<<Who here has explicitly said that the events in the OP were NOT an atrocity?>>
I believe that a number of posters first learned about this atrocity from the OP. To the degree that some people learned something, ignorance is reduced.
<<you deliberately warp the facts to suit your own little agenda.>>
<<you are insincere… in your posts.>>
The OP was completely accurate. It contained an Associated Press cite. It was not contradicted in the thread. No doubt I have made occassional mistakes, and I can remember at least one case where my source was in error, but generally speaking my OP’s have been accurate and supported by cites. Therefore, I reject this accusation.
I suspect you don’t like my agenda. That’s your privilege. Why not just say that?
I have tried to stay out of the Israel-Palestine threads simply because the level of intransigence, duplicity and general weasel behavior always gives rise to an unseemly brawl. We have another one going here. Our friend December has once more come up with a news item that can fairly be regarded as falling into the “interesting if true” category and then used it to tar a whole population with a broad brush. I see no need to defend my personal view of the conflict in the Mid-east; it is enough to say that our friend has consistently been deliberately provocative and frequently dishonest in his treatment of the real issues and the very real tragedy of the conflict. There have been things said that should not be dignified by a response, but there are also assertion made by our friend that are so tenuously connected to fact and logic that the temptation to respond is overwhelming.
If the last horror story has any larger significance it is simply as one more indication of the desperation on the Palestinian side of this thing. Desperate people do desperate things. The source of that desperation is in the inability or unwillingness of the political authorities on either side to do anything that might resolve this continuing tragedy. I can’t help but suspect that the continuation of this debacle serves someone’s purposes. One might think that as far as Israel is concerned, the resolution of the conflict opens up the potential of an even more threatening conflict within Israel itself over the theocratic nature of the state and the role of the orthodox establishment in an increasingly secular population. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, there is a generation whose whole hold on power and the material and immaterial benefits that flow from power is predicated on conflict with Israel. It is, perhaps, in the short term interest of both to continue the conflict and to throw gasoline on every smoldering ember. It seems to me that our friend is one of the people throwing gasoline, or is at least the gas thrower’s running dog.
All of this neither excuses nor apologizes for this or other atrocities or for our friend’s reign of misinformation, convoluted logic and general stalking horse-ism. There are places you don’t go for sound reasoning or impartial observation. December is one of those places. Recognize him for what he is and deal with him as you would with an infestation of groundhogs. He is simply one more of life’s petty annoyances.
I would suggest that you reconsider this minty. Applying civilian legal principles to war situations would make manslaughterers and second degree murderers out of many or most military comanders (and civilian ones too).
The fact is that due to the nature of war, a much higher of degree of risk is necessary - and acceptable. The Kahane Commission acknowledged this, stating that even in retrospect it could not be definitely said that sending the Phalangists into the camps was the wrong decision to make at the time - knowing what was known then, and considering the various interests in play. What Sharon was found guilty of was rather in failing to adequately consider the matter - a much more complex issue.
No doubt the Sabra and Shatilla massacres did not represent the high point of Sharon’s career. But that is a far cry from being manslaughter or second degree murder. I have little doubt that if the various fine American commanders (military and civilian) who authorized airstrikes on what turned out to be pharmeceutical factories, refugee convoys and wedding parties would have their actions second guessed and picked apart by their political enemies the way Sharon’s actions have been, you could make comparable case for them being murderers too (or “contemptible pieces of shit”, if you prefer).
Which is all before we even get to the various civilian massacres committed in Korea and Vietnam by various fine war heroes and future US Senators…
Two wrongs make not one right. For instance; in the last couple of years voices (mainly in the US) have seriously been raised speaking up on Mr. ex-First Secretary of State Kissinger’s possible guilt of crimes against humanity. I kind of admire Kissinger myself, always liked a pragmatic politician, but when you look at the facts he doesn’t look so good anymore. Be that as it may, the fact that some American politicians can’t keep from straying on the wrong side of the law does not give Sharon, or Arafat, or any other jingoist any excuse.
Fact: Sharon is a warrior.
Fact: Arafat is a warrior.
Fact: War is ugly.
Fact: War and politics are not the same thing.
Fact: Sharon and Arafat are old men with personal grievances that go back too long to be relevant anymore.
Conclusion: None of them should be deciding over the lives of tomorrow’s youth anywhere in the world.
That being said, if the choice is Bibi or Ariel, I’ll stick with Ariel. If the choice is Yassin or Arafat I’ll stick with Arafat.
If you wish to believe that I equatedDecember to Sir Winston Spencer Churchill, then you would have to believe that I equated the dopers in this thread to the esteemed members of the pre WWII British cabinet and government. Please do not be so vain Guinastasia
Shodan: Look, shcmuck, do you see the quotation marks around the plural atrocities in that text of mine you just quoted? See, quotation marks–they’re the little squiggly things–indicate that the words come from another person, not me. And in fact, the plural atrocities came from grienspace, who asseted that there were “no atrocities” of similar nature (where “similar nature” is, of course, defined only by grienspace) on the Israeli side. I responded by listing one and only one atrocity by an Israeli, then you wandered in acting like I’m Human Fuckin’ Rights Watch, blathering on and on about how terrible those mean ol’ nasty Israelis are. Save your indignation for a more appropriate target next time, huh?
What your OP says and what your cite say are usually two different things. You deliberately twist the wording of your cites to get the biggest backlash. the accusation is accurate.
you are spreading ignorance by your twisting of the truth, and you havent learned a thing.
Sparc, I am not intending to address the “Sharon vs. Arafat” comparison (or the significance of such a comparison) here. Good issue - perhaps in a different thread.
Your “Two wrongs make not one right” addresses the point, but I disagree with you here as well. What we are discussing is not if two wrongs make a right, but rather whether and to what extent Sharon’s actions can be said to be a “wrong” altogether. Fact is that right and wrong have to be judged by what is accepted as such in that particular context. This is defined by the accepted procedures followed by others in similar situations. To apply US criminal law to a military situation - as minty did - is completely inappropriate.
If you can make a case that the level of risk tolerated by Sharon goes well beyond that considered acceptable in such situations, you would begin to make a case (against Sharon, that is - it would still not make criminal law a valid argument). But I don’t think you can, as noted. I would also note that the specific decisions of Sharon - allowing local allies to undertake the dangerous nitty gritty jobs at the risk of an increased chance of atrocities - is also the course of action chosen by the US with regards to the Northern Alliance - with similar results.
So my opinion again is that war is hell, these things happen, and that Sharon’s guilt is being blown way out of proportion for political reasons.
What “war” was this, Izzy – Sharon had a political mandate to encroach 25 miles into Southern Lebanon in order to clear out the PLO. That in itself was a response to the attempted killing of the Israeli Ambassodor(by the PLO) in London and was clearly intended to be both limited and defensive in character.
Anything beyond that, including the surrounding of the PLO in West Beirut, was of Sharon’s own personal violation – the man was beyond controllable and on a frolic of his own.
Is that “war” or the usurping of a political mandate by a man with his own personal agenda ?
But so far it is the small neutral States that are bearing the brunt of German malice and cruelty…We, the aggrieved and belligerent Powers who are waging war against Germany, have no need to ask for respite…We must always be expecting some bad thing from** Germany**…German intrigues are seeking to undermine the newly strengthened solidarity of the southern Slavs…They bow humbly and in fear to German threats of violence,…
Grienspace: First, WWII started in September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. A Churchill quote from January 1940 is hardly an example of pre-war hateful speech by Churchill. Second, the quote doesn’t look all that hateful to me. Try again.
Try again buster. By January 20 1940 the war had been going on for almost four months.
You made a comparison between alarmism in pre-WWII Europe from one of the most informed politicians, thinkers and historians of the continent in the twentieth century to jingoistic bigotry by an accountant with an agenda on a message board. I still await your retraction of the comparison, or proof that the comparison is valid.
BTW if you need act as a smart ass, at least be a total smartass…
What Churchill said in 1935 was not hateful, but factual analysis. It did not imply that this was an inherent quality to Germanism nor that the German people were generally contemptible for it.
I take it that what I quote you with in this post is to be taken as the retraction that I have demanded.
