 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
CyberGnu,
You acknowledge that Hamas wants to destroy Israel and is deliberately disrupting the peace process. You also seeming state that the PA is for peace and against suicide bombing.
And yet, the Israeli's deliberately destroyed the PA's infrastructure because it was, according to them, being used to make bombs and plan attacks. In contrast, Israel has not attacked Hamas infrastructure. It limits its attacks to Hamas members that participate in attacks in one form or another.
If the PA is completely innocent as you suggest it is, then the Israeli attacks on the PA must be explained by motives other than suppressing terrorism. Thus your conclusion that the Likud is against peace.
However, how do you explain the evidence of active participation in terrorist activities that Israel uncovered when it took down the PA some months ago. Fabrication?
Methinks that you have to believe that the evidence was fabricated in order to continue in your position that the PA is innocent - right?
But on the original point of this thread, I find it unacceptable that the IDF is using live ammunition against crowds of children.
Last edited by Ned on 27-11-2002 at 03:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
News :
Two Fatah and Hamas terrorists were killed in the Jenin refugee camp in a helicopter missile strike.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
Hmm, I have said it before and I'll say it again.
Any government which finds itself under attack by terrorist forces is allowed (or even forced to) retaliate in kind against these terrorists. If that causes collateral damage, so be it. Life is tough, deal with it...
That is my defense of the Israeli position.
Now the Pal position:
If people come and take your land and kill your kids because you happen to live within shootin range from a bunch of demented settlers who are so far from reality that they believe palestinians have no right to be on that land, you as a government (note freelance action is terrorism...) have the duty to protect your citizens. However you should not target civilian targets that have nothing to do with the clash points. If the settlers shoot at you, you shoot back.
The solution:
Complete withdrawal from the occupied terrotories by Israel, however if anything happens in the remainder of Israel in terrorist acts, the IDF has every right, and will be assisted by the PA, to bring the culprits to justice, even it results in collateral damage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
And that includes you too Felch X... I didn't see your post when I originally did this one. |
Ming, he's full of it. I'm willing to deal with CG, but that Viking Berserk guy is just another troll without a clue.
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
Clarify your argument or admit that targeting of civilians doesn't really bother you as long as the side doing it has the power.
|
I think the blame for anything that happens during a war falls squarely on the shoulders of whoever started the conflict. I've looked deeper at what you mentioned, and found that Dier Yassin was about a month before the start of the 1948 was though, so I would say that it was Israel's fault. Sirotnikov seems to know more about it than I do though.
A few years before Dier Yassin, Allied bombers intentionally murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in Germany and Japan. Even today there are occupational forces in those two countries. However, I would be deeply dismayed if Japanese or German terrorists carried out attacks on the US mainland in retaliation for the "unlawful occupation." There are consequences for initiating the use of force, and one of those is that you get no sympathy when you lose. The Arabs initiated the use of force against Israel, according to every source that I've found. The first of these is generally pro-Palestinian, the second is pro-Israel, the third is a Christian pro-Zionist source, and the last is the BBC.
http://www.zmag.org/shalom-meqa.htm
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/refugees.html
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/independence.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/st...meline/1948.stm
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:23
|
|
Felch:
quote:
Wow, who didn't see this stock answer coming out?
|
?
"Peter, what is 2 + 2?"
"4"
"Wow, who didn't see this stock answer coming out?"
If an answer is right, it is right...
quote:
It's not about doing this for a job, it's about doing this to be a better person. |
And wasting my time constantly reevaluating the same issue makes me a better person how?
quote:
If you don't have the time to reconsider your opinions, then I fail to see how you can waste so much time posting the exact same responses over and over again. |
Well, what can I say... I'm an idealist on occasion.
quote:
Yep. So what's your point? The Arabs started the war, they bear the blame for anything that happened during the war. If they didn't want those villages destroyed, they shouldn't have invaded a militarily powerful country like Israel. |
Umm, actually, Israel started the war by springing into existance... You've basically bought into the idea of accepting a fait accompli.
quote:
Moral and legal rights have no meaning outside of Europe and the UN. |
And this is exactly what I've been saying the whole time. Only civilized nations follow moral and legal rules. Israel is far from civilized, and we should do our best to condemn Israels behaviour, not to mention boycotting it economically and politicially.
quote:
The only way they can get their land back is by proving to the Israelis that it is in the Israeli best interest to allow them to return. They aren't about to convince the Israelis of that by killing Israeli civilians.
|
The RoR, you mean? We both know that Israel is never going to accept the RoR, so that is a moot point anyway... And since these people know that Israel stole their land and isn;t intending to give it back, what do they have to lose by fighting?
Only by giving the something to live for can one end this conflict.
quote:
Gee, thanks for disregarding the entire point behind what I said. You cut and pasted my comments so they would be out of context and impossible to understand, and then you said you'd heard them all before. Good job showing how mature you are in this debate, CG. |
No, the problem is that I;ve had this discussion before, and I don't have unlimited time.
quote:
Every despot anywhere, who wants to show that he means business about terrorism, or the drug war, or anything else the United States cares about, just goes and arrests a bunch of political enemies. The fact that Amnesty International is condemning them for their failures in due process and indefinite jail terms proves many things.
Arafat is a criminal dictator, and does not deserve any recognition as a leader.
There is no way to be sure the prisoners were actually terrorists, since they were not given fair trials.
Israel is not the only source for misery among the Palestinian people.
|
Actually, the vast majority were arrested becasue Israel pointed them out.
There are some excellent books on the subject, I could probably recommend one or two if you'd like.
quote:
They are not a strawman, they are an example of useless resistence against overwhelming military force. Don't try to debate with me, unless you're going to be serious, and actually read what I say.
|
In every other debate on ME a pro-Israeli drags out the old Native American strawman. The US commited horrible crimes against the native americans. This was a long time ago, however, when the US wasn't civilized. Since then the nation has matured, and has apologized and doing it's best to compensate the descendants.
If the US was doing the same thing today, then you would have a valid argument, but it isn't.
(Oh, and for the "an example of useless resistence against overwhelming military force" part: Are you saying that the native americans shouldn;t have resisted? They should have meekly let themselves be slaughtered instead?)
quote:
Israel is a democracy, Nazi Germany was not. |
Hitler was democratically elected. Furthermore, while he remained in power by undemocratic means, the historians agree that if he allowed elections he would have won by a landslide up until 1944.
quote:
The Third Republic was a democracy, the Palestinian Authority is not. |
The third republic?
The PA is democratic, however. Yassir Arafat was democratically elected, as certified by an international body of observers. Or you can ask Siro about it, he made a complete ass of himself on this exact question about a month ago.
quote:
A deal with Israel can be counted on, there could be no negotiation with the Nazis. This is because of a difference in motive - Nazis sought global conquest, Israel seeks security.
|
And I disagree. Israel seeks conquest: Why else would they increase the settlements? Why else would they continually inflame the situation?
quote:
The Free French had the chance to win militarily, the Palestinian terrorists do not.
|
? The german army crushed the french in less than two weeks. What military chance did Free France have? They could only hope for outside internvetion - exactly the same position the palestinians are in.
quote:
And - most importantly since you seem so dead set to ignore this - the French resistence did not intentionally target innocent German civilians. |
They sure did. Policestations, railroads, administratinal buildings, even german field bordellos were targets. All of them populated by german civilians. Bombings of bars popular among the germans also occured.
quote:
A German civilian who was assisting in the domination of France was not the same as an Israeli who tries to board a bus |
I disagree. An Israeli trying to board the bus is at the very least paying taxes which supports the IDF. He might also be working in industry directly supporting the IDF, such as food, fuel or arms manufacturing/transportation.
quote:
If you see no difference in fighting Nazi Germany and fighting Israel you are a sick and twisted individual, and I hope you grow up sometime. |
If that is the best arguement you have, you have already lost... And I think you know it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:23
|
|
lightblue, I think your views are nice on an ideological level, but they fail in practice.
quote:
If people come and take your land and kill your kids because you happen to live within shootin range from a bunch of demented settlers who are so far from reality that they believe palestinians have no right to be on that land, you as a government (note freelance action is terrorism...) have the duty to protect your citizens. However you should not target civilian targets that have nothing to do with the clash points. If the settlers shoot at you, you shoot back.
|
But the settlers are protected by the IDF. So it would be quite one sided.... "We can hit you, but you can't hit me."
quote:
The solution:
Complete withdrawal from the occupied terrotories by Israel, however if anything happens in the remainder of Israel in terrorist acts, the IDF has every right, and will be assisted by the PA, to bring the culprits to justice, even it results in collateral damage.
|
It would take roughly 5 milliseconds for Israel to invent a reason for heavy punitive attacks, and the cycle starts again. The only way you'll get peace is to make sure Israel can't attack.
And a simple treaty won't do it: Israel has the same respect for treaties as the US goverment had for Indian treaties...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Because last time I checked, palestine is not occupying Israel.
Remeber the simple rule? If attacked, you have the moral mandate to do antyhing in your power to the attacker until he relents. Israel is occupying palestine, and the palestinians are thus morally justified in whatever measures they chose to stop the occupation.
That both sides claim that they are fighting doesn;t matter... Every side in every war in human existance has done the same... Only one side can be the aggressor, though, and in this conflict it is Israel. |
Many people claim that it is Israel who is suffering from aggression, having merely taken the offensive steps necessary (see above) to defend themselves. Leaving aside whether this argument is valid for the moment (as you certainly won't convince anyone one way or the other at this late date), don't you see where your "anything in your power" argument leads? It could very easily lead to massive slaughter of civilians by the Israelis, even as it has led to massive numbers of murders against civilians by the Palestinians.
If the Palestinians are justified doing "anything in their power", then so is the other side by default. All sides in almost any war will look upon themselves as the righteous party as you point out above. This means that in order for any sort of palliative effect upon conflict by international law, convention, or morality, both sides must adhere to the same set of rules, regardless of the putative righteousness of their cause.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
don't you see where your "anything in your power" argument leads? It could very easily lead to massive slaughter of civilians by the Israelis, even as it has led to massive numbers of murders against civilians by the Palestinians |
Ah, but you see: quote:
If attacked, you have the moral mandate to do antyhing in your power to the attacker until he relents. Israel is occupying palestine, and the palestinians are thus morally justified in whatever measures they chose to stop the occupation. |
The bolding is mine. Because the reason you will get nowhere in this conversation, Sikander, is Cybergnu view that all Israelis are "attackers", as so:
quote:
An Israeli trying to board the bus is at the very least paying taxes which supports the IDF. He might also be working in industry directly supporting the IDF, such as food, fuel or arms manufacturing/transportation. |
A nice, neat, logical explanation of why it is alright, no - check that - morally proper, to strap a bomb to oneself, board a public bus, and detonate said bomb.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned:
More detail, please.
But you also have to realize that the situation is very muddled after two years of intifada. Arafat can't be seen as opposing the struggle, or he'd be out of office in a heartbeat... Replaced by Hamas. |
Well finally. All is not black and white in the conflict.
Today's news includes reports that the Pals regret starting the armed resistance. As well, Sharon is quoted as agreeing to a Pal state - demilitarized, of course.
There seems to be a basis for peace in the above.
Last edited by Ned on 28-11-2002 at 02:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
In response to the original thread, and the ONLY response needed:
"Palestinian suicide bomber kills 20 on a bus, including multiple children and women"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
2 things.
1. It's sad to see gnu using his absolute libertarian logic again, without any regards to morals.
2. vesayen - that is in no way a needed, or proper response.
Israel is not doing that in vengance, nor are the two events equal or similar. While Israel attempts to minimize civilian casualties, the palestinians try to maximize them.
In any case, whether a civilian is killed by accident or not, the death is unsettling and sad.
-
About bir zeit - It was quoted in one of the pro-Israeli (yet non Israeli based) sites on the internet. An exact reference was given, I don't have it available though.
In any case, if the Jews are wealthy enough to control German"Die Welt" and dictate stories there, I'm sure an American based site is absolutely unrelaible.
(Or have you forgotten you accused Die Welt of inventing facts, and blamed it on "german newspapers are owned by Jews" ?)
--
quote:
What armed conflict? You mean Israels occupation of a nation without an army? |
A nation with a wide-spread deep-reaching guerilla terrorist force, which commits assaults on civilians.
quote:
Well, I have good company: Truman and Churchill are agreeing with me. |
Good.
Qoute a passage if you will, whereby Truman and Churchill advise targetting and seeking out innocent german / japanese civilians and children, and killing them.
quote:
Could you speak up a little? I have a kettle behind me who loudly is calling me black. Wait, is that kettle you? Oooooooh, that would make sense.
The day you stop advocating that might gives right you can come back and lecture on ethics and morality.
|
You know, ethics and morality is much more than that sentence. That sentence is unrealistic. While ethics dictate the perfect world, they also dictate us ways of living in our imperfect world.
You, being the liberterian you are, seem to ignore the base of reality completely, and choose to analyze those little facts you are willing to acknowledge about the world, using a moral code which is maybe fit for a world according to john lock.
Furthermore, I doubt it would stand the law of applicability set out by Kant. If everyone in the world had seen things in black and white as you do, and blieved they can slaughter a whole bunch of innocent people if they feel somehow opressed or disinherited, then there'd be no human alive today.
quote:
Sure, post away. Are you sure you aren't reading the hebrew translation of Nietshze though? |
I've read some Nietschze too. I bet you haven't and have no idea what he's talking about, other than the regular "nietschze bad" ****. In any case, Nietschze did warn in his books of people who would not get the true meaning of his philosophy, and how it can be abused.
As far the sources go, the sources mentioned in the text body itself are of many different philosophers from all periods, and I doubt you'll have time or energy to read all.
I'll post some of the bibliography, hoping that some of it contains similar context:
- Bailey, S.D. Prohibition and Restriction in War, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1972.
- Best, G. Humanity in Warfare, Widenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1980 (B).
- Brownlie, I. International Law and the Use of Force by States, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1963.
- Butler, P.F. "Legitimacy in a States-System: Vattel's Law of Nations", in: M. Donelon (ed.), The Reason of States, George Alien & Unwin, London, 1978.
- Cassese, A. The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, Editoriali Scientifica, Napoli, 1979.
- Clark, J. Limited Nuclear War, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1982 (B).
- Cohen, M. et al. (eds.). War and Moral Responsibility, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1974.
- Goodwin, G. (ed.). Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence, Croom Helm, London, 1982.
- Hare, J. E., & Joynt, C.B. Ethics and International Affairs, McMillan, London,1982.
- Hoffman, S. Duties Beyond Borders, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, 1981.
- Holmes R.L. On War and Morality, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1989 (B).
- Howard, M. Restraints on War, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979.
- Johnson, J.T. Just War Tradition and the Restraint of War: A Moral and Inquiry, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1981 (B).
- ————. Can Modern War be Just? Yale University Press, New Haven, 1984 (B).
- Lupis, I.D. de. The Law of War, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
- Meltzer, Y. Concepts of Just War, Leyden, Sijthoff, 1975 (B).
- Midgley, E.B.F. The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations, Paul Elek, London; Barnes and Noble, New York, 1975.
- Nardin, T. Law Morality and the Elations of States, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983 (B).
- Nye, J.S. Nuclear Ethics, Free Press, London, New York, 1986 (B).
- O'Brian, W.V. The Conduct of Just and Limited War, Prager, New York, 1981
- O'Brian, W.V. & Langan J. (eds.). The Nuclear Dilemma and the Just War Tradition, Lexington Books, Lexington, 1986.
- Osgood, R.E. & Tucker, R.W. Force Order and Justice, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1967.
- Pangle, T.L. "The Moral Basis of National Security, Four Historical Perspectives", in: N. Knorr, (ed.). Historical Dimensions of National
- Security, University of Kansas, Kansas City, 1976. Paskins, B., & Dockrill, M. The Ethics of War, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1979.
- Walzer, M. Just and Unjust Wars, Alien Lane and Basic Books, London and New York, 1977.
- Wasserstrom, R. A. (ed.). War and Morality, Wadsworth Publishing Co. Belmont, 1970 (B).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
If you're wondering, the ethics is just a part of the book, a large section of which deals with strategy and war in general.
Harkabi Y., War and Strategy, "Systems" Publishing, The Israeli Department of Defense, Tel Aviv 1990 (2002 2nd Edition).
If you're wondering, it's not an official IDF handbook or anything. "Systems" publishing, is a publishing house run by the DoD used mainly by previously military personel, or books about the army and war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
2. vesayen - that is in no way a needed, or proper response.
Israel is not doing that in vengance, nor are the two events equal or similar. While Israel attempts to minimize civilian casualties, the palestinians try to maximize them.
|
Oh I wasent saying it was revenge, I was just saying that this isnt a case of the "poor innocent palestinians" being opressed, when they are far from innocent.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-11-2002 02:19
I honestly didn't see your warnings though.
|