You’re joking, right? You don’t actually base your political take on any of this on your religious beliefs, do you?
How is anyone going to maintain the moral upper hand when we continue to divide ourselves into us and them?
[quote]
chappachula: And in war, unfortunately, innocent people get killed along with the legitimate targets. We call it “collateral damage.”
Wouldn’t it be more honest to call them what they are – dead mothers, brothers, fathers, sons, lovers, wives, children, babies? A bride on her wedding day must *never be called “collateral damage.”
Paul, you kill everyone all again when you speak of ethnic cleansing and deportment. You participate. We all do in some ways. But if you give in to it…I can’t even finish this. Just think about it.
From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), p. 215:
That’s not you, is it Paul? Please, please tell me that absolutely nothing discussed in the above quote has anything to do with you or your beliefs.
Please.
No, that has nothing to do with my political beliefs. I am a Jew, not a Christian. Here’s what MY Bible has to say about Israel:
“On that day, G-d made with Abram a covenant saying, 'To your seed, I have given this land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.” (Genesis 15:18)
Now, I’m not going to sit here and have you trash my religious beliefs or claim that I’m crazy for basing my political views on them. Even if I were atheist, I would think the Jews were entitled to Israel: they have almost nothing, and the Arab Muslims have almost everything in the Middle East. The Jews have created civilization there, created democracy and advanced Western culture. The Arabs have created squalor, savagery, barbaric terrorism and cultural regression. No Bible involved: strictly logical reasoning.
All that is perfectly true, but it solves nothing. The Arabs in the Arab states are where they are, the Palestinians are where they are, and no good will come of any further attempts by the Israelis to colonize the Territories or push out the Palestinians. Not even if you try to use the OT to justify it. Doesn’t count to Muslims, you know – to them the OT is the word of God but the Koran is a more perfect expression of the same, and trumps the OT in the event of any conflict.
Look, here’s my take on it. As long as the Arabs are there, there will be terrorism. No matter what. NOTHING can change it at this point. That’s all I have to say about this.
-
An intractable terrorist problem with no end in sight would still be preferable to the destruction wrought by the general regional war that almost certainly would ensue if the Israelis tried to “ethnically cleanse” the Palestinians. And no matter how that war ended, Israel, as a state, probably would not survive it.
-
If the Palestinians are allowed to stay were they are and to have an independent state with no Israeli settlements and no Israeli military presence in it, Palestinian terrorism against Israelis will end. I say nothing of terrorism perpretrated by other radical Islamic groups.
On the contrary, you are doing a far better job than you realise.
On the contrary there is a perfectly obvious alternative. Fast approaching.
Horseshit. Hamas seems more “reasonable” because Israel is rightly killing its leadership nearly as fast as the terrorist fuckers can be replaced, a welcome change from their prior policy of letting them mostly live.
The very event which precipitated this thread was a direct consequence of a pair of bus-bombings which left 16 civilians dead.
Your statement that “Hamas is more sinned against than sinning” is factually incorrect, disgusting and frankly, pro-terrorist.
It is interesting you say that because we have it on the authority of Alessan no less, an Israeli with military experience I believe, that Israel and Syria are at war. In this very thread in fact:
So all this time, Syrian backed suicide bombing of Israelis has been a perfectly legitimate activity. Who would have thought?
As to who is more sinned against, perhaps you might furnish the measurements leading to your factual conclusion.
Whatever, Sevastopol. Syrian backing of terrorists is indeed legitimate, as much as the direct targeting of civilians by anyone, terrorist or army, can be considered legitimate - which is, not at all. Attacking enemy soldiers or leaders is another matter. If the Syrian government decided to kill, say, Ariel Sharon, I’d consider it a perfectly legitimate act, and I’ll continue to consider it legitimate while pissing on the smoldering ruins of what once was Damascus, the razing of which would also be perfectly legitimate as retaliation. Happy?
Legitimate does not mean smart, or desireable. Every action has an equal - hell, sometimes an overwhelming - and opposite reaction. Just so you know, Israelis do not react to terrorism in the same shocked and scandalized manner as Americans do; we think of terrorists as enemies, not as monsters.
P.S. I’m curious about that fast approaching, perfectly obvious alternative you mentioned earlier. Any hints?
Ehm - can’t say I agree with that. If by “rules of war” you mean the Hague and Geneva conventions, there’s any number of things that you’re specifically not allowed to do. Chemical weapons. Targeting civilians, medics, firefighters. Abusing Red Cross markings or otherwise pretend to be a protected noncombatant while maneuvering or gathering intelligence. Booby-trapping food, water or medical supplies. Booby-trapping dead or wounded.
IIRC, there’s even a catch-all clause about “usual customs of warfare” or something along these lines.
The “using a remote-controlled explosive charge” tactic, however, seems as legit as using a sniper rifle, provided that the persons actually doing so didn’t commit any war crimes in setting up the operation.
I believe the only reasons most countries do not use these tactics extensively is that setting up this sort of operation is pretty hard and it opens up for retaliation. For obvious reasons, few politicians push hard for the idea of war being fought by assassinating politicians.
Granted, althoug modern military medics are often armed as heavily as other fighters, and there’s no way anyone’s going to sucessfully outlaw the use of spies. I’d also like to note that said laws only hold when both sides obey them, because otherwise violaters would have an unfair advantage.
But yeah, that’s not what I meant by “rules of war”. I was referring to the fact that one can’t expect nations in conflict with each other to follow the same rules as nations in a state of peace; otherwise, “peace” has no meaning.
Ah, that makes sense.
Just want to back Manny up a bit: Hamas hasn’t changed its ways, Israel is just getting much better at stopping them. Only the bombings show up on the international news; you don’t hear about the constant attempts to sneak explosive belts through checkpoints, or of army raids upon explosives workshops. The reason Hamas hasn’t been doing much damage lately is because they’re losing.
Look, you noted yourself that withdrawal or no withdrawal, Hamas will continue its attempts to destroy Israel. In which case, they’re a major impediment to peace in the Middle East and should be eliminated sooner or later. Why not sooner?
Happy? I’d be delirious if you’d explain how the razing of Damascus could occur without that being “deliberate targetting of civilians.”
Why not eliminate Israel instead, the argument in favour has lately become at least as strong?
Through judicious and carefully targeted use of hyperbole.
Because the Hamas is an organization, whose members are there by choice, while Israel is a nation, with several million citizens. To destroy Hamas you have to kill several hundred people, at most, all of whom decided to be members; to estroy Israel you’ll need to commit genocid. Are you supporting genocide?
Actually, you’d want to do a lot of preparatory work in NYC if genocide was really the plan. That quibble aside, being as it is on the cards thanks to Sharon’s latest initiatives, I don’t see why we should close off any options at this stage in our search for Middle Eastern peace.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Care to be a little less opaque?