I already have shown you one such country. Wonderful company you’re prepared to keep.
Ah, I see were at the “Dibble likes making shit up” portion of the discussion.
Well this was the first statistic that turned up on a google search…
“124 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,441 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000”.
Even if the figure is wildly inaccurate, buy a factor or 10 there are still signigicantly more Palestinian kids killed by Israel than the reverse.
But that’s alright I guess, because you had no choice
I’m no believer in strict legalism. Sometimes the “laws” are just plain wrong, or are used for immoral purposes. Examples are legion.
The “rule of law” is only of limited relevance in matters of peace and war. One day, when an international sovereign power exists that is impartial and based on justice, such considerations will be binding. In today’s world, not so much - because relations between countries are not ordered by law or fairness.
For example, in a perfect world where Afganistan harbours Bin Laden, one could go to a court and ask for his extradition, rather than invading the country, trashing the place, killing thousands of innocent civilians, etc.
Though what was poor Bin Laden to do? Faced with the power of the US and UK, his folks had no real choice but to commit terrorism. If the US and UK can’t legally have him extradited, I guess that’s too bad … except that’s not what happened.
What I don’t understand is why there is no outrage over the violation of Afganistan’s sovereignty. Why does the US and UK get to make up the rules? Oh, yeah, they have seats on the SC, which makes it okay …
What would that be? That Israel has killed Palestinian toddlers, or that the Early Learning Centre bombing was, in fact, directed at members of the Kewtown Youth Movement who met there, rather than at toddlers? (no toddlers were hurt in the blast, BTW, not that it matters)
All I can see is, you may not recognise an ad hominem argument, but you sure know how to make them.
How many Afgani children have been killed by the UK vs. how many UK children have been killed by Afganis?
Now we see another common feature of these debates: morality-via-etchasketch.
You need to realize that the Israeli children who are killed are killed because groups like Hamas target civilians and try to maximize civilian casualties while the IDF targets valid targets of war and try to minimize civilian casualties even while Hamas et al use their own populace as human shields.
It should be noted that your rationalization lets use know that, for instance, in the second world war the Americans were the villains and the valiant German people, who lost many more civilians, were on the side of right.
Funny what completely ignoring facts and context and relying on numbers in a vacuum will ‘prove’.
Then I guessthis is just propaganda?
And uh, just how many countries did support the invasion of Afghanistan? Lets’s see - it wouldn’t be more than 50 would it?
Meanwhile, how many countries have expressed some form of support for Israels actions in Dubai, and how many have protested?
Yeah, and funny what an absolute belief in your moral superiority and the absolute rightness of your cause will prove
Where’s Jewperman whan you need him?
Again, this is an argument from popularity and influence.
The implication is that the unpopular and un-influential must simply lump it when targeted, which is exactly contrary to the notions of even-handedness and justice that underlie (I would have thought) the rule of law.
Most likely you already know this is nonsense. One can use unjustifiable and inhumane methods to pursue a worthy goal, this has no effect on the goal itself, it simply reflects a moral failing on the part of those pursuing the worthy goal.
Are you of the opinion that the North American Allies were, invariably, moral failures in WW2? After all, there was little prospect that the Germans would ever successfully attack North American civilians in that conflict, and no matter what the Allies did in invading Europe they were going to kill civilians.
The capacity, or lack thereof, of one’s enemy to commit immoral acts has no bearing whatever on one’s own responsibility to refrain from such acts. Your mother probably told you that, you should have listened.
Idiot.
It’s best not to claim I don’t recognize what an ad hom argument is (given that you constantly use them) while you, yourself, demonstrate that you have no fucking clue what one is. Pointing out that you’re making shit up is not an ad hom argument, it’s just pointing out that you’re lying.
And yes, you are lying. The bombing of the Early Learning Centre was in South Africa, not the PA territories and nothing similar occurred in the PA terrotories Your lie, if you can recall, was that Israel had somehow conducted a similar operation to bombing a kindergarten in order to get at one teacher. As I pointed out, you are a liar. You made it up. Your response to getting caught lying is to claim that catching you in a lie is an ad hominem. Either you don’t know what an ad hom fallacy is, or you have decided to lie about everything that crosses your plate. I’m leaning towards the latter, but you may be stupid enough for the former.
P.S. you’re also lying when you claim that South Africa was in the same situation that Israel is. Either you are very, very stupid or you’ve just decided, what the hell, you might as well lie with pretty much everything you say.
Tough call.
Now, Ben, you actually just cited Rense.com? Are you for real? You could have at least cited the Guardian article, but you proved that you get your information from the conspiracy-mongering, chemtrail-believing, 9/11 Troofer, UFO coverup-claiming, Holocaust denying, “paranormal” advocating, ‘alternative medicine’ advocating Jeff Rense.
In any case, nice bait and switch. That’s still not an “attack on a kindgergarten to kill one teacher in it.” (which, if you remember, was Dibble comparison). If you want to discuss the individual examples, I suppose we could. Keeping in mind, of course, the way the truth gets twisted when we’re not able to monitor it, like in the Al-Dura Hoax. And, of course, the practice of Palestinian children participating in combat itself, which makes it even harder to judge civilians from non-combatants.
Moral relativism really must rot your brain. I point out that one side actively targets civilians and tries to maximize civilian casualties while the other does its best to minimize them in the chaos of an enemy that wears no uniforms, uses children as soldiers and uses human shields as a matter of course.
You response by vomiting up some nonsense about moral superiority and absolute rightness. You are a fucking idiot.
And, again, would you say that in WW II the Germans were the valiant good guys and the US were the evil badguys? After all, the casualty count clearly shows that a great many German civilians died and almost no American civilians died. That just shows us how very wrong the Americans were. Right?
Or are you full of shit and your ‘logic’ is a rationalization designed to support your pre-judged conclusion?
I take it that your answer is “yes”, then.
That’s because the Israeli government has engaged in heroic efforts to protect its children, while the Palestinian leaders couldn’t care less; in fact, as innocent deaths (on either side) serve their cause, they revel in their children’s suffering. Believe me, if my side stopped working as hard as it is to defend its own that ratio would be 10:1 in the other direction. You’re blaming us for doing our job too well.
The UAE doesn’t recognize Israel’s existance. Does that count?
While we’re at it, not only should claims without investigation be taken with a grain of salt, the Guardian itself is hardly a credible source. (Heading off moutherbreather-Dibble at the pass: pointing out a lack of credibility is not an ad hom fallacy when the issue at discussion is how credible someone’s claims are)
Bullshit on the Al-Dura Hoax and the Jenin non-masscare, the Karine A, MEMRI,
Shilling for Hamas
Lying about casualties counts.
In fact, this sort of reporting is part of a general pattern and the reason why ruthless fact-checking is always required. Like the story of a Palestinianwho was fiendishly tortured and murdered by either the IDF or a crazed Israeli settler… except when Physicians for Human Rights determined that he’d actually been injured and died from being in a car accident.
Claims that Israeli tanks (which weren’t in the area) shelled some innocent Palestinians when, in fact, the Palestinians were carrying explosives that they’d made and which detonated prematurely.
While it’s fine to look at these issues and analyze news reports, a great many simply do not pass the smell test. If Israel was really intent on killing Palestinian civilians, why aren’t we seeing casualties in the tens, or the hundreds of thousands? After all, as of World War II we had the capability to reduce Dresden to a smoking ruin even before we got nukes. Even without carpet bombing Israeli snipers could simply pick off everybody they saw, all day long. Hell, being nefarious evil doers, they could just introduce smallpox and save money on ammunition.
A sober analysis of the facts is required. Not the crap we saw in the Guardian article, chock full of unsubstantiated claims allegedly (sometimes) backed up by a three hour interview with a commander, with no transcript or any forensics investigation.