Thank you, this is now the stupidest thing I have ever read on the internet. Ever.
You’d amuse me and any onlookers who have a cursory knowledge of literature?
There is no factual-based debate on a subject of war, killing of civilians, occupation, daily oppression and apartheid. There is no factual debate that can prove that killing 10 Palestinians for 1 Israeli is somehow proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be okay.
You can only be in a state of mind within a given paradigm that sees no problem with it. If I say that attitude is horrifying and you tell me I’m wrong – I cannot prove it to you so you say I’m correct. Actually, I won’t even try.
What I’m interested is to deconstruct the origin and development of the paradigm under which certain moral conclusions are made (such as question of peace talks or never-ending settlement activity). This thread – as any opened in last 10 years - is an ongoing discussion on whose moral compass is better at pointing to North. Moral attitudes toward the PI conflict arise from the overall moral attitudes (paradigm or system of thought developed over time) and it is no surprise that – especially since 9/11 and long-term shift from national (Fatah) to religious (Hamas) coloring of Palestinian resistance - overall attitudes toward Palestinians have eroded and have become more antagonistic (e.g. 15 years ago having Netanyahu in-your-face settlement expansion would be insane – now it’s a new normal).
And that’s all a person like me who experienced something similar in Balkans can point to – the events and opinions that don’t make any sense because I’m not in a paradigm.
Don’t flatter yourself that you have better debating skills or are immune to errors in logical thinking – you inhabit a paradigm that I never will and we’ll never agree on this. Which is funny, as Canadians, we probably inhabit some other paradigm where we certainly would agree on many things.
I don’t make any secret on what my “moral paradigm” is - you can “deconstruct” to your heart’s content.
It is known as “just war theory” as it has developed in the Western world over the last few hundred years (in fact, its roots are much older).
Here’s a link:
I have my quibbles with bits of the theory, but I agree on the main points; I do not use a different logic to analyze different conflicts.
To my mind, proclaiming that matters of peace and war are beyond rational debate is a cop-out.
So, that would be a ‘no’ then…you have nothing but your own self pity and feelings. Gotcha. Thanks for playing. Here are some lovely parting gifts. The SDMB Great Debates edition (which, sadly you don’t seem inclined to play). And this lovely, genuine ceramic dog…
Sure, why don’t we start with Mr. Ballard’s letter to the New York Times in 1982:
[QUOTE=Mr. Allen Ballard, 1982]
I can still recall the anger I felt as my white classmates read aloud the word “nigger.” In fact, as I write this letter I am getting angry all over again. I wanted to sink into my seat. Some of the whites snickered, others giggled. I can recall nothing of the literary merits of this work that you term “the greatest of all American novels.” I only recall the sense of relief I felt when I would flip ahead a few pages and see that the word “nigger” would not be read that hour."
[/QUOTE]
Don’t worry about writing your response, here, FinnAgain. Much to your chagrin I’m sure, Mr. Ballard is still alive and well, and I encourage you to send him your keen insight into Huckleberry Finn, here. I’m certain he would appreciate your literary perspective and expertise on the issue.
- Honesty
P.S. Just so that you’re aware, FinnAgain, you do realize that you cut and snipped my entire post to now be about usernames? So now, guess what? We’re talking about usernames. Do you see what I’m talking about now? Or will you double-down and further transform the discussion into an indictment against my username? Or will you insist that your username is better than mine? Your posting style is to take bits and pieces of your opponents post and then lay it out in such a way that you guide the direction of the debate. You guide it alright but it’s so far removed from the original context, that the discussion oscillates between pedantry and narcissism. But, by all means, this is fun, let’s keep going: I want to show - in real-time - how you’ll ricochet this post into another tangential topic, then another, and then another, all for the purpose of devaluing and diminishing your opponent. This is precisely this tactic that makes these Israeli threads black holes of a debate, causing people who want to participate, to just walk away.
Just FTR, and to stop this silly tangent, FinnAgain’s name comes from Finnegans Wake, not from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Should I spoil the woosh? 
Edit: Damn.
Damn it! And no one got to work in the always popular ‘I’ll be your huckleberry…’ line. 
Sorry. 
Hah! On one hand, I’m embarrassed I didn’t catch the difference, but on the other hand, this is exactly why the topic of usernames should never been brought up in the first place. It was brought up by Dissonance, then further double-downed by FinnAgain, as a means to discredit my post. Perhaps if these Israel threads kept in discussing the content of a poster’s post rather than obsessing over trivialities such as the username, location, etc, these “silly tangents” as you put them, would never have occurred in the first place. With that, I sincerely apologize to FinnAgain, insofar as I don’t think your username is racist, but I do think your cut-and-snip debating style stinks.
Have a nice day.
- Honesty
I apologize. This is now the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on the internet.
You seem to be flailing aimlessly, but with great vim and vigor, yes. You brought up user names, I pointed out that your comment was, actually, hilariously, foolishly wrong. And you’re trying to use the fact that I responded to a tangent that you started in order to prove… something. About Mark Twain, evidently.
Let’s check yet another bit, shall we?
Lemme quote that funny little denial, and then you saying exactly what I stated you said, and you for some reason denied.
So you were, indeed, “objecting to people quoting your (and other people’s) own words, showing how they’re in error, and then responding to them.” Oh, I know, I know, you’re claiming it’s about “context”. But you cited nothing. Because you can’t. Because what really happens is that people’s statements are shown to be counter factual, but you’re handwaving and claiming that there’s some “context” which would make them accurate. Why, they’re so right, their positions are so strong, they could easily eviscerate such picayune objections by pointing out the actual context and supplying a fusillade of facts… but, for some reason, they don’t. Even though they’re so obviously correct. And all they can do is have numerous people whine in GD threads while contributing nothing to the thread. And this is the only way they can prove their cases, because… hey look over there!
What you’re really doing is trying to slime your opposition. I simply pointed out that your claim is fictitious, uncited (and unciteable as it’s not true), and what you’re actually objecting to, behind your rhetoric, is that your coterie’s claims are isolated, dissected, and then stuck in formaldehyde for observation. .
Are you serious?
To start with, do you really not comprehend that Dissonance discredited your post by showing how hillariously wrong it was,and then added, as a tangential mention, that your user name is ironic given that you do not post arguments that are factual? Do you really, honestly, truly, not understand that? And your complaint about me “doubling down?” You decided to bring up my username (hilariously unaware of its origin but cocksure and wilfully ignorant when it came down to actually educating yourself.) I responded by pointing out how amusingly wrong you were. And that’s now, of course, a black mark against me. For responding. To you.
Just to recap: you brought up your (hilariously mistaken) view of my username in order to imply that I picked it from a racist book. I pointed out I didn’t. You then, predictably, claim you’re being persecuted by my denial. It’d be funny, if you weren’t actually serious. Instead it’s just kinda sad.
Maybe if you weren’t such a meany and using all those fact thingies against peoples genuine feelings and unsupported views of how things SHOULD be (or are in their own fantasy worlds), someone would be your huckleberry, Finn…
You’re joking, right?
Ad Bellum or the moral rationalizations that legitimize the participation of a state in an armed conflict - Israel has no legs to stand on, on an even cursory review. The ongoing occupation, ongoing collective punishments and ongoing land stealing with settlements simply cannot allow Israel to claim it is engaging in a just war – its use of IDF is to enable and protect illegal operations in the first place. What you call a “war” is just Israel managing normal response to illegal actions with an overwhelming force. To put it simply - you cannot have a just war if it follows illegal action.
Jus in bello, the second set of criteria under the Just War Theory, defines how a just war should be conducted. Even The Economist had an article on 350 Palestinian casualties against 4 Israeli deaths during a series of air strikes within four days. So, Israel fails on this principle of Just War theory, too. And has been for last 20 years.
What’s your point?
Oh, and by the way, here’s a damn cite like we ever needed one - http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/mar09_slater
[QUOTE=newcomer]
Jus in bello, the second set of criteria under the Just War Theory, defines how a just war should be conducted. Even The Economist had an article on 350 Palestinian casualties against 4 Israeli deaths during a series of air strikes within four days. So, Israel fails on this principle of Just War theory, too. And has been for last 20 years.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm…I wonder if we could gleam any useful information about this from your linked article. Let’s see…oh, here:
So…the attacks were meant to stop Hamas from firing rockets at Israel. This resulted in more Palestinian deaths than Israel. The conclusion…must all be Israel’s fault for having Hamas attack them randomly with rockets! Yes, it’s a clear cut case! If only Israel hadn’t forced Hamas to randomly attack Israeli settlements with rockets, then Israel wouldn’t have had to attack Palestinian settlements in ‘occupied’ Gaza. Heck, if only the Israelis hadn’t given the Palestinians Gaza (so they could then occupy it by getting out of it and giving it to the Palestinians), then the Palestinians couldn’t have fired their rockets at Israeli settlements in Israel! You are SO right.
But, at least this is a timely article, since it’s fresh off the press from 2008…
Well, that’s at least a good baby step.
Of course, you just cited the whole of an opinion piece. Why don’t you actually point out what you feel is relevant. Then, of course, be prepared for the fact that it Begging The Question and simply assuming, by fiat, that there is “Palestinian territory” that the Israelis are “stealing”. I know, you and your fellow travelers are so used to calling the disputed territories “Palestinian territories”, up to and including areas which were settled by Jews who were ethnically cleansed, that you seem to have forgotten that you and yours invented the concept as a bit of rhetorical gaming. Other people don’t buy into your narrative gloss. What with it being wrong and counterfactual, and such.
Hey, are you debating, or still not-debating?
On the off chance you are now debating … that article is full of silly.
You don’t have to read far into it, to realize that, in the author’s opinion, there is never going to be any chance that Israel could “legitimately” defend itself.
To quote:
In short, until Israel hands over the entirely of Palestinian demands, raining rockets on its population is, in this author’s “serious analysis”, justified - and Israeli attempts to end such random bombardment are unjustified.
Hell, he comes out and says as much.
The obvious inference is that, unless Israel does all these things it must - well - simply allow its citizens to be killed.
Even if it meets all Palestinian demands, according to the article, it still can’t simply use force to prevent those attacking its citizens. It must use all political measures first - even though the organization it is facing is admittedly a bunch of religious thugs focussed on eliminating Israel as a state, and will only offer “truces” and not “peace deals”.
This is a deliberate perversion of just war theory.
Mathus, it’s actually a great article, as it’s honest. Far too many anti-Israel folks think they’re being very clever when they just so happen to outlaw Israeli self defense by making Israel jump through hoops that no other nations on Earth would agree to if they were threatened. This article, at least, comes right out and says it. Until Israel unilaterally concedes to all the PA’s and/or Hamas’ demands, Israeli civilians can be murdered with impunity and Israel has no right to protect its citizens’ lives.
Its honesty is refreshing.
And you call this a debate point?
I think you are not even aware of how biased you are. I mean, seriously, you have no clue what a debate is, you wouldn’t recognize a proof even if it hit you in the head. You didn’t even pick essential points from the article or my post. You just went in like a hoarder picking stuff up and making stories about them.
To say “Oh, it’s just someone’s opinion, a bit late and a bit of a perversion” is not a debate.
Since you will no doubt continue abusing debate by asking to point out what essential points are let me do that again and this time, stand up and be counted to deliver debate the way you preach because so far there’s nothing in your finely constructed posts even remotely similar to a debate.
#1 – If you engage in a war after you already committed illegal act, the war itself cannot be just – fail at ad bellum
#2 – the difference in civilians’ death cannot be explained by engaging in a conduct of war that is reasonable – fail at jus in bello