posted
Pel: because they gave the nobel prize to Yassir Arafat, the man who stole billions in aid money that was destined for his people. And that's on top of his decades of terrorism.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No longer true? Would you care to point to a decent-sized military action (we'll just have to eyeball this, of course) that has involved no civilian deaths? I'm not talking about isolated battles, but entire campaigns or operations.
As for the British having a better track record in Northern Ireland, or the Italians a better one in Sicily, I merely point you at your own post where you said "Israel attacks, and kills, those that it knows are not terrorists, so do the Islamic militants. That is all that matters." Britain and Italy have both killed civilians in those regions, so according to you "That is all that matters." Will you repudiate the statement now that you've contradicted it with a country's 'track record' somehow mattering?
Note that I'm not saying Israel is morally perfect, merely that they are significantly morally better than terrorists and that the exact moral status of their actions is a complex thing to determine. Part of what makes the situation complex are the great differences between Israel fighting terrorists that have managed to permeate much of the country and one of the major western powers (such as England and Italy) fighting terrorists in peripheral territories. I won't even get into the differences in terrorist tactics and the like.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
She's assaulting the moral authority of having a Nobel Peace Prize, not amnesty international in particular. That is, she's saying having a Nobel Peace Prize in no way indicates moral authority, because at least one person having a Nobel Peace Prize was a fairly detestable person (and known as such before receiving the prize).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Britain and Italy have shown what I believe to a genuine desire to avoid killing civilians as much as possible, Israel has not. And, with the advent of guided bombs and shells, it is possible to avoid civilian deaths. Israel has also not shown the respect for Palestinian property the Italians do for Sicilian property, leading me to believe they correspondingly caviler with human lives, a fact borne out by the body count (more civilians the militants at last count, see my post about the Economist article.)
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said the nobel prize commity lost their moral authority. Maybe I phrased it poorly.
I never thought Amnesty International had a moral authority because their big deal was writing letters to evil dictators. "Oh please mr dictator, spare the life of X..."
And the dictator would think "Oh, a letter from an American Liberal! This breaks my heart. I must do what he says... Mr Disident, I'm sorry I threw you in prison, cut off your hands and gauged out your eyes with a bicycle pump. I shall let you go now."
And Mr Disident would say "Thank you Evil Dictator, I shall go back to... well, I guess I can't write about how evil you are anymore, but I can have my secretary write it down."
And the Evil Dictator would say "ha ha HA! You are very witty, Mr Disident. Gaurd, cut out his tongue."
posted
Amnesty International has had some amazing results, but even if they had not, this would in no way affect their moral authority. Jesus was of little concern to anyone besides his followers in his own life, and Gandhi and Socrates were often ignored. And yet they were moral
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Britain and Italy and Israel have decided that as much as possible is a different amount, and it is not at all clear any of them is wrong (though I fall into the side of thinking Israel has gone too far at times).
However, this doesn't much matter. Even a single civilian death violates your previous statement, and I don't see a repudiation yet.
BTW, its recently come out that the body counts by the BBC (which many people are getting their figures from) are inaccurate, due to anybody found in a civilian building being counted as a civilian (despite some of them being known terrorists).
Pixiest: Amnesty International has done rather more good than that. Also, are you arguing that a dissident being set free despite having been tortured is not better than having been tortured and killed? I hardly think they're a perfect organization (I've had friends working with them, and in at least some places they're shamefully inefficient), but don't shovel manure over the good acts a group has done because you think they aren't good enough or don't like the group.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Even a single civilian death violates your previous statement, and I don't see a repudiation yet." I spoke to hastily. To my mind, Israel, while not willfuly killing civilians, willingly does so. Italy and Britain honesty try not to, at least now.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu: I've heard nothing of their results. but I really doubt anyone would be set free (who wouldn't be set free anyway) due to a bunch of letters from american liberals.
I wrote the thing about the dictator and mr disident because it made me laugh. (Yes, I frequently am the only one who laughs at my jokes)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"from american liberals." Perhaps true, but I do feel obliged to point out that, in so much as it is at all national, Amnesty is British.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pel: What evidence do you even have as to the motives and accuracy of Israeli, British, and Italian military?
It seems pointless to discuss the effectiveness and moral imperitives of all 3 of these groups when nobody has even stated on what basis they have created their judgements.
I have never seen the Israeli military operating, but I do know that the day before they bombed any civilian housing in Lebanon they dropped leaflettes the day before telling people to leave the area and avoid Hezbolah operatives and hot spots.
That sounds pretty concerned for civilian lives if you ask me.
Now what evidence do you have?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, firstly, and most importantly, neither Ulster nor Sicily have actualy been bombed, as in by aeroplanes.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: ElJay, if the terrorists (Hamas, Hezballah, Al Aqsa, etc) laid down their arms and stopped shooting it would be over.
If Israel laid down their arms and stopped shooting, they (and their children) would be destroyed.
I'm constantly amazed how people miss that very simple moral difference.
A lot's happened since I left this thread, but I just wanted to come back and say I do not miss that difference. And I don't disagree that innocents will die during wartime, and that the actions of terrorists who hide behind civilians, particularly children, are reprehensible. I just think if you're going to make the statement rivka made you need to acknowledge the full cost, even if you think that cost is worth it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Britain and Italy have shown what I believe to a genuine desire to avoid killing civilians as much as possible, Israel has not. And, with the advent of guided bombs and shells, it is possible to avoid civilian deaths. Israel has also not shown the respect for Palestinian property the Italians do for Sicilian property, leading me to believe they correspondingly caviler with human lives, a fact borne out by the body count (more civilians the militants at last count, see my post about the Economist article.)
Right. Let us not forget that Pelegius considers buildings to be on the same level of importance as human lives. He made that clear in a previous thread.
Israel has sacrificed the lives of our own boys for the sake of sparing the lives of civilians on the other side. Only nutballs argue with that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot's happened since I left this thread, but I just wanted to come back and say I do not miss that difference. And I don't disagree that innocents will die during wartime, and that the actions of terrorists who hide behind civilians, particularly children, are reprehensible. I just think if you're going to make the statement rivka made you need to acknowledge the full cost, even if you think that cost is worth it.
The cost is acknowledged by everyone. Who exactly is stuck with the moral check at the end of the meal is not.
Personally? I think the lion's share of the check needs to be laid at the seat of the person who plans the most in advance to kill civilians. That would be the parties that set up operations in civilian neighborhoods, engage in military-terrorist attacks on another nation, and then flee into civilian neighborhoods and wait for a counterattack.
Not the party which is attacked and then counterattacks their enemy as they can find them, minimizing civilian casualties as much as possible without completely avoiding them, which is not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, the Lebanese situation has Israel pretty much firmly in the right (there are always little quibbles possible, but nobody's perfect).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"They" would not be trying to kill "us" if "we" were elsewhere.
Why is it I hear this more often towards Israelis than Palestinians?
Probably because they weren't there, or are viewed as having not been there first. Who's to tell the guy who's been there all his life, and his father's life, and blah blah so on and so forth to go, for the sake of someone who's only been there for half a century?
Just playing devil's advocate, I don't think Israel should go anywhere. I think they are perfectly fine where they are (though the current situation isn't fine at all, the geography is), with the possible exception of Jerusalem, which I think should be made an international city.
I think lasting peace will almost have to come from outside of the area, an internationally brokered peace. I don't see the cycle of violence ending until someone steps in to help. It's nice to see the US finally stepping in, and I'm happy to see Israel is accepting of that help, rather than taking a go it alone stance. It might even be that Israel's excessive use of force and the destruction visited on Lebanon is what was necessary for the world to finally decide to take a more active role in the problem.
Palestine is still another issue, but with Hezbollah gone, Israel has at least one less thing to worry about.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Probably because they weren't there, or are viewed as having not been there first. Who's to tell the guy who's been there all his life, and his father's life, and blah blah so on and so forth to go, for the sake of someone who's only been there for half a century?
I really just don't understand this argument, and I never have. First? Looking back a bit further, I see a different people being "first."
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Probably because they weren't there, or are viewed as having not been there first. Who's to tell the guy who's been there all his life, and his father's life, and blah blah so on and so forth to go, for the sake of someone who's only been there for half a century?
I can understand that, but as time passes this becomes true for fewer and fewer Palestinians. There will come a point within the next couple of generations when few if any people have a living memory of the time before Israel returned-as a nation, as a recognized power that is-to the region.
But, somehow, I don't think what I quoted will stop being said along with it.
The fact of the matter is that if we're going to accept the right of any Palestinian to have just grievance over not being permitted to live on land he, as an individual, has never lived on himself...then what right do we have to deny Israeli claims along precisely the same line of reasoning? The only difference is time.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eaquae Legit, if you look back far enough, someone else was first...but they're either dead or no longer claiming Israel anymore.
Questions of who owned the land 'first' are irrelevant, in my opinion. The question of who has the most just claim is much important, and based on both how each party got the land, and how they intend to use it and get it back.
Those who fight for the Palestinian cause do so by profligate, targeted murder of civilians. So long as they drench their claim in the deliberate murder of innocents, in my opinion the Palestinian cause as a whole has no just claim to the land whatsoever.
But I'm flexible. If and when the changes, the justice of their cause does as well. A just cause cannot be fought for with injustice and evil, and similarly an unjust cause is not advanced by justice and good.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nine Israeli soldiers died today in house-to-house fighting. Note: The purpose of house-to-house fighting, when it'd be easier just to drop a bomb on the neighborhood, is to avoid civilian casualties.
That's nine more boys we sacrificed for the sake of saving Arab lives.
posted
Barring strong suspicion or evidence of terrorist links between the occupants of the houses and terrorists themselves...
Yes, it certainly was worth it. There should be more to the decision of whether or not to incur civilian casualties than whether or not any military casualties will be incurred.
When you say things like this, it becomes quite difficult to seperate you from Bean Counter, Lisa. I believe you are a skillful enough communicator that I have to wonder whether or not it's deliberate.
Of course, all of this is total speculation. For all you know, there was any one of a host of alternative reasons for engaging in house-to-house fighting. Capture of prisoners, for example, or documents or other information.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know the way the IDF works too well to believe that. They told the civilians to leave, and they wouldn't. So they had no choice, by their standards, but to risk the lives of our own. I disagree with that judgement.
Fair warning is fair warning. That's all that should be necessary. And it's far more than we ever get.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before, I was fairly nuetral on the question of the middle east because I didn't know enough about it and it seemed like it was too complicated to make a moral judgement.
starLisa, you have pushed me over to the other side. I don't know all the ins and outs of the whole situation, but I know that you're wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you leave if an enemy military entered your neighborhood and demanded all civilians depart? Please, just answer the question without going into who has what coming to them. Would you leave and if not, why do you insist others do?
Setting aside those neighborhoods whose bridges and airports weren't destroyed, making it more difficult to leave of course.
Your judgement seems to be that massive civilian casualties are acceptable, even moral, so long as a disclaimer is publicly issued first? So what is the acceptable ratio?
Ten Arab civilians dead for one Israeli solider? Fifty? One hundred? One thousand? And since when do the good guys get to say, "They do worse, so we can still kill their civilians."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Before, I was fairly nuetral on the question of the middle east because I didn't know enough about it and it seemed like it was too complicated to make a moral judgement.
starLisa, you have pushed me over to the other side. I don't know all the ins and outs of the whole situation, but I know that you're wrong.
You and ElJay. Sorry, but I have no respect for someone who lets personal pique inform decisions that should be made on the basis of hard data.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
of course, I wasn't suggesting that my invitation was a solution to anything. I would assume that you would keep liviing right where you are - in Low Angeles. It was an (apparently failed) attempt to remind you, in the midst of what can be a contentious discussion, of how much I like you.
My point is that the options aren't "kill them" or "lay down and die". There is the option of leaving the middle east.
quote: But there is only ONE Eretz Yisroel Hakidosha, and we ain't leaving. There are many Arab countries. It is not even an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Can you understand that isn't a compelling reason for people who don't share your faith? To them there are lots of European countries. To them Israel is a conqueror, an invader, an occupier.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, just because one person feels that something is black-and-white does not make it so. Not in the way they think, nor in the opposite.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"starLisa, you have pushed me over to the other side."
As much as I agree with you that starlisa is wrong, don't let her convince you she represents Israel. She doesn't, anymore then David Duke represents all of the United States
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Before, I was fairly nuetral on the question of the middle east because I didn't know enough about it and it seemed like it was too complicated to make a moral judgement.
starLisa, you have pushed me over to the other side. I don't know all the ins and outs of the whole situation, but I know that you're wrong.
I would not judge Israel's entire position based on Lisa's opinions.
I think that you are correct in thinking that the situation is entirely too complicated to make any sort of "this side is in the right" declarations.
My position in these debates (in real life) is that I defend the "other side" when anyone makes any sort of absolute claim that one side is entirely right, and that one side is entirely wrong.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My point is that the options aren't "kill them" or "lay down and die". There is the option of leaving the middle east.
Then let me repeat: that is not an option. And presenting it as one will only alienate. (And yes, I like you too. Hence the "much as I appreciate the offer.")
quote:
quote: But there is only ONE Eretz Yisroel Hakidosha, and we ain't leaving. There are many Arab countries. It is not even an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Can you understand that isn't a compelling reason for people who don't share your faith?
Of course.
quote: To them there are lots of European countries. To them Israel is a conqueror, an invader, an occupier.
That is actually not a universally held notion among Arabs, including Israeli Arabs. Many (at least used to -- it is DANGEROUS to express such sentiments publicly in Arab neighborhoods now) consider us cousins.
It is also not true. There has never been a time in the past 2000+ years that there was no Jewish population in Israel, albeit small. At times, it was considerably larger than the (also small) Arab presence. For most of that time (until about 100 years ago), Israel was barren. Dry desert, almost no viable farmland. Other than nomads, few Arabs chose to live there.
Jews made the desert bloom, made it possible for the land to feed the many people it now holds. Funny how it became more popular among Arabs after that.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Carabinieri and the Guards fought as infantry, rather than bombing and shelling. That is all, anyone can note the difference.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Then let me repeat: that is not an option. And presenting it as one will only alienate.
But leaving their homes is an option for them? Can you understand why this is unthinkable for them - as it is to you?
Of course, Israel has bloomed. It also had a substantial influx of western ideas and money that the people living there didn't have. Because the property was improved doesn't mean that that it was right to evict the former tenants - or to allow them to remain as servants in the much nicer house.
And this was an issue 100 years ago, too. Aaron Cohen, in Israel and the Arab World cites the letter of an settler in 1907. "Unless we want to deceive ourselves deliberately, we have to admit that we have thrown people out of their misrable lodgings and taken away their sustanance." This was concern from the beginning of the Zionist movement.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Then let me repeat: that is not an option. And presenting it as one will only alienate.
But leaving their homes is an option for them? Can you understand why this is unthinkable for them - as it is to you?
First of all, I have not suggested forcing them out. You are confusing me with another poster.
Second of all, I am not talking about giving up homes. But the fact is, approximately equal numbers of Jews were tossed out of Arab lands in 1948 as Arabs were pushed out of the newly-formed State. The Jews were absorbed by Israel; the Arab countries refused (and STILL refuse) to absorb their brethren.
quote:Of course, Israel has bloomed. It also had a substantial influx of western ideas and money that the people living there didn't have.
Give me a break. The Jews who went to Palestine (back when that was just another word for Israel) in the late 1800s and early 1900s (a number of my relatives among them) were (with very few exceptions) dirt poor. They didn't improve the land by infusing money; they did it by the sweat of their brows and the labor of their hands. Infusions of money came decades later.
quote: Because the property was improved doesn't mean that that it was right to evict the former tenants - or to allow them to remain as servants in the much nicer house.
I repeat: Before 1890-ish, there WERE almost no "tenants." And the position of Israeli Arabs before 1980 was hardly that of "servants"! In fact, even with the events of the last 25 years, an Arab living in Israel has a far better quality of life than one living in most other countries in the area. Right to vote, representation in the government, etc.
(I have a feeling you are translating the British/Irish issue to the Israeli/Arab issue. And the fact is, they are not analogous.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A proposed constitution (a terrible one, in my opinion) was recently presented to the President of Israel. The following is the beginning of the Preamble to that constitution, which does have some value, again, in my opinion.
quote:The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish People. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave the eternal Book of Books to the world.
After being forcibly exiled from its Land, the People kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent generations they returned in masses. Pioneers, ma'apilim and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace and knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.
After the Nation was forcibly exiled from its Land, it remained faithful to its Land and never ceased to assert its right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in its National Homeland.
The Holocaust which befell the Jewish people during the second World War - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the community of nations.
On the day of the termination of the British mandate over Eretz-Israel, the fifth of Iyar, 5708, the fourteenth day of May, 1948, the members of the People's Council, representatives of the Jewish community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist movement, assembled and declared the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.
The vast majority of the Arabs who identify as "Palestinians" do not have their roots in the Land of Israel at all. They came when the returning Jews created jobs and infrastructure. If there are a handful of Arabs whose families have been in the areas controlled by Israel for even a century, let alone a century and a half, let alone the absurdity of having been there since the Arab conquest 13 centuries ago, that's a lot.
Yasir Arafat, former head of the "Palestine Liberation Organization" was himself born in Cairo, Egypt. He lied about this for years. But it's useful. Claim that your family has been there, and what can anyone say? There just isn't enough documentation; no one can fairly insist that you show papers proving it.
The Arab population was extremely sparse when the Jews started coming back in large numbers. Were there Arabs living there? Of course. But not very many, and they couldn't have cared less about Jerusalem. That myth (the "third holiest city in Islam) wasn't created until much later.
What happened was that the Arab world became aflame with the idea of nationalism. And those Arabs who had migrated to Palestine after the Zionists had begun repairing the centuries of damage done by Arab neglect decided that they wanted self-rule. But the Jews were there, too.
That was no problem. They figured that in a sea of Arab countries, there was no way that a bunch of Jews would be able to hold out. They could be terrorized or pushed into the sea. And that was tried, over and over.
Then they decided that they'd been neglecting public opinion. Everyone thought the PLO were scum, and the best that could be said about the Arabs who called themselves Palestinians was to deny that the PLO represented them. Anyone in their late 30s and up (and maybe even younger people) will remember the constant phrase, "The legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people." That was the PLO's claim. And as a result, only the wackiest and extreme leftists were willing to identify with the Palestinian cause.
In 1982, when Israel got tired of being shelled from Lebanese soil by the PLO and invaded, the Arabs had apparently learned something about propaganda. And they used it well. They're doing so even now.
Phrase it as a humanitarian issue, and the world will go along. The underlying threat of "if you don't let us have our way, we're going to stomp our feet, hold our breath until we turn blue, and blow up your children" was, of course, an underlying subtext, but the humanitarian issue was one that people could get behind without feeling ashamed that they were caving into violent blackmail.
The most moderate of them still insist on "the right of return", which would mean the end of Israel through inundation, rather than bullets. We're not willing to go. It's our home. It's our only home. And we will have it back. And if the bloody Arabs want to write editorials or UN resolutions condemning us, good health to them. But if they keep trying to kill us, they're making a very bad choice. One which will backfire on them to their great detriment. As they're seeing now in Lebanon.
The Lebanese government has done nothing to prevent Lebanon from being used by Hezbollah. They don't get to distance themselves from the results.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, Israel attacks locations known to harbor terrorists and terrorists, and sometimes kills those who are not terrorists.
I would like to add that this is not always true, as we have seen recently with the bombing of the UN outpost in southern Lebanon, which Kofi Anan believes was intentional.
EDIT: woah I totally didn't realize that there was another page to this thread, sorry for the off topic remark.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
And a quote from Tolkien is applicable here why?
Edit: And while I'm sure most hatrackers recognize it immediately, it is considered good form to appropriately cite quotations.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, Israel attacks locations known to harbor terrorists and terrorists, and sometimes kills those who are not terrorists.
I would like to add that this is not always true, as we have seen recently with the bombing of the UN outpost in southern Lebanon, which Kofi Anan believes was intentional.
Kofi Annan saying it doesn't make it true. So yes, what fugu13 said is the case.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
And a quote from Tolkien is applicable here why?
Edit: And while I'm sure most hatrackers recognize it immediately, it is considered good form to appropriately cite quotations.
I didn't recognize it, though it was obviously a quote (those little quotation marks gave it away). I'm not a fan of Tolkein <ducks>.
But I thought the quote was spot on, actually. To paraphrase it in less flowery language, "When faced with an implacable enemy which is absolutely dedicated to our destruction, war is our only choice. We don't want war, and we don't like war. We don't enjoy having our country turned into an armed camp where people get on buses with Uzis or M-16s hanging on their shoulders. We fight because we value what we are defending. Because it's worth being defended. And because the enemy gives us no other choice."
posted
I did miss one case, Israel also sometimes attacks infrastructure.
Angiomorph: there's a report on the CBC that the outpost was being used as protective cover by Hezbollah, meaning this would fall into the situations I described. http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30314
Note that I don't agree with bombing it, at least not while there were UN soldiers inside, but that doesn't mean it wasn't taken out because terrorists were being targeted.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Nine Israeli soldiers died today in house-to-house fighting. Note: The purpose of house-to-house fighting, when it'd be easier just to drop a bomb on the neighborhood, is to avoid civilian casualties.
That's nine more boys we sacrificed for the sake of saving Arab lives.
It wasn't worth it.
You REALLY believe that?
What do you really think would happen if you carpet bombed or dropped a Hellfire on every house in southern Lebanon? You think it would save your lives, and you'd just go on your merry way, perhaps with a somewhat heavier weight on your morals, but otherwise intact?
Go ahead and turn southern Lebanon into smoking rubble and charred corpses (more than you already have I mean), hell, go ahead and drop a nuke. Save your soldier's lives, and then see what happens. See the outpouring of relief and sympathy that comes from the world to Israel for the horrible thing they just HAD to do.
Those soldiers aren't dying to save Arab lives, they're dying to save future Israeli lives, or current Israeli lives for a later date. It's an investment.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Note that I don't agree with bombing it, at least not while there were UN soldiers inside, but that doesn't mean it wasn't taken out because terrorists were being targeted.
If I was a terrorist, and I knew it was Israel's policy to attack suspected terrorist sites regardless of "collateral damage," I'd make it a point to stick a terrorist in every vulnerable spot in the surrounding area, then hole up my main force somewhere else, so the enemy could spend all their time bombing the crap out of soft targets and pissing everyone off. That way when I do emerge from my hole, and I see that busses, and Red Cross transports, and homes, businesses and apartment complexes all around me have been destroyed, I know I can do pretty much whatever I want with the support of the people around me while my enemy is villified.
They're devoid of morals in the war they are fighting, but that doesn't mean they are stupid or ineffective. Which is why calling them animals is so counterproductive, it suggests they are stupid.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
