User talk:Humus sapiens/policies

Humus, if an action is carried out that the agent can reasonably know will kill innocents, it cannot be said that that agent unintentionally killed the innocents. You can argue that it was not the primary purpose of the act, but not that the innocents were not intentionally killed. Dr Zen 05:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree. A couple of points.


 * "When Israelis kill a civilian, there is internal criticism, boards of inquiry, and sometimes even punishment... Israel has nothing to gain and everything to lose by killing innocent Palestinians... Palestinian propagandists understand and exploit the reality that decent people become outraged at the killing of a child and often do not pause to move the blame beyond the side that fired the fatal shot toward the side that deliberately placed the child in harm’s way." (The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz). BTW, the Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield. (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28).
 * From Kafr Qasim massacre: "As a result of the Kafr Qasim case, the Israeli Supreme Court made a landmark ruling on the obligation of soldiers to disobey manifestly illegal orders. Judge Halevy stated that "The distinguishing mark of a manifestly illegal order is that above such an order should fly, like a black flag, a warning saying: 'Prohibited!'." The Deir Yassin massacre (1948) and Kafr Qassim (1956) are being brought up in discussions so often because they are the exceptions, not the rule. Each such case causes a stir in Israeli society. A healthy reaction, IMHO.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)