Politics and greed bug me. I really like the ideas fugu has in this post and some later ones. And I also like the idea of finding out which responses are actually effective and which are detrimental, and then doing something about it! This goes for other areas of government, also. Good leaders don't go for what just sounds good, they do what actually works, and explain their reasoning and cite the necessary studies. (And they make sure fair and accurate studies are done whenever possible.) And then suck it up if they're voted out because of it. Argh. Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Throwing 'stones' - which can be boulder sized - isn't terrorist activity? Tell that to the Shoham family, whose son Yehuda was murdered two years ago by stone throwers when he was about four months old.
posted
Yes, rocks can be dangerous. But when being thrown, at a great distance, against alert and armored soldiers, I can demonstrate that they are almost completely nonlethal. Its very simple:
Total number of rocks thrown in above situations: huge.
Total number of soldiers killed in such situations: zero.
Israeli response in such situations is with lethal force, which I find deplorable. I completely support tear gassing the protesters and similar tactics, but even the lethality of rubber bullets is far too much, for the simple reason that people die from them regularly. The aim is to stop the loss of life, not cause it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. In situations where rocks endanger life, responding with similar force is acceptable. That's exactly what I've been advocating all along, in which of my statements did you get any other impression?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, it disturbs that you say Isreal's only choices are to give up everything or get used to terrorism. You mean you don't even want to bother with condenming the suicide bombers? That Isreal deserves it?
I don't agree with the tactic, but Israel IS ruling over a large people that it does not represent. They're going to get some sort of rebellion.
And no, it's not giving up everything. Israel just wants Jewish folk to dominate a land that has a whole lot of other peoples in it. They ask for a bit much.
quote:You say they are the only things ISREAL can do. Any suggestions for the Palestinians, or do you assume they incapable of constructive action?
Well, Israel is the one holding the power, so it will be up to Israel to ultimately act in some way to end this - unless the Palestinians just give up all their demands, which they chould do. The Palestinians can choose however they want to try and convince Israel to do so. I think terrorism has proven ineffective, but it could work in the end - I can't predict the Israeli government well enough to know.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What bothers me is the Palestinians lack of commitment to non-violent protest and action.
In the past, when they have called a general strike, that has moved Israel faster than anything else when it came to obtain rights.
Sadly, though, it appears they've abandoned that whole idea in favor of homicide bombings and terror tactics.
Could they not see they had some success with the non-violent civil disobedience? Can't they try the methods of Ghandi; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Stephen Biko and Nelson Mandela?
Edit to add: Violence won't work. How can you scare a nation that was born out of the horrors of the Holocaust? The Jews lost more people an hour to Auschwitz and Dachau than they have lost to terrorist attacks. And now they can, and do, fight back.
posted
Tresopax seems to be suggesting that terrorism is a legitimate form of protest and Fugu likes to claim that people with harmful intentions are actually peaceful just because they can't actually cause harm while also choosing to ignore the fact that rocks can kill just like rubber bullets can kill. Of course, if the Israelis truly intended to use lethal force against the "peaceful" protesters they could just use normal bullets.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
regular bullets are more harmful than "rubber bullets" (which are really just regular bullets with a rubber coating, not actual rubber bullets).
Rubber bullets are more harmful than rocks.
And the amazing thing about non-violent protests are that they work against people of conscience. There was a great story I read once about Ghandi trying the same tactics against Nazis. It was a short story with a sudden ending. For Ghandi.
What we have to ask is not why there aren't more Ghandis, MLKs and Bikos, but what is wrong with the rest of us that there are so few of these people working to change things for the better for all of us.
It is also worth questioning whether a non-violent protest movement would be effective if it didn't offer a peaceful ALTERNATIVE. In other words, if there wasn't a Nation of Islam pushing in the wings, would MLK have been as effective in his non-violent movement?
I'd like to think he would still have succeeded in embarrassing the rest of the nation into making real changes. But maybe not.
If Ghandi's movement hadn't essentially spread to the huge masses of Indian people (thus represeting a large overwhelming force that COULD be unleashed) would he have been successful?
I'm too ignorant of Biko's life to know the real story there. Sorry.
But I have said to my Palestinian friends many times that they need a Ghandi, not an Arafat. I'm not sure they know much about Ghandi, based on their reactions.
I wonder if it is in the people's character to be that patient. I mean, the tit-for-tat among the Arabs and Jews has been going on since recorded history. The bad blood between them is based on thousands of years of documented mutual harms.
I thought of another strategy, though.
Take all the children out of both countries. Raise them in isolation from the fanaticism and animosity. Wait for all the existing adults to die, then repopulate the land with people who know nothing of the past.
Cultural genocide, but lasting peace.
I thought the same ought to be done in Bosnia, et al.
I would volunteer to raise 2 children here in my house if the UN ever decided to implement this idea.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Firstly, Israel has used normal bullets against rock throwing protesters at times. Secondly, just because I can drop an atomic bomb on somebody doesn't mean any lesser response whatsoever is warranted, just as that one could escalate to live ammunition doesn't mean shooting rubber bullets which kill people is ok when there is no reason to believe anyone endangered. Thirdly, you're the one who connected rock throwing with peaceful protests. I'm referring to instances where there wasn't even that when I say peacefully, as I have already explicitly stated. Such as this one:
(I'm not referring to the ones who were taking part in stone throwing, but the ones who weren't, if that wasn't made already clear by implication).
You were the one who thought I meant stone throwing when I said peacefully. I have already explicitly corrected that. You twist my words. Stop doing that.
posted
It's an interesting idea, Bob. If you were in power right now, would you support a proposal to offer safe haven in the US for Palestinian families with children under twelve, and all children under sixteen -- or something along those lines?
I can see some real advantages to that sort of proposal, provided the immigrants get some extensive education in English and job training. Though there may be some danger of trojan-horse terrorists, and that danger's certainly going to by hyped out of all proportion by reactionaries, I think with pre-agreed surveillance of the immigrants for ten years or so, most dangers can be intercepted and prevented.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could they not see they had some success with the non-violent civil disobedience? Can't they try the methods of Ghandi; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Stephen Biko and Nelson Mandela?
Problem is, there's always a bunch of folks who claim that violence is the only practical solution to whatever problem they are facing. They are the Palestinian terrorists, they are al Qaeda, they are the Bush administration, and so on.
quote:Tresopax seems to be suggesting that terrorism is a legitimate form of protest
Legitimate? Depends on what you mean by that. I don't think terrorism is a very legitimate means of protest at all, but I do think it is at least as legitimate than some of the things that we as a nation claim are completely legitimate. I'm confident a very large portion of the population would be all in favor of terrorism if it were, say, Jews blowing themselves in Nazi Germany to protest the genocide there. I know most would be in favor of, say, dropping bombs on Baghdad to promote "shock and awe" (a.k.a. terror) in the population there and help us win a war more easily. I'd rather we all avoid these sort of tactics (and other violence) as much as possible and declare them illegitimate, but as I alluded to above, there are others who believe the ends justify any means, and that such violence is necessary.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, I've been thinking and perhaps you or someone else could explain. If there has been no violence as yet, it's obvious why trying to incite terror with violence is wrong. But if a war is already going on, why is it bad to attempt to scare people into surrendering rather than invading and potentially killing a good many more?
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, that is a really interesting thing to think about... does non-violent protesting work without some threat of violence in the background.
Biko and Mandela always had the threat of the larger black populace and the allies of the African National Congress in the wings. And the sheer masses of the Indian population was a not so subtle threat behind Gandhi.
I think in the Palestinian situation, that threat is definitely there and has been for some time. But, it also comes down to, is the end result of the success a scarier alternative to what the status quo is there. In the Civil Rights movement, the end result was in no way a direct threat to most Americans, so it wasn't a horrifying spectre looming down the road.
In South Africa, for many whites, the end of Aparteid was a horrifying possibility. Especially on a continent known for some terrible "cleansings." The possibility that whites would suffer deadly consequences was there. It succeeded in the end, and much to the better.
In India, Britain was already too stretched in the post war era and it was better to let India go and have an ally Commonwealth than to have to send troops to quell a rebellion. But the non-violent nature of the protests also made it so that sending troops would have been a very bad PR move. Basically, Ghandi caught Britain when it was already over a barrel. A very smart man he was.
Palestine, sheesh, who knows for sure. I do believe, however, that if the current Palestinian leadership was to take control of a fully independent nation, things would be very, very bad.
It is a shame that your suggestion with the children can't happen.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A shame??? It's a horrid solution. It would only work if both sides' children were removed. The adults would have to stay where they are and if they wanted to fight to the death, so be it. We'd let them because it would mean that the place would be empty sooner.
There would be no movement of families. just the children. And I wouldn't move any kids over the age of 8, maybe even 6. The point would be to have kids who wouldn't have learned the prejudices of their parents.
But here's the thing. I think if the UN actually THREATENED a program like this -- the forcible removal of all the young children and no let the people there raise their own kids UNLESS they found a way to make peace, they would make peace.
That's the hope of this idea. That the adults who are of good conscience would realize what is truly at stake and drop their mutual animosity in favor of being allowed to raise their own children.
If I were in charge, I would issue the ultimatum and if the terrorism and provocation didn't stop in 30 days, I'd move in and take all the children by force if necessary.
Chances are, we wouldn't even have to take more than a few hundred before people realized that they didn't want this future for their children or their country. And then they'd hate me more than they hated each other.
And that'd be a refreshing change for them too! Nothing like a common enemy to bring foes to a new level of understanding.
It would take far more guts than I have to actually do this though.
Can you imagine? Who would be willing to go down in history as the person who perpetrated cultural genocide on two of the oldest ethnic groups on the planet simply to stop the warring?
And chances are the rest of the world would rise up in protest and stop you from really doing it before you got the point across that it was mostly a threat to bring them to the bargaining table.
But, to be truthful, I think this is the real ultimate solution to all war. If parties insist on going to war, their children are taken away. That's it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
...but carry it out to its logical conclusion, Bob. The Republicans were war-mongers less than a year ago -- should their children be taken away?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there has been no violence as yet, it's obvious why trying to incite terror with violence is wrong. But if a war is already going on, why is it bad to attempt to scare people into surrendering rather than invading and potentially killing a good many more?
I'm not sure I'm the best person to answer that, because I think that such an attempt might not be all that bad in that circumstance. You should ask one of those who believe terrorism is necessarily always wrong. One possible answer, though, is to claim that it is simply wrong to threaten civilians.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see a slight, sad irony, yes, that people are so willing to compromise the same values they are claiming to uphold in the same voice.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, I don't see the parallel to gay adoptive parents. The fact the state of Florida is controlled by people who want to pander to the Religious conservatives is far afield from a world-wide revulsion aimed at the intractable violence of the Israel/Palestine situation.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sad thing is Bob, is that there are many parallel situations to Israel and Palestine. All over the world.
And if you think back, we essentially did the same thing to the Native Americans here in the U.S.A. when we removed their children from their parents and homes.
posted
Well, not quite. We more "slaughtered them all" than "removed children from their homes to be raised elsewhere to end the war between two cultures."
posted
Lalo, while there was a good deal of slaughtering, there were in fact quite a few reservations on which the remaining children were removed from their parents to be taught white culture, and I imagine that is what Shan's referring to. It just happened later.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the tribes were practically annihilated. We also got them from the other end by removing their children and beating them for speaking their own language and practicing their cultural/religious beliefs. Unfortuantely, this continues even today.
I met a mid-20's woman at a conference last year who clearly remembers her grandmother being hauled off to jail for performing a particular tribal dance. Who sees families torn apart on a regular basis. Who is aghast at the organized crime now running the tribal governments.
Yes, tribes were killed off through war, famine and illness. But I think the resounding deathblow in many ways came from the forcible removal of children from their cultural roots and familial ties.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironic, fugu, as in, 'A suicide bomber blew himself up in a Jerusalem market this morning, killing seventeen people and injuring thirty.'
Who is it that has no moral compunctions against killing non-combatants, again?
:shrug:
Bob, the situations are comparable. The parents in FL were feasibly subjecting children to a lifestyle that the government considered ideologically/psychologically detrimental. The theorhetical parents in Israel/Palestine subject their children to an ideology you think is detrimental.
Where does one stop? Will my children be taken away from me because I insist on teaching them what is considered by many to be homophobia? Or male chauvinism?
A modest proposal, but your tongue was not in cheek.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know what you intended Scott R. I intended to point out how willing people are to support Israeli tactics which kill (far more) Palestinian civilians in the name of peace than the Palestinians who kill in the name of war. I also consider it ironic, given the number of civilians Israel has killed, that you do not mention them. Both deserve to be in the same breath. I want the dying to stop, not one side's dying to stop as all to often seems to be the concern.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you count stone throwing Palestinians among the citizenry?
Equatable with Israeli market-goers, perhaps? Party-goers? Bus riders?
Israel has killed civilians, of that I have no doubt. But Palestinians have made an art imitated the world over of the practice.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The palestinians are hardly very big offenders on that score, actually. You want experts, take a look at India and Pakistan. There are 65,000 people dead in Kashmir because of them. Palestinians are small change. And as the numbers show, not very effective, even compared to Israel.
I do count stone throwers among the citizenry, at least those who throw stones at soldiers. Lets say you lived in Palestine, and a stray missile shot had killed your sister, or your cousin, or your child. Or perhaps they were bulldozed in a demolition. Or perhaps a rubber bullet when they were in one of the non-stone throwing demonstrations. Are you telling me you would not be out there throwing stones at the soldiers who do this?
Stone throwing at soldiers is an expression of frustration. Certainly, they wouldn't mind killing one, but its not going to happen, and they know it, because it has never happened. The ones who are waging war are not the ones throwing stones at soldiers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where does one stop? Will my children be taken away from me because I insist on teaching them what is considered by many to be homophobia? Or male chauvinism?
If you're serious, yes I would absolutely love to see the state remove your children from your household before you poison their minds with that crap.
quote: A modest proposal, but your tongue was not in cheek.
I think the point was that if you gave people a choice between making peace and losing their children, they'd probably make peace. But if they still refused to, then they probably ought to lose their kids. It's a question of whether the world should just stand by and allow these situations to fester or should we do something about it. Given that we seem to want to do something about it, shouldn't we do something effective and lasting?
Do you have a solution, other than genocide, that would be as effective and last as long, and would have as certain an outcome?
But I will say it again, I'm not seriously proposing this. Tongue was firmly planted in cheek...just not yours.
quote:Palestinians have made an art imitated the world over of the practice
Palestinians invented suicide bombing? Oh wait, no, they just turned it into an art form.
Um...was that just hyperbole or do you really think that?
Basically, terrorism is as old as human warfare. Suicide missions are also as old as human warfare.
The shocking things about it are: 1) There seems to be an inexhaustable supply of people willing to die to do this. 2) They almost exclusively target civilians 3) They plan secondary explosions that kill the rescuers
Frankly, as much as I'd like to say that these people are a small minority of the Palestinians, the fact there are so many disaffected youth in the Palestinian territories means that this kind of thing is going to continue.
I do believe that the solution is to find a way to stop the poisoning of young minds. How we do that is for better and more humane people than me to decide. My imagined solutions always seem too horrible to contemplate. I would not be above jailing clerics or even killing them if they couldn't be silenced effectively -- assuming we could identify the clerics who are spreading this doctrine of dying for the cause. I would not be above taking children away from families that support or engage in the violence. I would do it on both sides though. And I would make sure that the country was empty of the hate mongers before I sent the next generation back in to set it all to right.
I'd prefer a diplomatic solution, but I'm pretty impatient when it comes to diplomacy. I just don't think we should have to wait thousands of years for first cousins (so to speak) to figure out how to live together peacefully.
And I truthfully would ban any religion (or religious sect) that preached a message of violence. I wouldn't have any heartburn over the deaths of the people preaching this either. I'd lose very little sleep over it. None, in fact.
And if the government leaders couldn't figure it out, I'd have them removed from office too. And if they didn't go quietly, they'd be next on the list for incarceration or elimination.
But the problem is that this kind of thing has been tried too. And what it gets you is just suppressed hatred. As soon as the enforced peace is removed (like when the Soviet Union fell), all the old animosities come back alive as if no-one had learned anything.
So, I truly believe that you have to raise the next generation away from all of it, and let the existing people die off.
quote: Bob Scopatz: If you're serious, yes I would absolutely love to see the state remove your children from your household before you poison their minds with that crap.
Hunh. This isn't what I expected you to say at all. I'm not sure how to answer you, Bob.
I hope this is one of those things you just posted off the cuff-- because it looks an awful lot like you want to encourage thought-policing.
And I am serious about teaching my children that homosexuality is a sin. And teaching my sons to serve God and man through the priesthood.
quote: Do you have a solution, other than genocide, that would be as effective and last as long, and would have as certain an outcome?
Yes-- supplying Palestinians with as much aid as we bestow on Israel, contingent on their willingness and capacity to halt terrorism.
quote:Tongue was firmly planted in cheek...just not yours.
:snort: Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of the phrase 'tongue-in-cheek.' See, I had THOUGHT that it meant sarcastic or ironic. Now I have another definition. One that turns it completely around.
For example, you imply that this is tongue in cheek:
quote: But here's the thing. I think if the UN actually THREATENED a program like this -- the forcible removal of all the young children and no let the people there raise their own kids UNLESS they found a way to make peace, they would make peace.
That's the hope of this idea. That the adults who are of good conscience would realize what is truly at stake and drop their mutual animosity in favor of being allowed to raise their own children.
If I were in charge, I would issue the ultimatum and if the terrorism and provocation didn't stop in 30 days, I'd move in and take all the children by force if necessary.
Chances are, we wouldn't even have to take more than a few hundred before people realized that they didn't want this future for their children or their country. And then they'd hate me more than they hated each other.
I'm going to need to get used to this new definition of tongue in cheek. But rest assured, I'll get the hang of it.
And then I'll be just like Bob-- which is apparently what he wants for me and my children anyway.
Won't he be happy?
:snort again:
quote: Lets say you lived in Palestine, and a stray missile shot had killed your sister, or your cousin, or your child. Or perhaps they were bulldozed in a demolition. Or perhaps a rubber bullet when they were in one of the non-stone throwing demonstrations. Are you telling me you would not be out there throwing stones at the soldiers who do this?
No. I'd be using my political power (BEHOLD! THE MIGHTY POWER OF SCOTT R) to remove Arafat and his profiteering cronies from power, and put in place someone who would, when Israel offers to give back the great majority of the occupied lands, accept it.
Throwing stones at soldiers is stupid, pointless, and gets you killed.
Not that taking on Arafat would be any LESS dangerous. . .
quote:Palestinians invented suicide bombing? Oh wait, no, they just turned it into an art form.
Um...was that just hyperbole or do you really think that?
Hyperbole, and I apologize. The demagogue in me is bellowing for food.
quote:So, I truly believe that you have to raise the next generation away from all of it, and let the existing people die off.
That's about it.
So. . . what? NOW you're NOT speaking tongue in cheek?
ScottR, just raise your children to be good people -- a force for good. And do the best you possibly can raising them. If you do that, I'm sure I'll admire you and never have any complaints.
As for the rest, I do despair. I think that the prejudices of the past have poisoned the minds of many in Palestine and Israel. And because of that, I don't think they can achieve peace in their lifetimes. And they are teaching their children the same things they already "know" to be true, so they can't see a different and better way.
It's like if your attitude about homosexuality (it being a sin) took a violent turn, and you taught that to your sons. I mean, I can live with the thought that you might teach your sons something I disagree with as a principle. But if you teach them to act out on that belief and actually harm another human being, then you've gone too far, IMHO.
So, while most of what I've been posting about taking away people's children is just for the shock value, I would support the idea of taking away children from those who promote and engage in violence. Especially those who promote violence on religious grounds and aimed at innocent people who have not harmed anyone else.
Anyway, I wouldn't take away someone's children just for an attitude. But if the kids turn violent because of what they are taught? Sure. Maybe we could fix them -- undo the damage their parents have done before it's too late.
Which lesson do you consider more important to teach your sons: that they know how to recognize sin or that they know not to judge other people? And how do you make sure they get the difference?
You don't really have to answer that. It's the sort of thing that would keep me awake at night if I were raising children.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it hard to believe you would be working against Arafat, actually, as your primary news sources are partisan and one side is telling you he is corrupt (the same side, as far as you can tell, which has killed your relatives) while the other side is telling you he is not (the side which is not killing your relatives). I rather suspect that, while you might be suspicious of Arafat, you would hate the Israeli military.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I simply don't think you are being realistic about the situation. Case in point: are you asserting you are far more reasonable and intelligent than most Palestinians? The simple proof that a lot of reasonable people would behave this way is that a lot of presumably pretty reasonable people are behaving this way. Lets make the a new example. Say you're in the US, and I walk into your house and shoot your wife, then when you come after me I assert I had good intelligence your wife was out to kill me and produce a well documented paper trail. Assuming through some odd cirumstance I was able to force you to read this paper trail, and even assuming that you are persuaded by it that your wife was out to kill me (a doubtful assumption), I'm betting you'd still do everything you could to get me the maximum punishment possible.
I trust you see the rough parallels?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then do you understand why the international community finds my personal reasons for offing you abhorrent, and unsupportable?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now lets assume that before you could kill me, I was taken into custody. Or, say, you just couldn't get close to me because I was sitting in body armor behind some sandbags with a machine gun, and you didn't have any guns. And perhaps you decide to throw a rock at me from a distance -- it doesn't hit me, or if it does, it does negligible damage.
Does the international community condemn you then?
Now say, I shoot a lot of rubber bullets at you (perhaps with my machine gun). Say one of them kills you.
Should I be condemned then?
I'm not drawing an analogy between you and the suicide bombers, scott. I've been drawing an analogy between you and the ones throwing stones at Israeli soldiers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone throwing is never supported by lawful communities, fugu.
I don't exactly support the Israeli penchant for plugging teenagers with rocks-- then again, I don't face a populace that hates me, or that wants to blow me to smithereens every day either.
Empathy works both ways, you know. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, which is what I feel so many people forget, and one purpose of my example.
And stone throwing, while not supported typically, is frequently not condemned. I predict were you to throw a stone from a large distance at a man who had killed your wife (we are assuming the man is in custody) you would be applauded, though of course I cannot be sure.
Moreso, my example was intended to show the humanity of the palestinians throwing stones at Israeli soldiers, something at least one person in this thread seems to reject.
My example was also to demonstrate why those throwing stones at Isreali soldiers were among the citizenry, which at least one person on this thread has specifically denied.
posted
Bob, I read that same short story involving Ghandi and the Nazis. Two things: First, a story can be made any which way and that doesn't mean that it would be true. Second, you're implying the Israelis don't have a conscience. When I say the Israelis use rubber bullets instead of normal bullets I say it because they could use more force but they try to limit the damage. Of course Palestinians are going to die while Israelis are not because the whole point in using more effective weapons is to prevent the inneffective ones from becoming effective. Therefore, stop the attackers before their attacks become truly dangerous.
In Fugu's original article:
quote: Palestinian gunmen opened fire from nearby buildings, drawing Israeli heavy machine-gun fire, witnesses said.
Gunmen don't throw rocks. Furthermore, you said that Israeli soldiers shot protesters. I said they didn't shoot peaceful protesters. You said there were examples where soldiers shot people just throwing rocks and destroying a wall. At that point you imply that rock throwing and the destruction of property is peaceful. I have always maintained that those activities are violent. Finally, bystanders will always get hurt shooting starts around them. You can't expect soldiers to not defend themselves.
quote: I do count stone throwers among the citizenry, at least those who throw stones at soldiers.
So I guess soldiers aren't human beings too? I guess you're the kind of person who cheers when American soldiers are blown up by terrorists in Iraq. Because after all its just "an expression of frustration". Do you realize that virtually all Israeli citizens are, have been, or will be soldiers? Women too.
posted
Fugu, I am not sure that the stone throwers can be considered as being among the citizenry. It is obvious (to me, at least) that the stone throwing is not a part of any type of protest-- in other words, it is not a protected action. Throwing a stone at another living being (keep in mind the stones are not thrown with ones arm, often-- but thrown from a sling) is an act of agression. It has no purpose other than harm.
I think you swing too much the other way-- and sympathy only goes so far.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to bother speaking with NFL anymore. I have tried to converse civilly with him and he has made no similar effort, instead desiring to unleash his vitriol hatefully.
And I repeat, if those Palestinians throwing stones at soldiers were out to harm people, they'd choose something else to do. They can see with their own eyes that throwing stones a) does not harm the soldiers and b) results in tear gas or even death for them. I don't see what they can be other than an expression of frustration. And in a place where everyone has slings, yes, I expect them to be thrown by sling.
Now, throwing stones against civilians I consider just as bad as shooting civilians, and consider shooting at those engaging in it fully justified.
Could you be specific which actions I advocate you consider swinging too far the other way, Scott?
Okay. . . I'm at a loss again, which is twice in a thread. New record for me.
Fugu, how do you justify the stance that the rock throwers aren't throwing rocks to hurt people? Have you spoken with the throwers and asked them, "Are you trying to hurt people? Or standardize a new form of peaceful protest?"
Your argument is just. . .illogical.
EDIT: People who are frustrated but peaceful don't throw rocks. They pass out flyers. They shout. They make signs. All of which are open to Palestinians.
[ January 04, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
