Is this just (read description)?

Posted by: PetersSmith

A top leader of the terrorist group Hamas is having a large party in the garden of his home in the Gaza Strip. Israeli intelligence sends this information to the Israel Defense Forces who then decide to act. An Israeli military helicopter is tasked with shooting a single hell-fire missile at the garden of the Hamas leader's home. The missile successfully kills the Hamas leader but also kills 30 innocent civilians and 5 children attending the party. After the attack, Hamas is incapable of further terrorist a

  • Yes, this attack was just. Despite the civilian destruction the attack caused, Hamas has been destroyed. The ends do justify the means.

  • No, this attack was not just. There could have been another, less destructive, way to kill him at a later point and Israel killed too many civilians. The ends do not justify the means.

57% 8 votes
43% 6 votes
  • The end didn't justify the means, it was the immediate disruption of terrorist attacks that justified the means. It is much more of a weigh the cons and pros, should you take the chance now which immediately dissolves the group, or do you risk terrorist attacks while you wait for another opportunity. Personally the hellfire rocket is probably overkill, couldn't they have used a sniper or something.

  • Hamas would have caused the deaths of much more than 30 innocents, and we know that this has been their tactic all along. Hamas hides in plain sight, with tons of innocents around them. Honestly, i would have been hoping that he only had 30 around him. i expected much more from the leader of Hamas. It was necessary.

  • You sometimes have to do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

  • Specail ops teams or snipers will due that same job but with far far less civilian deaths. Remember Seal Team 6, not only did they kill osama along with several other high ranking members but they limited the civilian deaths to only around 2 or 3.

  • Israel chose to invade Palestine. We don't call the Ukrainians fighting Russia terrorists, so why do we call anyone who is against Israel that?Killing people to take their land isn't justified, and that's what Israel has been doing for decades.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PetersSmith says2015-04-11T12:58:12.5784523-05:00
Description got cut off: A top leader of the terrorist group Hamas is having a large party in the garden of his home in the Gaza Strip. Israeli intelligence sends this information to the Israel Defense Forces who then decide to act. An Israeli military helicopter is tasked with shooting a single hell-fire missile at the garden of the Hamas leader's home. The missile successfully kills the Hamas leader but also kills 25 innocent civilians and 5 children attending the party. After the attack, Hamas is incapable of further terrorist attacks and dissolves as a group. Is this attack just?
PetersSmith says2015-04-11T13:13:59.6860380-05:00
Go by this description by the way ^ There's 5 extra civilians for the top one for some reason.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-11T13:18:23.4145662-05:00
It wasn't a matter of destroying hamas, it was do you wait for another opportunity while more terrorist attacks happen? PetersSmith you confusing this with does the end justify the means.
PetersSmith says2015-04-11T13:22:07.8630498-05:00
Mathgeekjoe: The means was destroying a high-value target at the cost of killing 30 civilians including 5 civilians. Waiting for an "opportunity" would be waiting until the leader exposes himself again in a situation where he can be killed with less civilian destruction.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-11T13:23:28.0923069-05:00
"Waiting for an "opportunity" would be waiting until the leader exposes himself again in a situation where he can be killed with less civilian destruction." But that waiting can cause another terrorist attack.
PetersSmith says2015-04-11T13:24:11.6662638-05:00
Mathgeekjoe: Yes.
PetersSmith says2015-04-11T13:24:40.4125161-05:00
Mathgeekjoe: If you actually go by law, there's only one answer to this.
TheMarquis says2015-04-11T13:24:43.4160781-05:00
I don't think killing justifies killing even if you THINK it is preventing killing. When civilians die more civilians get mad. Anger in the third world, where they can make no claims in any civil way, can lead to more violence very easily. Most terrorists today talk about joining because of something done by their government or another. Violence isn't the solution for these issues.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-11T13:26:44.2603815-05:00
"I don't think killing justifies killing even if you THINK it is preventing killing. When civilians die more civilians get mad. Anger in the third world, where they can make no claims in any civil way, can lead to more violence very easily. Most terrorists today talk about joining because of something done by their government or another. Violence isn't the solution for these issues." I would agree but in the description it says hamas was dissolved and it took away their ability to cause a future terrorist attack.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-11T13:29:19.1817556-05:00
If it didn't dissolve Hamas and only delayed them from doing a terrorist attack, I would say it wasn't just. In most situations such an attacked would have not successfully dissolve the enemy and just make them stronger, so I would say that such an attack is on average a dumb idea.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-11T13:30:54.0613940-05:00
I am typically against non-surgical attacks since most cons don't outweigh the pros.
TheMarquis says2015-04-11T15:35:18.6721553-05:00
@MathGeekJoe: I guess what I want to know then is who takes Hamass' place? They definitely aren't good guys, but I don't see anybody else willing to help out the Palestinians. They suck at helping the Palestinians, to be quite frank they make things a lot worse, but I don't see anybody else trying. And if Hamas leaves, ISIS is already getting into that area. In their desperation they could very easily take up arms with ISIS. I feel that Hamas is definitely the lesser of two evils and we don't want a power vacuum.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.