“So we blew up all the Korean lave labor to free them”
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Throwing out the Israelis won’t give the Palestinians self-determination, since whoever rules the new Palestinian state will almost certainly be another Middle East dictator.
[/QUOTE/
Maybe so, but at least it will be a Palestinian dictator. I’m not saying I agree with an authoritarian dictatorship. I’m saying that at least they have themselves to blame if thats how it turns out. IMO, the worst dictatorship will still be better than living under enemy military occupation
Off course they aren’t sending suicide bombers just to draw attention to the occupation. They are killing the innocent civilians as–what they believe is–an act of revenge. But the intifada wasn’t declared just for the heck of killing Israeli civilians…it was declared as an uprising agains the occupation and draw international attention to it (which it has).
For example, in the 80’s (2 decades before the uprising), there was relative quietness in the international community w/r/t the occupation. If there was no uprising, it would be status quo, i.e. Israel ruling over Gaza and West Bank with an iron fist, killing and bulldozing without reprisal.
One look at the image in the link that ainigma provided
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0310-01.htm) clearly shows how similar it is to a bus bombing or a marketplace bombing:
It’s the deliberate targeting of civilians who end up as burnt corpses on the side of the road.
If people who do this are sub-human scum, then the generals who ordered these types of attacks in WWII were sub-human scum.
No complicated rhetoric is needed.
So then it’s OK with you…since the Israelis did it first? The ends justify the means?
And I don’t believe you when you say: “The worst dictatorship will still be better than living under enemy military occupation.”
So in Nazi Germany you’d be taking potshots at allied soldiers after the fall of Berlin? You’d be hiding out with the Taliban? You’d be one of those Japanese soldiers waging a private war against the United States even after the Emperor surrendered? You’d have fought the Vietnamese when they invaded to oust Pol Pot? You’ll be clamoring to bring back Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic?
Enemy military occupation is bad, m’kay. But there are worse things than foriegn military occupation. The reason foriegn military occupation is bad is because it is generally highly likely to be more unjust and unfair than long standing domestic rulers, no matter how bad they are. But blind nationalism and xenophobia don’t do anyone any good. You’re treating self-determination as an end, when it is merely a means. If the US turned into a dictatorship and Canada invaded us to oust the US dictator, I’d help the invading Canadians. If Canada turned into a dictatorship and invaded the US to impose a Canadian dictator, I’d fight the invading Canadians. See how simple it is?
Palestinian self-rule is good, but it isn’t an unlimited good, any more than American self-rule is an unlimited good. Evil means to achieve or maintain Palestinian self-rule or American self-rule have to be proportional to the potential benefit self-rule will bring. In my opinion, Palestinian self-rule isn’t very likely to be any better than Egyptian, Libyan, Syrian, Saudi, Sudanese, or Yemeni self-rule, so extremely evil actions like deliberately massacring women and children seem wildly out of proportion to the conjectured goal.
Peaceful independence IS possible. How did East Timor achieve independence from Indonesia, how did India achieve independence from Britain, how did Slovakia get independence from Czecholslovakia, how did Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Moldava, Ukraine, Byelorus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Taijikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrghizistan, Khazakhstan, and Russia get independence from the Soviet Union, how did the Phillipines get independence from the US? Israel would NEVER leave the occupied territories without suicide bombings? Perhaps peaceful means could have been, you know, tried. Israel isn’t an isolated dictatorship, it is a liberal democracy, Israelis are not noticably more evil people than others, nor is their government uniquely vicious. Or are they?
If Palestinian actions can’t be condemned without at least an attempt at understanding what caused them, why can’t Israeli actions be understood? What makes Israel so bad that suicide bombings and massacres are justified against them?
You are using incorrect analogies. In your examples, another country is coming to end a brutal regime and (hopefully) reinstating a gov’t made up of the local majority. Israel did not do this in Palestine. Israel annexed Palestine. Israel set up a nominal Palestinian gov’t and has a strong military presence…for over 40 years. Israel had no intention of ever giving it back (in the case of West Bank) or establishing an effective government made up of the local people.
You are over generalizing. The Saudi gov’t is VERY different from Egypt and both are VERY different from Libya. But I understand what you are trying to say: These people don’t know how to rule themselves so we must rule for them. This is the same thinking that the British had in 1800’s when they colonized every corner of the world comprised of dark skinned people.
Then why does Israel refuse to leave the West Bank? Why has Israel defied 60-something UN resolutions? Why does Israel refuse to sign the Nucleur Proliferation Act and refuses to answer questions about its nucleur program? Why does Israel defy the Hague’s ruling that its wall is against international law? Why does Israel have spies in U.S. and when they get caught, Israel demands their safe return? Why does Israel have spies in New Zealand (for which they got caught and refused to apologize to NZ)? Why does the U.S. give $5 Billion + in aid to a country that is otherwise a self-sufficient democracy with one of the best militaries in the world??
Israel is a rogue nation and a threat to world peace.
Can we not turn this into an Israel-Palestinian thread?
I’m sure there are plenty of threads dedicated to that subject.
I’m done talking with you. Sure you don’t want to change your name to Golden_Goose88?
So, are you stating that in some other scenario (i.e. not the Israeli-Palestinian case), where the goal of the suicide bombers was a better one, it is possible that deliberately massacring women and children would not be “wildly out of proportion to the conjectured goal”?
I already gave an example…say a terrorist with his thumb on the button of a nuclear bomb is on a bus full of women and children. If you bomb the bus the women and children on the bus will die, but the nuclear bomb won’t go off. Or it’s 1941, you have a bomb, you’ve gotten into Hitler’s office but a group of German schoolkids is in there with him, visiting. Suddenly the SS notices you. You can set off the bomb now, killing Hitler and the schoolkids, or you can let the SS take you away, knowing you’ll never get another chance to kill Hitler. And so on.
But yes, I do believe in some sort of utilitarianism, but always with the recognition that our knowlege is always imperfect, and the potential for human beings to make mistakes and lie to themselves is very large. So I can accept some sort of rough calculation where the expected good outcome, divided by the evil actions, discounted to some large degree by some imperfect knowledge factor, and subtracting some amount based on how easily some good means to achieve the good end can be substituted for an evil means. If there’s a good means to achieve a good end I’m going to discount the good end heavily if you use evil means instead.
And so I put my daughter into a car to visit the library, KNOWING that riding in a car is dangerous and could get her killed. Deadly car accidents happen every day, and I’m risking my child’s life every time I put her in a car seat. It would be bad if my daughter were killed, but it’s also good for her to visit the library. How likely is it? How much danger am I putting her in? How much good will come of this risk? Do I have an accurate picture of the real risks, or am I fooling myself? If someone waving a gun comes into my house I’m going to use violence against that person to defend my life and my daughter’s life. But what if I’m making a mistake, what if I’m misinterpreting the situation? At some point I have to make a decision and go forward, sometimes I’m going to make a choice that seemed justified at the time but ended up seriously bad consequences.
So every day you bet your life that you’re making good choices, and you are sure to be wrong sometimes. Was the decision to drop a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima wrong? I’ve gotta give the people who made to drop the bomb in order to end the war against Imperial Japan a little more slack than someone who walks into a pizza parlor and blows themself up in order to demonstrate that occupation of the West Bank is too costly, or whatever their exact goal really is. In the first case the means and the end is pretty tightly coupled, and the alternative is a continuation of the war by conventional means where more cities are bound to be destroyed and more Japanese civilians are bound to be killed, a peace treaty now would be unnacceptable since it would allow Japan another generation to regroup and begin another round of aggression. In the second case the alternatives are…well, peaceful agitiation. Setting up a website. Getting a job, going to school, arguing with people on internet message boards. I can think of a hundred better ways to work against the Israeli occupation, all with greater likelyhood of success (from my viewpoint, of course), and none of them involve massacring innocent people, none of them involve trying to spark a broader war.
Of course the values we all place on how good the conjectured good ends are, and how evil the evil means are, and how easily the good ends could be reached with good means instead of evil means, all this is a matter of opinion and can be argued, and I don’t always expect reasonable people to agree.
But I don’t think we can just wave our hands and say that all killing is wrong, all killers are just as bad as all other killers, evil is evil. Why did you kill? What did you hope to accomplish? What did you actually accomplish? Why didn’t you try something else? Killing in order to advance an evil agenda is wrong. Killing in order to advance a good agenda when that good agenda has almost no chance of actually occuring is wrong. Killing in order to advance a good agenda when you could advance that good agenda in some other way–even if perhaps less effectively–is wrong. Killing to advance a good agenda when that good outcome is very likely to occur, there are no other reasonable methods to achieve that good agenda, and the benefits of the good outcome are vastly greater than the wrong committed by that killing…well, I’ll have to evaluate this case-by-case. Might be wrong even so, or it might be justifiable. Being nice to people in order to advance a good agenda? Always good.
But these are not good examples. In your examples, the women and children are collateral damage. You only want to kill the terrorist in your first example and Hitler in your second. The others just happen to be there.
This is not the same as deliberately targeting civilians, without any specific “bad guy” among them, simply to cause fear among the population, wear them down and ruin their morale in order to achieve your ultimate goal.
This is what suicide bombers usually do, and this is what the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was meant for.
Have you seen many people change their minds on internet message boards? 
WOW!! Are you ever misinformed. (I’m not attacking you personally, just saddened to see such mistaken notions are out there).
Several important people in the State Department and armed forces within the small group of those that knew about the atomic bomb ahead of time, and MOST of the scientists who knew about it, recommended warning the Japanese – BUT THIS SUGGESTION WAS REJECTED (by James Byrnes and, ultimately, Harry Truman).
Leaflets? Where on earth did you hear THAT?
You may wish to read the book by Guy Alperowitz on the decisions leading up to the use of the atomic bobs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A great read – well reserched and well written.
I might sound ignorant but I don’t get the ‘88’ reference? 
And take it easy Lemur, this is a DEBATE…nothing personal. 
Ok, for those of you that justify the Hiroshima bombing, I pose the following scenario:
It seems that the argument for the bombing is that it was during a war and the killing of civilians was justified by the ending (i.e. ending/winning the war).
SO, we are currently in a “War against Terrorism”. Assume a Terrorist gets his hands on a nuke. Assume further that he is able to smuggle it into the U.S. Now is he justified in setting it off and killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of U.S. civilians? From his point of view, he is at war with the U.S. (which the U.S. acknowledges) and he firmly believes that setting off a nuke in the U.S. would make the U.S. ‘surrender’ and end this war.
JUSTIFIED?
This might be convincing if the justification were only that it ended the war. However that leaves out a lot. For example, had the usual invasion scenario played out, Japanese cities would have continued to be firebombed every night and possibly day as the defenses became weaker with time. I think it is important to remember that the firebombings caused more direct casualties overall than did the A bombs. Japanese troops on the main line of resistance would have been endlessly napalmed from land and air, along with all of the other nasty things that happen in combat. And US forces would also have taken many casualties along the way.
Nuclear bombs are dreadful devices. So are napalm handgrenades if they are used in your vicinity.
As an added attraction have you ever seen the photos of Japanese civilians on one island (was it Okinawa?) jumping off cliffs to avoid being taken prisoner by the dreaded Americans? It’s not in the realm of fantasy that civilian suicides would have skyrocketed in Japan as what to them was a barbaric enemy neared.
I keep telling the 60-years-later critics, ya reely hadda be ther. And don’t tell me about Eisenhower’s opposition. He wasn’t there either.
make that “napalm and hand grenades.”
I think that is exacly the point the OP is making, that it is wrong to kill innocent civiliants…whether you do it as an israeli jet pilot by throwing a few bombs…or as a suicide bomber…or from the office, by instructing to nuke a city.
and you can use all the wonderfull words you like (insurgents, terrorists, coleteral damage, militants, guerillas…the list goes on) the fact remains that we are trying to defend the indefendable.
p.s. my apologies once again for my english
I dont think anyone in here (most) supports suicide bombings against Israel or anyone else for that matter, if anything I believe that everyone is condemning them. The only difference is the condemnation is also targeted at the various ways of killings whether state sponsored or not.
So to put it extremelu simply, the OP is saying that suicide bombings + nuke bombs= scumbags
88 stands for “HH” (since H is 8th letter), and HH stands for “Heil Hitler” . It’s a kind of code sometimes used by neo-nazis.
O.K., you lost me here. Are you trying to say we had to nuke them because they might kill themselves if we didn’t?