War in Israel

[CountValentine]

I think both the Count and I agree that if someone comes into your house shooting at you, you can shoot back at him. His aim was off this time? So what? What if his aim is better next time?

...but we might disagree about shooting him in the back as he is leaving.

[Lurker]

No.
You seem to miss the point. You try and shoot me and miss. Then hours or days later I shoot back and kill you and your whole family.

Lol. You don't get it. They are STILL shooting. The rockets keep coming. And it's not my fault you decided to hold your kid while shooting up my house.

[Lurker]

...but we might disagree about shooting him the back as he is leaving.

He's not leaving!!!! He's still there shooting!

[avromie7]

It would have less effect than eradicating the actual infrastructure. They're happy to die.

This is true. If Israel would be less worried about the civilian human shields and more worried about protecting their own people, they would be able to eradicate the infrastructure more effectively.

[dasmo801]

Since when can you shoot back at somebody just because they tried and failed to shoot at you?

The question should be "Since when can you shoot back at someone who is shooting at you and (mostly) missing you?" and the answer is, since forever.

[PlatinumGuy]

Shooting somebody who can defend themself isn't the same as shooting somebody who cannot, and in general shooting rockets isn't the same when you have higher quality weapons that can avoid civilians.

This is true. If Israel would be less worried about the civilian human shields and more worried about protecting their own people, they would be able to eradicate the infrastructure more effectively.

True, with potential repercussions discussed upthread. Israel does kill civilian human shields all the time.

[NTorch]

Since when can you shoot back at somebody just because they tried and failed to shoot at you?

Rules of Engagement
Rules of Engagement are the guidelines that govern the lawful employment of force by troops. ROE are often modified or updated by operation orders but we have a standardized base ROE which is often refered to as the “Universal ROE”.

The ROE can also provide updates on the situation regarding the laws of war such as if the enemy is not party to the geneva convention.

Universal Rules of Engagement
The Universal ROE is in effect unless explicitly stated otherwise.

You can always act in defence of yourself, your team mates and civilians

If the enemy is about to engage a friendly or civilian target you do not need permission to fire. You should engage the target first and then report the engagement subsequently.

You can always return fire when fired upon

https://documentation.1st-rrf.com/infantry/roe.html

[Pad18]

No.
You seem to miss the point. You try and shoot me and miss. Then hours or days later I shoot back and kill you and your whole family.

If your whole purpose is to try to kill me, and you screams it everyday, and you build rockets for this propose only. So yes, 1 day eventually if i am still alive, (because remember you tried multiple times, for years) i will do everything to kill you first.

In the Bible you have a sentence that say : "He who comes to kill you, you should get up early and kill him beforehand."

[Lurker]

If he's actively shooting, nobody disputes that you can shoot to remove the threat. But shooting rockets indiscriminately isn't just 'shooting back'.

No, but it is the "proportional response" the world seems to be calling for. I think the pinpoint attacks on terrorists is the better way to deal with it, but the world seems to think otherwise.

[EliJelly]

No.
 Then hours or days later I shoot back and kill you and your whole family.

Is this what the Israelis are doing now?

[Lurker]

Shooting somebody who can defend themself isn't the same as shooting somebody who cannot, and in general shooting rockets isn't the same when you have higher quality weapons that can avoid civilians.

Again:

No, but it is the "proportional response" the world seems to be calling for. I think the pinpoint attacks on terrorists is the better way to deal with it, but the world seems to think otherwise.

And my gun/aim being better than the person who stupidly decided to attack me is irrelevant.

[PlatinumGuy]

The question should be "Since when can you shoot back at someone who is shooting at you and (mostly) missing you?" and the answer is, since forever.

There is no right to 'shoot back'. There is a right to shoot to eliminate the threat. Shooting rocket indiscriminately isn't shooting to eliminate the threat.

It will also only make more rockets come. Israel has tried punitive collective bombing. They stopped because it doesn't work.

https://documentation.1st-rrf.com/infantry/roe.html

That's war. Gaza is occupied territory under Israeli military authority, not an enemy state. If you want to use those rules, you can't stop them from becoming a state.

Again:
And my gun/aim being better than the person who stupidly decided to attack me is irrelevant.

But, it is relevant

[CountValentine]

Is this what the Israelis are doing now?

No, is that a straight enough answer for you? 

[PlatinumGuy]

Revenge and prevention are two separate things. You have no right to 'shoot back' at somebody who is shooting at you, only to eliminate the threat. If you can eliminate the threat by shooting, good for you. If you can't, you have zero justification to shoot.

[avromie7]

There is no right to 'shoot back'. There is a right to shoot to eliminate the threat. Shooting rocket indiscriminately isn't shooting to eliminate the threat.

It will also only make more rockets come. Israel has tried punitive collective bombing. They stopped because it doesn't work.
That's war. Gaza is occupied territory under Israeli military authority, not an enemy state. If you want to use those rules, you can't stop them from becoming a state.
But, it is relevant

Why don't you tell that to everyone calling for "proportionate response"?

[CountValentine]

No, but it is the "proportional response" the world seems to be calling for. I think the pinpoint attacks on terrorists is the better way to deal with it, but the world seems to think otherwise.

It seems that just as you say the world doesn't understand what is going on in Israel you don't understand what is going on outside Israel. If you have 100 dead on one side and 1 dead on the other side the world will not consider that "proportional".

Now for all the haters this is an example and not is what is currently going on.

[PlatinumGuy]

Why don't you tell that to everyone calling for "proportionate response"?

Give me their number

I can't speak for every person who says it, but 'proportionate response' doesn't necessarily mean tit for tat, but 'measured' response.

[Pad18]

Revenge and prevention are two separate things. You have no right to 'shoot back' at somebody who is shooting at you, only to eliminate the threat. If you can eliminate the threat by shooting, good for you. If you can't, you have zero justification to shoot.

To clarify, is that a rule in a war ?

[PlatinumGuy]

It seems that just as you say the world doesn't understand what is going on in Israel you don't understand what is going on outside Israel. If you have 100 dead on one side and 1 dead on the other side the world will not consider that "proportional".

Now for all the haters this is an example and not is what is currently going on.

Unfortunately, in much of the world this is exactly the perception now. Many have no idea Israel is under rocket attack.

To clarify, is that a rule in a war ?

That depends how you define 'rule' and who you're going to follow. Regardless, this isn't war. Israel conquered Gaza already 45 years ago. There is no enemy state. It is domestic terrorism.

[yelped]

There is no right to 'shoot back'. There is a right to shoot to eliminate the threat. Shooting rocket indiscriminately isn't shooting to eliminate the threat.

It will also only make more rockets come. Israel has tried punitive collective bombing. They stopped because it doesn't work.
That's war. Gaza is occupied territory under Israeli military authority, not an enemy state. If you want to use those rules, you can't stop them from becoming a state.
But, it is relevant

Seriously? I'm sorry, this makes no sense. You're saying that I have no right to shoot back once you stop shooting at me, because it may not help???