The previous thread is gone right? Did we skip directly to deleting even potentially heated threads?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lol why was it deleted
I assume that wasn't you BB?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It was not.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
BB is it possible to revive it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
was it removed by the original poster then?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: BB is it possible to revive it?
I doubt it, but I will look into the matter.
Samprimary: I assume so, I suppose it is also possible that the person's account was hacked.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Was it hacked by 4chan?!? They must be up to their usual trickery then.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this is the perfect synthesis of forum topics.
Dashcon: Gaza
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Isn't there already enough suffering in this world?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
In any case, Sam I want to question you on some if the facts in the screed you had wrote.
You claimed Israel was in charge of the cycle for displacing Palestinians in the West Bank. First, how does this claim fit in with Israel withdrawing from Gaza and this resulting in the increase in terrorism we see today? What makes you think Israel's settlements in the West Bank is what caused Palestinians to turn to Hamas in Gaza? Secondly, I may be mistaken but I was under the impression that the settlements being built in the WB were being built next to Palestinian cities. I've never heard of one where Israelis picked up and moved the Palestinians so they can live in an area that was already occupied.
Also, you had mentioned something about the Palestinians need to be more like the Kurds if they want their own state. I'm curious what you mean by this. The Kurd separatists haven't been successful at getting their own country. What exactly do the Kurds do that the Palestinians should be doing?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Gaal: Calling something a screed is pretty much a fantastic way to get people to not take you seriously. Sam will probably just laugh it off, but it's still counterintuitive if you want a good conversation.
quote:You claimed Israel was in charge of the cycle for displacing Palestinians in the West Bank. First, how does this claim fit in with Israel withdrawing from Gaza and this resulting in the increase in terrorism we see today?
I can field this one. Israel has in many instances not stopped its' own citizens from establishing illegal settlements in the Palestinian partition.
Israel's response to these settlements ranges from stopping them, through turning a blind eye, and ending at outright enabling them while lying about it.
Look it's understandable Israel is going to need more space, their population is growing, but if Israel expects Hamas to stop launching rockets, they need to look to their own populaces' bad behavior.
When there is peace between the two countries, *then* we can talk about new settlements and building Jewish communities in Palestine, and Palestinians moving freely through Israel. But right now Israel insists on partition, so their own people have to accept the drawbacks with the security benefits.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Screed was his word in describing his own post in the previous thread. I didn't know what it meant and after looking it up, I thought it was funny and adopted it. I didn't mean it as an insult.
You didn't field my question at all, though.
"but if Israel expects Hamas to stop launching rockets, they need to look to their own populaces' bad behavior."
What evidence do you have that Hamas' rocket launching is caused by continued settlements in the West Bank (where Hamas isn't even based)? Their stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel. Not just stopping settlements in the West Bank. I'm not excusing illegal settlements, but I don't see any evidence that they caused Hamas to resort to rockets, or even that if they never built a single illegal settlement, the rockets would have never been launched.
And which illegal settlements, specifically, displaced Palestinian homes? I can find plenty of names of illegal settlements but am having trouble finding any where there was preexisting Palestinian homes that were forced to move because of new construction.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lets look at this fairly, shall we.
No, Hamas will not stop firing missiles if Israel starts destroying illegal Israeli settlements.
Hamas, and its backers in Iran, want to see Israel gone, and Islam supreme.
Israel has the right to defend itself against those who are trying to wipe it off the face of the earth.
Just as the US has the right to defend itself against those--Al Queda for example --who are trying to wipe it off the face of the earth.
Just as the average Palestinian has the right to defend itself from those who are trying to wipe them off the face of the earth--and the Fanatics who open up those illegal settlements are doing just that. To the average Palestinian, and to the average Arab anywhere, those settlements are a slow conquest of Palestinian land. The goal of the settlers is the creation of a Greater Israel that stretches to the farthest reaches of King David's empire. Those non-Jews who are living in the way now are to be driven off holy lands.
The illegal settlers plans for Palestine are less violent, but just as final as Hamas's plans for Israel--except the settlers are succeeding.
So the average Palestinian is forced to make two choices--go with Israel which offers them slow annihilation as a people, 2nd class citizenship, insults and desegregation, and no future, or Hamas who offers them limited immediate help, pride, and a sense of a future.
It is all lies, of course, but it is the only hope some in Palestine can find.
So no, stopping the settlements won't stop Hamas, but if Israel were to offer Palestine concrete hope, a concrete future, and most important and immediately--stop the constant humiliation--then the Palestinians will stop supporting Hamas.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
GaalDornick:
quote:Screed was his word in describing his own post in the previous thread. I didn't know what it meant and after looking it up, I thought it was funny and adopted it. I didn't mean it as an insult.
Fair enough, my mistake.
quote:You didn't field my question at all, though.
Not even just a little fielding?...
quote:What evidence do you have that Hamas' rocket launching is caused by continued settlements in the West Bank (where Hamas isn't even based)? Their stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel. Not just stopping settlements in the West Bank. I'm not excusing illegal settlements, but I don't see any evidence that they caused Hamas to resort to rockets, or even that if they never built a single illegal settlement, the rockets would have never been launched.
Well for one thing the teens who were abducted were settlers in the West Bank...
For another, it doesn't really matter that if settlements all stopped Hamas would still be launching rockets. It sounds like you're arguing that if I try to beat you up because you've been raping me and stealing my stuff, and then you stop stealing from me that somehow I should calm down now or else stop acting like your theft bothers me.
I mean I guess Hamas could aim their rockets only at Jewish settlements, but seeing as how their rockets aren't nearly that accurate that seems pointless.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lets look at this fairly, shall we.
No, Hamas will not stop firing missiles if Israel starts destroying illegal Israeli settlements.
Hamas, and its backers in Iran, want to see Israel gone, and Islam supreme.
Israel has the right to defend itself against those who are trying to wipe it off the face of the earth.
Just as the US has the right to defend itself against those--Al Queda for example --who are trying to wipe it off the face of the earth.
Just as the average Palestinian has the right to defend itself from those who are trying to wipe them off the face of the earth--and the Fanatics who open up those illegal settlements are doing just that. To the average Palestinian, and to the average Arab anywhere, those settlements are a slow conquest of Palestinian land. The goal of the settlers is the creation of a Greater Israel that stretches to the farthest reaches of King David's empire. Those non-Jews who are living in the way now are to be driven off holy lands.
The illegal settlers plans for Palestine are less violent, but just as final as Hamas's plans for Israel--except the settlers are succeeding.
So the average Palestinian is forced to make two choices--go with Israel which offers them slow annihilation as a people, 2nd class citizenship, insults and desegregation, and no future, or Hamas who offers them limited immediate help, pride, and a sense of a future.
It is all lies, of course, but it is the only hope some in Palestine can find.
So no, stopping the settlements won't stop Hamas, but if Israel were to offer Palestine concrete hope, a concrete future, and most important and immediately--stop the constant humiliation--then the Palestinians will stop supporting Hamas.
I don't disagree on any particular point. Although I am wondering what makes you think Palestinians would be given 2nd class citizenship and no future? Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jewish Israelis. Voting rights and everything.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Well for one thing the teens who were abducted were settlers in the West Bank...
For another, it doesn't really matter that if settlements all stopped Hamas would still be launching rockets. It sounds like you're arguing that if I try to beat you up because you've been raping me and stealing my stuff, and then you stop stealing from me that somehow I should calm down now or else stop acting like your theft bothers me.
I mean I guess Hamas could aim their rockets only at Jewish settlements, but seeing as how their rockets aren't nearly that accurate that seems pointless.
Can you be a bit more specific on how this analogy applies to this topic? I'm not following. I also don't understand your third paragraph. Are you implying that the only reason Hamas' rockets are landing (well, attempting to land) in heavily populated areas within Israel is because they aren't accurate enough to only hit Jewish settlements in the West Bank?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It sounds like you are arguing that the fact Hamas would probably continue to fire rockets at Israel even if settlements were stopped completely that that is evidence that settlements don't really bother Hamas and are not a key concern. I think that's mistaken. If you aren't arguing that, then we're cool I guess.
As for rockets. No, I was trying to address the possible argument that the rockets are not only targeting settlements, but that too does not mean Hamas does not care about settlements.
(Man, too many "nots" in that paragraph. Here's a sanitized version).
Hamas hates the settlements, even if their rockets seem to hit all over Israel, instead of being more surgical.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It sounds like you are arguing that the fact Hamas would probably continue to fire rockets at Israel even if settlements were stopped completely that that is evidence that settlements don't really bother Hamas and are not a key concern. I think that's mistaken.
I think Hamas' key concern is Israel's existence. I think this because they've blatantly said so. I think the settlements are a concern for them because it means Israelis are still alive.
quote: Hamas hates the settlements, even if their rockets seem to hit all over Israel, instead of being more surgical.
Hamas hates Israel period. Whether Israel continues to build illegal settlements, whether they never built any to begin with, or whether Israel completely withdraws from the West Bank altogether, the way they did in Gaza, it will not stop the rockets nor did it cause them to begin with.
Now that's out of the way, I absolutely agree with the point being made that Palestinians turned to Hamas out of desperation, but I don't see what Israel can do about this. Even if innocent Palestinians realized Hamas does not have their best interests at heart, it won't change a thing because Hamas are the guys with the guns. Good luck to moderate Palestinians that want to speak out against them. This conflict cannot be resolved until Hamas is completely destroyed and the Palestinians have a chance at moderate leadership who will negotiate peacefully with Israel.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
GaalDornick: Well at least we've gotten to the seed of our disagreement.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Which is?
Do you disagree that Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: ... This conflict cannot be resolved until Hamas is completely destroyed and the Palestinians have a chance at moderate leadership who will negotiate peacefully with Israel.
Which is probably a good summary of the situation because the amount of hope I have that one, as a hated enemy and occupier, can successfully destroy extremists and have them replaced with moderates is well ... I'm more hopeful that I'll win the lottery tomorrow, having not bought a ticket.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Which is?
Do you disagree that Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist?
It's pretty hard to disagree with that particular statement.
Do you disagree that Israel imposed an economic blockade on the Gaza Strip and West Bank the moment Hamas was legitimately elected over Fatah?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Palestinians tried moderate leadership, but every time they try it they get ignored. The world only cares about Palestine when Palestine throws a hissy fit, so they've learned this is the only real bargaining chip they have and Israel plays right into it.
Where had Abbas been during this whole thing? Marginslized. Why? Because Israel ignores him knowing he'll never really cause them any problems. So people turn to Hamas because Hamas keeps the schools open and the trains running on time.
My guess is if Israel offered most of what is on Hamas' unofficial wishlist in return for recognition they would probably get it. But they never will, because right wing hardliners will never abandon settlements, offer right of return or allow Palestine to have any control over east Jerusalem. I wish they'd just call Hamas bluff and either solve the problem or regain some moral high ground.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Which is?
Do you disagree that Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist?
It's pretty hard to disagree with that particular statement.
Do you disagree that Israel imposed an economic blockade on the Gaza Strip and West Bank the moment Hamas was legitimately elected over Fatah?
Nope. I also don't disagree with Israel doing it.
quote: Palestinians tried moderate leadership, but every time they try it they get ignored. The world only cares about Palestine when Palestine throws a hissy fit, so they've learned this is the only real bargaining chip they have and Israel plays right into it.
Where had Abbas been during this whole thing? Marginslized. Why? Because Israel ignores him knowing he'll never really cause them any problems. So people turn to Hamas because Hamas keeps the schools open and the trains running on time.
Right because Fatah is moderate leadership. This didn't happen while Fatah was in power. What moderate leadership has Palestine had? Arafat? He was really moderate at the Camp David Summit.
"I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace."
-Bill Clinton
And to answer your question of where Abbas has been during this whole thing, you do realize he's not in power anymore, right?
[ July 27, 2014, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: GaalDornick ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: "but if Israel expects Hamas to stop launching rockets, they need to look to their own populaces' bad behavior."
What evidence do you have that Hamas' rocket launching is caused by continued settlements in the West Bank (where Hamas isn't even based)? Their stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel. Not just stopping settlements in the West Bank. I'm not excusing illegal settlements, but I don't see any evidence that they caused Hamas to resort to rockets, or even that if they never built a single illegal settlement, the rockets would have never been launched.
the overall point is that west bank is fatah'ing it up, and they have been rewarded with their moderation by illegal settlements that get the backing of israel and are slowly displacing the palestinian population. israel is just teaching that this is their response to attempting to live agreeably with the state of israel; you're slowly pushed out.
changing that and (probably) removing the illegal settlements comes off as a step one on the israel side, otherwise anyone with any sense will say that cooperation with israel is going to result in wholesale consumption of the very land you are trying to save.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Hamas and it's supporters aren't firing rockets into Israel to try and kill Israelis. I don't think they really care if the rockets hit or not.
What they ARE doing is trying (successfully) to get Israel mad enough to attack Palestine, so they can wage a war on social media.
I don't think they care about the Palestinian people at all, they just want a way to play the victim. They want to pull western support away from Israel, which would weaken them more than the hundreds of rockets they fire into Israel every day.
It is working. I hopped on social media this morning and saw all sorts of anti-Israeli posts and tweets. I saw one video claiming that it showed Israeli troops beating a woman and child, and people were commenting about how horrible Israel was. I watched the video and the men weren't soldiers, but police officers, and the police emblem was that of the Iranian guard. Hamas is relying on ignorance to garner support, and to those that don't live in the area, it is working.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hamas is firing rockets into israel to try to kill israelis but it is true that actually killing them in large number is not their overall goal. their primary target is the palestinians themselves.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hamas is firing rockets into israel to try to kill israelis but it is true that actually killing them in large number is not their overall goal. their primary target is the palestinians themselves.
This makes absolutely no sense. Are they using civilian homes and even a freaking United Nations school to house weapons and rockets? Yep. But they aren't shooting rockets at Palestinians. (well, besides the rumor of said UN school being hit by Hamas' own weapons, but there are conflicting reports) They are hoping to get Israel to do it so they can play the victim.
Again, Hamas knows they can't win an all out war against Israel. They are trying to play the victim to drum up anti-Israeli sentiment. It plays into their long game.
This about sums up how I feel about the whole thing:
(forgive me for the source, though the site usually has extremely strange conspiracy theory stories, this story is one of the few normal ones)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Their target is Palestinians, but the weapon isn't rockets. It's the Israeli military.
Anyway, look, I can't deny that no nation will endure even ineffectual military attacks. It can't. But as for this 'doesn't recognize the right to exist', well that runs both ways. Israelis aren't going through Palestinian checkpoints just to live their daily lives.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:When it’s over the Muslim world will flee their homes from all over he world to join in solidarity to establish the world’s next superpower, Palestine.
quote:I would not be surprised if the civil war in Syria is abandoned for a march on Israel.
Ah, concrete predictions, I like that. Although the former is lacking a timetable although it strongly implies the near future.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the hell is this website anyway
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: 80 | Lindsey Williams 2015 Elite Agenda Revealed! When Will The Fireworks Begin? 72 | Project CAMELOT: A Rothschild Speaks Out - This Is A Big Deal 62 | Mother Of All Bombshells! Huge US Military Buildup In Ukraine - "This Is All... 62 | Russia Admits WW3 Is Coming! 'There Is A War Coming In Europe' 41 | ★Our Sun Hollow Earth and Data Denial During Crisis Predictions Of Billy Meier... 32 | Lucifer On The Trillion Dollar Space Program, Reptilians And The Jesus Project... 30 | 3 Agents With CIA, FBI And DEA Warn America (Video) 30 | Robbing Hood: Ohio Stealing Homes To Launder Money Into State Pension Plan! 29 | Scientists Speechless At What They Find Beneath Egypt! One of the Most... 28 | CONFIRMED: Alien Contact To Be Announced By Obama! The Secret Deal With Putin 28 | Florida Beaches; Ground Zero For End Times? (WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT) 27 | Leaked Footage of 9/11 Will Give You Chills (Video) - Nuclear Analysis 24 | Strange US Navy Behavior - Martial Law Or WW3 Prep? Dave Hodges On The Hagmann... 24 | X22Report Central Bankers Continually Pushing War As The Economy Falters -... 24 | Must See: Could This Be The End Of The Elites? Obama, Queen Elizabeth II, The Vatican!! (Stunning Vi (N.Morgan) As we’ve watched the Power Elite destroy the world, one country at a time, we could be at the cusp of the end of their reign of terror. It would seem they are at the end of their ropes and may just hang, very soon. The video below gives... 24 | MH17 Crisis Actors Completely Revealed! FALSE FLAG!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Leaked footage, of huge US military build up in Ohio to steal homes financed by a Palestinian money laundering scheme, that began with Aliens landing at 9/11 Ground Zero. False Flag!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Just so we are all on the same page, we know that Hamas (for once) didn't actually start this particular escalation, right? The Israelis took advantage of the kidnap/murder to raid and/or destroy various Hamas leader's homes, even though, at best, there was no conclusive evidence that Hamas had a direct hand in that awful situation.
At this point, no one is smelling like roses in this particular escalation, and this has no bearing on the culpability of previous escalations, of course.
It's always been a weird situation to me, as from my understanding of history, the country is actually Palestine (Who is now fighting FOR a country officially) that was basically co-opted by the British and then settled. As in the ENTIRE State of Israel is a 'settlement' IN Palestine.
Wouldn't this be close to the same as Native Americans fighting the British and French settlers? As in - Not a good thing, but you know where they're coming from?
This has never seemed like a "Muslim / Jew" conflict as much as it's been a Land conflict. And the fact that the British Empire decided that the one land that three major religious groups find to be the most sacred / holy would be a great place to settle large amounts of people. (And even larger amounts when the Jews were displaced during WWII.)
But again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but I don't see this as the religious war it's made out to be, and I can't see why everyone says the Palestinians are the aggressors and were never the victim. I don't have anything against the Jewish people, or Palestinian people.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah I'm generally Pro-Israel and tended to agree with Lisa on a lot of issues but this is deliberate ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: It's always been a weird situation to me, as from my understanding of history, the country is actually Palestine (Who is now fighting FOR a country officially) that was basically co-opted by the British and then settled. As in the ENTIRE State of Israel is a 'settlement' IN Palestine.
Wouldn't this be close to the same as Native Americans fighting the British and French settlers? As in - Not a good thing, but you know where they're coming from?
This has never seemed like a "Muslim / Jew" conflict as much as it's been a Land conflict. And the fact that the British Empire decided that the one land that three major religious groups find to be the most sacred / holy would be a great place to settle large amounts of people. (And even larger amounts when the Jews were displaced during WWII.)
But again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but I don't see this as the religious war it's made out to be, and I can't see why everyone says the Palestinians are the aggressors and were never the victim. I don't have anything against the Jewish people, or Palestinian people.
Eh, Jews were a majority in the lands originally assigned to them in the 1948 UN Partition Plan, the British Empire did not in anyway encourage Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: It's always been a weird situation to me, as from my understanding of history, the country is actually Palestine (Who is now fighting FOR a country officially) that was basically co-opted by the British and then settled. As in the ENTIRE State of Israel is a 'settlement' IN Palestine.
Wouldn't this be close to the same as Native Americans fighting the British and French settlers? As in - Not a good thing, but you know where they're coming from?
This has never seemed like a "Muslim / Jew" conflict as much as it's been a Land conflict. And the fact that the British Empire decided that the one land that three major religious groups find to be the most sacred / holy would be a great place to settle large amounts of people. (And even larger amounts when the Jews were displaced during WWII.)
But again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but I don't see this as the religious war it's made out to be, and I can't see why everyone says the Palestinians are the aggressors and were never the victim. I don't have anything against the Jewish people, or Palestinian people.
It's hard to ignore the religious component.
Why is the world so focused on Gaza right now?
You might answer "well, because of the obvious humanitarian plight!"
To which I would reply, okay, but what about the hundreds of thousands kill in Syria? What about the photos circulating supposedly from Gaza but are actually from Syria? What about the MILLIONS displaced and living in camps in Jordan and Lebanon? What about the young boys being rounded up by ISIS and executed? Or the boys kidnapped by ISIS and forced to undergo 8 hours a day of religious indoctrination?
Been going on for months. Been going on for years. Al Jazeera covers it pretty well, but otherwise the American press is pretty silent on the matter.
But Israel kills a thousand people (a drop in the bucket of global conflict deaths) and it's the most talked about debate on the planet.
Even if we narrow the scope to the Middle East itself, you'll notice that other Muslims aren't lifting much of a finger to stop the slaughter in Muslim on Muslim violence. But when Jews are doing the killing, it's suddenly the biggest issue ever.
There's also the fact that this isn't merely a land struggle, it's a land struggle where one half believes God Himself told them this is their land and they have to kill to defend it.
It's clearly not JUST about land, even if land is at the heart of the matter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Why is the world so focused on Gaza right now?
You might answer "well, because of the obvious humanitarian plight!"
To which I would reply, okay, but what about the hundreds of thousands kill in Syria? What about the photos circulating supposedly from Gaza but are actually from Syria? What about the MILLIONS displaced and living in camps in Jordan and Lebanon? What about the young boys being rounded up by ISIS and executed? Or the boys kidnapped by ISIS and forced to undergo 8 hours a day of religious indoctrination?
It's the same as famine in africa: something so unwaveringly par-for-the-course that we don't even consider it news anymore. just background noise we like to tune out.
Yet when it's jews vs. arabs suddenly this is an ideologically entrenched deal and old white american people get to have their Right Side and Wrong Side and we're off to the races
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Eh, Jews were a majority in the lands originally assigned to them in the 1948 UN Partition Plan, the British Empire did not in anyway encourage Jewish immigration to Palestine. [/QB]
From my understanding this isn't true. As it was going on well before the 1940's. Including as early as 'encouraging' it in the late 1800's.
They did eventually have to discourage it, when it started causing riots. But I don't think it's accurate to say that the British Empire didn't encourage the takeover of Palestine.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Reading more about it though, I'm sure it's a lot more nuanced than what I can post here and have the time to read up on.
I'd rather not 'blame' Israel or Palestine for the issues, and hope they can one day come to some sort of agreement. Maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Why is the world so focused on Gaza right now?
You might answer "well, because of the obvious humanitarian plight!"
To which I would reply, okay, but what about the hundreds of thousands kill in Syria? What about the photos circulating supposedly from Gaza but are actually from Syria? What about the MILLIONS displaced and living in camps in Jordan and Lebanon? What about the young boys being rounded up by ISIS and executed? Or the boys kidnapped by ISIS and forced to undergo 8 hours a day of religious indoctrination?
It's the same as famine in africa: something so unwaveringly par-for-the-course that we don't even consider it news anymore. just background noise we like to tune out.
Yet when it's jews vs. arabs suddenly this is an ideologically entrenched deal and old white american people get to have their Right Side and Wrong Side and we're off to the races
I'm not sure that's fair. Famine in Africa is a decades-old talked about problem.
The ISIS conflict is weeks old. The Syria conflict has been going on for a few weeks, and unlike Africa, both have direct and indirect importance to our national security. Not exactly part-for-the course.
While I believe the American attention span IS in fact that short, I'm not sure the two are analogous for the reasons you implied.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I feel like we're glossing over the upcoming tectonic shift toward a new Palestinian superpower and Muslims all around the world pretty much dropping what they're doing and walking toward Israel.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure that's fair. Famine in Africa is a decades-old talked about problem.
The ISIS conflict is weeks old. The Syria conflict has been going on for a few weeks, and unlike Africa, both have direct and indirect importance to our national security. Not exactly part-for-the course.
The syria conflict has been going on for 'a few weeks' .. ?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Thoughts?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure that's fair. Famine in Africa is a decades-old talked about problem.
The ISIS conflict is weeks old. The Syria conflict has been going on for a few weeks, and unlike Africa, both have direct and indirect importance to our national security. Not exactly part-for-the course.
The syria conflict has been going on for 'a few weeks' .. ?
I think he meant, "years."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know how filtered the news we get here might be. Here is a different perspective on "human shields" and who uses them.
quote: While human rights organizations haven’t yet addressed “human shields” allegations in the ongoing round of Israel-Gaza violence, they did after the 2009 round when Israel killed at least 773 Palestinian civilians, compared to three Israeli civilian casualties (a ratio of 257:1), and used the same “human shields” argument to deflect responsibility for those deaths. When the dust settled, Amnesty International investigated the matter and concluded that there was “no evidence that [Palestinian] rockets were launched from residential houses or buildings while civilians were in these buildings.” More attention-worthy was the report’s note that,
in the cases of [Israeli] precision missiles or tank shells which killed [Palestinian] civilians in their homes, no fighters were present in the houses that were struck and Amnesty International delegates found no indication that there had been any armed confrontations or other military activity in the immediate vicinity at the time of the attack.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
A part of this is about expectations.
We expect Hamas and terrorists and to some extent all Palestinians to act like religious fanatics and barbarians. We assume the worst from them and when they show even the slightest compassion and civilized behavior we are impressed with their progress.
We expect the Israeli people and military to act like compassionate secular civilized people. We assume the best from them, and when they show the slightest failure of that, when even a few show the slightest barbaric, blood thirsty, or xenophobic behavior, when the racist minority or corrupt politicians show up on the news we are shocked at how far they have fallen.
When our heroes don't behave at all times at the most heroic, we cry over their fall. When our villains don't behave at all times at their most villainous, we embrace them for their improvement.
We want Israel to be the hero, and Hamas to be the villain. We know the villain will act villainous. We know that Hamas will act with terror and violence and total lack of compassion. We are just saddened and shocked that Israel is less the hero than we thought.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
There isn't a good reason to 'let' Israel crush Hamas, it just perpetuates the violence, some other group will take their place or Israel will designate such a group as the new villains and the Forever-War continues.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
Yeah this is just part of a deliberate effort to force them to leave and more to Jordan or something.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Darth Mauve, I don't think that is an accurate picture of my expectations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not sure that's fair. Famine in Africa is a decades-old talked about problem.
The ISIS conflict is weeks old. The Syria conflict has been going on for a few weeks, and unlike Africa, both have direct and indirect importance to our national security. Not exactly part-for-the course.
The syria conflict has been going on for 'a few weeks' .. ?
I think he meant, "years."
Yes thank you.
That's what I meant
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Over 700 people have died in Gaza as of this writing. Muslims have woken up around the world. But is it really because of the numbers?
Bashar al-Assad has killed over 180,000 Syrians, mostly Muslim, in two years -- more than the number killed in Palestine in two decades. Thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Syria have been killed by ISIS in the last two months. Tens of thousands have been killed by the Taliban. Half a million black Muslims were killed by Arab Muslims in Sudan. The list goes on.
But Gaza makes Muslims around the world, both Sunni and Shia, speak up in a way they never do otherwise. Up-to-date death counts and horrific pictures of the mangled corpses of Gazan children flood their social media timelines every day. If it was just about the numbers, wouldn't the other conflicts take precedence? What is it about then?
If I were Assad or ISIS right now, I'd be thanking God I'm not Jewish.
Amazingly, many of the graphic images of dead children attributed to Israeli bombardment that are circulating online are from Syria, based on a BBC report. Many of the pictures you're seeing are of children killed by Assad, who is supported by Iran, which also funds Hezbollah and Hamas. What could be more exploitative of dead children than attributing the pictures of innocents killed by your own supporters to your enemy simply because you weren't paying enough attention when your own were killing your own?
This doesn't, by any means, excuse the recklessness, negligence, and sometimes outright cruelty of Israeli forces. But it clearly points to the likelihood that the Muslim world's opposition to Israel isn't just about the number of dead.
Here is a question for those who grew up in the Middle East and other Muslim-majority countries like I did: if Israel withdrew from the occupied territories tomorrow, all in one go -- and went back to the 1967 borders -- and gave the Palestinians East Jerusalem -- do you honestly think Hamas wouldn't find something else to pick a fight about? Do you honestly think that this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are Jews? Do you recall what you watched and heard on public TV growing up in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt?
Yes, there's an unfair and illegal occupation there, and yes, it's a human rights disaster. But it is also true that much of the other side is deeply driven by anti-Semitism. Anyone who has lived in the Arab/Muslim world for more than a few years knows that. It isn't always a clean, one-or-the-other blame split in these situations like your Chomskys and Greenwalds would have you believe. It's both.
-Ali A Rizvi
I'm curious if anyone has any other explanation other than anti-Semitism of why the Gaza conflict draws so much more attention and criticism than Syria and other mentioned human rights disasters.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Gaal, obviously anti-Semitism is a part of it. Aside from the rather long standing problem the other two major monotheisms have had with Judaism for centuries and almost even millennia, you would expect religious bigotry to eventually take a serious role in a conflict such as that over time anyway. One that was so prolonged.
That said, I can think of a half dozen other significant reasons why Gaza in particular and Israel and Palestine in general draw more ink than Syria here in the US. It's been going on a lot longer. The US has much closer relations with Israel than Syria. The existence of Israel in its modern incarnation is tied to the Holocaust, which is something that rather comes up from time to time in Western consciousness. More people have ever even *heard* of the many locations of conflict among Israel and Palestine. Israel is tied in serious, fundamental ways to Christianity, the largest religion in the United States (though obviously that's a very fragmented group). Israel is also very important to a significantly powerful, very politically active group of voters in the United States-evangelical Christians.
All of those seem like pretty plausible reasons to me why Israel and Palestine would get more ink than Syria. Not that those are good reasons considering the scope and catastrophe of Syria, but we're talking about why people are more interested not whether they should be. Toss in the very convenient use repressive regimes throughout the region have made of Israel as a scapegoat and distraction-and of course you don't need anti-Semitism for repressive, autocratic and otherwise tyrannical regimes to make use of distraction and scapegoating.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I'm curious if anyone has any other explanation other than anti-Semitism of why the Gaza conflict draws so much more attention and criticism than Syria and other mentioned human rights disasters.
Well, for one thing, it's been going on for over 80 years now. The Assad/Isis stuff is new.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There are a couple questions brought up by that piece, if we accept for the sake of argument that the Gaza conflict draws a lot more attention and criticism than other similar situations (I'm not sure it does, when you throw uninterested countries into the mix, but whatever) then that still brings up a few questions:
1) Is it that the Syria/Iraq situations aren't publicised enough or is it that the Gaza situation is publicised too much? I'd think the former is actually the case which leads to ...
2) Should the rest of the world, particularly that which isn't Muslim, Jewish, or Christian really pull back on criticism of the Gaza situation simply out of a desire to "balance" the Muslim world which is conspicuously silent elsewhere? I'm going to say no.
3) As a follow-up to 1), you have two situations one that might be publicised too much and one that might be publicised too little. Another way to look at the situation is to see how it would really stack up the heat that other occupying powers would take if they were conspicuously bombing occupied civilians with their military. Like what if China was bombing Muslims in Xinjiang with airstrikes? What if Great Britain airstriked Irish civilians in northern Ireland back during the troubles? The bad press would be the same, if not much much worse. So Israel's bad press is actually pretty much what should be expected, in fact they're probably getting off lightly.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
He was talking about how the muslim world reacts to the situation, and reports about it. Not about how USA, or the rest of the world, reports about it.
As for it being an old conflict, news in general have a HEAVY bias to report about new things, instead of things that have been going on for 80 years.
But anyway, the whole point was that why the Muslim world is concentrated on reporting and commenting on Gaza conflict, while often being much more indifferent towards much greater tragedies that concern muslims.
It's a very valid question.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I answered the broader questions that the piece naturally leads to given that a) there are basically few or no Muslims on Hatrack b) we're not particularly avid consumers of media created for Muslims.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Gaal, obviously anti-Semitism is a part of it. Aside from the rather long standing problem the other two major monotheisms have had with Judaism for centuries and almost even millennia, you would expect religious bigotry to eventually take a serious role in a conflict such as that over time anyway. One that was so prolonged.
That said, I can think of a half dozen other significant reasons why Gaza in particular and Israel and Palestine in general draw more ink than Syria here in the US. It's been going on a lot longer. The US has much closer relations with Israel than Syria. The existence of Israel in its modern incarnation is tied to the Holocaust, which is something that rather comes up from time to time in Western consciousness. More people have ever even *heard* of the many locations of conflict among Israel and Palestine. Israel is tied in serious, fundamental ways to Christianity, the largest religion in the United States (though obviously that's a very fragmented group). Israel is also very important to a significantly powerful, very politically active group of voters in the United States-evangelical Christians.
All of those seem like pretty plausible reasons to me why Israel and Palestine would get more ink than Syria. Not that those are good reasons considering the scope and catastrophe of Syria, but we're talking about why people are more interested not whether they should be. Toss in the very convenient use repressive regimes throughout the region have made of Israel as a scapegoat and distraction-and of course you don't need anti-Semitism for repressive, autocratic and otherwise tyrannical regimes to make use of distraction and scapegoating.
The reasons listed in your second paragraph seem to deal with supporters of Israel. What about the criticism? Why are there so many non-Muslims with no affiliation to the Palestinians or Israel that are more interested in demonizing Israel than Syria or other human rights violators?
quote: Well, for one thing, it's been going on for over 80 years now. The Assad/Isis stuff is new.
That seems like an argument for why it should receive less publicity. You won't see a famine in Africa all over the news because everyone already knows that food shortages are a problem there. IMO, people want to talk about what's new.
quote: Like what if China was bombing Muslims in Xinjiang with airstrikes? What if Great Britain airstriked Irish civilians in northern Ireland back during the troubles? The bad press would be the same, if not much much worse. So Israel's bad press is actually pretty much what should be expected, in fact they're probably getting off lightly.
Are you saying those hypothetical scenarios would be similar to what Israel is doing?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yup, examples of occupying powers dealing with the eternal question of how to manage occupied territory while dealing with terrorism.
I tried to pick civilian death tolls that are somewhere in the same ballpark, but its difficult when trying to pick examples that many of us are familiar with. Great Britain was facing death tolls of roughly 200 per year in the 70s, while China is dealing with a civilian death toll of roughly 120 so far this year. It is my understanding that Israel is dealing with a death toll of roughly 70.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: The reasons listed in your second paragraph seem to deal with supporters of Israel. What about the criticism? Why are there so many non-Muslims with no affiliation to the Palestinians or Israel that are more interested in demonizing Israel than Syria or other human rights violators?
I would say a large part of it is that there are significant political forces in the US who support Israel, whereas support for Syria is not really a controversial issue in the US. No one really supports Syria.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: The reasons listed in your second paragraph seem to deal with supporters of Israel. What about the criticism? Why are there so many non-Muslims with no affiliation to the Palestinians or Israel that are more interested in demonizing Israel than Syria or other human rights violators?
I would say a large part of it is that there are significant political forces in the US who support Israel, whereas support for Syria is not really a controversial issue in the US. No one really supports Syria.
Yeah, I think it's mostly that.
It's kind of a twofold issue really.
1. Americans, anyway, are more involved that most any other nation since we're supporting Israel. If we're going to send the weapons over there that are doing most of the damage and we're going to hand over a few billion dollars then they deserve a heck of a lot of scrutiny in how they're using that stuff. And if we don't like how they're using it, we'd better speak up if we'd like to see it change.
2. Israel is held to a higher standard than Syria, and it's perfectly fair to do so. They're a self-styled land of democracy, western liberal morality and freedom, so they get held to that. Assad, on the other hand, is a brutal dictator waging a civil war. You expect terrible people to do terrible things, so when they do them, it's not that you approve, it's just that you expected it, so the level of surprise and outrage isn't as high. But when someone who proclaims to be better than that does those things, someone you support, it's natural to be angrier about it and to take them to task for it.
"At least I'm better than Syria" is a pretty low bar to hit.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Yup, examples of occupying powers dealing with the eternal question of how to manage occupied territory while dealing with terrorism.
I tried to pick civilian death tolls that are somewhere in the same ballpark, but its difficult when trying to pick examples that many of us are familiar with. Great Britain was facing death tolls of roughly 200 per year in the 70s, while China is dealing with a civilian death toll of roughly 120 so far this year. It is my understanding that Israel is dealing with a death toll of roughly 70.
Neither Great Britain nor China were dealing with terrorist organizations that were committed to the absolute destruction of their country and the death of all their civilians. The fact that Hamas isn't successfully killing more civilians, while trying to, doesn't make it comparable to death tolls by Muslims in Xinjiang or the IRA. Great Britain airstriking Irish civilians in Northern Ireland would not be in self-defense the way Israel striking Gaza is.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: The reasons listed in your second paragraph seem to deal with supporters of Israel. What about the criticism? Why are there so many non-Muslims with no affiliation to the Palestinians or Israel that are more interested in demonizing Israel than Syria or other human rights violators?
I would say a large part of it is that there are significant political forces in the US who support Israel, whereas support for Syria is not really a controversial issue in the US. No one really supports Syria.
Yeah, I think it's mostly that.
It's kind of a twofold issue really.
1. Americans, anyway, are more involved that most any other nation since we're supporting Israel. If we're going to send the weapons over there that are doing most of the damage and we're going to hand over a few billion dollars then they deserve a heck of a lot of scrutiny in how they're using that stuff. And if we don't like how they're using it, we'd better speak up if we'd like to see it change.
2. Israel is held to a higher standard than Syria, and it's perfectly fair to do so. They're a self-styled land of democracy, western liberal morality and freedom, so they get held to that. Assad, on the other hand, is a brutal dictator waging a civil war. You expect terrible people to do terrible things, so when they do them, it's not that you approve, it's just that you expected it, so the level of surprise and outrage isn't as high. But when someone who proclaims to be better than that does those things, someone you support, it's natural to be angrier about it and to take them to task for it.
"At least I'm better than Syria" is a pretty low bar to hit.
Good points.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would like to repeat, because this is very much so true about all of this and understanding the patterns of attention and priority:
quote:It's the same as famine in africa: something so unwaveringly par-for-the-course that we don't even consider it news anymore. just background noise we like to tune out.
to note, this exact same phenomenon is going on right now about Ebola, a disease that took multiple decades to kill as many people as malaria will kill in two days.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I would like to repeat, because this is very much so true about all of this and understanding the patterns of attention and priority:
quote:It's the same as famine in africa: something so unwaveringly par-for-the-course that we don't even consider it news anymore. just background noise we like to tune out.
to note, this exact same phenomenon is going on right now about Ebola, a disease that took multiple decades to kill as many people as malaria will kill in two days.
Do what we did and DDT the hell out of the place until the mosquitoes carrying the disease are all wiped out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
besides, a few extra arms never hurt nobody's kid
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
DDT doesn't do that yo. It has been moderately correlated with cancer and diabetes, but nobody has really been able to establish causation. It does seriously affect the ability of birds to lay hard shells, which was probably why really we stopped using it because the bald eagle was going to go extinct and it sure looked bad that industry was killing patriotism's icon.
The WHO still uses DDT for vector control in countries suffering from malaria, but really in many places the only reason malaria is still found there is because DDT was pulled before finishing it's work and mosquitoes subsequently developed resistance.
But it's pretty compelling that for example in Sri Lanka you had over a million cases a year, which then dropped to 18. For a disease that kills as much as malaria does, you'd need some pretty high carcinogenic correlation to justify not using it.
This post has been brought to you by our new partners at Dow Chemical.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Neither Great Britain nor China were dealing with terrorist organizations that were committed to the absolute destruction of their country and the death of all their civilians.
I'm committed to winning the lottery. You should ship my neighbour a Lamborghini.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: DDT doesn't do that yo. It has been moderately correlated with cancer and diabetes, but nobody has really been able to establish causation. It does seriously affect the ability of birds to lay hard shells, which was probably why really we stopped using it because the bald eagle was going to go extinct and it sure looked bad that industry was killing patriotism's icon.
The WHO still uses DDT for vector control in countries suffering from malaria, but really in many places the only reason malaria is still found there is because DDT was pulled before finishing it's work and mosquitoes subsequently developed resistance.
But it's pretty compelling that for example in Sri Lanka you had over a million cases a year, which then dropped to 18. For a disease that kills as much as malaria does, you'd need some pretty high carcinogenic correlation to justify not using it.
This post has been brought to you by our new partners at Dow Chemical.
My guess is that as chikungunya becomes more prevalent in the American South, most people will get over their distaste for DDT and it'll become as regular as flouride in water.
Either that or they'll do what Brazil is doing and release genetically modified mosquitoes into the wild that only produce male offspring, so they all die off.
There are some nasty diseases headed our way soon, and we haven't cared about them because they've been half a world away. Not so much, now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I would like to repeat, because this is very much so true about all of this and understanding the patterns of attention and priority:
quote:It's the same as famine in africa: something so unwaveringly par-for-the-course that we don't even consider it news anymore. just background noise we like to tune out.
to note, this exact same phenomenon is going on right now about Ebola, a disease that took multiple decades to kill as many people as malaria will kill in two days.
Two ways to get rid of Ebolas:
1. Develop a vaccine or cure. We have a preventive measure, I have several friends who've been in Africa for the Peace Corps and they've been taking it for years (despite the possibility of some rather bad side effects). The vaccine is in trials now and shows a lot of promise, after decades of research. Malaria isn't exactly a snap to solve. We've spent billions trying to figure it out.
2. Do what we did in the American South. Build a huge network of drainage ditches and tunnels, re-engineer the entire landscape to drain bogs, swamps and low lying areas to get rid of standing water, then carpet bomb it all with DDT.
It's not like we've been doing nothing, but really, option two simply isn't going to happen. And Option One takes a really long time.
Ebola is terrifying because the mortality rate is considerably higher than malaria's is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm confused as to why we would want to drain swamps for Ebola? It's not even worth the effort.
Ebola is really seriously not a threat for any even moderately developed nation. The fear factor aside, anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm confused as to why we would want to drain swamps for Ebola? It's not even worth the effort.
Ebola is really seriously not a threat for any even moderately developed nation. The fear factor aside, anyway.
Well you can wipe out malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and a handful of other diseases that even if they weren't killing hundreds of thousands of people still interrupt and waylay people's lives. When you're struggling in poverty, you don't have a week to lay in bed with fever/chills.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Seems like the kinda thing that would backfire:
quote: In the United States, filling or draining swamps was an accepted practice. Almost half of U.S. wetlands were destroyed before environmental protections were enacted during the 1970s. Most of the Everglades have been reclaimed as agricultural land, mostly sugar plantations. Draining swampland also created valuable real estate in the San Francisco Bay Area in California.
Federal and state authorities drained much of the wetlands at the delta of the Mississippi River in Louisiana as part of a massive system of river management. When Hurricane Katrina blew in from the Gulf of Mexico in 2005, the spongy swamp that traditionally protected the city of New Orleans from destructive weather patterns was diminished. The city was hit full force with a Category 3 hurricane.
Eradicating swampland also threatens economic activity. Two-thirds of the fish and shellfish that are commercially harvested worldwide are linked with wetlands. From Brazils varzeas, or freshwater swamps surrounding the Amazon River, to saltwater swamps near the Florida Keys, commercially valuable fish species that depend on wetlands are threatened with extinction.
In the early 1970s, governments began enacting laws recognizing the enormous value of swamps and other wetlands. In some parts of the United States, it is now against the law to alter or destroy swamps. Through management plans and stricter laws, people are trying to protect remaining swamps and to re-create them in areas where they have been destroyed.
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/swamp/?ar_a=1
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm confused as to why we would want to drain swamps for Ebola? It's not even worth the effort.
Ebola is really seriously not a threat for any even moderately developed nation. The fear factor aside, anyway.
My bad I meant malaria not Ebola for my two scenarios.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I was wondering, since Ebola isn't transmitted by mosquitos.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: For a disease that kills as much as malaria does, you'd need some pretty high carcinogenic correlation to justify not using it.
What disease are you referring to that kills as much as malaria?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Yup, examples of occupying powers dealing with the eternal question of how to manage occupied territory while dealing with terrorism.
I tried to pick civilian death tolls that are somewhere in the same ballpark, but its difficult when trying to pick examples that many of us are familiar with. Great Britain was facing death tolls of roughly 200 per year in the 70s, while China is dealing with a civilian death toll of roughly 120 so far this year. It is my understanding that Israel is dealing with a death toll of roughly 70.
Neither Great Britain nor China were dealing with terrorist organizations that were committed to the absolute destruction of their country and the death of all their civilians. The fact that Hamas isn't successfully killing more civilians, while trying to, doesn't make it comparable to death tolls by Muslims in Xinjiang or the IRA. Great Britain airstriking Irish civilians in Northern Ireland would not be in self-defense the way Israel striking Gaza is.
This seems strange to me. Surely there is *some* upper limit to the number of civilians one can ethically kill in the pursuit of enemy soldiers, in response to deliberate killing of your civilians by those soldiers?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote: For a disease that kills as much as malaria does, you'd need some pretty high carcinogenic correlation to justify not using it.
What disease are you referring to that kills as much as malaria?
You're parsing the sentence wrong.
"For a girl who abuses you as much as Jennifer does, you'd need some pretty mind-blowing sex to justify not breaking up with her."
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
The country is developed enough that Ebola just isn't the threat that people think it is. Barring some strange mutation in the virus that makes it airborne, any outbreak would be small.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The media could get people terrified about just about anything.
If they spent a day talking about how you should turn off your taps because you'd be drinking dihydrogen monoxide, people would freak out and buy bottled water.
Though my favorite pop culture example is the episode of Avatar the Last Airbender when Sokka invents Pentapox as a faux plague.
"Pentapox...yeah I've heard of that, didn't your brother have Pentapox?"
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote: For a disease that kills as much as malaria does, you'd need some pretty high carcinogenic correlation to justify not using it.
What disease are you referring to that kills as much as malaria?
You're parsing the sentence wrong.
"For a girl who abuses you as much as Jennifer does, you'd need some pretty mind-blowing sex to justify not breaking up with her."
Yeah, that seems obvious in retrospect.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Yup, examples of occupying powers dealing with the eternal question of how to manage occupied territory while dealing with terrorism.
I tried to pick civilian death tolls that are somewhere in the same ballpark, but its difficult when trying to pick examples that many of us are familiar with. Great Britain was facing death tolls of roughly 200 per year in the 70s, while China is dealing with a civilian death toll of roughly 120 so far this year. It is my understanding that Israel is dealing with a death toll of roughly 70.
Neither Great Britain nor China were dealing with terrorist organizations that were committed to the absolute destruction of their country and the death of all their civilians. The fact that Hamas isn't successfully killing more civilians, while trying to, doesn't make it comparable to death tolls by Muslims in Xinjiang or the IRA. Great Britain airstriking Irish civilians in Northern Ireland would not be in self-defense the way Israel striking Gaza is.
This seems strange to me. Surely there is *some* upper limit to the number of civilians one can ethically kill in the pursuit of enemy soldiers, in response to deliberate killing of your civilians by those soldiers?
I didn't mean that there isn't a limit on how many civilians can be ethically killed in defense. I meant that the realistic threat an enemy poses to the survival of your nation should dictate how severe of a reaction is needed to deal with the threat.
Mucus was saying that Israel was getting off lightly in terms of bad press because China or Great Britain would've been more harshly criticized if they airstriked their enemies and I thought this was a poor comparison because neither of those countries faced a threat to their country's survival like Hamas poses.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure if that's really the best argument.
Ignore for a moment that one of Hamas' guiding principles is to destroy Israel and focus on their CAPABILITY.
So a serious question: Is Hamas really a threat to Israel's survival?
My answer is no, they aren't. And given the relatively low impact they've had on Israel during this conflict, I'd argue their response has been wildly disproportionate.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Or maybe Hamas isn't a threat to their survival BECAUSE of Israel's response. You don't think those tunnels were a threat that had to be addressed immediately?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A threat to their SURVIVAL?
One that involved mass shelling and bombing of Gaza?
No, I don't.
Were they a threat that had to be dealt with immediately? Sure.
But destroying the tunnels involved jackhammers and hand placed bombs. None of that killed civilians.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)