 |
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Let me clarify...
Questions...
1) Is it ok to kill 3500 innocents if that would somehow save 120,000 innocents
2) Is it ok to kill 3499 innocents and 1 guy who WILL be responsible for the deaths of 120,000 innocents
If you're answers are different for the two questions, please explain why
If you say yes to question 2, how many innocents would you be willing to kill to get this 1 guy who will kill 120000...would you kill 115000 innocents to save the 120000 that he will kill?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Then I really don't think they kicked themselves out, someone must have, am I wrong?
|
You're not completely right.
Many people ran away in 1947 because they expected a war to ensue. I've read about newspapers describing this flight.
Many people ran away during the fighting to prevent being caught in the cross fire.
Some people were kicked out forcefully.
Some people left because the arab armies asked them to leave, to "clear the coast" for an invasion that never came. There are evidence of that.
quote:
Yeah, and not even a single muslim had ever received the same treatment in Israel  |
If you're trying to suggest we do this in a systematic fashion - then no we don't. The only time where it could be compared is under military law. And that came because the area was an actual battle zone, in which the local poplation took the side opposite to Israel.
I don't recall Iraqi & Syrian Jews fighting against the Iraqi or Syrian government on Israel's side.
While Israeli arabs are a minority, a weak minority with weak political power (disorganized), they were never actively persecuted because of their nationality or religion.
In any case, the Israeli arab population has grown from 150,000 in 1951 (iirc) to 1,200,000 today.
The jewish population in arab countries declined.
quote:
There were jews but they were a minority. The whole south mediterranean coast was populated by arabs for centuries, while Israel ceased to exist after the Persians (or babilonians?) invaded the area, then the arabs came. The jews then left and spread around the world. |
Jews were more correctly kicked out by several invaders, from Babylon to Rome.
Some Jews left here and lived here their lives and continue to do so now.
As for the south mediterranean coast - Israel is on the east mediterranean coast, thank you.
Read the journy diaries of Mark Twain IIRC. He describes Palestine as mostly a wasteland, except for the galillee and some places in Judea mountains.
quote:
BUT the Israel nation was gone |
BUT the palestinian nation was never there.
It was either Historical Palestine (ie with Jordan which is 3.5 times bigger) or South Syria. Infact many palestinians considered themselves to be southern Syrians, in polls taken by the Israeli government in the early 50s.
Arab leaders also sometimes referred to the area as southern Syria.
quote:
Honestly, can you say that not even a palestinian had been killed, persecuted, had his rights limited and seen his properties stealed and destroyed by an israeli? |
No I can't.
But I can say that it was never a government policy to prosecute Palestinians.
The martial law installed in 1949 was being eased until its removal in 1966.
Arab political structures were motivated.
Arab education was motivated and promoted.
Sure, the govt. confiscated lands from many arabs, but that was part of its policy to nationalize lands. But the given fact was that most private lands were owned by Arabs.
Jews who owned private lands lost property too.
Infact even today, when a new huge interstate (so to speak) is being built (a bit controversial) many israelis, mostly jews, had their lands and houses nationalized to be run down by concrete.
Today sure there are troops who abuse palestinians and there are policemen who abuse Israeli arabs.
When such cases are found they are brought to trial and very much scrutinized by the media.
quote:
I read about so many stories about all the horrible things israeli troops did and still do. And if you are an honest person (I'm sure you are) you can't deny that. |
There's a difference between the 1950s Iraqi and Syrian policies against local Jews which were encouraged and directed by the government, and todays events.
Even without the government involvement, the Jews in Iraq and Syria were in no way a threat.
quote:
Myself as an italian I admit what my people did during the WW2. I hope you can as well. |
I admit what we did do. I don't what we didn't.
I admit we had martial law. But we did have limits to it. Soldiers that were found to be in breach on human rights were trialed.
I admit we sometimes did as tactical decision chose to encourage arab populations to move (ie encouraging rumors and such) in 1948, or actually moved them (usually to other arab villages from which they later fled).
I admit that there was a massacare in Dier Yassin, even though it was hardly as simple as arabs describe it, and often exagurated (ie added rapes and abuses).
I admit that the military inquiries aren't always as good as I would want them too. The army is beaurocratic. People hide things or white them out. Thus individual soldiers who abuse human rights aren't always caught.
I also admit policies which are controversial, which are claimed to be in breach of human rights but I disagree and I can outline why.
Btw, you don't always differentiate between Palestinians and Israeli arab citizens. Please do.
quote:
There was the Ottoman Empire, and btw you could say that at that time there wasn't even a turkish nation, etc... |
The Ottoman empire was not an independent country residing in Palestine.
Palestine was merely a county in the Ottoman empire with no autonomy what so ever. Same thing under Arab rule and under Byzantine rule.
quote:
So you said that I can invade a foreign country for defending myself then refuse to give it back even after there's no more danger? I'd call that the israeli Lebensraum, and wonder who had the same thoughts in Europe many ages ago |
Who said that there is no more danger?
The arab countries are still non-democratic, militant, anti-semitic (=anti-jewish) and are developing non conventional weapons.
Do you really think that Israel is under no threat?
quote:
So because they didn't want peace you keep their land?
Ohhh you deserve a medal, next time you seek more peace use a nuclear bomb as well |
We keep their land until we can be sure that we don't need them to protect outselves.
The land gives us protection and can give our enemies the edge they need to defeat us.
Think of it like this - the allies didn't reinstate german soil to germany until they were sure the german government was not aggressive and would use the land to buildup more wapons and go amock again.
If we return back the golan and syria again lanches missiles at us, or sends terrorists through the border, we gained nothing and lost an important strategic ground.
quote:
About Golan.. isn't that the Golan area is rich or fruit plantations and underground water supplies? |
Yes it is. The plantation were developed by Israel btw.
However, the Golan is eleveated above the Galilee. And Syria used to position rockets and snipers on the Golan and fire into Israel from there.
Which is why we decided to conquer it in 1967.
In any case, Barak offered to return some 99% of the land to Syria. They refused. But they further refused all suggestions of normalization and actual peace. Which suggests they had no intentions of getting peace, but rather getting their land back.
We wouldn't want to give the land back until we are sure it won't be used against us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
Legitimacy - whether something is acceptable or is fair play
Justice - whether something is just and moral in the grand scheme
quote:
Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Let me clarify...
Questions...
1) Is it ok to kill 3500 innocents if that would somehow save 120,000 innocents
|
Is it legitimate? No it isn't.
Targetting civilians is never legitimate.
Is it justified? Probably yes, though not very.
3,500 << 120,000
quote:
2) Is it ok to kill 3499 innocents and 1 guy who WILL be responsible for the deaths of 120,000 innocents
|
Is it legitimate? Assuming all precautions have been taken and this is the only opportunity to kill the guy and assuming that 3,499 people is the minimum no. of people that must die for 1 guy to be killed - yes it is legitimate
Is it justified? Yes.
quote:
If you're answers are different for the two questions, please explain why
|
I don't find targetting innocents legitimate though it may be justified.
But justice is in the eyes of the beholder.
If I were a member of the 3,500 - i would see this as very unjustified.
If I were a member of the 120,000 - i would see this as very justified.
Anyway, in "would you rather i kill 100 innocent people or 20 other innocent people" questions, i either go for the lower number, or those who aren't related to me.
quote:
If you say yes to question 2, how many innocents would you be willing to kill to get this 1 guy who will kill 120000...would you kill 115000 innocents to save the 120000 that he will kill? |
115,000? probably not. but this is a strategic PR thing.
I will ironically be more justified (by the media and public) to kill 115,000 while chasing this guy, only after 120,000 are already dead.
That totals at 235,000 dead.
It could be only 115,000.
So while its better to kill only 115,000 the public opinion won't let me.
But anyway - it depends how close they are.
Will I rather kill 100,000 people i don't know, or 10 people of my family? I don't know. If it was a smaller ratio (1,000 : 10) then I'd kill the 1,000.
But I'm not sure with 100,000.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kolpo
Are you actually serious? Do you really believe that the majority of the euopeans wants the extermination of the jewish race?
|
You don't hang out around the Off Topic threads much do you? I don't believe I've seen you participating in these threads before. ME threads are very common here and in these threads someone invariably gets around to suggesting that Jews don't belong in Israel. You won't find much warmth among our european posters to the idea that europeans, who drove them out of their homes in europe have an obligation to give them homes either. Sounds to me that they're basically being told that they, the Jews, don't have basic human rights. That's close enough to genocide to me when you consider that the sources are usually people whose nations have a long history of persecuting Jews.
AFAIK there is only one incident in the history of the United States of lethal racial violence against a Jew, the hanging of a Jewish man accused of the rape-murder of a teenaged girl, an incident which took place in turn of the century Georgia.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You don't hang out around the Off Topic threads much do you? I don't believe I've seen you participating in these threads before. ME threads are very common here and in these threads someone invariably gets around to suggesting that Jews don't belong in Israel. You won't find much warmth among our european posters to the idea that europeans, who drove them out of their homes in europe have an obligation to give them homes either. Sounds to me that they're basically being told that they, the Jews, don't have basic human rights. That's close enough to genocide to me when you consider that the sources are usually people whose nations have a long history of persecuting Jews.
|
Does anyone else find it ironic that this drivel is coming from someone who has named themselves after a fictional Nazi?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kolpo
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You don't hang out around the Off Topic threads much do you? I don't believe I've seen you participating in these threads before. ME threads are very common here and in these threads someone invariably gets around to suggesting that Jews don't belong in Israel. You won't find much warmth among our european posters to the idea that europeans, who drove them out of their homes in europe have an obligation to give them homes either. Sounds to me that they're basically being told that they, the Jews, don't have basic human rights. That's close enough to genocide to me when you consider that the sources are usually people whose nations have a long history of persecuting Jews.
AFAIK there is only one incident in the history of the United States of lethal racial violence against a Jew, the hanging of a Jewish man accused of the rape-murder of a teenaged girl, an incident which took place in turn of the century Georgia. |
The posters of a apolyton are by all means not the average europeans. btw, I agree that all properity that was once of jews before WWII should be given back. Especial the swiss banks(where the nazis stored money stolen from jews) should give the jews there money back.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Datajack Franit
|
 |
Bologna
Aug 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Some people left because the arab armies asked them to leave, to "clear the coast" for an invasion that never came. There are evidence of that. |
And how are they supposed to come back if travellers from any muslim country around Israel (Syria and so on) is forbidden to enter?
quote:
Who decided that the palestinians can not? |
I thought that a large percentage or israeli citizens think that Jordan is the place for palestinians to go. Am I wrong?
quote:
Even though Arafat talks pretty, his school books talk about a single, arab palestine. His speeches are not about 67 borders but about Haifa and Jaffo. |
All the right-wing political parties of Israel talk about never giving land to the palestinian state.
quote:
Did Sharon say that? |
Oh yes, he did and proved his thoughts so many times in just a few years. Remember any massacre in refugees fields made by mr. Sharon? 
quote:
The jewish population in arab countries declined. |
Again, return law.
quote:
As for the south mediterranean coast - Israel is on the east mediterranean coast, thank you. |
For south mediterranean coast I mean the coast south of Europe- going from Morocco to Turkey. All that zone was taken over by the arabs to the romans, they settled there and became a huge majority, while jews were just a small fraction on it.
quote:
I promise you that in 50 years they will be fighting for independance. |
Well you just said that the UN says they can. But I really don't think that will happen, and by saying that you just proved your thoughts about muslims are not as they should be.
quote:
Read the journy diaries of Mark Twain IIRC. He describes Palestine as mostly a wasteland, except for the galillee and some places in Judea mountains. |
So was every single zone in southern europe, as Greece, S. Italy and Bulgaria. Maybe you should have taken Bulgaria as well, it was poor and backward after all, and didn't exist as a state because it was into the Ottoman Empire as Palestine.
About Yugoslavia. Kosovars have no right of taking over Serbia, they already have a country, Albania. What yugoslavians were guilty of, was living in a communist country friend of Russia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adalbertus
|
 |
Cologne, Germany
Feb 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
Call me crazy but if tomorrow the UN says that I have to give up my country to a foreigner I wouldn't want that as well.
|
Well if Sicilians (sp?) want to form thier own state, what would you do?
The UN charter says that they can do that.
So do the 14 principles of Willson on which modern politics are based in one way or another.
quote:
This is a bad habit after 1939. Hitler started it and every idiot meant to imitate this. The overwhelming majority of wars after 1000 BC simply was about power, and very rarely about living space (as Hitler pretended). |
Even still - wars got people displaced.
I don't see any french in england or any english in france.
|
I think you are referring to the 100 year's war. What happened was that the Normans established a principality within France around 1000 AC. In 1066 they conquered England, which thus became subject to the same rulers as the Normandy but never was part of France. In this process, no population was forcefully expelled from their homelands. (In the result, there are many sites all over England with very French names, such as Rivaulx Abbey). During the 100 year's war, the French king expelled the duke of the Normandy (who was at the same time King of England). It is easier to sell this as a war between England and France than a French civil war. That's all. Again, no expulsion of population. The population was relabelled from "English" to "French". quote:
I don't see english subjects on American soil.
|
English subjects went to America out of free will or as prisoners. Fought for independence. Thus they were relabelled. Others went there (then mostly of their own free will) and became Americans. Again no expulsion by war.
quote:
I see french in canada (not french subjects though).
I see spaniards in america.
|
Same as English in America, only more unwilling and/or unwelcome to assimilate.
quote:
I see russia controlling areas with mongolians, ukranians, armenians, and dozens of other nationalities.
|
Normally remained in their original region (prior to Stalin).
quote:
quote:
A war for power doesn't result in displacement of people - you may find one or two exceptions, but it was definitely not the rule. After a war for power, the leading class of the beaten population was killed or imprisoned, and the mean folk became a servant class or continued their usual life under new rulers. |
But your claim that most wars were wars of power is untrue.
It is true mostly for late classical age in Europe. But only there.
There's a whole world outside Europe!!
|
True also for the most classical ages of China, Japan, Inca (Aztecs might be different due to their religious needs for prisoners of war ...)
quote:
quote:
The idea one region = one people = one state is the most sick consequence of the 19th century nationalism (mostly spread by the French Revolution). |
whether it is sick or not is a very subjective subjects.
The palestinains seeem to think otherwise.
So do the Taiwanese. So did many Yugoslavian nations. So do many sub-spanish nations. So did many north Irish.
Just because you don't believe in nations doesn't mean you should force your concept on everybody else. |
I know they think so. And I think this is sick. Because it invariably results in expulsions, murders, etc. China is much less homogeneous than Yugoslavia (which was about as homogeneous as Germany), in terms of ethnicities. Chinese understand themselves as Chinese, Germans understand themselves as Germans, and Yugoslavians as Croatians, Serbs, etc. The problem is that "Nation" is merely a matter of definition.
I think it is much worse to drive people out of their region of birth (or which they otherwise feel as their home) than living together with people of different ethnicities. I guess you'd have a hard time to find a supporter of ethnic "defragmentation", who would volunteer to give up his home. That's one half why I think it's sick. The other half is that I doubt there are many people who can be sure of a "pure" ancestry over more than a few hundred years. A highly civilized culture tends to mix up ethnicities, and sometimes also not-so-highly civilized cultures (I think about Europe in 500 AC...).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Datajack Franit
About Yugoslavia. Kosovars have no right of taking over Serbia, they already have a country, Albania. What yugoslavians were guilty of, was living in a communist country friend of Russia. |
The Kosovars lived in Kosovo long before the Serbs moved south of the Hungarian plains. The languages of Albania and Kosovo are descended from Illyrian, the language spoken in that area in Homer's day. Before the Ottomans that area was exchanged back and forth between the Bulgars and the Serbs. After the Ottomans took the area the population that was Orthodox took Serbian as their language, while those who took up Islam kept their original language. I won't contest the possibility that some of the Kosovars are Albanians who moved out of Hoxna's regime, but the majority of Kosovars are descended from people who have lived there since antiquity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Datajack Franit
|
|
Bologna
Aug 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
The Kosovars lived in Kosovo long before the Serbs moved south of the Hungarian plains. The languages of Albania and Kosovo are descended from Illyrian, the language spoken in that area in Homer's day. Before the Ottomans that area was exchanged back and forth between the Bulgars and the Serbs. After the Ottomans took the area the population that was Orthodox took Serbian as their language, while those who took up Islam kept their original language. I won't contest the possibility that some of the Kosovars are Albanians who moved out of Hoxna's regime, but the majority of Kosovars are descended from people who have lived there since antiquity. |
That's totally false. Slavs came in Serbia and Montenegro between 200 and 500 AD. The first report of muslims living in the area came from circa 1400-1450, when the Ottomans invaded the region. They were partially defeated, but still got a hold of the whole eastern europe. They gave the serbs, croatians and macedonians the right to keep their religion, even though being christian or orthodox closed them any door to the administrative life of the area. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the last muslim people were the people converted to islam, in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania mostly. And Kosovo definitely. But After the WW1 the whole area became Yugoslavia, and kosovars were still a minorance. So are they now, and the claimed ethnic cleansess was made by serbs, of course, but by kosovars as well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-08-2002 04:48
But I do!
|
|