Why the hell was the thread locked? Are we not allowed to discuss what is essentially the most important political event of the last few months?
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10672.0.html
You might consider spelling Israel correctly. (Just a note.)
Quote from: karlhenning on January 17, 2009, 03:05:35 PM
You might consider spelling Israel correctly. (Just a note.)
Done.
Iago posted a cartoon that was dangerously truthful about the difference between hiding behind civilians and protecting them from harm. I don't mean Israeli citizens, I mean Gazans. The IDF is more concerned with protecting the lives of Gazans than Hamas, because Hamas wants large numbers of Gazans to die. It's built into their strategy. You see, they have this insane notion that if they hide behind their own citizens while Israel tries to avoid killing them, any collateral damage will be blamed on the Israelis. I know, it's hard to believe that anyone can be that naive. It sounds like something a Hamas spokesman would try. But, to think anyone would actually fall for it?
And yet:
QuoteConsider Israel recently bombed a school, not to mention several hospitals, I'd say that this picture is out of date.
So, there's no difference between hitting a school and deliberately targeting it
because it's a school the way Islamic terrorists do all the time. Who says propaganda doesn't work? Such moral blindness is worth its weight in gold.
Just to clarify: When Hamas targets a school, it's not because there are Israeli soldiers hiding behind children in it, it's because there are children in it that are the targets.
It's the children that they want to kill. Get it?
Quote from: drogulus on January 17, 2009, 03:58:12 PM
So, there's no difference between hitting a school and deliberately targeting it because it's a school the way Islamic terrorists do all the time. Who says propaganda doesn't work? Such moral blindness is worth its weight in gold.
I was trolling a troll thread, actually.
Edit: Although I didn't get the response I was seeking from the OP - I was hoping for more hysterics.
Quote from: Lethe on January 17, 2009, 04:54:24 PM
Edit: Although I didn't get the response I was seeking from the OP - I was hoping for more hysterics.
you bad ;D
Quote from: drogulus on January 17, 2009, 03:58:12 PM
Iago posted a cartoon that was dangerously truthful about the difference between hiding behind civilians and protecting them from harm. I don't mean Israeli citizens, I mean Gazans. The IDF is more concerned with protecting the lives of Gazans than Hamas, because Hamas wants large numbers of Gazans to die. It's built into their strategy. You see, they have this insane notion that if they hide behind their own citizens while Israel tries to avoid killing them, any collateral damage will be blamed on the Israelis. I know, it's hard to believe that anyone can be that naive. It sounds like something a Hamas spokesman would try. But, to think anyone would actually fall for it?
Maybe it's not being naive, but just being a group of stupid apes.
Excuse me, what?
I'm always amazed by how innocuous all sorts of bad things can be made to sound in favour of making other bad things sound even worse.
There is no possible justification for matching a death toll of 13 with 1200. End of story for me, perhaps because I'm not a Jew, or an Arab. When civilians get relegated to collateral and you need to come up with justifications of why you've bombed a school, it's already too far.
That is my personal, politically/racially-neutral view. I was going to ignore this thread, but I thought I might as well contribute some neutrality.
Quote from: Renfield on January 17, 2009, 08:06:55 PM
There is no possible justification for matching a death toll of 13 with 1200.
I guess if you choose to completely ignore the Israeli deaths from Hamas rocket attacks over the years, then 13 is an accurate number.
When one is waging war, isn't it generally strategic to keep one's own death count low? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
Quote from: aquariuswb on January 17, 2009, 09:19:46 PM
I guess if you choose to completely ignore the Israeli deaths from Hamas rocket attacks over the years, then 13 is an accurate number.
When one is waging war, isn't it generally strategic to keep one's own death count low? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
I refer to the onlookers' assessment of the moral high ground
of this war, and thus not including long-term Palestinian casualties, either.
And an efficient war is not a justified war, it is simply a successful one; in fact, it would be a travesty if Israel could
not guarantee a low casualty rate with their present arsenal, but this is completely irrelevant to my previous comment.
I am, however, still impressed by how often it seems to be the case that Hamas' is the side one is challenged to prove innocent, rather than Israel (also) guilty. Setting aside the fact that these conclusions are distinct, what makes any side in a conflict a priori "right" as such?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on January 17, 2009, 03:01:39 PM
Why the hell was the thread locked? Are we not allowed to discuss what is essentially the most important political event of the last few months?
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10672.0.html
I myself, locked that previous thread. Since I started that thread, I was able to lock it anytime that I wished to do so. And I chose to do so because I didn't want to read anymore anti-semitic diatribes from Josquin De Prez and his ilk.
The cartoon Iago posted is not outdated and depicts the truth. Usually I disagree with the old fellow, but in this instance he is right.
With all due respect, I am suspecting that not everyone taking part in this discussion is neutral to it.
Regardless, I'd like to affirm I don't really care about semites or anti-semites, which is exactly why my offered opinion was based on a body count. That might also be the case for many people, speaking both for and against either side, and not necessarily anti-something. :)
You're anti-antisemites/semites! :D
The thing I wonder about (not just in this case but more generally) is how much pain and inconvenience Americans are willing to put up with in order to maintain their support for Israel. It seems to be the case that most Americans sympathize with Israel, but such sympathy is broad, vague and generalized, rather than militant and fervent.
If it comes down to (for instance) a choice between supporting Israel and paying lower prices for gas, which choice is your average Joe going to make?
Also, Congress is out of touch with the country as a whole. It supports Israel almost unanimously, whereas the population is much more split. A poll last year, in fact, said that 71% of Americans thought the USA should not take sides in the Israel-Palestine dispute.
Quote from: Spitvalve on January 18, 2009, 12:10:42 AM
the USA should not take sides in the Israel-Palestine dispute.
My sentiments exactly.
Quote from: Iago on January 17, 2009, 10:56:16 PMI myself, locked that previous thread. Since I started that thread, I was able to lock it anytime that I wished to do so. And I chose to do so because I didn't want to read anymore anti-semitic diatribes.
Iago,
Seriously, how could you post that cartoon in the original thread ?
I suggest you read this editorial and do some reflection.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/18/gaza-israel-palestinian
Quote from: Iago on January 17, 2009, 10:56:16 PM
I myself, locked that previous thread. Since I started that thread, I was able to lock it anytime that I wished to do so. And I chose to do so because I didn't want to read anymore anti-semitic diatribes from Josquin De Prez and his ilk.
So you expected an Israel love-fest from all board members? Sorry, but when you started your thread, you opened the opportunity for opinions from all sides. Poor decision-making on your part.
Quote from: Renfield on January 17, 2009, 09:59:07 PM
I refer to the onlookers' assessment of the moral high ground of this war, and thus not including long-term Palestinian casualties, either.
And an efficient war is not a justified war, it is simply a successful one; in fact, it would be a travesty if Israel could not guarantee a low casualty rate with their present arsenal, but this is completely irrelevant to my previous comment.
I am, however, still impressed by how often it seems to be the case that Hamas' is the side one is challenged to prove innocent, rather than Israel (also) guilty. Setting aside the fact that these conclusions are distinct, what makes any side in a conflict a priori "right" as such?
I think I did misunderstand your point earlier; thanks for clarifying.
In my opinion, this situation is not about moral high ground; just like any war, really, this one is not even about right vs. wrong. For each side, it's about something different.
Is it a "justified war?"
Again, I don't think that a "justified war" comes down to "being in the right," which is merely a fantasy. For Israel, the immediate objective is getting Hamas to stop shooting rockets at the former, a practice that has gone on for years, resulting in hundreds of civilian Israeli injuries and deaths. Three days before Israel started the recent offensive, do not forget, Hamas fired 87 rockets at Israel in a single day!
I wouldn't say that Israel is "in the right," but I also wouldn't be so quick to say that Israel's actions are unjustified or unwarranted. It's a complex issue.
Quote from: aquariuswb on January 18, 2009, 08:48:08 AMI wouldn't say that Israel is "in the right," but I also wouldn't be so quick to say that Israel's actions are unjustified or unwarranted.
Really ?
That's revolting.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 18, 2009, 08:56:46 AM
Really ?
That's revolting.
What a thoughtful and substantial contribution to the discussion!
Do you believe, then, that in every "justified war," one side is necessarily "right" and the other necessarily "wrong," that there exists some indisputable good-vs-evil dichotomy?
IMHO, the only justified war in the last 100 years was the IIWW. One side
was the incarnation of evil, and had to be stopped.
Quote from: Renfield on January 17, 2009, 08:06:55 PM
Excuse me, what?
I'm always amazed by how innocuous all sorts of bad things can be made to sound in favour of making other bad things sound even worse.
There is no possible justification for matching a death toll of 13 with 1200. End of story for me, perhaps because I'm not a Jew, or an Arab. When civilians get relegated to collateral and you need to come up with justifications of why you've bombed a school, it's already too far.
That is my personal, politically/racially-neutral view. I was going to ignore this thread, but I thought I might as well contribute some neutrality.
Quote from: Renfield on January 17, 2009, 09:59:07 PM
I am, however, still impressed by how often it seems to be the case that Hamas' is the side one is challenged to prove innocent, rather than Israel (also) guilty. Setting aside the fact that these conclusions are distinct, what makes any side in a conflict a priori "right" as such?
well said.
So who here has actually known someone who has lived in the Gaza strip? Last year for several months I lived with a guy and his family who had just come back from several years there. Without going into detail I'll just say that whatever sympathy I once had for Israel declined greatly. The stories of open gunfire and restrictions were horrific. Yeah you could say he was biased, but he's also a man who lived in a place that seemed to be intentionally trampled on. Forgive the term but I think the current campaign has somewhat unmasked Israel, and the opposition to it in papers and among higher profile campaigners has been quite admirable. The US stats were good to see.
Quote from: DFO on January 18, 2009, 09:17:25 AM
IMHO, the only justified war in the last 100 years was the IIWW. One side
was the incarnation of evil, and had to be stopped.
I agree with you that WWII was a "justified war."
But I stand by my assertion that in war, there is virtually never a clear-cut dichotomy between right and wrong, good and evil. The US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan in WWII, for heaven's sake—certainly not a "moral" action in my book, but arguably not an unjustified one, either (not necessarily my stance on the issue, by the way).
But when has war ever been about morality?
My point is that declaring the current situation in the Middle East "unjustified" without proper consideration of the issues/events surrounding and leading up to it is rather unfair. And when one
does consider those issues and events, one is unlikely to find that there is a "right side" and a "wrong side," but one may still find justification for certain militaristic acts.
By the way, I have never said anywhere in this thread that Israel's recent offensive
is justified. I'm just saying that
A) you can't view the offensive as though it exists in a vacuum, and
B) justification for military action is far more complex than a simple question of right versus wrong (despite, may I add, what George W. Bush would have us believe!).
Quote from: ezodisy on January 18, 2009, 09:40:48 AM
well said.
So who here has actually known someone who has lived in the Gaza strip?
Me :) I know people form both sides. One on side was the Palestinian driver of my ex-boss with whom I had plenty of opportunities to converse. His family had a miserable life there and he was blaming Israel for all their misfortunes (rightly so, from a civilian stand point). On the other side is the family of my grandfather who live in northern Israel who assert that they are bombarded with rockets while going about their business. Thus, when you talk with them separately, it is really really difficult to assert any kind of wrong/right distinction to this affair.
It would be way too oversimplifying to put the blame solely on Israel. In these recent events Hamas gets most of the blame IMO. In the middle is Israel, and the victims are Palestinian civilians, as usual. Don't forget that Hamas is flying rockets into Israel territory with the intent to kill as many civilians as they can. Just because their rocket systems are not sophisticated enough to cause as much harm as they would like does not make them innocent. If they had any respect for their fellow citizens they would have ceased making those pointless provocations long ago.
I am clueless as to suggest what Israel should do. I don't know how any other country would react under similar circumstances (we have recently seen Russia act in a situation that resembles this one, and we've all seen the results).
Now that there is a ceasefire, what will happen next? A few months of relative calm then it will start all over again. Not surprising, since both sides have made conflicts a raison d'eitre for themselves.
Quote from: Iago on January 17, 2009, 10:56:16 PMI myself, locked that previous thread. Since I started that thread, I was able to lock it anytime that I wished to do so. And I chose to do so because I didn't want to read anymore anti-semitic diatribes from Josquin De Prez and his ilk.
How is he being anti-semitic ?
Your comment reminds me of this nauseating piece:
"It is not Israel's action, but the vitriolic reaction to it that has been disproportionate. There's only one explanation: antisemitism"http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/16/elizabeth-wurtzel-antisemitism-israel-gaza
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 18, 2009, 11:45:40 AM
How is he being anti-semitic ?
Your comment reminds me of this nauseating piece:
That piece isn't nauseating; as usual, your views are ignorant.
well the Wurtzel piece isn't exactly a brilliant well-thought out piece either. And it is getting a little tiresome to hear Americans say they haven't been in Europe for ten years (if ever) and call all Europeans antisemetic in the same breath. It's like freedom fries all over.
Quote from: Herman on January 18, 2009, 01:06:14 PM
well the Wurtzel piece isn't exactly a brilliant well-thought out piece either.
True, but it does express the opinions of many American jewish folks.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 18, 2009, 11:45:40 AM
How is he being anti-semitic ?
Your comment reminds me of this nauseating piece:
"It is not Israel's action, but the vitriolic reaction to it that has been disproportionate. There's only one explanation: antisemitism"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/16/elizabeth-wurtzel-antisemitism-israel-gaza
I don't read the "Guardian". In fact from the few excerpts from it that you have referred to, I wouldn't line the bottom of my birds cage with it.
[/quote]
Quote from: Bulldog on January 18, 2009, 01:25:34 PM
True, but it does express the opinions of many American jewish folks.
ergo "the opinions of many American jewish folks" aren't very well thought out?
I thought we had just established Jews had cornered the IQ market?
Let's face it: Hamas' publicly stated goal is to destroy Israel; they've been firing rockets in Southern Israel for eight years; they don't give a damn for the lives and properties of their fellow Palestinians, their propaganda notwithstanding; they overthrew the legitimate Fatah government in Gaza in a bloody coup d'etat.
What is Israel to do in such situation? Is it not allowed to protect its citizens manu militari?
As for the civil casualties on both sides, they are regrettable, of course, but Israel cannot be blamed alone for them. Hamas' constantly and mindlessly provoking Israel was bound to attract a reaction, sooner or later, and the Israeli army is not particularly famed for kindness and restraint.
IMHO this conflict, of which the ongoing war is just an episode, has no solution. Hatred and resentment have been accumulated on both sides for too much time and with too much bitterness. Only a miracle of God can bring peace in the Middle East.
heartbreaking
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7838465.stm
The trouble with Israel is that it exists. It should not have been created--people already lived there. The British/UN shouldn't have handed the land over to a people they felt where somehow wronged. It's funny how the Brits and every single UN nation that voted for Israel to come to existence weren't themselves willing to bear any burden for that choice--it was the Palestinians who were made to do so. Asking the Palestinians to recognize Israel's so called "right" to exist is absurd as asking Native Americans to recognize America's "right" to exist--in other words, to justify their own dispossession.
There's two things that keeps America utterly in support of Israel: Evangelicals and Zionist influence/lobbying. The former embrace Israel because they think its existence means the apocalypse is near.
The way the latter operates is obvious: If a media outlet is owned by a Zionist...or has Zionists in top positions...then all underlings know not to be too critical of Israel or their career is finished. AIPAC/ACLU and countless other organizations take care of the political front.
Quote from: Herman on January 18, 2009, 10:16:07 PM
ergo "the opinions of many American jewish folks" aren't very well thought out?
I thought we had just established Jews had cornered the IQ market?
That was before my IQ was added to the equation.
Quote from: -abe- on January 19, 2009, 01:11:58 PM
The trouble with Israel is that it exists. It should not have been created--people already lived there. The British/UN shouldn't have handed the land over to a people they felt where somehow wronged. It's funny how the Brits and every single UN nation that voted for Israel to come to existence weren't themselves willing to bear any burden for that choice--it was the Palestinians who were made to do so. Asking the Palestinians to recognize Israel's so called "right" to exist is absurd as asking Native Americans to recognize America's "right" to exist--in other words, to justify their own dispossession.
Too bad that your empathy for the Palestinians is not matched by equal concern for Jews.
Quote from: Bulldog on January 19, 2009, 01:58:58 PM
Too bad that your empathy for the Palestinians is not matched by equal concern for Jews.
Perhaps that's because in this situation the Palestinians are the victims of the Jews.
Quote from: -abe- on January 19, 2009, 02:18:58 PM
Perhaps that's because in this situation the Palestinians are the victims of the Jews.
Do you have a recommendation to solve or mitigate the current turmoil?
Quote from: Bulldog on January 19, 2009, 02:22:34 PMDo you have a recommendation to solve or mitigate the current turmoil?
How about a return to how they lived for hundreds of years before 1948... as one people living on the same piece of land.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 19, 2009, 02:49:47 PM
How about a return to how they lived for hundreds of years before 1948... as one people living on the same piece of land.
Ah, the "going back in time" solution. Do you think it's realistic?
Quote from: Florestan on January 19, 2009, 12:57:49 AM
Let's face it: Hamas' publicly stated goal is to destroy Israel; they've been firing rockets in Southern Israel for eight years; they don't give a damn for the lives and properties of their fellow Palestinians, their propaganda notwithstanding; they overthrew the legitimate Fatah government in Gaza in a bloody coup d'etat.
What is Israel to do in such situation? Is it not allowed to protect its citizens manu militari?
As for the civil casualties on both sides, they are regrettable, of course, but Israel cannot be blamed alone for them. Hamas' constantly and mindlessly provoking Israel was bound to attract a reaction, sooner or later, and the Israeli army is not particularly famed for kindness and restraint.
IMHO this conflict, of which the ongoing war is just an episode, has no solution. Hatred and resentment have been accumulated on both sides for too much time and with too much bitterness. Only a miracle of God can bring peace in the Middle East.
That about sums it up nicely, and miracles do happen. 0:)
Quote from: Bulldog on January 19, 2009, 02:22:34 PM
Do you have a recommendation to solve or mitigate the current turmoil?
One state solution.
Quote from: -abe- on January 19, 2009, 03:29:00 PM
One state solution.
Would that satisfy the Palestinians?
Quote from: Bulldog on January 19, 2009, 04:29:55 PM
Would that satisfy the Palestinians?
You mean you think they
really want to "drive the Jews to the sea" rather than such language being a
reaction to their decades long oppression and mistreatment by Jews?
Quote from: -abe- on January 19, 2009, 05:22:54 PM
You mean you think they really want to "drive the Jews to the sea" rather than such language being a reaction to their decades long oppression and mistreatment by Jews?
Beats me. You're the one who knows the history and current situation; you're the one who knows why the USA keeps supporting Israel. So, my previous question as to whether "one state" would satisfy the Palestinians still stands. Although a complex matter, a man of your insight might be able to see the outlines of a viable future for both Palestinians and Jews.
Quote from: Bulldog on January 19, 2009, 06:00:43 PM
Beats me. You're the one who knows the history and current situation; you're the one who knows why the USA keeps supporting Israel. So, my previous question as to whether "one state" would satisfy the Palestinians still stands. Although a complex matter, a man of your insight might be able to see the outlines of a viable future for both Palestinians and Jews.
It's only a "complex" issue to Zionists and their sympathizers who want to muddle up the simple moral issue at the heart of the conflict: Israel was a country randomly created mere decades ago--for the benefit of one people at the expense of another. All the wars and strive and terrorism derive from that fact. A one state solution would address that foundational problem. And I guess it was a mistake in the first place to answer your question of whether or not that would "satisfy the Palestinians."
I wonder how realistic a 1-state solution could be, given the deep mutual antipathy existing between Jews and Arabs.
Perhaps the example of Israel's Arab citizens (c. 20% of the total pop) might provide some pointers.
Quote from: Renfield on January 17, 2009, 11:30:26 PM
With all due respect, I am suspecting that not everyone taking part in this discussion is neutral to it.
Regardless, I'd like to affirm I don't really care about semites or anti-semites, which is exactly why my offered opinion was based on a body count. That might also be the case for many people, speaking both for and against either side, and not necessarily anti-something. :)
I really don't see how body count has anything to do with this. In every war, one side is going to have a higher body count than the other, and that doesn't mean that the ones with the lower body count are in the wrong. It just means that they prosecuted the war more economically.
I have no doubt that if Hamas had sufficient manpower and fire power, they would have invaded Israel a long time ago. They aren't exactly looking for a peaceful disposition of the hostilities.
Quote from: Bunny on January 20, 2009, 08:44:17 AM
I really don't see how body count has anything to do with this. In every war, one side is going to have a higher body count than the other, and that doesn't mean that the ones with the lower body count are in the wrong. It just means that they prosecuted the war more economically.
I have no doubt that if Hamas had sufficient manpower and fire power, they would have invaded Israel a long time ago. They aren't exactly looking for a peaceful disposition of the hostilities.
I never discussed motive. I discussed result, and that is where the body count comes in.
If we are to exclude a body count, viz.
human lives lost, from the equation, then I don't see what's left worth retaining.
(Although you are free to provide an example, of course. :))
Quote from: Renfield on January 20, 2009, 09:34:48 AM
I never discussed motive. I discussed result, and that is where the body count comes in.
If we are to exclude a body count, viz. human lives lost, from the equation, then I don't see what's left worth retaining.
(Although you are free to provide an example, of course. :))
Perhaps, the things worth retaining are those that men are willing to die for. If you are not willing to die for anything, then you aren't living for anything either.
Quote from: Bunny on January 20, 2009, 10:09:32 AM
If you are not willing to die for anything, then you aren't living for anything either.
claptrap
Quote from: Bunny on January 20, 2009, 10:09:32 AM
Perhaps, the things worth retaining are those that men are willing to die for. If you are not willing to die for anything, then you aren't living for anything either.
But even if I accept the highlighted assertion, which I don't: are these men and women (and children) dying because they fight for their ideals, or because they are in the middle of others fighting for their own ideals? It is that which disturbs me the most, how nonchalantly it is taken.
(With reference to Israel, Hamas, Russia, Georgia, or whoever else.)
Never nonchalantly. Blood is extremely expensive, and should not be casually spent.
The war in the Middle East is what it is. There are no civilian casualties there. Everyone who lives there is committed to one faction or another, and some of those factions are determined on the complete extermination of the others. When you have men, women, and even children who are taught that it is good to die in order to kill, then there will never be any peace. When some believe that they are exclusively right and all others are wrong, then there can never be peace. Peace begins with tolerance for others, and tolerance is not being taught in Gaza.
The war was pretty simple - Israel engaged in extracting reprisals against Palestinian civilians for harboring Hamas terrorists. By shelling every location they are attacked from they are calling Hamas's bluff on their civilian shield strategy. The Palestinians are guilty and Israel really has no other options, so I don't really blame them but lets call a spade a spade.
there is a good analysis by Tom Friedman here on how Israel did the same against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006:
http://www.nytimes.com/20...html?_r=1&ref=opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/20...html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
Quote from: Bunny on January 20, 2009, 11:38:14 AM
The war in the Middle East is what it is. There are no civilian casualties there. Everyone who lives there is committed to one faction or another, and some of those factions are determined on the complete extermination of the others. When you have men, women, and even children who are taught that it is good to die in order to kill, then there will never be any peace. When some believe that they are exclusively right and all others are wrong, then there can never be peace.
I am sorry you think that way.
All Americans are then taught to bomb people whose oil is within their reach, all Russians to commit genocide, and all Chinese to oppress. Even the children. And the law should be rewritten with the price of human life clearly stated in USD, to simplify a calculation of cost-benefit.
I rest my case, and will not be returning to this topic.
Quote from: Renfield on January 20, 2009, 11:52:54 AM
I am sorry you think that way.
All Americans are then taught to bomb people whose oil is within their reach, all Russians to commit genocide, and all Chinese to oppress. Even the children. And the law should be rewritten with the price of human life clearly stated in USD, to simplify a calculation of cost-benefit.
My exact sentiments.
What
Bunny does not understand is that at this stage the Zionist state of Israel is very quickly becoming the Jews' worst enemy.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on January 20, 2009, 12:12:26 PM
My exact sentiments.
What Bunny does not understand is that at this stage the Zionist state of Israel is very quickly becoming the Jews' worst enemy.
What an ignorant statement!!! Israel is the haven for jews around the world. If living in the United States became dangerous for jews, they would all flock to Israel. Further, the use of the word "Zionist" is way past being relevant, given that Israel has been in existence for about 60 years.
Knowing nothing of the jewish mindset, The Unrepentant Pelleastrian should stick to Debussy's opera or whatever else he might have some insight about.
Quote from: Bulldog on January 20, 2009, 12:22:29 PM
If living in the United States became dangerous for jews, they would all flock to Israel.
Big if.
Quote from: Renfield on January 20, 2009, 09:34:48 AM
I never discussed motive. I discussed result, and that is where the body count comes in.
If we are to exclude a body count, viz. human lives lost, from the equation, then I don't see what's left worth retaining.
It's not about excluding body count ("result," as you say), but
including what you call "motive." You discuss the Israeli offensive as if it exists in a vacuum.
Again, I'm not saying that Israel
was justified, but you declared they were unjustified solely on the basis of "result." Surely the result must be considered, as you say, but the surrounding context must be considered also. If not, then every single act of self defense would be "unjustified," no? (And by the way, I do not mean by this that Israel's offensive is
merely self defense; I just mean to demonstrate that judgment made without consideration of context is of little merit).
Quote from: Herman on January 20, 2009, 12:33:16 PM
Big if.
Right, and I don't anticipate anything happening here that would result in an exodus of American jews to Israel. But just knowing it's there to welcome us is a plus.
Let me clarify:
Quote from: aquariuswb on January 20, 2009, 01:13:08 PM
If not, then every single act of self defense would be "unjustified," no?
Not if you assess the body count as a ratio. Additionally, recall my phrasing:
Quote from: Renfield on January 17, 2009, 08:06:55 PM
There is no possible justification for matching a death toll of 13 with 1200.
The justification is of the body count, not the offensive per se. One can still defend one's national interests without killing this
disproportionately many people, to begin with. And of course, the absolute body count does matter. In fact, in my opinion it must rise above any context, as people are essentially the reason anyone fights any war for. The value of human life is not measurable.
Quote from: Renfield on January 20, 2009, 02:48:23 PM
Not if you assess the body count as a ratio. Additionally, recall my phrasing: There is no possible justification for matching a death toll of 13 with 1200.
I'm somewhat confused by your use of the word, "matching." Your wording reads as though one side killed 1200 in response to having 13 killed; this, of course, is not the case (and I don't think it's what you mean).
Do you mean simply that any conflict with such a disproportionate death toll is necessarily unjustified? If so, I can only reiterate what I wrote in my previous post: you are basing justification solely on "result" without consideration of the context. And I think you affirm this when you write:
Quote from: Renfield on January 20, 2009, 02:48:23 PM
And of course, the absolute body count does matter. In fact, in my opinion it must rise above any context, as people are essentially the reason anyone fights any war for. The value of human life is not measurable.
While I do agree with you that "absolute body count does matter," I don't quite follow your argument that "it must rise above any context" (regrettably).
What are the absolute and proportional body count "thresholds" at which context is no longer relevant? If your reasoning is that the "value of human life is not measurable," then perhaps the absolute body count "threshold" is just 1. That's a conclusion I rather like, and in terms of normal day-to-day living, I think it's one we'll both agree holds water.
War, unfortunately, complicates things. Israel has been the target of rocket attacks for years, and innocent Israelis have been maimed and killed—and the killing has obviously not been one-sided. My point is that war, as Sherman famously said, is hell. More often than not, and especially in long-term conflicts like the one in the Middle East, neither side is "in the right"; each side is just that: a side. Acts of war are typically matters less of "right vs. wrong" than of "us vs. them," regardless of how the warring factions may choose to frame them.
This is why I (respectfully) disagree with you regarding the criteria for determining whether or not acts of war are justifiable. To ignore the context—even in cases of high (or highly disproportionate) body count—is to deny the harsh realities of war. Such an error is easily made from a distance but could prove quite costly for either side involved.
I must repeat that I am not condoning or justifying Israel's recent offensive. My main point is that a meaningful discussion of its justifiability does not begin and end with its results alone.
Quote from: Renfield on January 20, 2009, 11:52:54 AM
all Russians to commit genocide
Adolf Hitler was German, and Talat Pasha was Turkish. :P The Russians kill only their own people. :P
Quote from: Bunny on January 20, 2009, 10:09:32 AM
If you are not willing to die for anything, then you aren't living for anything either.
What are you willing to die for, Bunny?
Quote from: Sarastro on January 20, 2009, 05:51:58 PM
Adolf Hitler was German, and Talat Pasha was Turkish. :P The Russians kill only their own people. :P
Yes, and very efficiently too. They specialize in journalists and political dissidents.
Quote
What are you willing to die for, Bunny?
Truth, justice and the American Way. And my children, any day of the week.
Quote from: Bunny on January 20, 2009, 07:38:39 PM
Truth
The truth is that all your "truth" is wrong. (http://forum.exler.ru/html/emoticons/haha.gif)
And what is "the American Way"? I should ask my mates tomorrow anyways...
Quote from: Bunny on January 20, 2009, 11:38:14 AM
The war in the Middle East is what it is. There are no civilian casualties there. Everyone who lives there is committed to one faction or another
This assertion in strongly reminiscent of Lenin's theory that there are no innocent
bourgeois or
kulaks. Even if they personally are honest and kind people, simply by belonging to their class they are already guilty of standing in the way of the revolution.
Now change
bourgeois with
Palestinian,
class with
race,
revolution with
peace and
Lenin with
Bunny.
Quote from: Bunny on January 20, 2009, 07:38:39 PM
Truth, justice and the American Way. And my children, any day of the week.
Yeah, right!
The German soldiers in WWI fought
fuer Gott, Kaiser und Vaterland!, that is, their truth, their justice and their German way. Why were they wrong, then?
It is this propaganda, usually promoted in the worst case by bastardly unscrupulous politicians and in the best case by people who have never seen with their own eyes what war means --- Hell on earth, as it was recalled above --- that causes millions of good-willing people to go cheerfully to wars from which they'll return maimed in body and soul, if they return at all, and millions of innocent civilians to die.
As
Umberto Eco very aptly put it in
The Name of The Rose:
Beware of those willing to die for their truth! More often than not, they make others die too, or even send others to die in their stead! [quoted by memory].
Quote from: Bunny on January 20, 2009, 07:38:39 PM
Truth, justice and the American Way.
How come you're still alive?
Truth and justice do not prevail and the American Way is a Hollywood fiction.
Quote from: aquariuswb on January 20, 2009, 05:23:58 PM
My main point is that a meaningful discussion of its justifiability does not begin and end with its results alone.
This (and note the word I emphasise) I wholly agree with. The question is, can a meaningful discussion produce applicable results?
My "obsession" with the body count is more towards having a quantified* means of comparison; and almost certainly the total number of Israelis killed in every conflict since the country was established will not match the total number of Palestinian casualties, either.
Hence, I focus on this conflict, compare the loss of human life, and find the overwhelming difference in scale a satisfying measure of whether the current offensive
in this precise form "was an unavoidable necessity", i.e. (the way I meant it) was justified.
*Note that "quantified" here does not imply value measurement, as it refers to comparison between sets whose members have equal value (after my reasoning).
Quote from: Sarastro on January 20, 2009, 05:51:58 PM
The Russians kill only their own people. :P
Katyn... Budapest... Prague... Afghanistan... Chechnya... Georgia... who's next?
Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2009, 04:50:57 AM
Katyn... Budapest... Prague... Afghanistan... Chechnya... Georgia... who's next?
Are these examples of
genocide?
Quote from: Herman on January 21, 2009, 12:24:17 AM
How come you're still alive?
Truth and justice do not prevail and the American Way is a Hollywood fiction.
Well, I'm still alive and they aren't fiction. Truth and Justice are as close to humanly perfect in the USA as they can be anywhere in the human world. If you are looking for Utopia, then perhaps you should consider space travel.
Quote from: Renfield on January 21, 2009, 03:34:37 AM
This (and note the word I emphasise) I wholly agree with. The question is, can a meaningful discussion produce applicable results?
My "obsession" with the body count is more towards having a quantified* means of comparison; and almost certainly the total number of Israelis killed in every conflict since the country was established will not match the total number of Palestinian casualties, either.
Hence, I focus on this conflict, compare the loss of human life, and find the overwhelming difference in scale a satisfying measure of whether the current offensive in this precise form "was an unavoidable necessity", i.e. (the way I meant it) was justified.
*Note that "quantified" here does not imply value measurement, as it refers to comparison between sets whose members have equal value (after my reasoning).
There's no way to quantify death or suffering. All deaths caused by war are terrible, but trying to judge the righteousness of a cause by comparing casualties and mortalities doesn't work, especially in the Middle East where many of the factions consider their men women, and children as cheap and expendible. Why is Hamas so willing to sacrifice it's children when they know that it is inevitable that if they put a rocket launcher in a school it will get bombed? It would be more to the point to condemn the strategy that needs excessive casualties in order to succeed than to condemn the other side that is forced to create those casualties in order to survive.
Quote from: Bunny on January 21, 2009, 10:26:48 AM
Why is Hamas so willing to sacrifice it's children when they know that it is inevitable that [A] if they put a rocket launcher in a school it will get bombed? It would be more to the point to condemn the strategy that needs excessive casualties in order to succeed than to condemn the other side that is forced to create those casualties in order to survive.
I have already stated I am not going to pursue this discussion further from my end. However, if you'll excuse my being a little technical about it, A and B are conditionals, not analytic statements. You are presenting them as valid, which they might or might not be.
Yet even if we assume A is valid: how do you know the statement required to make the claim stand, namely "they put a rocket launcher in a school" is true? You know this because the side doing the bombing claimed it? That's not particularly strong indirect evidence, is it?
And why should B be sound for this case? Do you think this is a question of Israel's
survival? Under what grounds?
Quote from: Sarastro on January 21, 2009, 08:42:41 AM
Are these examples of genocide?
Of course not (For genocide, we have to consider the deliberately provoked Ukrainian famine). But you pretended that "Russians kill only their own people" and that statement is not true, as my examples prove.