Hamas's armed wing, Izaddin al-Kassam, on Sunday threatened to attack infrastructure facilities inside Israel, including schools, hospitals and universities. ... "If they continue with these attacks, we will strike at targets in Zionist territory that we have not struck until now," said the organization's spokesman.
Jesse
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wonder who the first will be to point out that since Israel is targeting Palestinian power and water supplies, they are to blame for Hamas targeting Israeli children facilities.
You know, ignoring the fact that Hamas is not known for having a setting between 'off' and 'murder civilians' when it comes to 'resisting' Israel.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wonder who the first will be to point out that since Israel is targeting Palestinian power and water supplies, they are to blame for Hamas targeting Israeli children facilities.
You know, ignoring the fact that Hamas is not known for having a setting between 'off' and 'murder civilians' when it comes to 'resisting' Israel.
They have an off switch?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
*Flips the Hamas 'Off' switch*
I don't think it's wired right...
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
You know, since Israel's been targing Palestinian infrastructure, they'll sort of have brought in on themselves if Hamas carries out it's threat.
Totally pwned.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
In the tradition of Israeli one-upsmanship I believe that as a response to Hamas' announcement the Israelis may well take out everyone. And Hamas will have brought it on not only themselves, but everyone else.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
My advice to Israel: Nuke them. Worked for the U.S., can work for you too. If this seems to extreme, threaten to nuke. Then, if they keep going afterwords, carry out your plan. The scary thing about Israel, is that not only do they have one of the worlds most powerful armies, but that they will send it out right after they say will. If Israel threatens to nuke, you can be damn sure that in one week, we'll be hearing about the nuclear bombardment of Palestine.
But honestly, with all of the things that have happened in the middle east, and to Israel, (not just Israel, but the entire middle east hates them, cut them a break) I say it would save many lives to end it with Nukes. Would there be retaliation? Most likely, but I say it would be worth it. After all, the U.S. saved hundreds of thousands of lives nuking Japan, really.
Just my humble opinion.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Some things about living in the US bum me out, but when I see things like this going on, I realize it's not so bad. At least our armed conflicts aren't on home soil.
Reticulum: I don't see how nuking anyone would solve anything. It would only make things worse. There are so many generations of conflict over there, it's not as though things are bad because Israel isn't killing enough people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just when you wonder how things could get any worse...
I'm wondering just how much firepower Hamas will bring to bear if they reenter the fray, and how brutal their tactics will be. Whether they've been encouraging other groups to do the work they used to, or they've really been doing it themselves all along, which seems silly, to keep up the pretense I mean, then either way this is only making things worse. How long after they start murdering the sick and young so brazenly will it be before Israel responds with even more force?
As much as their threat is an attempt to get Israel to back down, it's also an attempt to bait them, and given the history between those two, it will likely succeed. Mahmoud Abbas needs to push harder, as hard as he can, to get a vote going to recognize Israel. If he waits too long, the people might be energized by whatever reprisals Israel brings to be too angry to vote to support it. I don't expect Israel will back off, nor Hamas, but someone has to be the voice of reason.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, someone does. And that someone, is nuclear weapons.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: My advice to Israel: Nuke them. Worked for the U.S., can work for you too. If this seems to extreme, threaten to nuke. Then, if they keep going afterwords, carry out your plan. The scary thing about Israel, is that not only do they have one of the worlds most powerful armies, but that they will send it out right after they say will. If Israel threatens to nuke, you can be damn sure that in one week, we'll be hearing about the nuclear bombardment of Palestine.
But honestly, with all of the things that have happened in the middle east, and to Israel, (not just Israel, but the entire middle east hates them, cut them a break) I say it would save many lives to end it with Nukes. Would there be retaliation? Most likely, but I say it would be worth it. After all, the U.S. saved hundreds of thousands of lives nuking Japan, really.
Just my humble opinion.
Why would we want to nuke our own land? It'd be like the US nuking David Koresh. It would work, but we'd lose more than we'd gain.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The sad thing about this is that Lisa's not talking about the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Some things about living in the US bum me out, but when I see things like this going on, I realize it's not so bad. At least our armed conflicts aren't on home soil.
On the other hand, people don't steal children in Israel. There are trade offs. Havah and I used to leave Tova in her stroller in the front of the store while we shopped. No one thinks twice about doing that, actually. It was quite a shock to get back here and have to be so scared of letting her out of our sight.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
No, Tom, their lives are not my first priority. Our lives are, and always will be. Theirs will always come a very distant second or third. And numbers don't matter, either. One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wow...what possible paradigm are you operating from where that is not a horribly evil way of thinking?
It's one thing to say, "One innocent life of ours is worth the lives of thousands or millions of their soldiers, politicians, etc." But to say that your lives are actually worth more?
That's...that's vile. What horrible ego. I wasn't sure if I'd ever agree with the criticisms some make of you, Lisa. But that is an opinion that terrorists everywhere would empathize with.
You share a mindset with terrorists and murderers and genocidal maniacs. You must think they are animals, to be able to say that one of your lives is worth more than ALL of theirs.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wow...what possible paradigm are you operating from where that is not a horribly evil way of thinking?
It's one thing to say, "One innocent life of ours is worth the lives of thousands or millions of their soldiers, politicians, etc." But to say that your lives are actually worth more?
"Worth more" -- to us. I'm not speaking objectively here (though I do think the lives of people who want to live in peace are worth inestimably more than those who consider the butchery of innocents to be something to celebrate).
Rakeesh, may you never find yourself in a situation where you have to make such choices. But if you ever do, I assure you that you'll either place a higher value on you and yours than on the enemy who is trying to destroy you, or that enemy will, in fact, destroy you.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's...that's vile. What horrible ego. I wasn't sure if I'd ever agree with the criticisms some make of you, Lisa. But that is an opinion that terrorists everywhere would empathize with.
And they'd be wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You share a mindset with terrorists and murderers and genocidal maniacs. You must think they are animals, to be able to say that one of your lives is worth more than ALL of theirs.
Let me say this one more time. And let me make it as clear as I possibly can. I have never, ever, ever even suggested that they are less than human. I could not hate them as I do if I considered them less than human. One does not hate a dog for biting. They are all too human, and they can be judged as such. What do you think the Nazis were? Horses?
The very fact that they can choose to act in a civilized fashion and choose nevertheless to behave as barbarians is justification for what I'm saying.
You need to learn to distinguish between moral positions. What I'm saying is moral because we aren't terrorists. We are normal people, just trying to live our lives. As such, our lives are worth more than murderous terrorists and their supporters. Yes, I said "and their supporters". Even if those supporters have never actually engaged in terrorism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa,
quote:"Worth more" -- to us. I'm not speaking objectively here (though I do think the lives of people who want to live in peace are worth inestimably more than those who consider the butchery of innocents to be something to celebrate).
I do not truly consider someone who believes "One of mine equals all of theirs" and doesn't mean it as just a guideline, but literally like you do...I do not think you want to live in peace. You want to live in peace through conquest. Which, if successful is merely the absence of war. Not peace.
quote:Rakeesh, may you never find yourself in a situation where you have to make such choices. But if you ever do, I assure you that you'll either place a higher value on you and yours than on the enemy who is trying to destroy you, or that enemy will, in fact, destroy you.
If, right this instant I were given the choice by a genie, "Sacrifice the life of your next door neighbor, or sacrifice the lives of every single fundamentalist Islamic person throughout the world, whether or not they have committed any crimes themselves specifically," I would not take the latter choice. I would be ashamed of my neighbor if he spared me if given the same choice.
quote:Let me say this one more time. And let me make it as clear as I possibly can. I have never, ever, ever even suggested that they are less than human. I could not hate them as I do if I considered them less than human. One does not hate a dog for biting. They are all too human, and they can be judged as such. What do you think the Nazis were? Horses?
Such an incredible arithmetic of slaughter-a puffy phrase, yes-is the essence of regarding others as less than human. All of them are worth less than one of mine. Us and them. Human and barbarian. Human and animal. Human and evil human. There's only a hair's breadth difference between all of them.
I hear you speak with such intense hatred, and I find it impossible to believe you when you say you think they aren't animals. I believe you feel they are humans who have chosen to behave like snarling, vicious animals. Even though you still-intellectually-regard them as human, the essence remains the same.
I'll go one step further. If I lived in WWII and a genie gave me the choice, "Your neighbor's life agaisnt the lives of every single registered Nazi party member, take your pick," I would not spare my neighbor's life. And I'd be ashamed of him for sparing me.
I cannot condone murdering people just by association. 'Normal' people may-and do frequently-do that, but that does not make it moral. And it does not make it better.
You need to recognize that there are more than two settings of just 'Off' and 'On', 'For' and 'Against'. Your lives being worth more does not mean their lives should be ended. I read what you've written now, and I cannot believe you would not do so if given the chance. Even without the neighbor or them choice.
quote:Rakeesh, may you never find yourself in a situation where you have to make such choices. But if you ever do, I assure you that you'll either place a higher value on you and yours than on the enemy who is trying to destroy you, or that enemy will, in fact, destroy you.
Just how many times have you been in that situation, exactly? I know you lived in Israel for awhile, in the early 90s I believe? So since you're bringing up what I would do in that situation, let me ask what you have done. Have you ever served in the IDF? Have you ever had to kill someone? Has the power to send men and women to their deaths, or to kill others, rested in your hands?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
She is exactly right, If all lives have the same intrinsic value then the value of life becomes a matter of relative proximity or connection. If a life is in your circle it is worth more then life out of your circle. It is simple and natural. I find it hard to believe that anybody lacks the self knowledge to admit this truth. Nobody grieves and wears black after reading about strangers in the obituaries.
The Palestinians have made it clear that the Jews are outside their circle and are not even human by the standards of the group they belong with.
If enough Arabs die in the coming war then maybe the Palestinians will be able to find a place among the rest of the Arabs who where charged by their religion to welcome them but used them instead as an excuse to indulge in hatred.
BC
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:She is exactly right, If all lives have the same intrinsic value then the value of life becomes a matter of relative proximity or connection. If a life is in your circle it is worth more then life out of your circle. It is simple and natural. I find it hard to believe that anybody lacks the self knowledge to admit this truth. Nobody grieves and wears black after reading about strangers in the obituaries.
Something being simple and natural does not make it good and right. Furthermore, whether or not I know someone has zero bearing on how much that person's life is worth.
So don't lecture me on self-knowledge, please. You're singularly ill-suited on that. Zealots always are.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lisa,
quote:"Worth more" -- to us. I'm not speaking objectively here (though I do think the lives of people who want to live in peace are worth inestimably more than those who consider the butchery of innocents to be something to celebrate).
I do not truly consider someone who believes "One of mine equals all of theirs" and doesn't mean it as just a guideline, but literally like you do...I do not think you want to live in peace. You want to live in peace through conquest. Which, if successful is merely the absence of war. Not peace.
If you define "peace" as "compromise", you're close to right. I no longer have any desire to seek compromise with people who've shown for the last century that they have no interest in compromise themselves.
We have tried it. We have tried it over and over and over, Rakeesh. We have tried it to the point where it's evidence of psychosis on our part. They are implacable. And there is only one way of dealing with a foe that is implacable.
You can deceive yourself into thinking that the enemy is not implacable. We've done that for a very long time. We've held out hope and we've held out olive branches. We've given and given and given. We brought Arafat back from his Tunisian exile so that we could try and create a peaceful solution. He chose to continue his war against us. We chose to give them a civil authority. They took the guns we gave them for purposes of establishing order and used them to kill us with. We pulled out of Gaza unilaterally, without a single damned thing to show for it, and they've been shelling our towns ever since. After they finished burning down our synagogues and dancing on the remains, that is.
They are implacable, Rakeesh. And it's insane to think otherwise at this point. And it's not just Hamas. Hamas has done Abbas the favor of giving him the label of "moderate", despite the fact that he continues to support suicide attacks and the shelling of Israeli towns.
When we kill people on their side, it's because they are people directly involved in war against us. They are leaders and planners of atrocities. We kill for the purpose of ending the violence. When they kill, they do for the purpose of terrorizing us. They have no dream that the violence they perpetrate will end hostilities. They do it to bring scare us and demoralize us so that we'll give up. It won them Gaza, and they're keenly aware of that.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Rakeesh, may you never find yourself in a situation where you have to make such choices. But if you ever do, I assure you that you'll either place a higher value on you and yours than on the enemy who is trying to destroy you, or that enemy will, in fact, destroy you.
If, right this instant I were given the choice by a genie, "Sacrifice the life of your next door neighbor, or sacrifice the lives of every single fundamentalist Islamic person throughout the world, whether or not they have committed any crimes themselves specifically," I would not take the latter choice. I would be ashamed of my neighbor if he spared me if given the same choice.
The thing is, I don't think that killing every single Muslim in the world will result in anything positive. I don't think that will help us. Nor every Arab, for that matter. I think the death of Mahmoud Abbas and his ilk, on the other hand, would. Given the opportunity, I'd pull the trigger myself. And not just because of his past crimes. People can and do change. It's because he insists that he won't change. And I have no interest in saving him from his own folly and evil.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Let me say this one more time. And let me make it as clear as I possibly can. I have never, ever, ever even suggested that they are less than human. I could not hate them as I do if I considered them less than human. One does not hate a dog for biting. They are all too human, and they can be judged as such. What do you think the Nazis were? Horses?
Such an incredible arithmetic of slaughter-a puffy phrase, yes-is the essence of regarding others as less than human. All of them are worth less than one of mine. Us and them. Human and barbarian. Human and animal. Human and evil human. There's only a hair's breadth difference between all of them.
Blurring distinctions as you're doing is argument by intimidation. "See things they way I do, or you're equating humans to animals". You don't get to say what I equate. Only I do. And I have.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I hear you speak with such intense hatred, and I find it impossible to believe you when you say you think they aren't animals.
I don't care what you find impossible, Rakeesh. I don't live according to your principles; I live according to mine.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I believe you feel they are humans who have chosen to behave like snarling, vicious animals. Even though you still-intellectually-regard them as human, the essence remains the same.
I do believe that they have chosen to behave like snarling, vicious animals. On what basis do you say otherwise? May I remind you what the name of this topic is?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'll go one step further. If I lived in WWII and a genie gave me the choice, "Your neighbor's life agaisnt the lives of every single registered Nazi party member, take your pick," I would not spare my neighbor's life. And I'd be ashamed of him for sparing me.
That's unfortunate. It would be an incorrect choice, in my opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I cannot condone murdering people just by association. 'Normal' people may-and do frequently-do that, but that does not make it moral. And it does not make it better.
There's a difference between murdering people and refusing to concern oneself if people get hurt. I've never suggested doing the former except in the case of actual terrorists. Their supporters have forfeited any right to concern on my part, but that doesn't mean I'm going to target them.
Look at the reality. How many Palestinians have died since Israel went in and started pounding Gaza? Zero? Roughly? How much care do you think it takes to invade like this and not cause a single casualty?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You need to recognize that there are more than two settings of just 'Off' and 'On', 'For' and 'Against'. Your lives being worth more does not mean their lives should be ended. I read what you've written now, and I cannot believe you would not do so if given the chance. Even without the neighbor or them choice.
There are other settings in most cases. Not in this one. Not any more. Now if they want us to treat them as anything other than a single, monolithic, implacable and deadly enemy, it's their responsibility to show themselves as being so.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Rakeesh, may you never find yourself in a situation where you have to make such choices. But if you ever do, I assure you that you'll either place a higher value on you and yours than on the enemy who is trying to destroy you, or that enemy will, in fact, destroy you.
Just how many times have you been in that situation, exactly? I know you lived in Israel for awhile, in the early 90s I believe?
I lived in Israel for 12 years. I hope to return, and feel extremely guilty about being here. It's a family thing. But I have children who do live there right now. I remember my ex and my daughter taking a bus into Jerusalem. My daughter was two years old, so she wasn't that freaked when the window next to her on the bus disintegrated and fell all over her. It was safety glass, after all. My ex was less calm about the whole thing.
A friend of mine was blown up on the bus in the middle of Jerusalem that I used to take to go home. I went to Tel Aviv one day, and the next day, the same bus, leaving Jerusalem at the same time, was thrown off a cliff by a courageous Palestinian freedom fighter. I've had many close calls, and it hasn't escaped me how close they've been.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So since you're bringing up what I would do in that situation, let me ask what you have done. Have you ever served in the IDF? Have you ever had to kill someone? Has the power to send men and women to their deaths, or to kill others, rested in your hands?
Yes, I've served. No, I haven't had to kill someone. What's your point? I have to have blood on my hands to make such decisions?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
And let me add that when I was trained, I was trained to deal with "suspicious" individuals (i.e., even individuals wearing kaffiyehs sneaking up on an army base late at night) like this.
Step 1: You call out, "Stop."
Step 2: If the suspicious person doesn't stop, you call out, "Stop, or I will shoot."
Step 3: If the suspicious person doesn't stop even then, you fire a single shot into the air.
Step 4: If the suspicious person continues coming towards you, you may fire a single shot into his leg.
Meanwhile, of course, you're very dead. But at least you're abiding by the bend-over-backwards ultra-morality of the Israeli army.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Read this and watch the video that's linked there. Consider it a learning experience.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined.
I come here just for the quotes like this.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I loved our ROE while in hot pursuit, fire a flare, fire a warning shot with the personal weapon, fire to disable vehical with the 50 cal or 240 B, and finally shot to kill, of course we had an uparmored humvee with a top speed of 60 in five minutes while they where going 90 in four seconds, but oh well it was just one more handicap to level the playing field.
We created tactics to work around the ROE like putting overwatch in a mile out or so, you cannot outrun the Radio, but it also leaves a truck out in the open. One more way the ROE can lead to casualties.
BC
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Come for the extremist quotes, stay for the _____. Rats, that's all I've got. Take it away, Tante!
Comradery! Stay for the comradery!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What I'm saying is moral because we aren't terrorists. We are normal people....
I'm highly dissatisfied with the foundations of this ethical framework.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
It appears the rocket was launched "that way, let's see where it lands" and not specifically targeting anything, but even so, they're making good on their threat it seems.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The thing is, I don't think that killing every single Muslim in the world will result in anything positive. I don't think that will help us. Nor every Arab, for that matter. I think the death of Mahmoud Abbas and his ilk, on the other hand, would. Given the opportunity, I'd pull the trigger myself. And not just because of his past crimes. People can and do change. It's because he insists that he won't change. And I have no interest in saving him from his own folly and evil.
I find that an odd thing to say, given that he's the only visible, vocal member of the leadership over there actually trying to push for change, and most specifically for the recognition of Israel, and considering he's at odds with and not a member of Hamas. He's the one pushing for a referendum on the recognition of Israel. Maybe he's lying, maybe he's not, but even if he doesn't mean what he's saying, he's still DOING it. He's still scheduling a vote, he's still trying to move forward. Should the vote go forward and actually pass, what would you say about him then? He may very well end up on the pro-Israeli side of a civil war.
Or it might not go that way, and he'll be ousted from power, or stay put, who knows? But there are much worse men over there actively trying to do Israel harm, and shouting about it from the rooftops, to make it odd to pick really the one man who is at least putting up the front of advocating peace.
And, Lisa, as for never having called them animals or sub-human before...:
quote:"Fair"? You're actually concerned about what would be a "fair term" to use for animals who deliberately murder innocents?
From this thread. But whatever, maybe the surrounding circumstances excuse it, or change it?
quote: Step 1: You call out, "Stop."
Step 2: If the suspicious person doesn't stop, you call out, "Stop, or I will shoot."
Step 3: If the suspicious person doesn't stop even then, you fire a single shot into the air.
Step 4: If the suspicious person continues coming towards you, you may fire a single shot into his leg.
One question on that. What language are you shouting that out in? I would imagine, that if you are used to dealing with Arabs, you're going to shout that in Arabic if you actually want a response. If not, then I wonder what the point is in shouting anything at all.
If however you ARE saying it in a language the probable perpetrators can actually understand...then I'm a bit floored by that. Isn't that the perfect situation for a non-lethal weapon like a taser or something? Tasers are rather short range I know, but there are longer range weapons that can put down an enemy with reasonable force.
But, if you're at a military base with heightened security, and a possible combatant is coming towards the base...I can't believe that your orders are to shoot to maim, in that situation I'd have to imagine it'd always be shoot to kill.
It was on the news today that a newly improved Qassam rocket hit deeper into Israeli territory than any before, and struck an empty school after the kids got out for the day. I'd take it as a warning. But God I hope it doesn't get that far.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa,
quote:If you define "peace" as "compromise", you're close to right. I no longer have any desire to seek compromise with people who've shown for the last century that they have no interest in compromise themselves.
We have tried it. We have tried it over and over and over, Rakeesh. We have tried it to the point where it's evidence of psychosis on our part. They are implacable. And there is only one way of dealing with a foe that is implacable.
You fail to factor in the difficulty in determining just how many of them are implacable foes, and how many are scared crapless of those who are who will happily murder them and their families for speaking in opposition to their statements. They do exist-not every Palestinian is an implacable foe of Israel, surely you do not believe that?
quote:You can deceive yourself into thinking that the enemy is not implacable. We've done that for a very long time. We've held out hope and we've held out olive branches.
This is why I am far much more pro-Israeli than I am pro-Palestinian. It does not to me equal carte blance which it does, apparently, to you.
quote:When we kill people on their side, it's because they are people directly involved in war against us. They are leaders and planners of atrocities. We kill for the purpose of ending the violence. When they kill, they do for the purpose of terrorizing us. They have no dream that the violence they perpetrate will end hostilities. They do it to bring scare us and demoralize us so that we'll give up. It won them Gaza, and they're keenly aware of that.
I agree with all of this as well, except that Israel does routinely kill civilians as collateral damage. However I think that is extremely different from targeting them specifically, and given the tactics of those who claim to fight for Palestinians-while knowingly exposing them to Israeli counterattacks for media and political gain-I don't see what else Israel can do in response.
I also think giving up Gaza was a serious mistake.
quote:Blurring distinctions as you're doing is argument by intimidation. "See things they way I do, or you're equating humans to animals". You don't get to say what I equate. Only I do. And I have.
I'm hardly trying to intimidate you. I am merely pointing out that your reasoning and its results are only very, very slightly distinct from openly treating your enemies as animals. People don't just go from "I don't like them" to "they're animals". There are steps along that path, I think you and I can at least agree on that, right?
quote:I don't care what you find impossible, Rakeesh. I don't live according to your principles; I live according to mine.
Yes, well this is a discussion board, isn't it? I'm just pointing out that your words and your stated meaning do not, in my opinion, match up on this issue. I wasn't really expecting you to cry yourself to sleep over it. You seem-and yes, this is my opinion-to take a measure of pride in pointing out that you don't care what the principles of others are.
quote:I do believe that they have chosen to behave like snarling, vicious animals. On what basis do you say otherwise? May I remind you what the name of this topic is?
I don't say otherwise.
quote:That's unfortunate. It would be an incorrect choice, in my opinion.
Why? I do not believe that every single member of the Nazi party knew exactly what was going on, or even knew generally what was going on. I do think that a majority of them either knew what was going on, or if they knew would either not care or be happy about it. I'm not speaking only of the Holocaust either, I'm talking about aggressive warfare with manufactured reasoning, about living in a police state, and so forth as well.
Even though I think there was such a majority, that still leaves potentially thousands of members who were just...suckers. Well-meaning people who believed what was told them because they were desperate and the speaker had a captivating personality, and could make the trains run on time.
That is why I do not think it would be a mistake.
quote:There's a difference between murdering people and refusing to concern oneself if people get hurt. I've never suggested doing the former except in the case of actual terrorists. Their supporters have forfeited any right to concern on my part, but that doesn't mean I'm going to target them.
Look at the reality. How many Palestinians have died since Israel went in and started pounding Gaza? Zero? Roughly? How much care do you think it takes to invade like this and not cause a single casualty?
Of course there's a difference. However, it was you who said at first that all of their innocent lives were not worth a single one of yours (yes, I know, to you). So sometimes, such as now, it's difficult to see where that difference is in your mind.
I applaud Israel's care and mercy in their military actions in Gaza. I am very aware of the incredible level of care and restraint it must take, both for such orders to be given and even more for them to be obeyed by soldiers who have a comrade in captivity.
Again, this is why I am much more pro-Israeli than pro-Palestinian.
quote:There are other settings in most cases. Not in this one. Not any more. Now if they want us to treat them as anything other than a single, monolithic, implacable and deadly enemy, it's their responsibility to show themselves as being so.
Such changes do not happen overnight. They do take some amount of time, at the very least. You do your much to destroy any such opportunity to demonstrate change that they might have by treating them as a single, monolithic, implacable and deadly enemy...and I get the impression you know that, and simply don't care. Because, after all, they've demonstrated themselves a single, etc. etc. enemy already.
You don't appear to care very much that in your system of dealing with enemies, once someone gets into that category it is incredibly difficult for them ever to get out of it.
quote:Yes, I've served. No, I haven't had to kill someone. What's your point? I have to have blood on my hands to make such decisions?
I didn't have much of a point, really, except in trying to decide if you were a chickenhawk or not. I will listen to your extreme (in my opinion) opinions if you have actually lived in the experiences you speak of, and try to understand you better. I generally don't listen to chickenhawks much at all when their arguments are based on experiences they haven't had.
I'm relieved your daughter came through the attack unscathed. I am very sorry for your friend's death.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What I'm saying is moral because we aren't terrorists. We are normal people....
I'm highly dissatisfied with the foundations of this ethical framework.
Really? Why is that? You don't see a difference between normal people, just trying to go about their daily lives, and people who commit or support the commission of atrocities?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It appears the rocket was launched "that way, let's see where it lands" and not specifically targeting anything, but even so, they're making good on their threat it seems.
That's not entirely true. It was specifically targetted into the middle of a city of 120,000 people. It may not have been aimed at the school, but when you shoot a rocket into the middle of a city, you're trying to kill people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is there an article on how good the guidance system is on the new upgraded Qassams?
If they didn't plan it, which I doubt they did, given the homegrown nature of the weapon, it's quite a coincidence.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I wonder who the first will be to point out that since Israel is targeting Palestinian power and water supplies, they are to blame for Hamas targeting Israeli children facilities.
Well, Israel definitely deserves some of the blame for this. Of course, the Palestinian militants are to blame too, given that they are the ones directly doing it. But for Israel to think they can pursue such agressive policies towards the Palestinians while attempting to build a state in which Palestinians civilians are second class citizens, the Israelis would be naive to think they don't share the blame for this situation and the attacks that result.
Then again, the road goes both ways. Hopefully the Palestinians recognize that recent Israeli attacks have not come out of thin air. When you vote terrorists into your government, you are definitely in a large part to blame if that government provokes hostile reactions to your nation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I find that an odd thing to say, given that he's the only visible, vocal member of the leadership over there actually trying to push for change, and most specifically for the recognition of Israel, and considering he's at odds with and not a member of Hamas.
Recognizing Israel while supporting terrorism is "moderate"? That's exactly what I'm talking about, Lyrhawn. Hamas is so rabid that even an active advocate of murdering innocent civilians is considered a "moderate" by comparison.
Sorry, but that's not a reasonable criterion. He's pushing for a shift in PR tactics, is all. He recently came out in support of the "prisoner's letter", supporting terrorist attacks against civilians. The fact that Hamas is even nuttier doesn't make him civilized.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He's the one pushing for a referendum on the recognition of Israel. Maybe he's lying, maybe he's not, but even if he doesn't mean what he's saying, he's still DOING it. He's still scheduling a vote, he's still trying to move forward. Should the vote go forward and actually pass, what would you say about him then? He may very well end up on the pro-Israeli side of a civil war.
"Pro-Israel"? You're hilarious. You need to read more of what the guy actually says and less of what American pundits spoon feed you.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Or it might not go that way, and he'll be ousted from power, or stay put, who knows? But there are much worse men over there actively trying to do Israel harm, and shouting about it from the rooftops, to make it odd to pick really the one man who is at least putting up the front of advocating peace.
"Putting up the front" indeed. Abbas supports and continues to support terrorist attacks. "Martyrdom", as they call it.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And, Lisa, as for never having called them animals or sub-human before...:
quote:"Fair"? You're actually concerned about what would be a "fair term" to use for animals who deliberately murder innocents?
From this thread. But whatever, maybe the surrounding circumstances excuse it, or change it?
I suggest that people read all of that thread so that they can see it in context.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: One question on that. What language are you shouting that out in? I would imagine, that if you are used to dealing with Arabs, you're going to shout that in Arabic if you actually want a response. If not, then I wonder what the point is in shouting anything at all.
Arabs in Israel speak Hebrew as well as Arabic. If they don't understand it in Hebrew, it's reasonable to suspect that they're up to no good. Furthermore, if someone is calling out warnings to me in Basque and they shoot a warning shot in the air, I'm going to figure it out.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If however you ARE saying it in a language the probable perpetrators can actually understand...then I'm a bit floored by that. Isn't that the perfect situation for a non-lethal weapon like a taser or something? Tasers are rather short range I know, but there are longer range weapons that can put down an enemy with reasonable force.
Unbelievable. Even that kind of sluggish response is too lethal for you. Do you expect soldiers to have to carry two sets of weapons with them? Or have to switch clips in the middle of a situation? Or maybe you'd prefer that Israeli soldiers carry non-lethal weapons exclusively?
Your bias is showing, Lyrhawn.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But, if you're at a military base with heightened security, and a possible combatant is coming towards the base...I can't believe that your orders are to shoot to maim, in that situation I'd have to imagine it'd always be shoot to kill.
Imagination is a wonderful thing. I was given those instructions once on an army base, and once a few years earlier before doing guard duty in a small town in Gush Etzion.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It was on the news today that a newly improved Qassam rocket hit deeper into Israeli territory than any before, and struck an empty school after the kids got out for the day. I'd take it as a warning. But God I hope it doesn't get that far.
A "warning"?! You have no shame.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And there is only one way of dealing with a foe that is implacable.
I suspect this is how Hamas justifies what they are doing to the innocent Israeli civilians.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You fail to factor in the difficulty in determining just how many of them are implacable foes, and how many are scared crapless of those who are who will happily murder them and their families for speaking in opposition to their statements. They do exist-not every Palestinian is an implacable foe of Israel, surely you do not believe that?
It's not that I "fail to factor in the difficulty", Rakeesh. It's that I absolutely reject the idea that I have any responsibility whatsoever to make such a distinction. They, as a group, as a nation, are trying to destroy us. It is no more my responsibility to worry about whether there are some who aren't totally gung-ho about it than it was the responsibility of the US to worry about innocents who lived in Berlin during the taking of that city in WWII.
They aren't trapped there, Rakeesh. They come and go all the time. They know what they are doing. They have been raised on a diet of pure hatred. They believe that Jews poison wells, spread AIDS, and are basically the personifications of evil. And those few who may be more enlightened than that have mostly left for the west by now.
The idea that we should take any risk at all upon ourselves for the sake of singling out a possible handful of people among them who aren't entirely content with the barbarism of their fellows... that's just so beyond unrealistic.
Again, this is ivory tower syndrome. It's very easy to imagine the world to be a better place than it is.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Blurring distinctions as you're doing is argument by intimidation. "See things they way I do, or you're equating humans to animals". You don't get to say what I equate. Only I do. And I have.
I'm hardly trying to intimidate you. I am merely pointing out that your reasoning and its results are only very, very slightly distinct from openly treating your enemies as animals. People don't just go from "I don't like them" to "they're animals". There are steps along that path, I think you and I can at least agree on that, right?
I do. We agree on quite a bit, I think. But we don't agree on your assumption that I would ever be willing to free them from responsibility for their actions by considering them less than human.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Even though I think there was such a majority, that still leaves potentially thousands of members who were just...suckers. Well-meaning people who believed what was told them because they were desperate and the speaker had a captivating personality, and could make the trains run on time.
That is why I do not think it would be a mistake.
If a gang attacks you in a city and are trying to kill you, worrying about which of them were pressured into joining the gang will get you very dead. The distinction you're talking about may be valid during the war crimes trials that come after it's over, but it's not valid during the war.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Look at the reality. How many Palestinians have died since Israel went in and started pounding Gaza? Zero? Roughly? How much care do you think it takes to invade like this and not cause a single casualty?
Of course there's a difference. However, it was you who said at first that all of their innocent lives were not worth a single one of yours (yes, I know, to you). So sometimes, such as now, it's difficult to see where that difference is in your mind.[/QUOTE]
I'm being as clear as I can. No one can say I speak in hints. I'm about as blatant and as verbose as they come.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Such changes do not happen overnight. They do take some amount of time, at the very least. You do your much to destroy any such opportunity to demonstrate change that they might have by treating them as a single, monolithic, implacable and deadly enemy...and I get the impression you know that, and simply don't care. Because, after all, they've demonstrated themselves a single, etc. etc. enemy already.
You're right. I think they've forfeited the right to any such consideration. Once the conflict is over, then it'll be time to make such inquiries. Not now.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You don't appear to care very much that in your system of dealing with enemies, once someone gets into that category it is incredibly difficult for them ever to get out of it.
It took them decades to get into that category, Rakeesh. Be reasonable.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Yes, I've served. No, I haven't had to kill someone. What's your point? I have to have blood on my hands to make such decisions?
I didn't have much of a point, really, except in trying to decide if you were a chickenhawk or not.
Excuse me? "I don't think that word means what you think it means".
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I will listen to your extreme (in my opinion) opinions if you have actually lived in the experiences you speak of, and try to understand you better. I generally don't listen to chickenhawks much at all when their arguments are based on experiences they haven't had.
I'm relieved your daughter came through the attack unscathed. I am very sorry for your friend's death.
I appreciate that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:And there is only one way of dealing with a foe that is implacable.
I suspect this is how Hamas justifies what they are doing to the innocent Israeli civilians.
We do what we do to prevent murders. They do what they do because they want us gone. If you can't understand the difference, you're beyond reason.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Jeez, and I was trying to be somewhat civil so as not to provoke yet another tirade from her...so much for the effort.
quote:"Pro-Israel"? You're hilarious. You need to read more of what the guy actually says and less of what American pundits spoon feed you.
Do you deny that he is really the only one over there calling for the recognition of Israel? He even has Hamas tacitly approving language that would agree to the recognition of Israel. I'd call that progress. I only get half my news from American sources, so at least say it correctly, it's what the Americans and British spoonfeed me.
quote:Unbelievable. Even that kind of sluggish response is too lethal for you. Do you expect soldiers to have to carry two sets of weapons with them? Or have to switch clips in the middle of a situation? Or maybe you'd prefer that Israeli soldiers carry non-lethal weapons exclusively?
Your bias is showing, Lyrhawn.
Which one? My bias against possibly unnecessarily killing people? I'll have to kick that. You're one to talk about bias anyway from what you've said in this thread, not to mention others.
Regardless, having one guy carry a nonlethal weapon with him on patrol isn't a hardship. Grunts in the field carry all sorts of weapons, unless you're trying to tell me that the highly trained IDF can't teach a single guy per squad to carry an extra 10lb plastic non-lethal weapon.
Out on patrol, in a combat zone, no, I wouldn't expect them to carry two sets of weapons, and in a combat zone I wouldn't expect them to shoot to maim either. Then again, you consider all of Israel, or at least all of Gaza and the West Bank and other Palestinian centric areas to be entirely combat zones, so I don't know what point is in making a distinction.
quote:A "warning"?! You have no shame.
Do you not understand the context of the situation?
1. Militants announce their intention to go after schools and hospitals, which they had previously left untouched.
2. Militants announce they have new longer range variant of the Qassam rocket.
3. Militants use new longer range rocket to strike at an empty school causing no fatalities.
I'd say that's the very definition of a warning. Had they wanted, they would have attacked when school was still in session.
Given the situation, it appears neither side is really willing to back down. The Army of Islam doesn't appear willing to give up the captured soldier, but at least they won't kill him, which is a godsend for all around. I'm wondering if that's only because they expect to get something for it, and what they will do when it becomes clear that Israel has no intention of giving it if it can't be shot out the turret of their tanks.
My question is, regardless of the soldier that has been captured, wouldn't it be in Israel's best interest to release the imprisoned women and children in return for Hamas recognizing Israel? It'd be both a major step and an act of good will. It makes land negotiations the next logical step, well, either that or civil war. But it's impossible for Israel to make such a deal while the soldier is still being held prisoner, it makes it look like quid pro quo.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ummm...wow, I had no idea about the sexual predator connotations of that word. I've heard it only in terms of Looney Tunes, real birds, and about people who are generally aggressive without ever having put themselves in harm's way.
Edit: Actually the moree I think about it, the more bells that word is ringing for me on Hatrack. I think now that maybe I have heard of the word in that context...once, here on Hatrack, heh.
[ July 05, 2006, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Really? Why is that? You don't see a difference between normal people, just trying to go about their daily lives, and people who commit or support the commission of atrocities?
I do. But you have already defined "atrocity" on this thread as something bad that, by definition, can only happen to "normal people."
If you're then defining "normal people" as "people who do not commit atrocities," we've come full circle.
It's a chicken/egg argument at that stage, innit? Albeit complicated by the fact that both sides go through life clucking, scratching at the dirt, and hiding inside their shells.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:"Pro-Israel"? You're hilarious. You need to read more of what the guy actually says and less of what American pundits spoon feed you.
Do you deny that he is really the only one over there calling for the recognition of Israel? He even has Hamas tacitly approving language that would agree to the recognition of Israel. I'd call that progress. I only get half my news from American sources, so at least say it correctly, it's what the Americans and British spoonfeed me.
A polite murderer is still a murderer. No, I don't see it as progress at all. And I don't get how such verbalizations, calculated only to impress the West and get money, make his continued drive to destroy Israel any more palatable. It's not as though Germany and Japan didn't recognize the US in WWII.
Just because the Arabs have invented an additional insult of refusing to even recognize a country that has existed for almost 60 years doesn't mean that an Arab who doesn't engage in that particular piece of propaganda is "moderate". Sheesh. How low has the bar dropped here?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Regardless, having one guy carry a nonlethal weapon with him on patrol isn't a hardship. Grunts in the field carry all sorts of weapons, unless you're trying to tell me that the highly trained IDF can't teach a single guy per squad to carry an extra 10lb plastic non-lethal weapon.
Squad? How many people do you think stand around doing guard duty? Have you been watching the Dirty Dozen again, or something? This is reality.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out on patrol, in a combat zone, no, I wouldn't expect them to carry two sets of weapons, and in a combat zone I wouldn't expect them to shoot to maim either. Then again, you consider all of Israel, or at least all of Gaza and the West Bank and other Palestinian centric areas to be entirely combat zones, so I don't know what point is in making a distinction.
So do the evil men (better than "animals", since you're going to take that literally?) who shoot rockets into the middle of cities like Ashkelon.
Though I don't get why Ashkelon is suddenly a huge surprise. They've been shelling Sderot steadily for months. I can only imagine what Americans would do if a single rocket was shot into a single American city.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:A "warning"?! You have no shame.
Do you not understand the context of the situation?
1. Militants announce their intention to go after schools and hospitals, which they had previously left untouched.
2. Militants announce they have new longer range variant of the Qassam rocket.
3. Militants use new longer range rocket to strike at an empty school causing no fatalities.
I'd say that's the very definition of a warning. Had they wanted, they would have attacked when school was still in session.
For God's sake, Lyrhawn. They didn't aim for a school. They aimed for a city. At 7pm. It was actually our good fortune that it hit near a school, rather than the city center.
Start thinking things through. Really.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My question is, regardless of the soldier that has been captured, wouldn't it be in Israel's best interest to release the imprisoned women and children in return for Hamas recognizing Israel?
Of course not. Negotiating with these people tells them that they can do what they do with impunity. Look what happened to them when they kidnapped Gilad Shalit. Even barbarians can get a clue.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It'd be both a major step and an act of good will. It makes land negotiations the next logical step, well, either that or civil war. But it's impossible for Israel to make such a deal while the soldier is still being held prisoner, it makes it look like quid pro quo.
And why should we engage in "land negotiations" with them?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Really? Why is that? You don't see a difference between normal people, just trying to go about their daily lives, and people who commit or support the commission of atrocities?
I do. But you have already defined "atrocity" on this thread as something bad that, by definition, can only happen to "normal people."
If you're then defining "normal people" as "people who do not commit atrocities," we've come full circle.
It's a chicken/egg argument at that stage, innit? Albeit complicated by the fact that both sides go through life clucking, scratching at the dirt, and hiding inside their shells.
You play word games, Tom. I'm not interested.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, it's not a word game. It's not semantics.
You draw the distinction that you do specifically so you can authorize and justify the commission of horrible acts against these people -- and do not recognize these horrible acts as "atrocities," by your own admission, only because the victims of these acts are not "normal people." They have, in fact, made themselves undeserving of the respect and protections inherently enjoyed by "normal people" by committing atrocities against "normal people."
Whom you've defined as "people who do not commit or support atrocity."
What I'm hoping that breaking this linguistic nightmare down will do for you is help you to understand that, no matter how you approach it, this IS a chicken/egg argument. Because if THEY committed atrocities first, they're the terrorists and you're the normal people and you can do whatever you want to them. But if YOU committed atrocities first, THEY'RE the normal people and can do whatever they want to you, by exactly the same logic.
Since both groups disagree over who did what to whom first, and what counts as an atrocity, both groups feel supremely justified in their own righteousness, even as they recognize that they're doing horrible things to each other. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No, it's not a word game. It's not semantics.
You're right. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Whatever could I have been thinking?
You aren't playing word games. You simply think things that are untrue.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You draw the distinction that you do specifically so you can authorize and justify the commission of horrible acts against these people -- and do not recognize these horrible acts as "atrocities," by your own admission, only because the victims of these acts are not "normal people."
You're a laugh a minute, Tom. We've done nothing wrong to these people. Again, what's the death count in Gaza so far? Oh, right. None. What country is it that lets the Arabs in Gaza send their medical cases to their hospitals? Oh, yeah, that's Israel. And which country is it that used that charitable policy to sneak a woman into Israel for the purpose of blowing up civilians?
Normal people don't do such things. And the restraint that Israel has evinced in the face of such atrocities is virtually superhuman. To the point, as I've said before, of near-psychosis.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: They have, in fact, made themselves undeserving of the respect and protections inherently enjoyed by "normal people" by committing atrocities against "normal people."
Whom you've defined as "people who do not commit or support atrocity."
Tom, you make yourself ridiculous when you say things like this. They are part of a nation that is committing war and atrocities against us. They are not deserving that we should risk a single life on our side to protect them from the results of their own folly and evil. Sheesh. That doesn't mean that we commit such acts against them in return. We're better people. We have a sense of morality. We have a sense of limitations. But to the extent that we limit ourselves, it's for ourselves. Not for them. They are deserving of no concern whatsoever from us.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I'm hoping that breaking this linguistic nightmare down will do for you is help you to understand that, no matter how you approach it, this IS a chicken/egg argument. Because if THEY committed atrocities first,
See, this is where you're completely off the wall. Because it isn't a matter of first, last, or middle. We don't commit atrocities against them. They do, all the time, against us. It is their policy. And they do so, not to discourage us from attacking them, but in order to demoralize us and make us surrender to them what they want. They're like extremely dangerous children throwing extremely lethal tantrums. "I want what I want, and I'm going to kill and kill and kill and kill until you give it to me!"
While we would do absolutely nothing to do them if they weren't trying to kill us all the time.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
SL, I don't think you are actually arguing against the points others are making for a lot of this discussion, instead you are arguing tangentially which doesn't serve much of a purpose:
you clearly stated at the beginning of this: "One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined."
Now instead you seem to be trying to backpedal or sidepedal to effectively say instead that there are no innocents living in Palestine... This is a completely different argument.
You also keep making statements as if we are saying it's worse to kill/attack a known terrorist than to allow a civilian to dies, which is blatantly false. There is a fairly clear distinction that has been mentioned between harming combatants and harming civilians. Previously combatants was defined as uniformed military personell, but that has largely evolved to include terrorists and their ilk.
No one here is arguing (as far as I can tell) that terrorists aren't fair game in this conflict, so I'm not sure who you're arguing against on this point.
Now back to my other point, if you want this to shift to a discussion about how there are no longer any innocents in Palestine then so be it, and you may even have a point, but state so clearly, because your initial comment which started this whole thing is still at odds with the general morality of the world.
Certainly I am going to react more strongly when someone I am close to is killed unjustly, however, it does not make it any less heinous an act if someone I don't know is killed... We are trying to speak of a more or less objective morality here and you seem to be saying that your subjective morality should take greater precedence...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: SL,
Actually, my name is Lisa.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: I don't think you are actually arguing against the points others are making for a lot of this discussion, instead you are arguing tangentially which doesn't serve much of a purpose:
you clearly stated at the beginning of this: "One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined."
Now instead you seem to be trying to backpedal or sidepedal to effectively say instead that there are no innocents living in Palestine... This is a completely different argument.
I'm neither backpedaling nor sidepedaling (if that's even a word). And what does Jordan (Palestine) have to do with this?
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: You also keep making statements as if we are saying it's worse to kill/attack a known terrorist than to allow a civilian to dies, which is blatantly false. There is a fairly clear distinction that has been mentioned between harming combatants and harming civilians.
Pelagius claimed that both sides target civilians. When called on it, he produced websites about Israel destroying the homes of terrorist murderers. Israel does not target civilians. But the Arabs do use their own civilians as human shields, and sometimes they die because of it. We go over and above to prevent civilian casualities on their side, while they deliberately target civilians on ours. We act against them in order to stop the incessant attacks, while they act against us because they want us out of our land.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Previously combatants was defined as uniformed military personell, but that has largely evolved to include terrorists and their ilk.
So? Civilized people use uniforms to make that distinction. They reject the distinction. They send women and children to be human bombs. That you don't see this for the sickness it is says much about you.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: No one here is arguing (as far as I can tell) that terrorists aren't fair game in this conflict, so I'm not sure who you're arguing against on this point.
And their entire support system. A culture that names schools and streets for these terrorists, which sees the terrorists as heros and teaches its children to aspire to martyrdom in that way... it's a diseased culture. An evil culture.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Now back to my other point, if you want this to shift to a discussion about how there are no longer any innocents in Palestine then so be it, and you may even have a point, but state so clearly, because your initial comment which started this whole thing is still at odds with the general morality of the world.
The what? The "general morality of the world"? Yeah, whatever.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Certainly I am going to react more strongly when someone I am close to is killed unjustly, however, it does not make it any less heinous an act if someone I don't know is killed... We are trying to speak of a more or less objective morality here and you seem to be saying that your subjective morality should take greater precedence...
It's not heinous when people in a nation committing war against us get killed. At worst, it's a case of "Oh, bummer."
A guy walks into a doctor's office. He tells the doctor, "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doctor says, "So, dummy, don't do that!"
If they don't want to get killed, they should stop attacking us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's not heinous when people in a nation committing war against us get killed.
How do you feel about Dresden?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
A bit overpriced, but the shepherdess my mom has is quite pretty.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I like Lladro, actually.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I cannot understand why it is so hard for people in our culture to look at the Fundementalist Islam Jihadist and say, yep, that is evil. Their is an cowardice in that position, a reluctance to appear foolish by believing in the reality of evil. A fad of the apearance of tolerance.
Yet even if you toss out God, placing man at the top of your personal pantheon, evil is still real and significant. Compassion for civilized society demands that evil be halted and destroyed. It is fine to seek a cure for the Sickness in Islam, but nothing about controling the acute symptoms in the meantime is immoral or prevents the ongoing treatment.
Lisa is in a position to know far better then most, as an interested party I think she needs the benefit of the doubt. Those under threat have a right to choose their response.
The Government of Isreal is a chaos of debate and various interests. Yet its policy lately has been beautiful. It has shown sweet reason and retreated offering peace worthy of the Christ himself. In response they have been met with attack, their offer of peace is seen as weakness, blood in the water to the circling sharks. I think Isreal has done enough, it is time for them to prove their mercy by domonstrating their strength.
Maybe the memory of what Isreal can do will remain fresh enough this time so that when they choose not to do it next time it will be accepted as the kindness it truely is.
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The Government of Isreal is a chaos of debate and various interests. Yet its policy lately has been beautiful. It has shown sweet reason and retreated offering peace worthy of the Christ himself.
Ow. Pardon me while I wince on behalf of the nation of Israel at your chosen comparison.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I cannot understand why it is so hard for people in our culture to look at the Fundementalist Islam Jihadist and say, yep, that is evil.
If that was what was being done, I bet the disagreement would differ in kind and quantity.
The problem comes when one proves himself unable to recognize the difference between "Muslim" and "Fundementalist Islam Jihadist."
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The term chickenhawk was used correctly earlier in this thread, its just not an accepted dictionary definition. Click the (politics) entry. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Lisa is in a position to know far better then most, as an interested party I think she needs the benefit of the doubt. Those under threat have a right to choose their response.
Experiencing a threat often does not give one better judgement in regards to how to solve that threat. Often, exactly the opposite occurs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:A polite murderer is still a murderer. No, I don't see it as progress at all. And I don't get how such verbalizations, calculated only to impress the West and get money, make his continued drive to destroy Israel any more palatable. It's not as though Germany and Japan didn't recognize the US in WWII.
Just because the Arabs have invented an additional insult of refusing to even recognize a country that has existed for almost 60 years doesn't mean that an Arab who doesn't engage in that particular piece of propaganda is "moderate". Sheesh. How low has the bar dropped here?
Forgot I wasn't talking to a reasonable person. They aren't going anywhere, in the same way that Israel isn't going anywhere. I think more than them getting used to that idea, YOU need to get used to it. Thus, land negotiations, and the recognition of Israel are all progressional steps towards some future peace. Your government has made any progress impossible so long as Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, which is perfectly sound and reasonable. Now they are trying to change their system, after decades of operating on a different creed. I call that progress. I don't think you see a middle ground.
quote:Squad? How many people do you think stand around doing guard duty? Have you been watching the Dirty Dozen again, or something? This is reality.
I'm sorry, what's the smallest number of people in a group of soldiers? You're telling me you only have one or two guys patrolling the perimeter? I guess all those stories my brother told me about guard duty while he was in the Marines were just made up. I figured military institutions would have more sense than that. I guess in reality, you just have one guy jogging laps around the base trying to stop something? But cute old timey movie reference, if that's all you have in your arsenal, I'd stay quiet if I were you.
quote:For God's sake, Lyrhawn. They didn't aim for a school. They aimed for a city. At 7pm. It was actually our good fortune that it hit near a school, rather than the city center.
That's likely, but I am curious as to whether or not the new longer range version has any sort of new guidance package in it that allows for greater accuracy. They'd need a laser guided bomb to hit a target so cleanly. I'm curious as to how this counts as a "major escalation" according to the Israeli government. Israel has been pounding Gaza for days with shells and missiles. ONE missile hits a city, after what you call months of constant "shelling" and that's a major escalation? Wouldn't a major escalation be like, Palestinian gunmen roving the streets of Tel Aviv with RPGs and machine guns killing willy nilly? Or some such? Sounds overblown. But yes, I still consider it something of a warning shot, or demonstration shot if you prefer. They might not have been intending to kill as many people by firing later at night, unless more people are out in that area of the city at 7, I honestly don't know, but they were demonstrating the abilities of a new weapon that was previously unknown.
quote:Of course not. Negotiating with these people tells them that they can do what they do with impunity. Look what happened to them when they kidnapped Gilad Shalit. Even barbarians can get a clue.
Which is why they are totally right not to accept quid pro quo. They can't expect Shalit's release in return for prisoners, it'll just keep going until the prisons are empty and then what? Which is why I said they shouldn't do that. But that has nothing to do with negotiations after this situation is past, IF it gets past. And it had nothing to do with the situation before June 25th.
Land negotiations are going to be a part of Israel's future at some point, for a side by state status of Palestine and Israel. Maybe you're the one who needs to get the grip on reality and the real world.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Squad? How many people do you think stand around doing guard duty? Have you been watching the Dirty Dozen again, or something? This is reality.
I'm sorry, what's the smallest number of people in a group of soldiers? You're telling me you only have one or two guys patrolling the perimeter? I guess all those stories my brother told me about guard duty while he was in the Marines were just made up.
I've never been in the Marines. But yeah, when I sat in a guard tower, it was with one other person. When we walked the perimeter, it was maybe 2, maybe sometimes three. I don't really have a lot to compare it to, not being an expert on military tactics like yourself. I just know how it works based on my own experience.
Furthermore, we're not talking about 2 young and hard Israeli soldiers, either. We're talking about 2 overweight, out of shape, immigrants. And there were still only the two of us.
The reason I mentioned the movie is that you seem to have a really unrealistic view of things.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Land negotiations are going to be a part of Israel's future at some point, for a side by state status of Palestine and Israel. Maybe you're the one who needs to get the grip on reality and the real world.
If there are land negotiations, they'll be on whether or not individual Arabs get paid for the land they're no longer living on once they're gone. Lyrhawn, eventually I'm going to be telling you "I told you so." I'll try and do it gracefully.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
starLisa, let me start out by apologizing for apparently offending you by not using your most accepted abbreviation of your handle
"And what does Jordan (Palestine) have to do with this?"
Well I thought it was pretty clear based on the general politics of the situation that Palestine is in general on the other side of this conflict. However, if you're referring to some other nation/region/group when you state: "One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined." whoever "They" are doesn't really matter when you have already asserted that "they" are innocents.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by TheGrimace: You also keep making statements as if we are saying it's worse to kill/attack a known terrorist than to allow a civilian to dies, which is blatantly false. There is a fairly clear distinction that has been mentioned between harming combatants and harming civilians. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pelagius claimed that both sides target civilians. When called on it, he produced websites about Israel destroying the homes of terrorist murderers. Israel does not target civilians. But the Arabs do use their own civilians as human shields, and sometimes they die because of it. We go over and above to prevent civilian casualities on their side, while they deliberately target civilians on ours. We act against them in order to stop the incessant attacks, while they act against us because they want us out of our land.
Again you are sidestepping (more of a legitimate word than sidepedalling if it makes you feel better). No one here has said that military reprisal against military or terrorist forces is wrong. I don't envy the position the Israelis are put in by having their enemies hide behind civilians, and certainly the vast majority of any evil perpetrated in such a situation is on the part of the terrorists, but that doesn't mean that killing those innocent civilians in order to get at the terrorist isn't also wrong, even if a lesser wrong.
Personally I'm not questioning the Israeli actions in general, though I am strongly questioning what your actions would be in their situation.
as to terrorists using "civilians" to deliver their carnage: "That you don't see this for the sickness it is says much about you."
I am greatly offended that you would so misunderstand what I am saying... I absolutely think that these actions are completely vile, and no one here would disagree that disguising onesself as a noncombatant in order to bomb innocents on the other side isn't an absolutely deplorable thing. The Terrorists are WRONG, the bombings of busses and school and anything else is WRONG, how can you take anything that any of us has said as a defense of these offenders?
"And their entire support system. A culture that names schools and streets for these terrorists, which sees the terrorists as heros and teaches its children to aspire to martyrdom in that way... it's a diseased culture. An evil culture."
See, this is what I was getting at, if you want to argue that everyone in Palestine or Gaza or wherever is in fact a terrorist, or by association should be treated as one because of their willful support of terrorist activities, so be it. I personally think this is not a completely fair judgement, but I respect your reasons for believing so. HOWEVER, it does not excuse that you stated: "One INNOCENT life on our side is worth more than all the INNOCENT lives on their side combined"
If you live in a world where the "general morality of the world" or objective morality that innocents being killed is wrong, then I greatly pity you for the sick world that you live in...
starLisa, I used to at least sometimes respect the opinions you voiced on this board, but I have to say that after seeing your views on this topic I doubt I can take much of anything you say seriously anymore.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa is in a position to know far better then most, as an interested party I think she needs the benefit of the doubt. Those under threat have a right to choose their response. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experiencing a threat often does not give one better judgment in regards to how to solve that threat. Often, exactly the opposite occurs.
Unfortunately those under threat of death often do not have the luxury of calling a committee meeting with the uninterested. What kind of idiot are you to think like this?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Dude, "idiot" isn't going to make anyone listen any better. You're right about the principle, but there are better ways to say it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Pot, meet Kettle.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hey, ElJay, believe me when I tell you that it takes quite a bit of restraint on my part not to call certain people idiots. I just figured that if I can do it, anyone can.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm not talking about the word idiots in particular, Lisa. I'm talking about your overall tone and approach to "debate" on this subject. You, personally, have done more to increase my sympathy for the Palestinian cause than any three other factors combined. Before you joined this forum I was pretty neutral on the subject, and now I have to remind myself that you are in no way representative of the Israeli position as a whole. If you were, I'd be tempted to support relocating the Jews out of Israel on the general principle of being too obnoxious to be given what they want, like when you tell a kid if he doesn't stop screaming you'll send him to his room. And you're telling BC that calling someone an idiot isn't going to make them listen any better? It's laughable.
Which, you know, fine. You're certainly entitled to voice your opinions any way you want. And maybe somehow they've swayed someone out there. And I can remember that you're an extremist, and read your posts more as an interesting sociological phemomenom and not as something I should bother responding to.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
See, I'm continuing not to use the "i" word, despite temptation.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Glad to help you exercise restraint.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:See, I'm continuing not to use the "i" word, despite temptation.
You might not have typed the "i" word, but you certainly used it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Glad to help you exercise restraint.
<snicker>
Again I would be happy to know what the pro palestinian crowd expects Israel to do as a policy in regards to the Palestinian people.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
We should give the Jews Mexico, let them run it for a century or so, we will be better neighbors then they have and they will be better then we have. What say you Lisa? You guys want the holy city of the Aztec's? We could let the Arabs build their own hell to live in and drink Corona while they burn in it! Don't worry about the Mexican's, if we don't get some relief at the border soon they will all be here.
BC
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've frequently suggested giving the Jews the entire state of New York. It's better land than Israel, it's bigger, it's far more profitable, and it's at least 300 miles away from the nearest enemy state.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Maybe it's my heritage, but I really don't find those kinds of jokes at all funny.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know if it's because of your heritage, but it's not a reaction exclusive to your heritage.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I don't understand why people think Israel needs to show any restraint when an aggresive government launches continuous strikes against it.
How much restraint would the USA show if Canada fired missiles into North Dakota and blew up USA's boarder gaurds on the Canadian border?
It's such a ridiculous double standard that it's laughable.
A foreign, hostile army is launching attack after attack on innocent Israelis, fires rockets into shools and conducts acts of terror, let's have a rational sit-down and talk to an enemy that savage.
Anyone who thinks like this has already made a mistake by assuming people like this are in anyway rational. These people don't want peace.
That is what everyone here has to understand. Everyone here is talking from a conditioned sense of morality they were raised with, safely in the suburbs of Wisconsin where the only thing they ever have to worry about was getting a pimple on prom night.
How dare any of you who have not witnessed the savage barbarity the Arabs inflict on the Israelis first hand attempt to be the moral police and say what Israel should do. You have no right; you are blinded by rose-colored ignorance.
Palestinians want is the death of every Jew. That's all they want. How do you negotiate with that? You don't.
And don't say that not every Palestinians wants this; that the brutal, fanatical minority is holding the majority of good people hostage. That is a complete lie. They were able to have free elections, and they elected Hammas ON THEIR OWN, KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
The Palestinian people, on the whole, want only two things. Israel's destruction, and Palastine back.
But this, in itself is amazingly foolish. They want a piece of land back that was NEVER theirs by right. The Jewish people have had claims to that land before Islam was even a glint in Mohammad's eye.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How much restraint would the USA show if Canada fired missiles into North Dakota and blew up USA's boarder gaurds on the Canadian border?
Well, we wouldn't nuke them. So that right there shows some restraint.
Israel has every right to respond militarily to the invasion of their country. They don't have a right to pull a Dresden on them.
Somewhere between those two points is the limit of what they can do, although I can't say exactly where it's located.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:And don't say that not every Palestinians wants this; that the brutal, fanatical minority is holding the majority of good people hostage. That is a complete lie. They were able to have free elections, and they elected Hammas ON THEIR OWN, KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
The Palestinian people, on the whole, want only two things. Israel's destruction, and Palastine back.
This is dramatically incorrect. While Hamas is without a doubt a terrorist organization, by far most of their funds go to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians rather than terrorism, and (ironically) they are known for being generally uncorrupt, unlike the other candidates for office. While many palestinians are hardly friendly to Israel (much as many Israelis are hardly friendly to palestinians), it is more correct that most of them don't care if somebody attacks Israel than that they support the attacks on Israel. Not a laudable moral quality, but not as bad as the invalid caricature you paint by ignoring all qualities of Hamas but terrorism.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:And don't say that not every Palestinians wants this; that the brutal, fanatical minority is holding the majority of good people hostage. That is a complete lie. They were able to have free elections, and they elected Hammas ON THEIR OWN, KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
The Palestinian people, on the whole, want only two things. Israel's destruction, and Palastine back.
This is dramatically incorrect. While Hamas is without a doubt a terrorist organization, by far most of their funds go to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians rather than terrorism, and (ironically) they are known for being generally uncorrupt, unlike the other candidates for office. While many palestinians are hardly friendly to Israel (much as many Israelis are hardly friendly to palestinians), it is more correct that most of them don't care if somebody attacks Israel than that they support the attacks on Israel. Not a laudable moral quality, but not as bad as the invalid caricature you paint by ignoring all qualities of Hamas but terrorism.
What evidence do you have that most of the money goes to the humanitarian wing of Hammas?
Certainly Hammas does many charitable things for PALESTINIANS, but no amount of right doing will simply erase the fire and brimstone that spout from the militant wing. They are one organization. You cannot vote for the humanitarian side, and simply pretend the militant side does not exist. If you make donation of say $1 to Hammas, a % of that GOES to the militant side, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
If you insist on giving Hammas the humanitarian label it deserves, based on its humanitarian acts, that is fine; but you must also acknowledge the militant terrorist wing too, as both right now, are inseperable.
Hammas then becomes a Humanitarian Terrorist organization.
The assertion that if there are two people, one commits acts of evil, the other simply stands by and does nothing, therefore person 1 is evil, person 2 is not is an old, and completely wrong idea.
It reminds me of the American Revolution where we had a radical group called, "The Sons of Liberty." They were all staunch pro independence. They crossed the moral line, by assaulting British sentries, and were fired on during, "The Boston Massacre." Somebody had to stand up and say, "Their cause may be right, but what they did here was wrong." John Adams, one of the more firey of radicals was the attorney for the British Soldiers. When everyone else was screaming for the soldiers heads, he spoke just as strongly for justice and jurisprudence. He refused to call it a massacre, and was in considerable danger because of the position he was taking.
The humanitarian side of Hamas is tainted by the militant wing. As long as they fly under the same banner, the same blood is on all of their hands.
If you voted for Hammas because they did so many humanitarian things for your family, you are still doing so with full knowledge that they commit horrible acts of terrorism against other human beings.
There has never been an evil force that did not have some self described good in mind when it commited its acts of evil.
I would be completely taken aback with shock if Hammas, once it has finished building its state upon the blood of thousands of innocent Israeli's, that they then settled down and governed the nation with peach, justice, and respect for all.
Having said that, I still think Abbas ought to be given more credit than he is. He stood up to Hammas and at great risk to his own life. Prime Minister Rabin was assasinated by another Israeli because he tried to broker a peace with Palestine. I see men like Abbas and Rabin as being just the sort of men that John Adam was.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its widely known. The council on foreign relations is an authority on the subject:
quote:Is Hamas only a terrorist group?
No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. It funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services; Hamas' efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.
And where on earth do I not acknowledge Hamas' terrorist activities? I explicitly state them in what you quote! I also speak against the palestinian attitude towards Israel, just not to the incorrect degree you do. A person's vote for Hamas need not equal terrorism being a primary goal of that person.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I appreciate the link. Its unfortunate that they could only quote one, albeit, Israeli's scholars figure of 90% to the humanitarian, and 10% to the military.
I'm sorry if you were in fact condemning the Hammas party because of its military wing. I was under the impression that you were saying "Well most people actually just don't care that they are killing Israeli's, which is not quite as bad as them supporting it."
I am arguing that unless the humanitarian wing distances itself from the militant wing, they are one and the same. A vote for Hammas does in fact entail a vote for terrorism as any power you give to Hammas and any money you give to Hammas WILL translate into an act of terrorism.
What reasons could the humanitarian wing of Hammas give for being affiliated with the militant wing? It brings in more money so we can do more good? We hope that by being affiliated with us the militant wing will be positively influenced by our good example? What?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's an overview, not a paper arguing for it. The information found on those pages is considered general knowledge. I can dig up some papers on the topic, though unless you're at a university I doubt you'll have easy access to them.
You're an idealist living in a comfortable world. Imagine you were a palestinian, whose infrastructure is periodically attacked by someone else. All the parties you can vote for support terrorism, though some are more open about their support than others. All but one are corrupt. That one is providing you significant humanitarian assistance while the other has been repeatedly found to steal money intended for humanitarian purposes.
Say all you want that a vote for Hamas is a vote for terrorism. Its not. A vote for Hamas is a vote for being apathetic about their terrorism, which is also very bad, but it is understandable, and an opinion that can be influenced by providing better options. I am saying most Palestinians don't really care about their terrorist operations.
(And on a side note, your logic is generally incorrect; people make balancing decisions every day in all parts of life, including voting. The number of people who vote for someone they support every activity of approaches nil; it is, however, reasonable to say that voting for a group partaking somewhat in terrorism is a compromise that should never be made).
As for your pleas for Hamas separating, sure that would be nice, but it isn't reality. Its not what's happening, and nice as it would be, try to focus on the situation as it actually exists for the people having to make very hard choices.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: This is dramatically incorrect. While Hamas is without a doubt a terrorist organization, by far most of their funds go to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians rather than terrorism, and (ironically) they are known for being generally uncorrupt, unlike the other candidates for office. While many palestinians are hardly friendly to Israel (much as many Israelis are hardly friendly to palestinians), it is more correct that most of them don't care if somebody attacks Israel than that they support the attacks on Israel. Not a laudable moral quality, but not as bad as the invalid caricature you paint by ignoring all qualities of Hamas but terrorism
Minds me of the the KKK, pro marriage, fidelity, brotherhood, neighbor helping neighbor, family, democracy and hanging uppity blacks. If we could overlook that last they are a great bunch of guys.
BC
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Allow me to break out some key phrases for you, BC, as your reading comprehension seems low.
quote:Hamas is without a doubt a terrorist organization
quote:Not a laudable moral quality
And from my further post:
quote:A vote for Hamas is a vote for being apathetic about their terrorism, which is also very bad, but it is understandable
quote:it is, however, reasonable to say that voting for a group partaking somewhat in terrorism is a compromise that should never be made
Don't try make fun of things you don't understand.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:How dare any of you who have not witnessed the savage barbarity the Arabs inflict on the Israelis first hand attempt to be the moral police and say what Israel should do. You have no right; you are blinded by rose-colored ignorance.
I certainly think we have the right, because we give money, technology, and expertise. It is an unknowable hypothetical whether or not Israel would have survived the past decades without Western in general and American in particular support. What is neither unknown nor hypothetical is that many of the steps and methods Israel has used to survive and thrive have been derived from the USA and the West.
So, you know, we do have some right to question what is done.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I said the two are similar, seems to me you are agreeing, don't restrict my agreements with you to just the non fun ones.
BC
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
quote:So, you know, we do have some right to question what is done
You're not questioning anything, you're making statements that it's Israel's fault fanatical barbarians are attacking it. As if the Israelis should bend over to the will of terrorists in order to spare themselves any further attacks.
I'd suggest looking at what your own governmenmt is doing in it's own war on terror in Iraq before judging Israel. Israel does not stick its nose into USA foriegn policy, as such, what presidence do you have to tell a sovergn country how it may defend itself. Israelis aren't protesting the unfair treatment of those insurgents that are killing your own solders daily. Why the double standard?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, because God knows the Israeli lobby in America holds no power or sway over the government, and never uses it ever. [/sarcasm]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I doubt very much whether you know what I think about Israel, Gecko, if you've come to that conclusion. I have certainly never said what's happening is Israel's fault, nor is that in any way the position of the American government. Don't put words in my mouth.
Also you completely dodged the point I made: given that the USA gives money, technology, and expertise to the state of Israel, we do have a right to give our input on what Israel does.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
So any country that the USA gives foreign aide to, they can also dictate its actions on?
Then they should tell the Palestinians to stop murdering people.
The USA and Israel share a bond that goes both ways. They USA helps the Israelis, yes, but Israel is also the USA's biggest ally in the middle east.
quote: Yeah, because God knows the Israeli lobby in America holds no power or sway over the government, and never uses it ever.
You left out the part about how they control the banks and the media.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, I'm not going to talk to you anymore about this so long as you're going to read entirely different words from what I actually say.
quote:...given that the USA gives money, technology, and expertise to the state of Israel, we do have a right to give our input on what Israel does.
does not mean this:
So any country that the USA gives foreign aide to, they can also dictate its actions on?
This is not difficult to understand at all, Gecko. Stop putting words in my mouth, damnit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And now you're labeling someone who points out the pro-Israeli lobbies within the USA do exert political power here as anti-Semitic and paranoid? You're a pleasure to talk to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Denying the existance of a powerful POLITICAL pro-Israeli lobby in the United States is just silly Gecko, and trying to discredit my argument by leveling accusations at me via implication is a sad, pathetic debating tactic.
And I think what Israel gets out of the deal is a hell of a lot better than what we get. We get more assistance, more concrete physical assistance from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia than we do from Israel, which is about what I'd expect. Israel is too far away from where we are over there to be a good base of operations, in anyway, and they don't provide military assistance, which I also wouldn't expect them to, given their situation and the size of their military.
Saying they are our biggest ally over there is misleading. I would say that they share the same basic ideologies as we do, and in that sense I suppose they are our greatest intellectual ally in the area, but try firing that out of a gun. Pretending that we couldn't make due just fine without them is bordering on comical.
And all that we do in the world doesn't give us a right to dictate to anyone, but it gives us a voice.
Also, I don't see where Rakeesh said that it was all Israel's fault. I think you must have misinterpreted something.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You're not questioning anything, you're making statements that it's Israel's fault fanatical barbarians are attacking it. As if the Israelis should bend over to the will of terrorists in order to spare themselves any further attacks.
He is? Where?
quote:So any country that the USA gives foreign aide to, they can also dictate its actions on?
Beyond the general right anybody has to comment on anything, there is a specific duty for Rakeesh to comment on this.
Any country that supports another has some responsibility for moral faults committed using that support. Therefore, any citizen of that country has duty, as a participant in a democratic government, to make form an opinion on the consequences of that aid and to make that opinion known.
What is your problem with the English language? You've converted "give our input" to "dictate [] actions." You've converted statements expressing concern about particular actions to expressions of fault for others' actions.
Rakeesh is a pretty straightforward guy. What he says is a lot more interesting than what you pretend he says.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I wasn't aware that such an outrageous statement required a "proper debating tactic" to dismantle as being ridiculous.
quote:they don't provide military assistance, which I also wouldn't expect them to, given their situation and the size of their military.
First, Israel isn't engaged in the conflict because it's just smart diplomacy. The reason is pretty much the same reason the USA didn't want them engaged in the Gulf War. If they enter the conflict, it has a serious chance to unite the Arab countries under one banner of repelling a religious Crusade. This is the reason Saddam fired rockets at Israelis during the Gulf War, he wanted to goad them into the conflict because he also thought that if they entered the fray, more Arab countries would enter on his side. Could you imagine the field day the Al Queda recruitment officers would have if Israel entered the War on Terror by putting troops into Iraq?
quote:Yeah, because God knows the Israeli lobby in America holds no power or sway over the government, and never uses it ever.
To make a comment like this and then become offended when I point out it's almost an identical photocopy of the same argument anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists use to argue American/Israeli foreign policy is outrageous.
If there wasn't a group of people arguing that the Jews control the American government behind the scenes, I would be more tolerant of a comment like this. You will have to forgive me being a little hostile about it, I think there may have been some prejudice against the Jews for a few thousand years or so that has made me a little jaded.
Yes, I'm aware there are Jewish advocates in the government, but you make it seem as if the power they weild can dictate the USA's actions at a whim.
First, what kind of political power do the Israelis really hold on the world stage when almost a third of UN human rights resolutions are directed at condemning them for their treatment of the Palestinians when Palestinian terrorism isn't even bothered to be mentioned in a single resolution? Israel is singled out on human rights violations when countries like Syria and Lybia and Saudi Arabia are overlooked. And let's not forget the dandy resolution that proposed classifying Zionism as a form of racism.
Second, the USA's help is very much conditional. Israel has to maintain a certain moral high ground at all times. For instance, if Israel had launched a pre-emptive strike during the Yom Kippur war, a pure war of aggregation by the Arabs, Henry Kissinger himself said that Israel would not have received any aid, even though the strike would have been in self-defense. Israel tries very, very hard to be the good guy. It's good guy status has cost the lives of its people, but it's a status that must be upheld to maintain the USA's support.
quote:What is your problem with the English language? You've converted "give our input" to "dictate [] actions." You've converted statements expressing concern about particular actions to expressions of fault for others' actions.
quote:So, you know, we do have some right to question what is done
English is my third language, so you will have to pardon me. Giving input is fine, but it's a far cry from having a say in Israel's defense policy by questioning what is best for its people. The Israelis don't question the USA's foreign policy, maybe they should be given the same benefit of the doubt by assuming they know what's best for their people as you do yours.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The Israelis don't question the USA's foreign policy...
Hm. You know, I almost believed you were Israeli until I read this. Now I'm not sure you even know any. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Israelis don't question the USA's foreign policy
I remember a lot of Israeli complaints about fighter sales to Saudi Arabia.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Among the Israelis of my acquaintance, both in and out of Israel, questioning US foreign policy is practically a contact sport.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I mean in respect to how it defends itself
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When Israel starts paying a significant chunk of the U.S. defense budget, I'm sure that'll become a more popular topic. Right now, Israel as a country exists only because of U.S. handouts.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
You say that as if the USA gets nothing out of the deal, which is just wrong
Also, you're wrong to say Israel is sustained on hand-outs. Israel's ecnomy is one of the most advanced in the middle east. What the USA gives help a lot, it doesn't make or breakt the country.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shrug* I certainly don't believe we get our money's worth.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: We should give the Jews Mexico, let them run it for a century or so, we will be better neighbors then they have and they will be better then we have. What say you Lisa? You guys want the holy city of the Aztec's? We could let the Arabs build their own hell to live in and drink Corona while they burn in it! Don't worry about the Mexican's, if we don't get some relief at the border soon they will all be here.
Cute, but no. We didn't accept Uganda when that was offered, either. Jerusalem is ours. That was our home back before the first Arab barreled out of Arabia with a sword. They can go back to Arabia for all I care. Give them Mexico. Let them see what America does in response to their little games of murder.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:And don't say that not every Palestinians wants this; that the brutal, fanatical minority is holding the majority of good people hostage. That is a complete lie. They were able to have free elections, and they elected Hammas ON THEIR OWN, KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
The Palestinian people, on the whole, want only two things. Israel's destruction, and Palastine back.
This is dramatically incorrect. While Hamas is without a doubt a terrorist organization, by far most of their funds go to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians rather than terrorism, and (ironically) they are known for being generally uncorrupt, unlike the other candidates for office. While many palestinians are hardly friendly to Israel (much as many Israelis are hardly friendly to palestinians), it is more correct that most of them don't care if somebody attacks Israel than that they support the attacks on Israel. Not a laudable moral quality, but not as bad as the invalid caricature you paint by ignoring all qualities of Hamas but terrorism.
Since they took power, all of that changed. Now they spend obscene sums of money on weapons of death, while their people continue to live in refugee camps.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder how much blood you have to spill on a few hectares of dirt before the entire freakin' area counts as a sacrificial altar.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *shrug* I certainly don't believe we get our money's worth.
I move that we immediately cease all financial aid to the State of Israel. Can I get a second?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:And don't say that not every Palestinians wants this; that the brutal, fanatical minority is holding the majority of good people hostage. That is a complete lie. They were able to have free elections, and they elected Hammas ON THEIR OWN, KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
The Palestinian people, on the whole, want only two things. Israel's destruction, and Palastine back.
This is dramatically incorrect. While Hamas is without a doubt a terrorist organization, by far most of their funds go to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians rather than terrorism, and (ironically) they are known for being generally uncorrupt, unlike the other candidates for office. While many palestinians are hardly friendly to Israel (much as many Israelis are hardly friendly to palestinians), it is more correct that most of them don't care if somebody attacks Israel than that they support the attacks on Israel. Not a laudable moral quality, but not as bad as the invalid caricature you paint by ignoring all qualities of Hamas but terrorism.
Since they took power, all of that changed. Now they spend obscene sums of money on weapons of death, while their people continue to live in refugee camps.
You what, have a Hamas finance department meeting ledger we could look at?
I don't dismiss what you're saying out of hand here, but your bias doesn't lend you any more believability than my supposed bias grants me to you.
Just curious where you got your facts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *shrug* I certainly don't believe we get our money's worth.
I move that we immediately cease all financial aid to the State of Israel. Can I get a second?
I disagree. If you refined that to the cessation of sale of military hardware that'd be fine. Shouldn't be an imposition, they can make their own. But I'd also restrict financial aid to no longer include the purchasing of military hardware, which is impossible, but I don't support cutting them off entirely.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Gecko -
quote:To make a comment like this and then become offended when I point out it's almost an identical photocopy of the same argument anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists use to argue American/Israeli foreign policy is outrageous.
Yes, I'm aware there are Jewish advocates in the government, but you make it seem as if the power they weild can dictate the USA's actions at a whim.
I really don't see it as all that outrageous at all. You said something that is obviously contrary to truth, and I corrected you, rather sarcastically, but it was warranted all the same. You replied by implying I was an anti-semite, which doesn't at ALL follow from what I said. If someone said that African Americans had no voice in this country and I said the same basic thing with "because god knows the NAACP (etc) has no say in this country." Would you automatically assume I was a part of the KKK? It's not a logical conclusion.
As for your second part: Then right back at you. Bush isn't exactly on the phone giving secret orders to Olmert every day of the week. Israel routinely ignores American suggestions on what to do. Good for them. They shouldn't have to bow to American will. I don't see where I implied at all that the Israeli lobbies in America have anywhere near that kind of immediate power. I was merely contradicting your stance that there was NO voice. You also seem to be operating under the assumption that the USA DOES have that sort of power. I don't see it.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
I have never heard anyone claim the NAACP ran the government of America from behind the scenes, a charge hurled almost exclusively at the Jews by a huge array of people.
This is why I reacted as I did. I didn't mean to say that you yourself are an anti-Semite, was only simply trying to show how people twist what you said to conform to what they see as some sort of great Jewish conspiracy
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *shrug* I certainly don't believe we get our money's worth.
I move that we immediately cease all financial aid to the State of Israel. Can I get a second?
I disagree. If you refined that to the cessation of sale of military hardware that'd be fine. Shouldn't be an imposition, they can make their own. But I'd also restrict financial aid to no longer include the purchasing of military hardware, which is impossible, but I don't support cutting them off entirely.
Money is money. It all goes into the same pot. Give civil aid, and it frees up money for military expenditures.
I repeat my motion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Gecko,
quote:I wasn't aware that such an outrageous statement required a "proper debating tactic" to dismantle as being ridiculous.
If you can't refute it, just say so and don't hide behind, "That's so ridiculous I don't need to. Which is essentially what you're doing. Go ahead, explain to us how 'giving input' equals 'dictating actions', please. I'm still waiting.
quote:To make a comment like this and then become offended when I point out it's almost an identical photocopy of the same argument anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists use to argue American/Israeli foreign policy is outrageous.
If there wasn't a group of people arguing that the Jews control the American government behind the scenes, I would be more tolerant of a comment like this. You will have to forgive me being a little hostile about it, I think there may have been some prejudice against the Jews for a few thousand years or so that has made me a little jaded.
Yes, I'm aware there are Jewish advocates in the government, but you make it seem as if the power they weild can dictate the USA's actions at a whim.
So what, no one can ever make a statement about Israelis that is also made by anti-Semites even if the statement is true without also being an anti-Semite? That's just plain stupid. You don't get to hide behind your victimization routine like that.
If you knew me, you'd know I get pretty upset about people trivializing past atrocities and hatred directed towards Jews, and present. But that doesn't mean that stating a plain and simple fact, albeit sarcastically-that the pro-Israeli lobby within the US exerts some political power-makes one an anti-Semite. Stop shielding your arguments with cries of, "Racism!" and actually defend them.
quote:First, what kind of political power do the Israelis really hold on the world stage when almost a third of UN human rights resolutions are directed at condemning them for their treatment of the Palestinians when Palestinian terrorism isn't even bothered to be mentioned in a single resolution?
We were discussing Israeli political power within the USA, not on the world stage. Don't try and weasel away from that.
quote:Second, the USA's help is very much conditional.
Of course it's conditional! What, you want our money, technology, and expertise with no strings attached? Our federal government doesn't even do that for our states, much less for foreign governments.
Maybe you should remember that constant American support for Israel is probably the single biggest thing which gains it the hatred of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists throughout the world. It doesn't earn us any friends in Europe, either. There is a chance that the USA would not have the hatred and enmity of most of the citizens of the world's oil well if it were not for its support of Israel.
quote:I mean in respect to how it defends itself
Well, at least you've clarified something instead of pretending something was said which clearly was not. That's a step up.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: That's an overview, not a paper arguing for it. The information found on those pages is considered general knowledge. I can dig up some papers on the topic, though unless you're at a university I doubt you'll have easy access to them.
You're an idealist living in a comfortable world. Imagine you were a palestinian, whose infrastructure is periodically attacked by someone else. All the parties you can vote for support terrorism, though some are more open about their support than others. All but one are corrupt. That one is providing you significant humanitarian assistance while the other has been repeatedly found to steal money intended for humanitarian purposes.
Say all you want that a vote for Hamas is a vote for terrorism. Its not. A vote for Hamas is a vote for being apathetic about their terrorism, which is also very bad, but it is understandable, and an opinion that can be influenced by providing better options. I am saying most Palestinians don't really care about their terrorist operations.
(And on a side note, your logic is generally incorrect; people make balancing decisions every day in all parts of life, including voting. The number of people who vote for someone they support every activity of approaches nil; it is, however, reasonable to say that voting for a group partaking somewhat in terrorism is a compromise that should never be made).
As for your pleas for Hamas separating, sure that would be nice, but it isn't reality. Its not what's happening, and nice as it would be, try to focus on the situation as it actually exists for the people having to make very hard choices.
Please do not attempt to guess as to whether or not I live in "a comfortable world." You can glean that I am an idealist from my comments but you have no idea what background I come from, unless you have mined that information from comments I have made in other places.
Yeah we had problems during most of Americas history with political parties that did not represent the views of the people. Its called form another party, Palestine is small enough that campaigning for votes while still difficult is CERTAINLY possible.
Your arguement that a vote for Hammas is a vote for apathy concerning terrorism COULD be true, but I still think plenty of people vote for Hammas and simply hope they will deal with the Israeli problem while they look the other way.
You are right people make balancing decisions all the time, and they still accept that they are allowing evil in with the good they hope to accomplish.
You are asking me to focus on things as they are, not as I wish them to be. You still have not given me a good reason as to why the humanitarian side of Hammas has not split off from the militant side. Are you suggesting that it is A: Impossible to accomplish, B: Potentially crippling and therefore realistically impossible or C: It for some reason just has not happened?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, it doesn't much matter if Hamas doesn't 'split'; they haven't, and only the real choices are options for your random palestinian. I'm not sure why you harp on something irrelevant.
Second, the whole notion of 'splitting' reflects yet another gross misunderstanding on your part. Its not like there's one group of people in Hamas who are all 'kill the Israelis' and another group of people in Hamas who are all 'help the palestinians'. There are people in Hamas who focus on their terrorist activities, and there are people in Hamas who focus on humanitarian ends, but the reason they are part of the same overall organizations is they find in each other similar desires and goals. Hamas isn't going to split up because the people in Hamas don't want to. They are organized together of their own free will. How many times do I have to point at this simple, obvious fact?
As for you living in a comfortable world, you live in the US according to your profile and have a frequent internet connection. Odds are at least 99.9% that you live in a comfortable world in comparison to one where schools (on both sides) are being hit by missile and artillery fire, where homes are bulldozed, where suicide bombers detonate bombs in public markets, et cetera. Heck, you're even in school (again, according to your profile) and have access to our excellent educational system!
Your remarks on forming another party only underscore how comfortable the world you and I live in is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: [QB] First, it doesn't much matter if Hamas doesn't 'split'; they haven't, and only the real choices are options for your random palestinian. I'm not sure why you harp on something irrelevant.
Second, the whole notion of 'splitting' reflects yet another gross misunderstanding on your part. Its not like there's one group of people in Hamas who are all 'kill the Israelis' and another group of people in Hamas who are all 'help the palestinians'. There are people in Hamas who focus on their terrorist activities, and there are people in Hamas who focus on humanitarian ends, but the reason they are part of the same overall organizations is they find in each other similar desires and goals. Hamas isn't going to split up because the people in Hamas don't want to. They are organized together of their own free will. How many times do I have to point at this simple, obvious fact?
Where have I ever questioned your statement that the people within Hammas have intentionally banded together? You pointed out that Hammas mostly does good and are a better choice when compared to the corrupt fatah party. I am arguing the good they do is completely eclipsed by the evil that is also an essential part of their organization.
I thought you were saying people vote for Hammas because of the humanitarian aspect of the organization and are apathetic to the militant wing. And so I have argued that votes and dollars do not work that way.
You have said that Hammas is not going to split because the people who work within the militant and humanitarian wings both agree with each other. (I'd be interested to see how you seem to know so much about the overall feelings of those who belong to Hamas.)
If they do not want to split up then again you are reinforcing the idea that Hammas is a Terrorist organization that rewards with humanitarian aide those who might support them.
quote: As for you living in a comfortable world, you live in the US according to your profile and have a frequent internet connection. Odds are at least 99.9% that you live in a comfortable world in comparison to one where schools (on both sides) are being hit by missile and artillery fire, where homes are bulldozed, where suicide bombers detonate bombs in public markets, et cetera. Heck, you're even in school (again, according to your profile) and have access to our excellent educational system!
I moved to the US when I was 21 years old. I am now 24. The last 3 years have been my only exposure to the US's educational system.
Are you suggesting that only if I personally had rockets launched at my school while it was in session that I would be imbued with knowledge crucial to be able to form an inteligent opinion on this matter?
If this is in fact what your saying it makes your remarks on this whole thread as worthless as mine. Why even bother discussing since only those who are there can make educated conclusions on the matter? I was not there for the cultural revolution, but I think I have read enough literature to deduce that it was an evil thing.
quote: Your remarks on forming another party only underscore how comfortable the world you and I live in is.
Instead of simply dismissing my statements, perhaps you could explain to me why you disagree.
TIA
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Good is never completely eclipsed by evil.
No, if you had rockets so launched you would be living a similarly uncomfortable life. You told me not to assume about your comfort, so I explained why I considered it safe to assume your comfort. It has nothing to do with making your ideas worthy or unworthy, though I think it explains where some of your ideas come from.
Forming another party is a difficult luxury. Those who at least tacitly accept terrorism have access to significantly more funding. Those who actively oppose terrorists stand a good chance of being targeted. Even those who actively oppose terrorists are still subject to the disruptions caused by Israeli and militant combat. Mere survival is a day to day struggle for many. There are those strongly opposing terrorism, but they are few, while those at best apathetic about terrorism far outnumber them. Again, most of these things are well known and their impact should be obvious.
It is all well and good to say they should form another party, but its not particularly realistic. I would certainly like it if a viable anti-terrorism party were to emerge, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Its even reasonable to think less of many palestinians for this being the case, but it still doesn't make nearly all of them strong supporters of terrorism, which seems to be your claim that started this discussion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Good is never completely eclipsed by evil.
No, if you had rockets so launched you would be living a similarly uncomfortable life. You told me not to assume about your comfort, so I explained why I considered it safe to assume your comfort. It has nothing to do with making your ideas worthy or unworthy, though I think it explains where some of your ideas come from.
Forming another party is a difficult luxury. Those who at least tacitly accept terrorism have access to significantly more funding. Those who actively oppose terrorists stand a good chance of being targeted. Even those who actively oppose terrorists are still subject to the disruptions caused by Israeli and militant combat. Mere survival is a day to day struggle for many. There are those strongly opposing terrorism, but they are few, while those at best apathetic about terrorism far outnumber them. Again, most of these things are well known and their impact should be obvious.
It is all well and good to say they should form another party, but its not particularly realistic. I would certainly like it if a viable anti-terrorism party were to emerge, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Its even reasonable to think less of many palestinians for this being the case, but it still doesn't make nearly all of them strong supporters of terrorism, which seems to be your claim that started this discussion.
If a good act is sufficiently saturated by evil, it ought not to be done.
You make some interesting points about the difficulties of forming another party. I was not trying to say that most Palestinians agree that terrorism is right, merely that whether intentionally or unintentionally, by supporting Hammas they are supporting terrorism.
I need to think a bit more on some of the points you made. I am most likely done posting on this thread, unless it flares up somehow Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)