape the daughters of anyone terrorists we kill? They'll already be upset that their love one is dead so it's not like it matters and it could save lives.
Killing a terrorist can be justified on the premise of it being defensive (as was the case with recent events) and also debately a form of punishment (depending on where you morally stand on a death penalty). The point is, you're directly punishing those held responsible.
I also don't see how demolishing a family home makes you any more safer, if anything it'll only further radicalise and serve as more propaganda for those genuinely trying to kill you. It serves no practical benefit to the safety of Israel's people.
Instead of the usual tap dance about US policy, since this is the Israel-Palestine thread, how about addressing the issue. Do you honestly believe that Palestinian society observing the destruction of the home belonging to a family who just lost one of their own will not be perceived as anything other than a state sponsored revenge against a family who had nothing to do with the act ?
Sorry for their loss, Raoul, are you? Three American citizens were slaughtered in that synagogue. More than it took your air force to renew bombardment of targets in Iraq. I'm sure some homes are gone there too. How about that for promoting radicalization in the region, and boosting IS recruitment?
Do you also think you share some blame for 9/11? After all the state-sponsored cruise missile attack on Kabul in 1998 may have contributed to radicalization there.
The home destruction policy seems counterproductive irrespective of how often you attempt to switch the topic towards Iraq, Afghanistan, or Timbuktu. Its a tragedy irrespective of nationality and your continued support of it seems like an emotional overreaction that seeks out revenge before reason.
Spot on. Its basically a state sponsored act of revenge and psychological suppression. A feel good tit for tat response to a tragedy that only prolongs the cycle of violence.