Relax lady have a bacon cheeseburger and lighten up.
Eeeeewwww! How dare you try to serve me the flesh of some poor, defenseless piggy. That's like murder!!!! You....you....bad, diaper-head man!!!!
If his Noodly Goodness did not want us to eat piggies, he would not have made them so tasty.
Eeeeewwww! How dare you try to serve me the flesh of some poor, defenseless piggy. That's like murder!!!! You....you....bad, diaper-head man!!!!
Relax lady have a bacon cheeseburger and lighten up.
You know, for an unbathed hippie you don't look half bad. How about we go back to my pad where you and me can...*starts whispering in Peace LVR's ear*
UN Report on the events in Jenin in 2002You forgot:
Perennial Palestinian propagandist Saeb Erekat claiming 500 dead.
Claims of hidden bodies by Palestinians.
And even claims that thousands were killed.Talk about establishing credibility!
Meanwhile, this is the UN establishing its unbiased starting position relating to investigating the matter.
Thanks for the info.
Well, you may wish to call it being a "stickler" to demonize me, but apparently it is escaping your notice that the opposite of a "built up area" such as a densely populated city would be an "open area".
I'm not trying to demonize you as much as I am attempting to present an opposite perspective in a way that will not be instantly ridiculed by you. As far as demonizing goes, you've certainly not been overly friendly and civil in your responses to me. I think we may be getting there, though.
If your complaint is that Israel is using cluster munitions against urban areas and civilian populations in contravention of the basic presmises of proportionality, what you have done is produce...
My complaint is that they are using cluster bombs, period. Your point about unexploded munitions still being found from WWI is well taken and appreciated. I was not aware of that, and that is certainly awful; however, I do not believe that fact should justify the use of cluster bombs in any conflict.
My point is that cluster bombs, due to their wide dispersal range and the sheer quantity of bomblets, almost invariably affect civilians, no matter what the ostensible target may be. That is why I have called them indiscriminate and weapons of mass destruction.
*starts whispering in Peace LVR's ear*
Why are you whispering in my ear??
Oh... oh, really?
That's dirty.
Except Bush is not a terrorist, and his administration is not a terrorist organization.
I think you will find that there are differing opinions on that.
|
Thanks for the info.
But will you actually learn from it?
I'm not trying to demonize you as much as I am attempting to present an opposite perspective in a way that will not be instantly ridiculed by you. As far as demonizing goes, you've certainly not been overly friendly and civil in your responses to me. I think we may be getting there, though.
Yes you are. You have used heavily loaded terms from the beginning, attempting to frame the entire argument as a battle between me as obsessively dedicated to exploiting unjust laws while you are the noble defender of the oppressed.
I am a "Lawful Neutral" "stickler" who supports entrenched power players who commit war crimes, while you care only for the "oppressed" whose extremes of behavior are "understandable" to anyone.And of course I am not "friendly and civil" because I call you on that openly rather than accept my dehumanization and the dismissal of my views by you because they are not meet your high moral standards.
You have been incredibly hostile and extraordinarily insulting. Just because you pretty it up by saying "With all due respect" does not mean you have any respect.
My complaint is that they are using cluster bombs, period. Your point about unexploded munitions still being found from WWI is well taken and appreciated. I was not aware of that, and that is certainly awful; however, I do not believe that fact should justify the use of cluster bombs in any conflict.
It does not justify the use of cluster bombs, but it very much invalidates your claim that their use constitutes a crime.
You put so much on being civil yet you refuse to be civil to Israel, accusing them of capital crimes in direct contravention of the law, and being ignorant of all of the facts surrounding the particular incident. How do you possibly construe that as civil?Wikipedia has a bit about the higher-than-usual rate and wide range of unexploded munitions dispersed by cluster bombs.
My point is that cluster bombs, due to their wide dispersal range and the sheer quantity of bomblets, almost invariably affect civilians, no matter what the ostensible target may be. That is why I have called them indiscriminate and weapons of mass destruction.
Both of which have specific legal meanings which are quite critical when discussing things like war crimes, which can carry the death penalty. Do you simply not care that your accusations could send people to their deaths? Do you just not care that your are misusing terms with absolutely no consideration for the people who will be affected by it?
I think you will find that there are differing opinions on that.
As has been noted recently, people are also of the opinion that the world is flat, or that the moon landings never happened, or any of several dozen other equally absurd beliefs that are contradicted by simple facts about the basic nature of reality.
Just because someone has an opinion and posts it on the internet in no way gives it any legitimacy.
A 2E Floppy-Eared Golem wrote:
I'm not trying to demonize you as much as I am attempting to present an opposite perspective in a way that will not be instantly ridiculed by you. As far as demonizing goes, you've certainly not been overly friendly and civil in your responses to me. I think we may be getting there, though.
Yes you are. You have used heavily loaded terms from the beginning, attempting to frame the entire argument as a battle between me as obsessively dedicated to exploiting unjust laws while you are the noble defender of the oppressed.
I am a "Lawful Neutral" "stickler" who supports entrenched power players who commit war crimes, while you care only for the "oppressed" whose extremes of behavior are "understandable" to anyone.
And of course I am not "friendly and civil" because I call you on that openly rather than accept my dehumanization and the dismissal of my views by you because they are not meet your high moral standards.
You have been incredibly hostile and extraordinarily insulting. Just because you pretty it up by saying "With all due respect" does not mean you have any respect.
Samuel, take a look at some of your own posts. Here's your very first post in this thread:
I'madinnerjacket ought to go to Gaza and protest himself.No, he is sending 10,000 volunteers to commit suicide to speak on his behalf.
Not that such is a war crime or anything, even though it violates international laws on terrorism, and forces of non-belligerent states, or anything like that, but it is.
My response to that was:
I'm amazed when I hear people talking about war crimes, all the while presumably turning a blind eye to the war crimes committed by their own nation.
Disregard this if you don't actually live in the United States or Britain.
To this, you flippantly tumbled in with your first denunciation of my thoughts:
Oh yeah, Big Lie time!
I'm still not quite sure what that means. I was referring to the war crimes committed by the United States in Iraq since 2003. If I did not make that clear, I am sorry; however, ever since you yelled "Big Lie time!" I've spent too much time and energy responding to your accusations, such as:
A 2E Floppy-Eared Golem wrote:
And Israel uses cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction on the civilian populations within Palestine.
*BUZZZZZZZ*
A lie.
Cluster bombs are not indiscriminate weapons, they are not weapons of mass destruction, and they have not been used on the civilian populations.
Actually, that makes it three for one.
Now I understand what you mean here. Apparently the official classification of cluster bombs is that they are not indiscriminate--although they are considered "dumb" bombs, rather than "smart"--and that they have not (yet) been officially classified as weapons of mass destruction, and according to you, Israel has not used them on civilian populations. I would say that that last bit is quite debatable. You will tell me that the moon is made of green cheese. Whatever.
You asked will I learn from what you post. I certainly have learned some things, none of which have convinced me of the correctness of your position. You have also said of me:
Except you are not critically looking at it.
You are looking at it with a preconceived bias that anything Western is by default "bad", and that all judgements must follow from that.
And you don't have a preconceived bias?
I don't actually think that anything Western is by default "bad," although I can see how you would get that impression, and I get accused of that a lot. A more accurate statement would be that I look to the actions of my country first when examining the wrongs of a situation. I don't know why I do that. It may be a hangover from my days as a Christian. If it is, I'm happy to have it. What was it, something along the lines of "first remove the log from your own eye"? As a citizen of the most privileged and powerful country in the world, I feel it is my duty and right to be critical of my government. I look there first, before I look to the wrongs of Hamas or Israel. What I see doesn't please me, it doesn't make me proud, it doesn't sit well.
I saw this thread. I saw a bunch of people cracking one-liners about international affairs. In my perspective, the comments were rude, showed a lack of perspective, a lack of critical self-reflection, and a lack of concern about how the actions of their own democratic countries--which they presumably have some say in--effect the world, and can be just as just or unjust as any other country.
And I commented.
And here we are.
And you are still telling me what a jerk I am, and I am running out of patience with you.
I don't actually think that anything Western is by default "bad," although I can see how you would get that impression, and I get accused of that a lot. A more accurate statement would be that I look to the actions of my country first when examining the wrongs of a situation. I don't know why I do that. It may be a hangover from my days as a Christian. If it is, I'm happy to have it. What was it, something along the lines of "first remove the log from your own eye"? As a citizen of the most privileged and powerful country in the world, I feel it is my duty and right to be critical of my government. I look there first, before I look to the wrongs of Hamas or Israel. What I see doesn't please me, it doesn't make me proud, it doesn't sit well.
Lotta people walking around with big beams in their eyes. There is nothing wrong with being critical of the government, I am assuming that I will be very critical of the upcoming administration, just as I have every administration since I first started noticing politics in the 1st grade. I am a staunch defender of America as a political entity though, we may have our warts but we are constantly trying to better ourself. Your efforts included, even if I do disagee with your conclusions 2E.
How exactly is the US to blame for the current Gaza problem? We have pushed for Israel to come to terms with the Palestinians. Is our support of Israel a tacit thumbs up to everything they do? Are you responsible for every one of your friend's actions? We are allies with some strange folks out there, and unfortunately, we are enemies with even stranger. Who should we be supporting? The folks running theocratic brainwashing cartoons on Saturday morning TV calling for the conquest of the world and the annihalation of the Jews?
What you have to ask yourself is that are the politicians the ones at fault, or is it "my country?". Are we just evil and heartless warmongers? I would posit no. Although the latest conflict in Iraq has been littered with bad descisions and embarrasing actions, it would be wise to put the conflict in historical context. We as Americans try hard, but we are a short-sighted lot, and we often forget the Law of Unintended Consequences. Our actions often cause problems down the road , take for instance our funding of Islamic millitants in the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict of the 80's via Operation Cyclone (greenlighted BTW by the Carter administration), where Osama Bin Laden cut his teeth, along with much of al-Qaeda via their experiences as Mujahadeen fighters.
People ask when we will remove our troops from Iraq. We still have troops stationed in Germany, sixty years after WW IIs end. Obviously their mission has evolved over time, but its origin was in an army of occupation. The same can be said about Japan. Were there war crimes committed by occupation troops? Oh you bet your Aunt Sally there were. War is a strange thing, and people react to the stress of warfare in different ways. Would we have been better off just staying home and putting on an Isolationist stance? Dunno, ask the 450,000 Americans that died in combat. Is the world better off without the Nazi/Japanese miltary-run government? I would say so, despite the horrific cost in human lives and suffering. (roughly 73 MILLION dead in WWII)
If you truly want to end warfare in the Middle East, push for technological energy breakthroughs. This is the final hoop our civilization has to leap through. Fossil fuel is ridiculous energy source, and unfortunately the quest to procure it has prompted our government to make many "deals with the devil". Future predicting spoiler:
The universe is awash with energy, we just have to find a cheap method of extracting it. It is the key to solving pretty much every problem on earth, with the exception of overpopulation (but it could help by making space travel cheap and easy). Oil is the elephant in the room, and the money we spend on it props up dangerous dictators, absolute monarchies, and mayonnaise-on-fries mutants. Until that delightful day when some scientist discovers a way to harvest ZPE, cold fusion, or some other such energy source they haven't even discovered yet we will be stuck in the embarrasing position of paying our enemies (and those weirdos to the north of us) to heat our homes and fuel our cars.
A reasonable argument
Floppy you are wasting your time. Sam is passionate about his beliefs he will neither concede that a point of view different to his own may hold any validity nor approach this subject with a critical eye to challenge his own beliefs.
As we all know one man's propaganda is another's truth. He will not ask himself "do I believe the people that are handing out this information, are telling me the full story?" Just the same as people who passionately believe that Hamas is the victim in this action implicitly believe that they are receiving the truth.
This is my opinion - the death of children is too great a price to pay. Sam before you climb up on that clichéd high horse of yours I am not accusing you of dismissing the lives of children. Yes as you say Hamas uses human shields is the death of those human shields worth destroying an easily replaced rocket launcher.
I am also not saying Israel does not have a right to act. I am saying that its reactions are excessive and ultimately counter productive.
Yet again I come back to the point of lifting the Palestinians out of poverty.
Yes they destroyed the greenhouses... I can understand why, It has to do with perceived (even if it was not intended) paternalism, arrogance and condescension. This is where Israel is in a very difficult position. I can see why force appears to be so much easier than any other option. As much as you will try to help the Palestinians in the short term they will hate you for it.
I understand this as a person of Aboriginal descent because after the death (massacres, poisoned food, being run off cliffs, having bounties placed on us as were considered pests along with foxes and dingo's, not being allowed to speak our languages, having our children taken away, and our religion destroyed)and the humiliation of not having the power to stop it. I understand when your "former occupier" says here you go look at this "greenhouse" or new house(As is often the case in Australia), that we left/built for you, that should make things better. I'm not surprised people want nothing to do with it or to destroy it.
My great-grandfather was considered native fauna by the law. He was not a citizen of the land in which he was born. He did not have the right to vote, he could not marry without government permission. His children could be taken away at any time. My great-grandmother who was white had to pretend that my grandmother was the illegitimate child of a white man to prevent the protection board from "removing" her.
He did not teach us to hate, He instilled compassion and a respect for all life in our family. I firmly believe that when you find yourself in a continuous circle of violence its time to look for alternatives.
In time if you adopt the view that giving the Gazans something to loose, and work to to change lives, Israel's assistance will become less of an issue for the Palestinians. It takes the bigger and stronger person to follow the hard road.
Time to look at the realities already the incursion has failed the IDF has not destroyed all of the tunnels, It has not stopped the rockets, Hamas will continue to do what it does. Egypt will sign the treaty because it wants prevent trouble at home. Then it will ignore the treaty all together. The nutters in southern Lebanon now have "justification" to get back to get up to their old tricks once their elections are over.
Israel stuck in the middle of the quagmire that is the middle east will lash out again and find some small respite and then some months or a year or two down the track will find its self in the same situation just this time the names have changed and lash out again and so on and so forth. Five years from now I can see my self having the same conversation.
Now I expect you to lash out with the "you are demonising me" argument which is repetitive childish, puerile, and hypocritical as you accused Hamas of having a victim mentality.... unless you are somehow more special than everybody else on these boards.
I also expect some equally dismissive, highly unoriginal,sanctimonious rebuttal to my ramblings.
To be honest Sam you are allowed to say and believe what you wish, as I will continue to say and believe what I wish and Sam you have confirmed my beliefs about you.
A sensible rebuttal
Patrick I agree with 90% of what you had to say. It was well put, thank you.
LOL I'd love to hear what the 10% was. BTW, I am *legally* a Canadian citizen (through birth parentage, not actually living there) so my digs at my relatives to the North were done with much love <3.
LOL I'd love to hear what the 10% was. BTW, I am *legally* a Canadian citizen (through birth parentage, not actually living there) so my digs at my relatives to the North were done with much love <3.
Just the influence over Israel bit Sydney Morning Herald
If you are Canadian then that makes you almost family :-) Canadians to Australians are like the cousins we like to hang out with. All though your football is kinda funny and you don't get enough sun. Canadians have similar attitudes and can almost keep up when we are drinking. ;-)
Just the influence over Israel bit Sydney Morning Herald
If you are Canadian then that makes you almost family :-) Canadians to Australians are like the cousins we like to hang out with. All though your football is kinda funny and you don't get enough sun. Canadians have similar attitudes and can almost keep up when we are drinking. ;-)
shrugs
If correct, it indeed would be embarrassing for Rice to be second-guessed at the last moment by Bush (most likely because he is slipsliding out of Washington in a few days and doesn't need any excess difficulties). It is also impolitic for Olmert to brag about the incident, although I believe that it is mostly campaign hyperbole (after all Israel is heading to their general elections in February). International politics are filled with all sorts of these types of incidents. Israel has been a stable democratic ally in the Middle East. Hamas has not. While Israel has its own issues I still think that you try to work with the folks that have proven reasonable over time, and in my personal study of the complex issue the Israelis have tried to work in good faith, even when many of their neighbors are calling for their eradication as a nation. YMMV.
As for being Canadian, I am solely Canadian on paper, though I do enjoy visiting my birth relatives in Sydney (the Nova Scotian version, not the Australian one). I must admit a predilection for mayonnaise on French Fries and a loathing of ketchup, something that was never clear to me until I discovered my Canadian heritage. ;P
You know, for an unbathed hippie you don't look half bad. How about we go back to my pad where you and me can...*starts whispering in Peace LVR's ear*Eeeeewwww! How dare you try to serve me the flesh of some poor, defenseless piggy. That's like murder!!!! You....you....bad, diaper-head man!!!!
Relax lady have a bacon cheeseburger and lighten up.
Oh you dirty, dirty man. What kind of hippie do you think I am? I'm all for free love, but those carnal desires of yours are just an artificial construct created by the manocracy to keep us women subjugated. You have to free yourself from such neanderthalic thoughts and embrace the true feelings of the universe.
|
|
I'm still not quite sure what that means. I was referring to the war crimes committed by the United States in Iraq since 2003. If I did not make that clear, I am sorry; however, ever since you yelled "Big Lie time!" I've spent too much time and energy responding to your accusations, such as:
The Big Lie is a concept defined by Heinrich Himmler. The basic principle is that if you shout a lie long enough and loud enough it will become "common knowledge" and people will repeat it and accept as if it were the truth, despite complete and absolute evidence to the contrary.
The reality is that the U.S. has not committed war crimes in Iraq since 2003, or since any other time.
While you can certainly find people repeating this Big Lie, you will not be able to find any convictions against members of the U.S. government, or any rational indictments.
Criminal actions against individuals are not, despite the use of the Big Lie, proof of direct criminal intent of the government.
Now I understand what you mean here. Apparently the official classification of cluster bombs is that they are not indiscriminate--although they are considered "dumb" bombs, rather than "smart"--and that they have not (yet) been officially classified as weapons of mass destruction, and according to you, Israel has not used them on civilian populations. I would say that that last bit is quite debatable. You will tell me that the moon is made of green cheese. Whatever.
"Not (yet)" is not a valid principle of law, or even of honest debate.
"Disagreeing with me the way you are has "not (yet) been officially classified" as a crime against humanity."Now that I have said that you must immediately stop committing your war crime.
And you don't have a preconceived bias?
I do.
I have a firm predetermined bias to reason, facts, and rule of law.I understand this is a horrible thing to you with your preconceived bias against organized social structure, particularly when it is backed by the strength to defend itself, but I see no reason to apologize, or even feel bad about having it.
I don't actually think that anything Western is by default "bad," although I can see how you would get that impression, and I get accused of that a lot.
You mean as opposed to you saying:
Good points. I consider myself a radical. Radicals are interested in getting at the roots of social problems. Yes, this requires that we look critically at history and at our current so-called civilization.
. . .
Yes, this is an ideal. No, Samuel Weiss, it is not in line with the strict legal (Lawful Neutral anyone?) approach that you advocate. At its base it is a moral approach that disregards the laws of the powerful in favor of those who have been dispossessed, cheated, and left for dead. It is concerned with redressing grievances and speaking truth to power.
If you wish to repudiate your own words about your belief then so be it, but do not blame me for taking you at that word.
And you are still telling me what a jerk I am, and I am running out of patience with you.
Actually, that is me taking you at your word yet again:
Right. No, you're right. That was idiotic of me. I do get overzealous at times, and you are absolutely right for taking me to the mat on that. My statement was a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation.
Still, I maintain the spirit of that post.
You admit to making extreme statements while maintaining the spirit of them.
How is it wrong for me to hold you to that?|
|
As we all know one man's propaganda is another's truth. He will not ask himself "do I believe the people that are handing out this information, are telling me the full story?" Just the same as people who passionately believe that Hamas is the victim in this action implicitly believe that they are receiving the truth.
Nonsense.
Nothing makes lies into the truth.You have no idea what I have asked myself about various information, or the extent to which I have investigated it. All you have the lies you embrace and your overt refusal to acknowledge anything that invalidates the legitimacy of your opinion as rational, legal, and moral.
To be honest Sam you are allowed to say and believe what you wish, as I will continue to say and believe what I wish and Sam you have confirmed my beliefs about you.
Of course it does.
And of course rather than providing actual factual rebuttals you default to dehumanizing me in an attempt to invalidate anything I might have to say. After all, if I am personally offensive while I may be "allowed" to say whatever I want nobody needs to actually consider it.How utterly generous of you!
And naturally you wish to try invalidating that pre-emptively.
It is rather interesting your technique though.
I may not appeal to the Jews having being treated as sub-human and second class citizens for nearly 2,000 years, I may not cite the pogroms, or the atrocities, or the restriction to ghettos (a term originally created to define the only part of a city where the Jews were allowed to live), the forcible conversions, or anything else. You however are free to wallow in your aboriginal heritage and how all the offenses against your people entitle you to "understand" and support the Palestinians, no matter the criminal excesses of Hamas.
Mighty . . . "former occupier and oppressor" of you!
|
As we all know one man's propaganda is another's truth. He will not ask himself "do I believe the people that are handing out this information, are telling me the full story?" Just the same as people who passionately believe that Hamas is the victim in this action implicitly believe that they are receiving the truth.Nonsense.
Nothing makes lies into the truth.
I would add that propaganda is not always a lie. Truth can be the most effective form of propaganda, particularly if the flow is controlled.
|
As we all know one man's propaganda is another's truth. He will not ask himself "do I believe the people that are handing out this information, are telling me the full story?" Just the same as people who passionately believe that Hamas is the victim in this action implicitly believe that they are receiving the truth.Nonsense.
Nothing makes lies into the truth.
You have no idea what I have asked myself about various information, or the extent to which I have investigated it. All you have the lies you embrace and your overt refusal to acknowledge anything that invalidates the legitimacy of your opinion as rational, legal, and moral.To be honest Sam you are allowed to say and believe what you wish, as I will continue to say and believe what I wish and Sam you have confirmed my beliefs about you.Of course it does.
And of course rather than providing actual factual rebuttals you default to dehumanizing me in an attempt to invalidate anything I might have to say. After all, if I am personally offensive while I may be "allowed" to say whatever I want nobody needs to actually consider it.
How utterly generous of you!
And naturally you wish to try invalidating that pre-emptively.
It is rather interesting your technique though.
I may not appeal to the Jews having being treated as sub-human and second class citizens for nearly 2,000 years, I may not cite the pogroms, or the atrocities, or the restriction to ghettos (a term originally created to define the only part of a city where the Jews were allowed to live), the forcible conversions, or anything else. You however are free to wallow in your aboriginal heritage and how all the offenses against your people entitle you to "understand" and support the Palestinians, no matter the criminal excesses of Hamas.
Mighty . . . "former occupier and oppressor" of you!
LMAO
|
|
I'm not trying to demonize you as much as I am attempting to present an opposite perspective in a way that will not be instantly ridiculed by you. As far as demonizing goes, you've certainly not been overly friendly and civil in your responses to me. I think we may be getting there, though...
And of course I am not "friendly and civil" because I call you on that openly rather than accept my dehumanization and the dismissal of my views by you because they are not meet your high moral standards.
You have been incredibly hostile and extraordinarily insulting. Just because you pretty it up by saying "With all due respect" does not mean you have any respect.Samuel, take a look at some of your own posts. Here's your very first post in this thread:
I'madinnerjacket ought to go to Gaza and protest himself.No, he is sending 10,000 volunteers to commit suicide to speak on his behalf.
Not that such is a war crime or anything, even though it violates international laws on terrorism, and forces of non-belligerent states, or anything like that, but it is.My response to that was:
I'm amazed when I hear people talking about war crimes, all the while presumably turning a blind eye to the war crimes committed by their own nation.
Disregard this if you don't actually live in the United States or Britain.
Hey Floppy, as a neutral voice here (I tend towards Neutral Good), I would ask that both Sam and you take a look at the way you have been approaching this debate. For example, your response to Sam above could be interpreted as you are saying that only the United States and Great Britain commit war crimes. It is also unlikely that everyone in every country other than the United States and Great Britain recognize when their government is committing war crimes.
The problem with this discussion is that it has turned into a "he said-she said" argument. Neither side is apparently willing to give and has to get in the last word and "win the argument." Neither side is willing to admit that the side they support has made mistakes in this conflict.
My advice to both sides is to take some time off and think about what they other has to say. By that I don't mean stewing about the percieved insults of one side or the other, but think about the actual crux of the argument.Then come back an try discussing it. I would also add that the dueling newspapers is not really helping either, because newspapers have their biases just like everyone else.
This is a great discussion that i think we should be having, but we have lost sight of the issue, which is the Gaza conflict. Instead it has become a war of personalities with each side defending their own world view, rather than discussing the causes and solutions of this conflict. Can we please get back on track before the thread gets locked? IBT.
|
Hey Floppy, as a neutral voice here (I tend towards Neutral Good), I would ask that both Sam and you take a look at the way you have been approaching this debate. For example, your response to Sam above could be interpreted as you are saying that only the United States and Great Britain commit war crimes. It is also unlikely that everyone in every country other than the United States and Great Britain recognize when their government is committing war crimes.
The problem with this discussion is that it has turned into a "he said-she said" argument. Neither side is apparently willing to give and has to get in the last word and "win the argument." Neither side is willing to admit that the side they support has made mistakes in this conflict.
My advice to both sides is to take some time off and think about what they other has to say. By that I don't mean stewing about the percieved insults of one side or the other, but think about the actual crux of the argument.Then come back an try discussing it. I would also add that the dueling newspapers is not really helping either, because newspapers have their biases just like everyone else.
This is a great discussion that i think we should be having, but we have lost sight of the issue, which is the Gaza conflict. Instead it has become a war of personalities with each side defending their own world view, rather than discussing the causes and solutions of this conflict. Can we please get back on track before the thread gets locked? IBT.
QFT
I gotta say, I totally understand your point of view, Floppy, and I mostly agree with it, but sometimes we should listen to the crazy hippie lady and just chill the fudge out. Same goes for Sam, although I do not agree with your point of view and the conclusions you come up with.
As for getting back to reasonable discussion on the Gaza conflict, I think the argument as to whether Israel's response is "right" or not is moot. They've been doing basically the same thing for the last 50 sum-odd years, and it is pretty obviously not working. At some point, they are going to have to try a new strategy other than "marginalize Arab population, send in more troops."
My proposal is to go back to the 2-state solution, link the various Palestinian principalities into one state, send UN peacekeepers to act as MPs in Palestine in order to curb corruption (and hopefully extremism as a byproduct), and have the International community keep both states on a tight leash. Then, wait another few decades for things to cool down, foster trade between Israel and the rest of the Middle East, and hope for the best. And always, always keep them both on a tight leash. This means using force, if necessary, when either state becomes aggressive towards the other. Sanctions and diplomatic means should be used aggressively if there is no physical conflict, but once one side brings out the guns, the UN needs to respond quickly. Desert Storm is a good model for responding to an incursion, in my opinion.
|
|
As for getting back to reasonable discussion on the Gaza conflict, I think the argument as to whether Israel's response is "right" or not is moot. They've been doing basically the same thing for the last 50 sum-odd years, and it is pretty obviously not working.
Israel occupied the Palestinian territories in 1967, after Egypt provoked a war by massing 100,000 troops on the border and illegally closing an international water passage. That makes it 41 years and a bit.
At some point, they are going to have to try a new strategy other than "marginalize Arab population, send in more troops."
Despite this occupation, the Palestinian territories were "relatively" quiet until the First Intifada in 1987, so really only 21 years.
In terms of "send in more troops", when faced with waves of suicide bombers attacking indiscriminately, and a persistent refusal to discuss anything vaguely resembling peace, responding with happy thoughts is highly unlikely to work.
My proposal is to go back to the 2-state solution,
Go back?
When was it abandoned?Well, other than by the Arabs rejecting the partition.
And Jordan and Egypt occupying the West Bank and Gaza.
And Arafat refusing a state at Taba.
link the various Palestinian principalities into one state,
What principalities?
And divide Israel in the process?send UN peacekeepers to act as MPs in Palestine
Which was rejected by elected Hamas government.
And which have been stunningly ineffective in Lebanon.in order to curb corruption
The UN?
Curb corruption?The same UN involved with the Iraqi oil corruption?
That UN?
(and hopefully extremism as a byproduct),
Which they have been so successful at in Gaza.
and have the International community keep both states on a tight leash.
As they kept Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon on tight leashes all those years.
Then, wait another few decades for things to cool down,
While the Palestinians and Arabs demand a fully sovereign state immediately.
foster trade between Israel and the rest of the Middle East,
Despite the illegal Arab boycott, although it is slowly shattering.
and hope for the best.
You are already hoping the UN will curb corruption, how many miracles do you expect to get from this?
And always, always keep them both on a tight leash. This means using force, if necessary, when either state becomes aggressive towards the other.
The way force is being used to disarm Hizbshaitan in Lebanon according to one of those sacred UN Security Council resolutions?
The way the UN withdrew peacekeepers before the Six-Day War?Sanctions and diplomatic means should be used aggressively if there is no physical conflict,
Sanctions, such as the blockade of Gaza, have been declared collective punishment, and thus a war crime.
Are you advocating the UN commit war crimes to force submission?Are you aware that such constitutes terrorism, another war crime?
but once one side brings out the guns, the UN needs to respond quickly. Desert Storm is a good model for responding to an incursion, in my opinion.
The same Desert Storm condemned for all the war crimes committed as part of it?
You want use that as the model for a response?
How exactly is the US to blame for the current Gaza problem? We have pushed for Israel to come to terms with the Palestinians. Is our support of Israel a tacit thumbs up to everything they do?
I have tried to state my stance as clearly as I can. Now let me employ an excerpt of an article by Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com to help get my point across:
It really ought to be too obvious to require pointing out: to oppose the Israeli war in Gaza and to be horrified by what they are doing to Palestinian civilians no more makes someone "anti-Israel" or "pro-Hamas" than opposing and condemning the Iraq War and being horrified by what we did to that country makes someone "anti-American" or "pro-Saddam."
As a matter of fact, the entire article resonates with my stance on the issues of war and terrorism.
The same Desert Storm condemned for all the war crimes committed as part of it?
Sam, my man! Could it be that you and I agree on something? War crimes in Desert Storm?
Yet I'm confused, because IIRC you've said elsewhere that in the current operations in Iraq, since 2003, no war crimes have been committed.
How exactly are you defining war crimes? And is there not a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty in what constitutes a war crime?
Both of which have specific legal meanings which are quite critical when discussing things like war crimes, which can carry the death penalty. Do you simply not care that your accusations could send people to their deaths? Do you just not care that your are misusing terms with absolutely no consideration for the people who will be affected by it?
War crimes should be investigated. I think you are being quite hysterical if you seriously think that anything I suggest here will lead to anyone's death. It won't. A hamas rocket, a gunshot, a deployment of cluster bombs, or a bunker buster bomb, or any number of other lethal instruments of war, terror, and murder will quite likely result in death; however, the possibility of what I type on the paizo.com messageboards directly leading to someone's death is quite unlikely, unless somehow I infuriate you so much that you keel over dead due to a heart attack. But then there would be other factors involved in your death besides the words that I am typing here, wouldn't there?
The Big Lie is a concept defined by Heinrich Himmler. The basic principle is that if you shout a lie long enough and loud enough it will become "common knowledge" and people will repeat it and accept as if it were the truth, despite complete and absolute evidence to the contrary.
Okay! Thanks for clarifying that. So that would be like Bush and his administration repeatedly lying to the American public about how they knew there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A Big Lie would be something like how the Bush administration, congress, and a complicit corporate media, and probably other instruments of entrenched power that I am overlooking, intentionally manipulated public opinion in order to invade and occupy Iraq. An important part of the Big Lie concept is the absolute criminal acts that are empowered by the acceptance of the Big Lie. I don't think that anything I have posted on this thread or this site or in the whole vast expanse of the internet has quite the quality of the Big Lie concept.
Hey Floppy, as a neutral voice here (I tend towards Neutral Good), I would ask that both Sam and you take a look at the way you have been approaching this debate. For example, your response to Sam above could be interpreted as you are saying that only the United States and Great Britain commit war crimes. It is also unlikely that everyone in every country other than the United States and Great Britain recognize when their government is committing war crimes.
I'm not trying to demonize you as much as I am attempting to present an opposite perspective in a way that will not be instantly ridiculed by you. As far as demonizing goes, you've certainly not been overly friendly and civil in your responses to me. I think we may be getting there, though...
And of course I am not "friendly and civil" because I call you on that openly rather than accept my dehumanization and the dismissal of my views by you because they are not meet your high moral standards.
You have been incredibly hostile and extraordinarily insulting. Just because you pretty it up by saying "With all due respect" does not mean you have any respect.Samuel, take a look at some of your own posts. Here's your very first post in this thread:
I'madinnerjacket ought to go to Gaza and protest himself.No, he is sending 10,000 volunteers to commit suicide to speak on his behalf.
Not that such is a war crime or anything, even though it violates international laws on terrorism, and forces of non-belligerent states, or anything like that, but it is.My response to that was:
I'm amazed when I hear people talking about war crimes, all the while presumably turning a blind eye to the war crimes committed by their own nation.
Disregard this if you don't actually live in the United States or Britain.
No. What I have tried to make clear is that I feel that responsible citizens of democratic countries look to the actions of their own countries, and try to remedy any problems within their country, because that is where their power lies. This to me is a reasonable way to approach the problems of war and terrorism. Joining in a chorus of voices that attempt to prove the inhumanity of the other side is counterproductive, and it fuels the reactionary cycle of violence. On the one hand, I can do little about Hamas and the rockets that they fire because my country, the United States, does not support Hamas or supply them with weapons. The United States does however support Israel and supply Israel with weapons--weapons that Israel has very recently used against not only Hamas but the entire population of Palestine. By speaking out against my own country and Israel, I feel that I am doing what I can do to stop the violence and help find an alternative.
All that I have done in this thread is attempt to offer my perspective. I have been repeatedly told that I am an idiot, a fool, unsympathetic, ignorant, etc. I have taken all of that in stride, and admitted that some of it has been well-deserved, and I have been willing to consider what has been presented to me by others.
|
|
Well, what is your solution Sam?
First, expel the racists from the UN. Not the countries, just the individuals, at least at first. As long as the UN wallows in excesses like the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Human Rights Committee that it replaced, and the UN World Conference Against Racism, there can be no movement towards a solution.
Then a general moratorium on accusations of war crimes should be imposed on all governments.Together those two will undercut the main force that drives the conflict, the endless propaganda machine.
Second, require the Arab governments to stop playing games and recognize Israel. It is rather ludicrous to natter on about Israel refusing to recognize UN Security Council resolutions when so many Arab nations refuse to acknowledge the General Assembly vote sanctioning the state.
That must be followed up by requiring every Arab nation without a direct border dispute with Israel, which are currently Lebanon, Syria, and "Palestine", to make peace with Israel, again in compliance with UN mandates.
Together those will establish several things.
First, it will mean there is actually some legitimacy to the subsequent UN resolutions regarding Israel. This may come as a surprise to you, but if, as the Arab nations assert, the UN partition plan of Palestine was "illegal", then in fact Israel is not occupying any part of some putative Palestinian state. At most it is just a minority government asserting its authority in the face of constant civil war. And that means they can build settlements wherever they please. Oops. I guess nobody thought about that.
Second, it will restore some more of the legitimacy to the UN that has been thoroughly squandered on the entire situation. It is absurd to expect the UN to mystically impose peace on Israel and some theoretical Palestinian state when it cannot even get other member states to toe the line in the manner you suggest.
Third, it will reinforce the legal basis for not just having two states, but for negotiating an actual peace.
The next step is to divorce all linked claims. The UN cannot accept absurd concepts such as war with one Arab state automatically permits war with all Arab states. Likewise it cannot permit states to require a total solution as an excuse to avoid a partial solution. If for some reason one or more Arab states wishes to violate the UN charter and declare war on Israel again then force them to do so openly in the full light of day.
With that, phased resolutions can be made.
The issue with Lebanon can be settled once and force all. Note, the UN has declared the areas occupied by Israel to be part of Syria, so in fact it is Lebanon and Syria ignoring the UN, with Lebanon sanctioning unlawful military activity against Israel as a consequence.
Next the issue of the Golan Heights can be addressed, with full recognition of the implications of UNSCR 242, and the issue of the land seized by Syria in 1948, again claimed against the will of the UN.
That leaves establishing borders between Israel and Palestin under 242. Note though, that does not mean there cannot be peace first. Many nations have had long-term border disputes, even after wars have been concluded with peace treaties.
Having gotten to that point, the UN must continue to actually demonstrate it intends to perform according to its charter, and actively oppose anything that provokes violence. That specifically includes requiring Arab states, most especially Palestine, from promoting things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is amusing to note that the Organization of the Islamic Conference again gotten the UN Human Rights Council to pass a resolution expressing concern about the media inciting racism and anti-religious sentiment, yet the UNHCR will not allow any discussion of anything related to Islam, and so will never "express serious concern" about OIC members like Saudia Arabia publishing and distributing the Protocols through government channels.
It is at this point that the UN must consider expelling such countries who have no true committment to the UN charter, particularly in regards to the territorial integrity of a country like Israel, or in the various UN declarations of rights.
Or . . .
Ignore the UN completely.
Shoot the terrorists.
Keep shooting the terrorists.
Shoot those who support the terrorists.
Expel those who support the terrorists from surrounding areas.
Overthrow governments that sponsor the terrorists.
Shoot the terrorists even more.
And do not feel guilty about any it.
You can say that will never get rid of the terrorists.
So what?
Arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning murderers and rapists will never get rid of all of the murderers and rapists.
Should we stop trying to deal with them?
It is all well and good to want a peaceful solution, but peace requires two groups actively seeking it. As long as one group does not you can think all the happy thoughts you like, but your only options remain war or massacre, not war or peace. You can suggest capitulation, but that is a losing proposition too.
Of course either of those still requires the biggest leap of all as the first step:
Stop thinking the sole and ultimate responsibility for peace is on Israel and Israel alone.
Unfortunately, it is just so danged easy, and fun, to blame the Jews, so I really do not expect anything to change.
|
|
Lots.
I kind of like the first option. Not so much a fan of the second one. And at least from my point of view, your first proposal and my proposal are pretty similar. Yours is certainly more fleshed out, and a little harder on the Arab countries, but that is a proposition I could happily live with.
And I am not "blaming the Jews." I don't believe that Israel is solely to blame for the conflict, that kind of view is just as ludicrous as you say it is. But I don't believe the Palestinians are 100% guilty, either. As far as I'm concerned, both parties are equally guilty. And when I say both parties, I am talking in the broadest sense. Hamas is a despicable organization, and Israel has every right to fight it. I don't like their current methods in combating Hamas, but I sympathize with their reasoning.
Oh, just to add something, one pipe dream I have all the time is a reformation of the UN Security Council to get rid of those damn vetoes, or at least give the UN some kind of legitimate authority, a lot like how you have proposed.
|
|
Sam, my man! Could it be that you and I agree on something? War crimes in Desert Storm?
Yet I'm confused, because IIRC you've said elsewhere that in the current operations in Iraq, since 2003, no war crimes have been committed.
How exactly are you defining war crimes? And is there not a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty in what constitutes a war crime?
Not at all.
Ramsey Clark is a moron, and his cronies are not even that intelligent.Yes, I have said that no war crimes have been committed by the U.S. government. Of course Desert Storm is not Iraqi Freedom, so you need to get your dates right.
As for how I define war crimes, that is according to the Geneva Convention.
If you want to read Ramsey Clark's nonsense, click the link. That is well beyond my tolerance for stupidity, conspiracy theories, and incompetent interpretation of law.
War crimes should be investigated. I think you are being quite hysterical if you seriously think that anything I suggest here will lead to anyone's death. It won't. A hamas rocket, a gunshot, a deployment of cluster bombs, or a bunker buster bomb, or any number of other lethal instruments of war, terror, and murder will quite likely result in death; however, the possibility of what I type on the paizo.com messageboards directly leading to someone's death is quite unlikely, unless somehow I infuriate you so much that you keel over dead due to a heart attack. But then there would be other factors involved in your death besides the words that I am typing here, wouldn't there?
Just what do you think the penalty is for being convicted of a war crime?
Of course in The Hague it will merely be prison, though easily enough for life. And of course if the sentence is to be served in some country that "agrees" to carry out the sentence but has less-than-acceptable standards for treatment of prisoners, or if the responsibility for the trial is usurped by a country that will inflict the death penalty, that changes things.Okay! Thanks for clarifying that. So that would be like Bush and his administration repeatedly lying to the American public about how they knew there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Nope. That same information came from the intelligence services of multiple countries. That is war wrong does not de facto establish that it was not believed at the time. The Big Lie relies on it being an actual lie.
An important part of the Big Lie concept is the absolute criminal acts that are empowered by the acceptance of the Big Lie. I don't think that anything I have posted on this thread or this site or in the whole vast expanse of the internet has quite the quality of the Big Lie concept.
No, it requires deception. By repeating lies endlessly, by sticking with them no matter what, by not wavering one bit no matter how much everything you base your entire opinion on is exposed as lies, that is pretty well the essence of the Big Lie.
(Oh, and I got my Nazis mixed up. It was Goebbels, not Himmler. The similarity of their stench confused me.)I have time and again exposed falsehood after falsehood, misinformation after misinformation, historical failing after historical failing, legal error after legal error. What has the response been?
"Never mind your facts Sam, I still have a different opinion."
But do, please, go ahead, prove me wrong.
Construct an entirely new argument on solid facts, on legitimate legal interpretations, on actual and complete historical references, without your preconceived political bias, and then still come to the same absolute conclusion.
If your convictions are really worth the strength you put into them that should not be that hard at all.
If not, if all you have is passion derived from an unshakeable belief in the "true" testimony of other, uncorroborated by your own deliberate investigations . . .
I see no difference in the quality of belief.
|
|
Oh, just to add something, one pipe dream I have all the time is a reformation of the UN Security Council to get rid of those damn vetoes, or at least give the UN some kind of legitimate authority, a lot like how you have proposed.
Dude . . .
The UN was a failure from the moment the Soviet Union was part of it.Yeah, it is a nice pipe dream to think it was ever better than the League of Nations, but that is all that is - a pipe dream.
And I am not "blaming the Jews." I don't believe that Israel is solely to blame for the conflict, that kind of view is just as ludicrous as you say it is. But I don't believe the Palestinians are 100% guilty, either. As far as I'm concerned, both parties are equally guilty. And when I say both parties, I am talking in the broadest sense. Hamas is a despicable organization, and Israel has every right to fight it. I don't like their current methods in combating Hamas, but I sympathize with their reasoning.
As long as people believe, as you do, that both sides are equally guilty, there will never be peace.
That you can say in the next sentence that Hamas is a despicable organization and Israel has every right to fight it just shows the utter absurdity of assigning equal guilt to both sides.Never mind me, if you cannot take your own word for who is worse, how do you ever expect a group like Hamas to believe they are worse?
How exactly is the US to blame for the current Gaza problem? We have pushed for Israel to come to terms with the Palestinians. Is our support of Israel a tacit thumbs up to everything they do?
I have tried to state my stance as clearly as I can. Now let me employ an excerpt of an article by Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com to help get my point across:
It really ought to be too obvious to require pointing out: to oppose the Israeli war in Gaza and to be horrified by what they are doing to Palestinian civilians no more makes someone "anti-Israel" or "pro-Hamas" than opposing and condemning the Iraq War and being horrified by what we did to that country makes someone "anti-American" or "pro-Saddam."As a matter of fact, the entire article resonates with my stance on the issues of war and terrorism.
Pehaps my reading of your post was a little off. It seemed to me, IMO, that you were focusing the blame for the current warfare in Gaza on the American government, as if somehow it controls what Israel, an independent nation, does. I was merely pointing out that you do not have to agree with everything an ally does 100% of the time. I am sure you are not "Pro-Hamas" any more than I am "Pro-Israel".
I will reiterate my stance. Israel has worked with the American government in good faith for decades. Hamas has called for Israel's complete annihalation, and for world Jihad against "crusaders".
I studied Arabic and Arabic culture. Ettekelemu al-laughrat al-Arabia kaleelan. I count several Arabs as mentors and close friends. The Arab people are friendly and educated as a whole, at least the ones I have interacted with. HOWEVER, the Middle East has a distressing history with religious fundamentalist groups. I despise Hamas as much as I despise fundamentalist Christian groups. Just because they are a minority doesn't make them nice people. If I was ever subjected to Sharia law, I would most likely be killed, since I am no longer "Ahl-al-ketaab", or a "Person of The Book", a worshipper of one of the three Abrahamic religions, the only three allowed. Non-Abrahamic worshippers (pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, athesists, agnostics) have no right to practice their faiths under Sharia law. If you are a Zoroastrian the Iranians did give you an out. Even if you are of the Abrahamic tradition in a Sharia country you are considered 'dhimmis', and are subjected to a host of special laws which limit your freedoms.
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
I give no support to any fundamentalist religious concern that would gleefully kill me unless I converted to their fatih. I feel no sympathy towards their stated goals, and they feel no sympathy towards my religious stance.
|
|
As long as people believe, as you do, that both sides are equally guilty, there will never be peace.
That you can say in the next sentence that Hamas is a despicable organization and Israel has every right to fight it just shows the utter absurdity of assigning equal guilt to both sides.
Never mind me, if you cannot take your own word for who is worse, how do you ever expect a group like Hamas to believe they are worse?
That's piffle, and avoiding the issue. The issue isn't about who is right and who is wrong, but finding a solution to the problems and an acceptable, and doubtless painful, compromise for both sides. As long as one side is saying "I am right" or "I am righter than you" that makes it very difficult.
In the UK we had a peace process with the IRA, and it sticks in the throat to see former terrorists and murderers strutting about as peaceful politicians and pretending they have no blood on their hands. But then again, the British army did some questionable things in Northern Ireland. Who is more right? The issue is largely irrelevant. The issue was about getting to a peaceful, democratic solution in Northern ireland, and it looks like we have done it.
Israel resolutely refuses to deal with the Palestinian problem - it wants to build a wall to hedge them out, belligerant settlers occupy the West Bank in ever growing numbers, and bombing the hell out of Hamas is a short-term expediency. (It doesn't help that the Israeli polity is largely broken through an overly proportional electoral system that puts minority interest (often religious and tied to the settlers) in the driving seat through unstable coalition governments.) If such action was intended to weaken Hamas sufficiently so it comes to the negotiating table, then I can see the logic, but if the intention is to ignore Hamas again and refuse to talk after all this then nothing will be achieved. Likewise, Hamas seems to see its raison d'etre as the struggle to eliminate Israel, failing to grasp the reality than Israel is going nowhere and that its actions are counterproductive to the best interests of the Palestinian majority. Until BOTH sides grasp this (and I don't see this happening any time soon) the problem will remain intractable.
It isn't about right or wrong, or moral superiority, but grubby politics. In Northern Ireland the leadership of the IRA were effectively bribed with the prospect of political power after they were largely defeated militarily. The same more or less happened to Arafat (though he was too corrupt to make it work). But Israel will have to make concessions, and accept that it has done wrong (and not just recently), and talk to Hamas. There is no alternative.
|
|
Floppy, and Sam,
Please debate rather than constantly he said/she said and attack each other. If someone personally attacks you (as both have done to each other) flag it, and move on.
Incidentally, Sam. You are engaging in exactly the character assassination you accuse others of. Good for the goose is good for the gander. That also applies to your "shoot the supporters" idea. If Israel can shoot Gazans because they supported Hamas (how the Hell would they know which ones did or didn't by the way?) then Hamas has every right to target Israeli civilians for supporting the Israeli governments attacks. Or, possibly, neither has the right to deliberately target the other's civilians as that is a war crime. So yes, Sam, you're quite right, Hamas is guilty of war crimes (although if the reports of Israel using white phosphorus as a weapon rather than to provide cover are true, that would be a war crime too). The world would be much better off if they were not involved. However, they are and the reason they're so damn popular is partly because of the number of deaths Israel causes with these ineffective assaults.
Now, I have no idea what Israel should do as the options seem to be:
a) invade with overwhelming force, crush the terrorists for a month or two but give them ten recruits for every one you kill
b) do nothing and accept that eventually the terrorists will get access to a decent aiming system and start to make good on their intent,
or c) negotiate with a group who refuses to accept your right to exist.
None of those look like useful solutions. Special forces is a nice pipe dream, but hopelessly ineffective given the logistics involved.
Of course, Israel could help by not stealing land, i.e. building on occupied territory and allowing its settlers to keep expanding into more occupied territory as it has been doing since it occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They moved out of Gaza. Great (well, not great as they pulled out without any handover leaving a power vacuum. Populist terrorist groups love those). That still leaves the West Bank where the building continues. That wouldn't solve the problem and believing it would is insane, but it would leave one side, Israel, completely in the right as opposed to being the lesser of two wrongs where it is now. Unfortunately, to do that now would be a victory for Hamas, as it would only be "because they have forced Israel to do this".
So, no movement can be made until Hamas loses power but until there is movement, Hamas will gain power as the "resistance to the evil occupiers". Catch-22 in the extreme.
EDIT: Also, what Aubrey said. Well, except that Hamss needs to, as preconditions recognise Israel's right to exist and recognise previous negotiated settlements as being in force. Until those happen, there's no point entering into formal negotiations. Informal , secret ones through intermediaries as happened with the IRA? You betcha, but those are necessary preconditions for any formal talks.
I think everyone just needs to get in on a big group hug.....preferably in a field of flowers. Hugs can solve any problems.
I think everyone just needs to get in on a big group hug.....preferably in a field of flowers. Hugs can solve any problems.*Hugs Peace LVR*
Oh, thank you sooooo much Mister Melty-wax-thing person. That's soooo nice of you. Want some shrooms?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Paul,
The flaw in your arguement, as I see it, is that Hamas will use children as spotters while they shoot from the shadows, will fire from schools, mosques and even television stations while they're on the air, then complain about Israel targeting 'civilians' To paraphrase David Pipes this 'hood on I'm a militant, hood off, I'm a civilian' is nonsense. Israel isn't using ambulances to send in suicide bombers, Israel isn't using children as spotters, Israel isn't randomly firing rockets into civilian areas. Sam has a point, you kill terrorists, kill them some more, kill their supporters and don't feel sorry about it.
If there's a broadcast about a jew eating rabbit telling children that martyring themselves for Palestine is good, then everyone in that studio is a fair game. If there's a broadcast station that is having rockets fired from it, then it's time to take that station off the air. Explosively. If the people of Gaza want peace, then it falls to them to take steps to do so. They've said time and again they don't. Electiions have consequences, and one of those is to be bombed back to the stone age when you elect people who want their neighbors dead. The fact that the Gaza Strip isn't the Gaza Strip Mall is evidence enough of Israel not wanting to drive them into the sea. How about Hamas return the favour?
Now I suppose in some bizzaro world Israel has expelled all the arabs, has no non-jewish memebers of parliment, and randomly attacks Palastinians instead of giving them aid, money, and training. But this is reality.
|
|
Paul,
The flaw in your arguement, as I see it, is that Hamas will use children as spotters while they shoot from the shadows, will fire from schools, mosques and even television stations while they're on the air, then complain about Israel targeting 'civilians' To paraphrase David Pipes this 'hood on I'm a militant, hood off, I'm a civilian' is nonsense. Israel isn't using ambulances to send in suicide bombers, Israel isn't using children as spotters, Israel isn't randomly firing rockets into civilian areas. Sam has a point, you kill terrorists, kill them some more, kill their supporters and don't feel sorry about it.
If there's a broadcast about a jew eating rabbit telling children that martyring themselves for Palestine is good, then everyone in that studio is a fair game. If there's a broadcast station that is having rockets fired from it, then it's time to take that station off the air. Explosively. If the people of Gaza want peace, then it falls to them to take steps to do so. They've said time and again they don't. Electiions have consequences, and one of those is to be bombed back to the stone age when you elect people who want their neighbors dead. The fact that the Gaza Strip isn't the Gaza Strip Mall is evidence enough of Israel not wanting to drive them into the sea. How about Hamas return the favour?
Now I suppose in some bizzaro world Israel has expelled all the arabs, has no non-jewish memebers of parliment, and randomly attacks Palastinians instead of giving them aid, money, and training. But this is reality.
And I ask you the same question I asked Sam: How do you tell who's a supporter? Do you have their voting records? Should they let Hamas shoot them rather than let Israel bomb them? This view that you can target supporters is as naive as the view that Israel wants to exterminate all Palestinians.
EDIT: Could you also shoot every person in the US who gave any money to the Irish Republicans for the same reason? It will save the UK government some time.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'll reply in more detail when I get home and have a better search engine. Short form. Are rockets coming from your home? Then you're supporting them.
As to your edit, I'm all for it. I've a friend who's an IRA supporter, she can't understand why I call her a terrorist enabler.
Strange though, I've nothing but contempt for Hamas/Fatah/Al Quidea etc. They're not just evil, they're too dangerous to be allowed to exist. The IRA, however I've always hated.
|
|
I'll reply in more detail when I get home and have a better search engine. Short form. Are rockets coming from your home? Then you're supporting them.
As to your edit, I'm all for it. I've a friend who's an IRA supporter, she can't understand why I call her a terrorist enabler.
Strange though, I've nothing but contempt for Hamas/Fatah/Al Quidea etc. They're not just evil, they're too dangerous to be allowed to exist. The IRA, however I've always hated.
Matthew,
Ok. So some nice friendly representatives of Hamas knock on your door, with assault rifles and a rocket launcher and tell you to get in so they can use your house to attack the evil, oppressing Zionist scum (TM). Your reaction is, what exactly? Let them in and become a target, or don't let them in and become a statistic?EDIT: Choosing Door Number 3 "shoot them first" means you're a traitor and they'll kill you. If you're lucky, you'll get a trial first, but don't bet your life on it.
|
|
Paul,
The flaw in your arguement, as I see it, is that Hamas will use children as spotters while they shoot from the shadows, will fire from schools, mosques and even television stations while they're on the air, then complain about Israel targeting 'civilians' To paraphrase David Pipes this 'hood on I'm a militant, hood off, I'm a civilian' is nonsense. Israel isn't using ambulances to send in suicide bombers, Israel isn't using children as spotters, Israel isn't randomly firing rockets into civilian areas. Sam has a point, you kill terrorists, kill them some more, kill their supporters and don't feel sorry about it.
If there's a broadcast about a jew eating rabbit telling children that martyring themselves for Palestine is good, then everyone in that studio is a fair game. If there's a broadcast station that is having rockets fired from it, then it's time to take that station off the air. Explosively. If the people of Gaza want peace, then it falls to them to take steps to do so. They've said time and again they don't. Electiions have consequences, and one of those is to be bombed back to the stone age when you elect people who want their neighbors dead. The fact that the Gaza Strip isn't the Gaza Strip Mall is evidence enough of Israel not wanting to drive them into the sea. How about Hamas return the favour?
Now I suppose in some bizzaro world Israel has expelled all the arabs, has no non-jewish memebers of parliment, and randomly attacks Palastinians instead of giving them aid, money, and training. But this is reality.
That is what is known as asymmetric warfare - Hamas would obviously lose if it attacked Israel in a conventional way. Is it right? Depends if the ends justify the means. Is it effective? Well, it must be, since Hamas still hasn't been defeated and is unlikely to be.
The right/wrong stuff isn't the issue. The Palestinians have genuine grievances, and trying to deflect that by saying they are "wrong" misses the point. Until those grievances are addressed (which is not the same as giving them everything they want) this situation will persist.
(And as someone pointed out before, America was born from guerrilla warfare and some pretty dirty tactics against a "conventional" army. Go to Boston as a Brit and see the glee they depict a lot of the killing of British soldiers - is a Jew-eating rabbit totally different. And it was all about taxes and voting rights. Low politics all the way. Sure, it was a long time ago and you can shrug it off on both sides (and we have) but the similarities are quite interesting.)
|
|
I would recommend that everyone watch the movie The Kingdom. Even though it is about Saudi Arabia, it still illustrates many of the problems that face the Middle East peace process. That said, I'm dropping this thread because too many people are more interested in finding ways to interput any comment anyone makes as a personal insult rather than trying to find solutions or understanding.
|
|
That's piffle, and avoiding the issue. The issue isn't about who is right and who is wrong, but finding a solution to the problems and an acceptable, and doubtless painful, compromise for both sides. As long as one side is saying "I am right" or "I am righter than you" that makes it very difficult.
This issue is indeed not about who is right.
It is most definitely about who is wrong.When dealing with terrorism it is not a civil case but a criminal case.
In the UK we had a peace process with the IRA, and it sticks in the throat to see former terrorists and murderers strutting about as peaceful politicians and pretending they have no blood on their hands. But then again, the British army did some questionable things in Northern Ireland. Who is more right? The issue is largely irrelevant. The issue was about getting to a peaceful, democratic solution in Northern ireland, and it looks like we have done it.
So because the British army did questionable things IRA terrorists must be forgiven?
While "forgiveness" commissions have becone standard these days they inevitably fall short because of that.Israel resolutely refuses to deal with the Palestinian problem - it wants to build a wall to hedge them out,
No, it wants to build a wall to restrict the movement of suicide bombers.
And despite frenzied denunciations, those walls have worked.I suppose it could be argued they have worked too well, as that is why Hamas and other terrorist groups have turned to rocket attacks. That does not make it rational to abandon the walls.
belligerant settlers occupy the West Bank in ever growing numbers,
And belligerent terrorists occupy Gaza in ever growning numbers.
Since you favor equivalency and all that, shall they be expelled too?and bombing the hell out of Hamas is a short-term expediency.
Indeed. Which is why instead of condemning it, the UN and world community should support Israel in taking it to a permanent resolution, as is their obligation under international treaties regarding the fighting of terrorism.
(It doesn't help that the Israeli polity is largely broken through an overly proportional electoral system that puts minority interest (often religious and tied to the settlers) in the driving seat through unstable coalition governments.)
So no telling the Palestinians who to elect or how to organize a government but telling the Israelis?
Uh huh.If such action was intended to weaken Hamas sufficiently so it comes to the negotiating table, then I can see the logic, but if the intention is to ignore Hamas again and refuse to talk after all this then nothing will be achieved.
"I suppose you expect me to talk?"
"No Mister Bond, I expect you to die."Likewise, Hamas seems to see its raison d'etre as the struggle to eliminate Israel, failing to grasp the reality than Israel is going nowhere and that its actions are counterproductive to the best interests of the Palestinian majority.
Why should they grasp that?
That is the point I keep trying to make.As long as the suggestion is made time and again that all they have to do is blow up enough Israelis and set the Israelis up to blow up enough human shields and Israel will be forced to negotiate with them, which means forced to begin giving into their demands, then how is anything they are doing counterproductive?
Add in people making it clear that they have "nothing" now, or at least nothing worth considering as even vaguely worthwhile, or any chance at having anything worthwhile until such time as Israel is forced to negotiate and concede to at least "some" of the demands of Hamas, and there is no way to phrase their actions as counterproductive.
Until BOTH sides grasp this (and I don't see this happening any time soon) the problem will remain intractable.
No, until those "unbiased observers" and "neutral mediators" grasp this, and I do not see that happening any time soon, the problem will remain intractable.
It isn't about right or wrong, or moral superiority, but grubby politics. In Northern Ireland the leadership of the IRA were effectively bribed with the prospect of political power after they were largely defeated militarily. The same more or less happened to Arafat (though he was too corrupt to make it work). But Israel will have to make concessions, and accept that it has done wrong (and not just recently), and talk to Hamas. There is no alternative.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Make a concession to terrorists today, pay for it tomorrow.
... I'm dropping this thread because too many people are more interested in finding ways to interput any comment anyone makes as a personal insult rather than trying to find solutions or understanding.
I think I'm right behind you David.
Exits stage Left
|
|
[
Incidentally, Sam. You are engaging in exactly the character assassination you accuse others of. Good for the goose is good for the gander. That also applies to your "shoot the supporters" idea. If Israel can shoot Gazans because they supported Hamas (how the Hell would they know which ones did or didn't by the way?) then Hamas has every right to target Israeli civilians for supporting the Israeli governments attacks.
You are wrong.
Supporting terrorists is a crime.Supporting a legitimate government fighting terrorists is not a crime.
I know you need to base your argument on an absolute moral equivalency, but it simply is not true.
Or, possibly, neither has the right to deliberately target the other's civilians as that is a war crime. So yes, Sam, you're quite right, Hamas is guilty of war crimes (although if the reports of Israel using white phosphorus as a weapon rather than to provide cover are true, that would be a war crime too).
And if Israel did not then you only have one side guilty of war crimes.
How do you reconcile your position with that?Now, I have no idea what Israel should do as the options seem to be:
a) invade with overwhelming force, crush the terrorists for a month or two but give them ten recruits for every one you kill
b) do nothing and accept that eventually the terrorists will get access to a decent aiming system and start to make good on their intent,
or c) negotiate with a group who refuses to accept your right to exist.
Except there is no evidence that you do in fact give them ten recruits for every one you kill. That removes a significant argument against a).
It also does not include the option to continue the operation until there are no terrorists left to recruit new ones. Again that changes the dynamic considerably.Of course, Israel could help by not stealing land, i.e. building on occupied territory and allowing its settlers to keep expanding into more occupied territory as it has been doing since it occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Of course as I pointed out they are not building on occupied territory. As Hamas claims, there is no legitimate partition. That means the entire region is one country. That means Israel can build new housing anywhere it wants.
Or, as per the Geneva Conventions, nothing justifies war crimes, even other war crimes. So citing that as a cause is in fact illegal as it provides support for terrorism.They moved out of Gaza. Great (well, not great as they pulled out without any handover leaving a power vacuum. pPopulist terrorist groups love those).
Incorrect. There was a handover of power to Fatah as the Palestinian Authority. Then Fatah lost the elections in 2006. Then Fatah lost their coup in 2007.
What there was not was any quid pro quo, or concession to any other demands relating to the West Bank.(That would be another of those "inconvenient truths" that keep coming up about the actual events.)
That still leaves the West Bank where the building continues. That wouldn't solve the problem and believing it would is insane, but it would leave one side, Israel, completely in the right as opposed to being the lesser of two wrongs where it is now. Unfortunately, to do that now would be a victory for Hamas, as it would only be "because they have forced Israel to do this".
And yet you advocate that Israel must negotiate with Hamas.
Yet again someone points out an obvious reality in one place while denying it as part of an "overall" plan.Again, not believing me is one thing, but not believing yourself?
So, no movement can be made until Hamas loses power but until there is movement, Hamas will gain power as the "resistance to the evil occupiers". Catch-22 in the extreme.
Except it does not have to be a Catch-22.
The people who have to change first are not the Israelis or the Palestinians, but all those "observers" and "mediators".EDIT: Also, what Aubrey said. Well, except that Hamss needs to, as preconditions recognise Israel's right to exist and recognise previous negotiated settlements as being in force. Until those happen, there's no point entering into formal negotiations. Informal , secret ones through intermediaries as happened with the IRA? You betcha, but those are necessary preconditions for any formal talks.
Wait . . . I thought I said that a precondition was recognizing the right to exist and the previous settlements?
Except that was described as too harsh on the Arabs.And of course too dependent on that . . . change in the attitudes of the "observers" and "mediators".
Dagnabbit!
Oh, and Israel already made a deal with one terrorist and his cohorts - Arafat and Fatah.
The result of letting that camel get his nose in the tent was the Second Intifada when Arafat did not get his way in subsequent negotiations.
|
|
And I ask you the same question I asked Sam: How do you tell who's a supporter? Do you have their voting records? Should they let Hamas shoot them rather than let Israel bomb them? This view that you can target supporters is as naive as the view that Israel wants to exterminate all Palestinians.
EDIT: Could you also shoot every person in the US who gave any money to the Irish Republicans for the same reason? It will save the UK government some time.
You tell a supporter by looking for who steps in front of them while "unarmed" to provide cover while they commit war crimes.
You tell a supporter by looking for who provides civilian clothes and a civilian crowd for them to blend into.If needed, indeed you can tell a supporter by who provides money, as providing material support for terrorism like that is in fact a crime.
If you would like to request the extradition of Americans who sent money to the IRA, feel free. You will have to do the shooting, with or without trials, yourself.
Ok. So some nice friendly representatives of Hamas knock on your door, with assault rifles and a rocket launcher and tell you to get in so they can use your house to attack the evil, oppressing Zionist scum (TM). Your reaction is, what exactly? Let them in and become a target, or don't let them in and become a statistic?
EDIT: Choosing Door Number 3 "shoot them first" means you're a traitor and they'll kill you. If you're lucky, you'll get a trial first, but don't bet your life on it.
So yet another excuse.
If Hamas does not represent the majority will, how can they get away with that? All those other people could just band together and hunt them down first.And I must ask, did Hamas force all of them to vote for them?
And really, what is the responsibility of the UN just sitting around while this happens? Or the rest of the world?
Of course that just begs the essential question from the start: how do you know that is what happens? Have you interviewed every "unwilling" human shield?
|
|
That is what is known as asymmetric warfare - Hamas would obviously lose if it attacked Israel in a conventional way. Is it right? Depends if the ends justify the means. Is it effective? Well, it must be, since Hamas still hasn't been defeated and is unlikely to be.
The right/wrong stuff isn't the issue. The Palestinians have genuine grievances, and trying to deflect that by saying they are "wrong" misses the point. Until those grievances are addressed (which is not the same as giving them everything they want) this situation will persist.
No, it is what is known as war crimes and terrorism.
If you reject international law which does not acknowledge any justification for such, even other war crimes, then you de facto and de jure immunize Israel from any such charges, and give them full and unrestricted to actively ethnically cleanse all Palestinian Muslims from Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.If that is the legal and moral standard you want to assert then do so. Just accept the responsibility for the consequences.
(And as someone pointed out before, America was born from guerrilla warfare and some pretty dirty tactics against a "conventional" army. Go to Boston as a Brit and see the glee they depict a lot of the killing of British soldiers - is a Jew-eating rabbit totally different. And it was all about taxes and voting rights. Low politics all the way. Sure, it was a long time ago and you can shrug it off on both sides (and we have) but the similarities are quite interesting.)
Ambush and other strategems of assymetric warfare are not illegal under international law, or immoral. They are certainly unpleasant for those affected, but then even stand up fights are not all that happy-happy-joy-joy for the people in the line of battle.
Sam, my man! Could it be that you and I agree on something? War crimes in Desert Storm?
Yet I'm confused, because IIRC you've said elsewhere that in the current operations in Iraq, since 2003, no war crimes have been committed.
How exactly are you defining war crimes? And is there not a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty in what constitutes a war crime?
Not at all.
Ramsey Clark is a moron, and his cronies are not even that intelligent.Yes, I have said that no war crimes have been committed by the U.S. government. Of course Desert Storm is not Iraqi Freedom, so you need to get your dates right.
Yes. I do realize that Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom are different operations at different times, yet quite similar in their heavy-handedness and use of huge caches of bombs, the destruction of infrastructure, etc.
As for how I define war crimes, that is according to the Geneva Convention.
If you want to read Ramsey Clark's nonsense, click the link. That is well beyond my tolerance for stupidity, conspiracy theories, and incompetent interpretation of law.
I have a copy of Clark's book The Fire This Time.