Thanks for the cite, annaplurabella, it was very informative.
Ah yes, the arbiter of self-expression speaks. And then you go to intentionally miscontrue Olentzero point: Olentzero is bad becasue he says blowing up kids is acceptable ?
I’m sure everyone reading this is utterly convinced by your interpretation.
In case you din’t quite grasp what happened, that noise a few hours ago was the sound of your credibility crashing through the floor, Mr “Disgraceful”.
Still sore about being publically kicked about, I see. Maybe if you find that quote where Alessan allegedly said that Jewish lives were worth more than non-Jewish lives, you will regain a bit of credibility yourself.
Until then, consider yourself in deserved disgrace.
As for Olentzero, I am sure he or she can speak for him or herself.
You know what? Away from the mental masturbation of this and many other talking shops a lot of the people who actually matter do think they brought it on themselves and there are plenty of Israeli who couldn’t give a fuck about the civilians killed in raids on Palestinian areas.
It’s this group thinking that is the problem and when actions like this happen the group thinking gets stronger. Over 100,000 people turned up to this guys funeral. They’re a lot of people calling for blood and somewhere down the line they’ll get it.
The only way you will stop people strapping bombs to themselves and slaughtering innocents is to try and deal with the reason why somebody hates that much. Aggression just breeds aggression.
The people in this thread that think that this act was a much needed act of strength are talking out of their arses to be frank. Terrorists feed off these actions. They use them to their own advantage as do politicians like Sharon.
I’ve no answers to this fucked up situation but one thing I do know acts of violence and aggression do nobody any favours except maybe for terrorists and self serving politicians.
Wohoo :rolleyes:
Oooh, we’ve moved on from "disgraceful to “deserved disgrace”. Yep, that’s more convincing.
Well, at least you’re consistent; ** Olentzero** can speak for himself but you’ll speak for whoever you want, in this case ** Alessan**. Sounds about right.
I agree that a lot of people do indeed think that Israelis brings terrorism on themselves, and that they deserve all they get - and that a lot of people in Israel feel exactly the same way about the deaths of Palistinians.
However, I cannot follow you to the general conclusion that violence is never the answer to violence.
The problem is that groups like Hamas and al-Queda are motivated by religion, not by any goals that can be achieved by compromise or negotiation. There is literally nothing that Israel can do (in the case of Hamas) or the US can do (in the case of al-Queda) which would appease them; no act that can address why they hate so much.
That being said, the issue becomes one of whether killing the charismatic leader in this manner is likely to harm this group more than making a marytr out of him will help it. On that, I don’t know the answer.
I agree and nobody will be able to remove the lunatics completely from the world. Even killing them doesn’t work as there’s always another fucker ready to follow his martyred brother to heaven. The point is that you have to get these people ostracised by their own people. If they don’t have support from the general public things get harder for them.
At the moment it seems that the IDA are playing into Hamas’s hands. They are radicalising the public behind Hamas.
I realise that a lot of this may seem like pie in the sky nonsense to a lot of people but I really can’t see military actions like this one helping.
I’ve no problem with killing people BTW for good reasons such as self defence etc but from my experience of events in my country (Ireland) all I’ve ever seen is the stronger the action of the UK troops the more support was there for the IRA. It was only after 30 years of killings and bombing that the situation started really to move and this wasn’t because of military actions it was because of some brave diplomacy.
I’d love to see the thinking behind that conclusion. I was merely citing the attitude Israel takes in response to Palestinian terror. How is it possible to conclude that I think suicide bombing is an acceptable act when I’ve stated explicitly “Nobody should have to lose a loved one in such a violent manner, be they Israeli or Palestinian”? I don’t think it’s a case of internal confusion so much as it is a case of selective reading on your part. I mean, it is entirely possible to think that the Palestinians have a solid case for fighting back against continued Israeli persecution and still reject the use of terror in that fightback.
I thought the concept, workable or not, is that if they kill the leaders after something particularly nasty happens, they will stop leading people towards doing something nasty.
I agree with your comment about brave diplomacy, but I don’t think either side is that brave, or rather, brave enough to suffer loses without retribution.
Yep that’s the plan alright. Doesn’t work. Never will. Yes that particular guy is dead but there will always be another one. There may be very valid reasons for killing this guy but making Israelis safer in the short - medium term will definitely not be one of the results.
It is certainly possible to “think that the Palestinians have a solid case for fighting back against continued Israeli persecution and still reject the use of terror in that fightback”; that may indeed be what you think; but it is not what you have said.
What you said is the following: “But for Israel to adopt a position of “Poor us, we’re being attacked by vicious bloodthirsty Arabs for no good reason” when their heavy-handed persecution and oppression of Palestinians guarantees such attacks doesn’t merit the least amount of sympathy in my book.” [emphasis added]
The problem is that it is not “Israel” that is the target of such attacks, but innocent civilians. It is not “Israel” that merits, or does not merit, sympathy, but those same civilians. The whole point of terrorism is that it is not an attack on a “country” as such, through attacks on military targets or the like, but an attack on civilians. That is why it is called “terrorism”.
Whatever the justification for “fighting against continued Israeli persecution”, whether it be a good one or a bad one, in “my book” the victims of terrorism merit sympathy.
If you also believe this to be true, it would be helpful if you did not write what appears to be the exact opposite.
Now granted, in other places you wrote about how no-one should be the victim of violence. Can you not see why this contradicts your expressed lack of sympathy as I have quoted?
I agree that this is a weighty factor to consider.
To refine the issue, I guess my answer would depend on whether the target was an irreplacable demagogue whose killing would really make a difference - or just another fanatic out of an endless supply.
To take a historical example, not by way of invidious comparison but purely to illustrate the problem (and thereby avoid violation of Gowin’s Law 
), would killing Hitler before WW2 have been a good idea or a bad idea? Would another, equally fanatic Nazi simply have taken his place?
Now, I realize that there are plenty of important differences between the two. But the general problem - when is killing those who plan your harm a good idea? - is not always a simple matter, with an easy solution - I am about evenly divided on this one (that is, killing Hitler would have been a good idea; I am unsure as to whether killing this Hamas fellow was).
I phrased that badly.
The next guy will be less likely to lead them to do something particularly nasty.
I agree it seems to not be working.
If you guys don’t understand that this was about Sharon and his domestic position in the wake of the proposed abandonment of the settlements, then you’re really not even at the starting gate.
It wasn’t ever a tactic to fight Hamas, and to think so is – to read this situation at face value – is, if you’ll excuse me, not bright.
You’ll never get anywhere if you accept a Government explanation for anything.
… because after all, speaking for me is your job.
I’m still waiting for a cite.
Well don’t hold your breath, Mr Memory Man. Or have you forgotton I can’t use the seach function as well as what your own views are ?
A. It’s by your own choice that you can’t use the search function.
B. I did it for you and couldn’t turn up a cite.
You’re still maintaining that Alessan said that Jewish lives are more valuable than non-Jewish lives. The burden of proof is still on you to show that he said it, not on him to disprove it. Provide a cite, or retract your statement.
Zev Steinhardt
So, you’re making an assertion as to what Alessan believes, in spite of his statements to the contrary, and can’t show any evidence to support your views? Rather bad form, isn’t it?
I’m sorry, but that’s not how it works. If you make a claim you have to back it up. If you can’t - for whatever reason - then you retract it, preferably with an apology.
It’s not as if you’re new here, after all. You claim I said something in the Pit. To back up that claim, you have to produce a cite. If you don’t, then the only conclusion SDMB readers can reach is that you’re full of shit
Alessan – If you’re actually going to get around to saying you deny asserting you said that, or deny you believe that, then I’ll sure as hell find someone who’ll be happy to search for the cites. But you haven’t. Which is very careful of you.
We both know the cites are there. We both know you said that several times and the last time in a thread with december and myself and many others. I honestly don’t even understand what the huge deal is – it was established above that the religion itself values Jews above others.
You said clearly – and you made no apologies for holding the view - that Jewish lives are more valuable and that, for you, holding that view is an inevitable product of Jewish history.
Let me know if any of this is ringing bells yet, or if you actually want to deny you wrote that, or that you believe that – or even if it really matters that much ?
So, go ahead. Get someone to search. I already have (as I established above) and could not find it.
You keep squaking without putting up any proof…
Established how? By one article written by Shahak? Puh-leeez. The only people who knowingly quote Shahak as an authority on Jewish law are people who look to denigrate the Jewish people.
More squaking. Cite, please.
Zev Steinhardt