It has officially hit the fan...

[jayyy]

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
wonder how many of those palestinians statistics were killed by their own suicide bombs?

Oh, wait, it was HIM that said it. Figures....


Just out of curiousity, how common are people like this in the united states?




Bigotry against arabs is the last socially acceptable form of discrimination in the west. To argue its not technically racism is splitting hairs. Thats a single parameter for discrimination. Discriminating against an entire society is equally bigoted.

Essentially, you condemn their acts as barbaric, and then proclaim the precise same acts against them (albeit far worse) as justified and reasonable. There is nothing logical or rational about that type of thinking

[torsten]

Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
I am acknowledging a distinction between blowing up a bus and going after the masterminds. However, leveling city blocks with people still in the houses is not much different. These kind of actions was what I was talking about.

I never meant that you shouldn't go after terrorists. It's how you do it though that makes a difference. IMO there are different ways than those employed by Israel that should be favored. Of course I'm no expert on this, but I'm quite sure things could be done with a little less "collateral damage".

Could the difference be that I see this more as war and that you see it more as police action? I mean we both know what's happening, but come to different conclusions about the appropriate level of seriousness and force with which to respond. Do the Israelis owe it to the Palestinians to subject their soldiers to more dangers by treating it as a police action? Would that even be as effective? I would think some of these people aren't easily caught and brought to justice. And of course another question is what level of culpability does a population that generally supports terrorism have?

Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
Well, yeah, there was no direct involvement, as you put it. AFAIK though, the Lebnese militia was more or less under Sharon's command, and he let those events happen. Those camps being launching pad for terrorist strikes doesn't really justify killing the women and children who have nothing to do with terrorism in it as well, does it? IMO, if you can prevent such a slaughter, you are required to do so. Sharon didn't.

OK, I had not heard anything about them being under Sharon's actual command. That sounds strange given who they were, but I'll investigate further before coming to conclusions about it.

Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
Ah come on! Aren't you overinterpreting a bit here? Defending your life versus bits and bytes on a discussion board? I read the thread backwards and saw insults from both of you. They have no place here. Regardless of who started getting personal. I for one find it rather childish to resort to insults here on SG, no matter if someone else started it first, and was merely asking for the isults to stop. Yet, in response you post this which I could interpret as an insult dressed nicely. Whatever. But don't draw conclusion about my cognitive abilities from this one line, would ya? Apart from this instance, I find your other assessments of my ability to comprehend certain situation rather off base, but that's your view, not mine. There's usually much much more thought behind my posts than the posts themselves, so maybe it's not always easy to follow what I'm saying. But don't just dismiss what I say as naive/stupid/ignorant/whatever because it doesn't match your opinion, and I have a feeling that you're doing exactly that, at least subconsciously.

Well, your feeling about my subconscious is incorrect. I try to judge the validity of opinions based on how well supported they are, not simply whether they're aligned with my priorities and feelings. And I still dispute the above characterization of how the discussion proceeded and who made personal attacks. I think there's a big difference in tone and substance between the things jayyy and I said to each other, yet you make no distinction. I'll admit that I took it personally when you included me in the admonition because I didn't think I deserved it. Still don't. Looking back though, it's no big deal. From what you say I'm sure it wasn't a chosen slight.

I shouldn't have used the word "can't" in my response, because I don't question your cognitive abilities. I was just making the point that I saw important distinctions missing in both situations that seemed to be of a similar character though not of similar gravity.

[Ghosthunter]

Originally posted by jayyy
Oh, wait, it was HIM that said it. Figures....


Just out of curiousity, how common are people like this in the united states?




Bigotry against arabs is the last socially acceptable form of discrimination in the west. To argue its not technically racism is splitting hairs. Thats a single parameter for discrimination. Discriminating against an entire society is equally bigoted.

Essentially, you condemn their acts as barbaric, and then proclaim the precise same acts against them (albeit far worse) as justified and reasonable. There is nothing logical or rational about that type of thinking

OMG you are unreal


you have such a way of twisting things it is so funny...man you should go work for the NY Times.

Seriously who said I have anything against Arabs?

Where do you get that???

I am talking about suicide bombers....sorry but i believe all suicide bombers are terrorists and label them as such.


You also need to learn how to debate people with debating their ideas not attacking people based upon their ideas.

[Ghosthunter]

Originally posted by jayyy
Yes. They broke all international law to do what they did, and have nothing to show for it. The united states are regarded as no better or worse than the official terrorists internationally.

Its international relationships are in shambles. Polls have shown most to consider George Bush the world's greatest threat to world peace. That goes far beyond the muslim population

The UN voted to keep doing inspections, those lying pieces of **** moved in anyway, found nothing, and came back to the UN to beg fortroops and money after calling them irrelevant.

Now the truth is being exposed. We know the US's leads on links to Al Qaeda were distorted lies and that they never had the proof of WMD they claimed to have.


A bully that does whatever it wants and kills whoever it wants to get its way through fear and coercion without any respect for the law or peace is a terrorist.

Do you just make things up as you go along?

[Roody]

Originally posted by jayyy
Polls have shown most to consider George Bush the world's greatest threat to world peace.

Do you have a couple examples of these polls Jayyy? I don't doubt your sincerity I would just like to see some of them. I recognize and understand the contempt people hold for the President I just believe it's a bit much to say the least to compare a recognized Gov't and it's leader with a person who straps a bomb on to their chest and walks into a crowd or who flies a plane into a building.

Like I said I understand the contempt people have for the President. In truth at this point Kerry has my vote this November, but I will admit it's comparison's like that that don't make my choice easier to move to the other side. I believe those comparisons to be poor (no offense) and it's hard to not see them as being driven solely by hate.

Anyway, sorry for butting into this conversation.

[SeedOfChaos]

Originally posted by torsten
Could the difference be that I see this more as war and that you see it more as police action? I mean we both know what's happening, but come to different conclusions about the appropriate level of seriousness and force with which to respond. Do the Israelis owe it to the Palestinians to subject their soldiers to more dangers by treating it as a police action? Would that even be as effective? I would think some of these people aren't easily caught and brought to justice. And of course another question is what level of culpability does a population that generally supports terrorism have?

I see it as a war, although a very unbalanced one. High tech on one side, ultra-low tech on the other. Do the Israelis owe it to Palestinians to subject their soldiers to greater danger in order to reduce "collateral damage"? IMO as long as the dangers are reasonable, then yes. IMO most soldiers would be quite safe in tanks as well, for example. There are so many more options to get someone than bombs, to assume that bombing is the only feasible solution is giving human creativy not enough credit. Again, I'm no expert on these issues, but come on, there has to be another way than dropping large quantities of explosives.

The question at the end of the paragraph is a very good question, one that is usually not thoroughly discussed. IMO it doesn't warrant death, although it is certainly criminal in a way and deserves punishment, but other than death. See, I'm against capital punishment. Even for terrorists, if you kill them they only become martyrs. Reasons for others (their friends and family) to become terrorists. Lock 'em up, and the reaction is much less violent. And that's what this conflict is all about, constant reaction. The initial actions lie in the distant past, and by now it doesn't really matter anymore who started it, it just needs to stop somehow, other than one side exterminating the other. I think we can agree at lesat on the last sentence, can't we?

OK, I had not heard anything about them being under Sharon's actual command. That sounds strange given who they were, but I'll investigate further before coming to conclusions about it.

Well, your feeling about my subconscious is incorrect. I try to judge the validity of opinions based on how well supported they are, not simply whether they're aligned with my priorities and feelings. And I still dispute the above characterization of how the discussion proceeded and who made personal attacks. I think there's a big difference in tone and substance between the things jayyy and I said to each other, yet you make no distinction. I'll admit that I took it personally when you included me in the admonition because I didn't think I deserved it. Still don't. Looking back though, it's no big deal. From what you say I'm sure it wasn't a chosen slight.

See... you were both violating the terms of usage of SG. Personal attacks (regardless of it being an action or reaction) are not allowed here, and people have been banned for reacting to insults with insults. I'd hate to see either of you two go, that's why didn't make a distinction: it doesn't matter in this case, as it's against the SG rules either way. See, usually there is much more thought behind what I post than what I post. I usually don't feel like writing a book and spelling every step in the thought process out. Maybe that's why you feel my opinions are unsupported? Lemme tell you, they're not, at least usually.

I shouldn't have used the word "can't" in my response, because I don't question your cognitive abilities. I was just making the point that I saw important distinctions missing in both situations that seemed to be of a similar character though not of similar gravity.

If you leave out the "can't", then your statement is acceptable. And again, it's not like I am not making distinctions between the Israeli actions and Palestinian actions. But the end result of my thought process is that both sides engage in horrible acts, and that I can't make out just one bad guy in this conflict. There are always two parties in a conflict. People don't just blow themselves up because they don't have anything better to do. There obviously has to be a strong cause for those insane acts, and just telling kids that they can't have sex otherwise or that they get 72 virigins or whatever can't really be the ONLY motivation. Otherwise people would be doing this around the world.

Okay, I gotta run, TBC later if you want...

[jayyy]

Originally posted by Roody
Do you have a couple examples of these polls Jayyy? I don't doubt your sincerity I would just like to see some of them. I recognize and understand the contempt people hold for the President I just believe it's a bit much to say the least to compare a recognized Gov't and it's leader with a person who straps a bomb on to their chest and walks into a crowd or who flies a plane into a building.

I'm on a slow connection now, but I'll get them later. Its not like it was in the communist-vegan times or anything, it was reported all over the world.

Since the late 60's there have been reasonable peace offers for israel. They and the US have rejected them because they don't need them. They have uperior military might and they can do what they want.

No-one experiencing it really cares if someone dropping bombs comes from a "recognized government" or not. The distinction is pretty moot.

Its really weird how if something is labelled a "war" its suddenly this legitimate action, as if itll make any difference to anyone that dies. Like you can put on a little hat that says "Legitimate soldier in combat zone" and its justified to do much worse than the people that don't have it.

Its really scary how much evil in the world comes from people certain that they're right, and how casual and careless they can be about it. Its really scary how someone can just sit around a dorm or whatever, talking about what amounts to the death of hundreds or thousands like its a rubiks cube, or fiddling with a faulty door that won't shut.

They come back, "I didn't say that! I didn't say kill hundreds or thousands!" Thats part of the problem. They have no idea thats whats happened or will continue to. They neither or understand nor take any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.




I don't really write all that much about my time in asia outside of jpan. I've just been kind of sinking it in, and I'm realizing its starting to change how I look at the world.


An example taht stands out- Its not really possible to walk through teh jungles of cambodia safely, because they have the highest concentration of landmines in the world. More than you could ever imagine, perhaps hundreds of thousands. To this day, literally every week, close to daily, people lose their lives and limbs to them, 25 years after they were dropped. Pnomh Penh is full of cripple beggars.

The US did it. Some minor tactical decision during their war against vietnam. Just one of those things that had to be done, to a country that didn't even have anything to do with it.

I don't know...its not something i see on tv on a unicef commercial, you know what I mean? I'm just imagining some maoist faction gathering together all these aimless peasants in the jungle and doing something rash. and if it affects the US in any way, they'll be "smashed with a hammer" yet again.

Its not an attack on the US per se, its just terrifying how blase and ignorant people are about it. This guy is going "Do you just make stuff up?" he has no idea what goes on in the world. All of this might as well ne science fiction. He can't get it through his head and he never will.

[jayyy]

Here are some of those polls. These are slightly more favorable to teh US, but I'm posting these ones because they're from american, pro-US sources.

the first one. of european public opinion, puts Isreal as the greatest threat to World peace, at 59%.

In this poll, the US lags behind, tied with North Korea at 53%.

http://people-press.org/commentary/disp ... lysisID=77

Things are a bit better according to the tallahassee journal. In their poll, pre-war sadam hussein edged out bush as the greatest threat...by 1 percentage point.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/5255248.htm


No-where outside america is any of this news.

[Roody]

I stand corrected. Thanks for the followup Jayyy. I'm just glad from what I saw that those polls although considering us a threat didn't call us terrorist. I woulda disagreed with that viewpoint.

[Ghosthunter]

why dont you poll the people who were effected by us terrorists:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... aq_poll_dc

[jayyy]

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
why dont you poll the people who were effected by us terrorists:

Thats a good idea. Maybe you could poll vietnam, or el salvador, or guatamala, or cambodia.

But anyway, as far as your poll goes-

Asked how the U.S.-led invasion of their country left them feeling, 41 percent said they felt liberated -- but the same number said they felt humiliated.

Its funny...the sanctions against iraq choked it within an inch of life...now that the US is in there and political pressure is on them to follow through, they have a crack at an economy again. Given what an evil man Hussein was, You'd think approval ratings would be at 100%.

And yet, opinions still vary. A year later, even with a majority, its sill a mixed bag in a lot of ways.

The point being, its not as black and white an issue as a lot of people want to think it is. Even in the case of a victory presented in the media, It isn't "good vs. Evil" as far as the majority here is concerned.

[Ghosthunter]

Originally posted by jayyy
Thats a good idea. Maybe you could poll vietnam, or el salvador, or guatamala, or cambodia.

But anyway, as far as your poll goes-



Its funny...the sanctions against iraq choked it within an inch of life...now that the US is in there and political pressure is on them to follow through, they have a crack at an economy again. Given what an evil man Hussein was, You'd think approval ratings would be at 100%.

And yet, opinions still vary. A year later, even with a majority, its sill a mixed bag in a lot of ways.

The point being, its not as black and white an issue as a lot of people want to think it is. Even in the case of a victory presented in the media, It isn't "good vs. Evil" as far as the majority here is concerned.

Nice how you take only a certain part of that article out of context. Did you actually read the whole thing?

All I want to know is if you are still saying the U.S. and the men and women of the armed forces are still terrorists to you?

If we were terrorists we would have just wiped out entire Iraq not caring one bit about the civlians, but we did our hardest to avoid as much civlian casualties. Few other countries in the world would go through that much trouble.

[jayyy]

I like this "out of context" bit. lets you ignore anything you don't like.

Yes, I read the whole poll, probably at the same time you did or before. You never post anything new.

The US is under the eye of the world right now. They need international support for troops. South Korea is looking to pull troops, Poland could follow suit. Meanwhile Bush is up for re-election. theres a scrutiny over this war that puts the Admin under serious pressure to make a good example out of Iraq.

Afghanistan wasn't so lucky. The taliban have regained a third of the country, and only a fraction of the aid promised it was ever handed over.

These are famous examples though. Other parts of the world haven't been as lucky.

[JawZ]

Originally posted by torsten
As is the case with most military actions. Although we have the capacity to make war cleaner than it used to be, we're still not at the level that we can protect all civilians.No better? Are you aware that following that logic can put the forces you serve in in the same position? If a military action isn't totally clean, you're then "no better" than the terrorists or enemies you're fighting. I of course don't buy that at all. My guess is you really don't either, otherwise how could you be a member of such a force?

What did you think of WWII? Pretty nasty wasn't it? I think there were a few civilian casualties. Of course if Churchill, Roosevelt knew that any of their actions would cause civilian casualties, and approved them despite that..... that makes them "no better" than the other side. Do you really believe that? Huh? Isn't being concerned with their security (protecting their population from terrorism), being concerned with humanity? Again, if the terror stops, the Israeli actions will stop. If Israeli military actions stopped (as they have for significant periods of time) the terror doesn't stop. You know this. The sides are NOT equivalent no matter how elevated and enlightened it may make you feel to say so.

Torsten,

The problem is that American military actions (recent) don't take years to accomplish. Israel has been going at it for how long? That is why I view their actions as inhumane. While they may get their target, they incur civilian casulties....they know this fact.

The American military executes to reach it's objective and it doesn't stop until it has achieved that objective. What is the Israeli objective? A simple tit for tat?

This is why the logic does NOT apply to the American military. We know that collateral damage is a facet of war...but our objective is limited in size and scope so as to NOT incur civilian casulties...at least to the best of our abilities.

You either go all out or you don't go. That is how we limit killing innocents.

Retaliation without a clear cut objective to fully wipe out the threat leads to a dead end road.

[Ghosthunter]

Originally posted by jayyy
I like this "out of context" bit. lets you ignore anything you don't like.

Yes, I read the whole poll, probably at the same time you did or before. You never post anything new.

The US is under the eye of the world right now. They need international support for troops. South Korea is looking to pull troops, Poland could follow suit. Meanwhile Bush is up for re-election. theres a scrutiny over this war that puts the Admin under serious pressure to make a good example out of Iraq.

Afghanistan wasn't so lucky. The taliban have regained a third of the country, and only a fraction of the aid promised it was ever handed over.

These are famous examples though. Other parts of the world haven't been as lucky.

i love how you avoid my direct questions...

[torsten]

Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
I see it as a war, although a very unbalanced one. High tech on one side, ultra-low tech on the other. Do the Israelis owe it to Palestinians to subject their soldiers to greater danger in order to reduce "collateral damage"? IMO as long as the dangers are reasonable, then yes. IMO most soldiers would be quite safe in tanks as well, for example. There are so many more options to get someone than bombs, to assume that bombing is the only feasible solution is giving human creativy not enough credit. Again, I'm no expert on these issues, but come on, there has to be another way than dropping large quantities of explosives.

The question at the end of the paragraph is a very good question, one that is usually not thoroughly discussed. IMO it doesn't warrant death, although it is certainly criminal in a way and deserves punishment, but other than death. See, I'm against capital punishment. Even for terrorists, if you kill them they only become martyrs. Reasons for others (their friends and family) to become terrorists. Lock 'em up, and the reaction is much less violent. And that's what this conflict is all about, constant reaction. The initial actions lie in the distant past, and by now it doesn't really matter anymore who started it, it just needs to stop somehow, other than one side exterminating the other. I think we can agree at lesat on the last sentence, can't we?

Only the last 7 words.

If you see it as a war, I wonder where you get your expectations of how sterile and precise war can or should be. Considering where you've lived, I find it hard to believe you're not well-versed about what happened 50 years ago. Have you seen the videos of Berlin in 1945? When bombs started hitting London, what should have been the reaction? Strikes by the RAF that were so limited there could be no civilian casualties? I've noticed people from that generation speak with a different view of war. They loathe it more, but they also seem to have a better understanding of what it means.

I also think people fail to see how terrorism has increased the potential viciousness of war. There were times when fighting was mostly limited to Armies, i.e. people who in some way declared themselves to be combatants. But when one side chooses terrorism, they have, in effect, chosen to bring the war to their own citizens. Call it callous if you want, but my view is that a society victimized by terror shouldn't have to fight it with their hands tied behind their back. To be civilized doesn't mean that you extend civilized behavior to those who want to kill you. I DON'T think Israel has a duty to subject their soldiers to any more danger than necessary. If you want to speak of duty I think the Palestinian people have a duty to withdraw their support of terror and support rounding up and imprisoning those who organize and carry it out. Until that happens, I consider them combatants.

Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
See... you were both violating the terms of usage of SG. Personal attacks (regardless of it being an action or reaction) are not allowed here, and people have been banned for reacting to insults with insults. I'd hate to see either of you two go, that's why didn't make a distinction:

That is NOT true. I have not been violating the terms of SG with personal attacks. Reread the discussion. Compare what jayyy said about me to how I responded. You're either not reading the posts carefully or your own political leanings are causing you to miss a big difference in tone and content (have you considered if that's possible?). If you still disagree, get Ken or Philip to read mine and jayyy's posts. If they feel that my responses were equal personal attacks, I'll voluntarily leave this place for good.

[torsten]

Originally posted by UOD
Torsten,

The problem is that American military actions (recent) don't take years to accomplish. Israel has been going at it for how long? That is why I view their actions as inhumane. While they may get their target, they incur civilian casulties....they know this fact.

The American military executes to reach it's objective and it doesn't stop until it has achieved that objective. What is the Israeli objective? A simple tit for tat?

This is why the logic does NOT apply to the American military. We know that collateral damage is a facet of war...but our objective is limited in size and scope so as to NOT incur civilian casulties...at least to the best of our abilities.

You either go all out or you don't go. That is how we limit killing innocents.

Retaliation without a clear cut objective to fully wipe out the threat leads to a dead end road.

Hey, I actually agree with that to an extent. Not about the moral distinction between prolonged vs short, but it's my view that the Israelis should have used much more force years ago because the small responses haven't stopped the problem. I still say that the Palestinian population supports the random bus bomb type terror because they don't have to fear it themselves. Despite what anti-Israelis say, the Israeli strikes are narrowly targeted. When I see crowds of people in the street advocating terror and siding with terror leaders, any sympathy I had for them ends, totally.

[JawZ]

Torsten,

All I can add to this is that the situation in the region is now out of control. There is no end in sight. The Palestinians can't give up because they have nothing left to give other than an olive branch.

I'm afraid we are seeing the next Bosnia. And once again, as in Bosnia, the world is too late with a response.

As a side note, as we aided those regimes which eventually turned on us, Israel is experiencing the same thing...they secretly funded Hamas in their divide and conquer plan and now it has come back to bite them in the ass. Once again, history has repeated itself.

[torsten]

Originally posted by UOD
Torsten,
All I can add to this is that the situation in the region is now out of control. There is no end in sight. The Palestinians can't give up because they have nothing left to give other than an olive branch.

Actually the thing they could give is a renunciation of and an end to terror. Elect leaders who will enforce it and ban the presence of groups like Hamas. If that happened, there wouldn't be a problem as we know it. I think people would be surprised at how accommodating Israel would be if they simply weren't being attacked.

[JawZ]

Originally posted by torsten
Actually the thing they could give is a renunciation of and an end to terror. Elect leaders who will enforce it and ban the presence of groups like Hamas. If that happened, there wouldn't be a problem as we know it. I think people would be surprised at how accommodating Israel would be if they simply weren't being attacked.

Great solution and I agree 100% but it will never work because the Palestinian people aren't empowered to do so. You keep forgetting that there is a struggle between the PLO and Hamas. So there are polarized factions within the Palestinian culture. The same can be said for Israel. We've seen leaders falter because they (their party) wanted peace yet the opposition did not (under the terms specified).

We will have peace in about 30 years when all these evil baby boomers are dead and gone and out of power.

Too bad the Russian flu just can't spread fast enough lol.

[downhill]

Originally posted by torsten
Actually the thing they could give is a renunciation of and an end to terror. Elect leaders who will enforce it and ban the presence of groups like Hamas. If that happened, there wouldn't be a problem as we know it. I think people would be surprised at how accommodating Israel would be if they simply weren't being attacked.

Yep..agrees with UOD...and one other thing your forgetting and a main reason for the bloodshed....there isn't a Palestinian state...only a group of people who call themselves Palestinians. So I'm curious just how anyone without a homeland can actually hold a real election. It's been tried before but again, what's the point?

[brembo]

I elected myself "King of the Universe", but the UN snubbed me, gave me a back row seat next to Chad and Luxenburg. They even shot down my proposed resolution. I thought everyone would like an international "Spit on Mime Day". Oh well.

[downhill]

I have humbly sent my can of "Pork and Beans" tribute to brembo....

For your own safety....please do the same...

[SeedOfChaos]

Originally posted by torsten
Only the last 7 words.

If you see it as a war, I wonder where you get your expectations of how sterile and precise war can or should be. Considering where you've lived, I find it hard to believe you're not well-versed about what happened 50 years ago. Have you seen the videos of Berlin in 1945? When bombs started hitting London, what should have been the reaction? Strikes by the RAF that were so limited there could be no civilian casualties? I've noticed people from that generation speak with a different view of war. They loathe it more, but they also seem to have a better understanding of what it means.

I think I do know more than the average person about what happened more than 50 years ago where I live. There are some sites nearby which pretty much look like Metallica's "Master of Puppets" album cover. Hence my extreme reluctancy to advocate war. However, I think it's not accurate to compare the conflict in Israel with WW2. Quite different setting, quite different opponents, quite different tactics. I'm not even sure you could call the conflict in Israel a war.

Main Entry: 1war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3
- war·less /-l&s/ adjective
(http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?bo ... &query=war)

#1 does not apply, because Palestine is neither a state nor a nation.
#2 could be applied from the definition, but it appears it's not the type of conflict at all that the examples represent.

Police action doesn't really seem to apply either. I don't know, someone with English as a native language should suggest a more appropriate term.

I also think people fail to see how terrorism has increased the potential viciousness of war. There were times when fighting was mostly limited to Armies, i.e. people who in some way declared themselves to be combatants. But when one side chooses terrorism, they have, in effect, chosen to bring the war to their own citizens. Call it callous if you want, but my view is that a society victimized by terror shouldn't have to fight it with their hands tied behind their back. To be civilized doesn't mean that you extend civilized behavior to those who want to kill you. I DON'T think Israel has a duty to subject their soldiers to any more danger than necessary. If you want to speak of duty I think the Palestinian people have a duty to withdraw their support of terror and support rounding up and imprisoning those who organize and carry it out. Until that happens, I consider them combatants.

You're right, terrorism has made things even more complicated than they were before. IMHO, your assessment, that there were times when fighting was mostly limited to Armies, wars have always been dirty and carried out on the back of the civilians, one way or the other. But that's not relevant here. The fact that there is no army involved on one side is part of my reluctancy to view this conflict as a war, btw. I fully agree that Israel has every right to kill Yassin and the likes if they do not stop. But it does not include the people who do not support these terrorists. You do realize that not every Palestinian supports terrorism, right? Yes, I consider it callous to ignore their (potential) suffering. Israel has wronged Palestinians on more than the issue of killings. I am just discussing the Israeli shortcomings here since I feel you are not giving them enough weight in your consideration. I do think that Palestinians have wronged Israel just as much or even more. One wrong doesn't justify another though, and both sides need to rethink their strategy. You're obviously right that the Palestinians NEED to stop supporting terrorism asap, but Israel also NEEDS to make their lives easier, and not tougher, like it is Israel's current strategy.

That is NOT true. I have not been violating the terms of SG with personal attacks. Reread the discussion. Compare what jayyy said about me to how I responded. You're either not reading the posts carefully or your own political leanings are causing you to miss a big difference in tone and content (have you considered if that's possible?). If you still disagree, get Ken or Philip to read mine and jayyy's posts. If they feel that my responses were equal personal attacks, I'll voluntarily leave this place for good.

I did reread the posts more carefully now, and I stand corrected, you did not make a personal attack. No need to leave this place for good . I think I just mixed you up because the discussion with you was what got jayyy so riled up or something, sorry. No harm was ever intended though.

[jayyy]

His entire argument is discriminatory in nature. In no other way are these actions justifiable.

Someone moves in, kills your people, takes the land you live on. You retaliate, as weak as you are, and every time, a far greater number of your people are killed. Your own actions are terrorism, the repercussions lawful, war, "lawful retaliation", "Narrowly targeted acts of war", etc, etc.

The perversion is in how he can justify death by the atrocity of lesser death.

Only by dehumanizing these people- by calling them beyond reason, akin to rabid animals, by calling their society "inferior" as if their lives are worth less, can he justify this. That is at the core.

He sees this in terms of a rabid dog biting a child and being put down by the father. Only in this context is his argument, and this line of reasoning, rational.

That gives away something fundamentally authoritarian about his character. He wants to see people that oppose his view crushed.

This type of thinking is deeply evil. It should not be dignified with scutinous dictionary definitions of words like "war" and "terror", as if we're discussing the rules of a game of field hockey. It is outrageous, and should be labelled as such.

[torsten]

Deliberately twisting someone's words to the point that they're unrecognizable so that you can claim they hold positions they don't is outrageous and should be labeled as such. For jayyy this seems to have changed from a debate about facts and ideas to an attempt to smear the character of the debater.

From reading that diatribe, one would think I had advocated retaliating against a bunch of sweet average folks that never hurt anybody rather than the goons that brainwash 14-year-old boys into thinking they'll never be able to have sex unless they strap explosives to themselves, walk into a public place and blow everybody to shreds. And yes, a society that largely supports that kind of thing, is decidedly inferior.

So "dehumanizing" is at the core of my argument? Please. When people support and carry out terrorism, they have willingly dehumanized themselves.

Advocating the end to terrorism, and war against those who create it, is not the product of some authoritarian mindset. It's a rational response to atrocity by those who simply want to protect themselves and live in real peace.

I don't agree with this "their land" claim. That's reaching into DNA and race again. Jews make similar arguments and I don't buy them either. Yes, Palestinians need a place to live just like anyone else, but in order to get that worked out, the terrorism must stop. Period. Supporters of terror don't deserve anything until it does. And the victims of it shouldn't have to sit back and wring their hands over the criticisms of those who would oppose and mischaracterize any response they choose.

If the facts of this situation were reversed, I'd be for the Palestinians and against the Israelis. It's that simple. Race or DNA does not matter to me. Neither does who happened to occupy a particular piece of land at some point years ago (that's changed more than once). The actions of a society and the ideologies they choose to govern themselves matter tremendously.

[torsten]

Originally posted by UOD
Great solution and I agree 100% but it will never work because the Palestinian people aren't empowered to do so. You keep forgetting that there is a struggle between the PLO and Hamas. So there are polarized factions within the Palestinian culture. The same can be said for Israel. We've seen leaders falter because they (their party) wanted peace yet the opposition did not (under the terms specified).

We will have peace in about 30 years when all these evil baby boomers are dead and gone and out of power.

Too bad the Russian flu just can't spread fast enough lol.

No, I don't forget that the PLO and Hamas are competing for power. It's just that the distinction between them isn't all that great. Although the PLO's rhetoric tends to be more tepid, it's not like one wants to pursue a course truly opposite the other. The problem remains that the population generally does support one or the other. It's a society structured around the creation of hate. The responsibility for changing that hate lies not with the Israeli victims of it, but with those who revel in it. Again, sometimes you have to deal with the consequences of the actions you choose. When a society chooses terrorism, it can hardly complain when the response isn't pleasant.

Goodness, do you really mean that about the baby boomers?

[torsten]

Originally posted by downhill
Yep..agrees with UOD...and one other thing your forgetting and a main reason for the bloodshed....there isn't a Palestinian state...only a group of people who call themselves Palestinians. So I'm curious just how anyone without a homeland can actually hold a real election. It's been tried before but again, what's the point?

Now why doesn't it surprise me that you'd quote me to pointedly state your agreement with someone else.
Palestinians have been living in the same area now for quite some time. Just because they haven't gotten all their territorial demands doesn't mean they can't make collective decisions about how they live and govern themselves. They've certainly been supportive of the terror campaign. I'm simply saying that they could choose to not be supportive of it. That would change everything as we know it.

[torsten]

Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
I'm not even sure you could call the conflict in Israel a war. Police action doesn't really seem to apply either. I don't know, someone with English as a native language should suggest a more appropriate term.

At first, you did say you saw it as war, but I see what you mean about it not fitting the accepted assumptions behind the word. I don't have a term that fits it exactly either. I use "war" because I think the situation justifies a war-like response. Terrorism on this scale is a relatively new thing, and as such we're in a period where the proper responses to it are still being defined. During the time while that definition is still open, I'm doing my part to advocate that the response be so overwhelming as to convince people that supporting terrorism isn't worth the price you pay.

Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
The fact that there is no army involved on one side is part of my reluctancy to view this conflict as a war, btw. I fully agree that Israel has every right to kill Yassin and the likes if they do not stop. But it does not include the people who do not support these terrorists. You do realize that not every Palestinian supports terrorism, right? Yes, I consider it callous to ignore their (potential) suffering. Israel has wronged Palestinians on more than the issue of killings. I am just discussing the Israeli shortcomings here since I feel you are not giving them enough weight in your consideration. I do think that Palestinians have wronged Israel just as much or even more. One wrong doesn't justify another though, and both sides need to rethink their strategy. You're obviously right that the Palestinians NEED to stop supporting terrorism asap, but Israel also NEEDS to make their lives easier, and not tougher, like it is Israel's current strategy.

Yes, that's true, there are Palestinians who don't support terror or fundamentalist extremism. That's what makes any situation like this sad. Unfortunately it's been like that in virtually all the wars in history. As you point out, although armies usually did most of the fighting, it didn't mean that civilians were always spared. Some of those civilians undoubtedly don't support the army's positions or actions. I'm sure quite a few people who loathed Hitler died at the hands of allied forces. But I blame those deaths on the people who created the need for such a response in the first place.

Originally posted by SeedOfChaos
I did reread the posts more carefully now, and I stand corrected, you did not make a personal attack. No need to leave this place for good . I think I just mixed you up because the discussion with you was what got jayyy so riled up or something, sorry. No harm was ever intended though.

Thanks for rereading the posts and clearing up the misperception. All is well .

[downhill]

torsten, your twisting words....You know full well my stand on this as I put it in black and white at the beginning of this thread. For one...I don't believe for a second that people of Middle Eastern decent are inferior...Or a culture that imho..knows of no other way to fight back. Do I or anyone here agree with terrorism? OF COURSE NOT!!

I stated it simply at the beginning of this thread....the way to peace isn't at the end of a missile. but to build a homeland for the Palastanins..and my friend, even at that, with religious fanatics within BOTH religions. It’s going to be a monumental task. It was something Jimmy Carter started and like we always do. is support the various companies that ARM the world. Capitalism at it's finest eh?

Your way is really asking for the destruction of a religion. Or at the least genocide of a race of man...

I can't speak for Jayyy or UOD or David or the other debaters...but imho...violence isn't going to solve anything.

Again, I ask once......the Hatfields and the McCoys....your way...wipe one family out...which didn't happen. Now how did that feud end?



At least that's how I'm reading your posts. My reasoning? Even though you don't out and out state it, your posts give me and others (just look at the responses) that you believe this is a race of man incapable of peace...Now I do happen to believe your a very bright individual who just isn't looking at the whole picture. I would say that at least your only looking for your particular justification for your feelings.

Just so you can vindicate yoruself since you don't really claim genocde of a religion.......

just what really is, your position for peace in the middle east.

[Ghosthunter]

Originally posted by torsten
Deliberately twisting someone's words to the point that they're unrecognizable so that you can claim they hold positions they don't is outrageous and should be labeled as such. For jayyy this seems to have changed from a debate about facts and ideas to an attempt to smear the character of the debater.

From reading that diatribe, one would think I had advocated retaliating against a bunch of sweet average folks that never hurt anybody rather than the goons that brainwash 14-year-old boys into thinking they'll never be able to have sex unless they strap explosives to themselves, walk into a public place and blow everybody to shreds. And yes, a society that largely supports that kind of thing, is decidedly inferior.

So "dehumanizing" is at the core of my argument? Please. When people support and carry out terrorism, they have willingly dehumanized themselves.

Advocating the end to terrorism, and war against those who create it, is not the product of some authoritarian mindset. It's a rational response to atrocity by those who simply want to protect themselves and live in real peace.

I don't agree with this "their land" claim. That's reaching into DNA and race again. Jews make similar arguments and I don't buy them either. Yes, Palestinians need a place to live just like anyone else, but in order to get that worked out, the terrorism must stop. Period. Supporters of terror don't deserve anything until it does. And the victims of it shouldn't have to sit back and wring their hands over the criticisms of those who would oppose and mischaracterize any response they choose.

If the facts of this situation were reversed, I'd be for the Palestinians and against the Israelis. It's that simple. Race or DNA does not matter to me. Neither does who happened to occupy a particular piece of land at some point years ago (that's changed more than once). The actions of a society and the ideologies they choose to govern themselves matter tremendously.

Very well said, what I am trying to get at as well, but torsten said it much better then I could.

[torsten]

Originally posted by downhill
torsten, your twisting words....You know full well my stand on this as I put it in black and white at the beginning of this thread. For one...I don't believe for a second that people of Middle Eastern decent are inferior...

Nor do I.
You have a lot of nerve saying someone else has twisted words when you're injecting unrelated inferences about "decent." Your last post to me made a point about statehood being necessary for progress and I addressed that point.

Originally posted by downhill
Your way is really asking for the destruction of a religion. Or at the least genocide of a race of man...

You have now joined jayyy in deliberately distorting what I've said. I'm getting sick of this. It's ridiculous that you would have to resort to that. I have NOT advocated "genocide of a race." Your saying that I am is a blatant smear. And I'm supposed to be subject to your judgment as moderator during these kind of discussions? I know very well if I had said the kind of things jayyy said, I would have gotten public warnings from you. So would Ghosthunter. I'm tired of people throwing around accusations of racism and such when nothing of the kind was ever even at issue. This is about ideologies and actions (terrorism) as I've repeatedly stated. You're entitled to your opinion about issues, but not to smear me. I think I deserve an apology.

Originally posted by downhill
At least that's how I'm reading your posts. My reasoning? Even though you don't out and out state it, your posts give me and others (just look at the responses) that you believe this is a race of man incapable of peace...

They give you nothing of the sort. The fact is that jayyy (and now you) are playing tactics that would make Karl Rove proud. Rather than rebut my points (which is apparently too difficult) you've resorted to smearing my character. Your claims are dependent on reading INTO and distorting what I've said, and dependent on ignoring what I write explicitly. As for the "just look at the responses" comment. That's absolutely pathetic. I'll be sure to turn that tactic back on you when you're being outnumbered by Republican demagogues. After all, no matter what the actual facts, their perception of you must be valid simply because they hold it (or choose to say it for strategic reasons).

Originally posted by downhill
Now I do happen to believe your a very bright individual who just isn't looking at the whole picture. I would say that at least your only looking for your particular justification for your feelings.

Actually, that's what I'd say about you.
So it looks like a standoff. Only when we discuss the actual issue, I don't have to make up your points before I rebut them.

[downhill]

Torsten...I'm not playing any games with you...THAT is exactly how you come across....then you accuse others of twisting your words...

Again..what is your solution, then it's out in the open for all to see...


One other tidbit. I've seen just about everyone here at least at one time or another, admit they might be wrong or at least apologize for things said on this board...Except you..

You have now joined jayyy in deliberately distorting what I've said.

Again, that is the impression you leave me with.

You have a lot of nerve saying someone else has twisted words

*Ahem....*

And I'm supposed to be subject to your judgment as moderator during these kind of discussions?

No..when I parcitate in these threads with an opinion...it's mine and mine alone....when I act as a MOD..you'll know it. Usually by PM. Actually I think you already knew that. My guess is you really just like to argue.

I know very well if I had said the kind of things jayyy said, I would have gotten public warnings from you. So would Ghosthunter.

I've been trying to handle this things and for the most part always have VIA pm..Thanks for the distortion. At least I wasn't aware you could read PM"s to others I might send. That's a pretty cool trick.
And I don't really have all the time in the world to baby sit these threads...I've not sent a PM to anyone in quite some time. For the most part, your all adults.

torston...about apologies....I'd done it quite a few times here. Let me ask you something. You accuse a race of being inferior, and deserving what they get.....What are we to think of your mindset? Now giving that, why would I owe you an apology? You said it, not me.

About rebuting points..so far, imho in this thread, you speak for a whole group of people you dont' even know. So far, all I've seen you really say, is they get what they deserved...and Isreal is not at fault for any of this.

Again, what is your real solution to the problem? Or is your reall mission here, only to argue?

Another point I'd like to bring up, is actions like the thread topic DOESN'T work for a lasting peace and in this day and age, swells the ranks of AL Queda and it minnions...you disagree?

[torsten]

Originally posted by downhill
torston...about apologies....I'd done it quite a few times here. Let me ask you something. You accuse a race of being inferior.......

All right that's it. I've absolutely had it. No matter what I explicitly state, You continue to LIE about what I've said. Until I get a direct retraction of that lie about me and an apology, I have nothing to say to you.

[Norm]

Truth is:

Both sides have done evil ruthless deeds to the other.
Both sides have acted as cowards with methods of attacking
Both sides have avoided opportunities for peace, many times.
Both sides have struck first when peace was on the table.
Both sides teach thier young to hate the other.
Both sides have leaders that have done 'crimes against humanity'
Both sides ignore the U.N. (unless it's an opporunity for, or benefits, THIER OWN side')

AND
More of the same will bring more of the same.
It will even affect an ever widening area, maybe us as well someday.


Argue all you want with each other. It won't change anything over there.

[jayyy]

Originally posted by torsten
The fact is that jayyy (and now you) are playing tactics that would make Karl Rove proud. Rather than rebut my points (which is apparently too difficult) you've resorted to smearing my character.

What the hell do you think this is, an election? No-one has any reason to smear you. You said something that offended a lot of people and they don't like it. Deal with it.

I know you don't think you're advocating discrimination or racial genocide. Too bad thats what you're doing. You seem to think not meaning to means you're not, and that you don't have to justify the consequences of what you say.

I deal with people that rant on about n*****s ruining their country. Thats the level I put you at now. you're just going to have to accept that, because thats where it stands. You can't will my opinion away. Cut the indignant crap and deal with that, or I have nothing to say to you.

[Ghosthunter]

Originally posted by jayyy
What the hell do you think this is, an election? No-one has any reason to smear you. You said something that offended a lot of people and they don't like it. Deal with it.

Javvy,

You offended me a lot for personally attacking and flaming me every chance you got i would say you are using karl rove tactics as well.

I dont see anything that torsten said or did warrented your negative attacks.

[The_Lurker]

Originally posted by torsten
All right that's it. I've absolutely had it. No matter what I explicitly state, You continue to LIE about what I've said. Until I get a direct retraction of that lie about me and an apology, I have nothing to say to you.

although me and torsten don't see eye to eye on many, many things, i feel he is correct in feeling this way. i see how his statements have been blown out of proportion and twisted. DH re-read his post, i have much faith in you trying to see things from the other side of the fence.

what did he say that was offensive?

you don't have to answer , i'm kinda interjecting in the middle of a very hot debate here. but i just wanted to put my 2c in on this specific subject.


other than that, this has been a good thread IMO. it has helped to solidify my position on the subject.

[nepenthe]

Originally posted by nepenthe
Might I suggest you reread your chauvinistic posts. It is painfully obvious that you have made little consideration as to sentiments of the Palestinians or the rest of the Middle East for that matter. There is a reason why they are attacking, torsten. You may twist your arguments in the wind all you like regarding the civility or cultural superiorities, it does not wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by torsten
I've reread the posts. It's the word superior that got to you isn't it? When one team wins a basketball game and the reporter gives the actual score, is it chauvinism? It's certainly an acknowledgment of hierarchy *horror of horrors*. But such factual observations about culture seem destined for all sorts of nasty reactions. "Chauvinistic" certainly doesn't apply to me just because my posts have taken one side in this matter. If you've read my other posts around here you're aware that I don't attach much sentiment to my country for its own sake. I don't salute flags or say pledges of allegiance, and I find most people's idea of "patriotism" to be mindless cheer leading. But if my stance on Israel vs Palestine causes you to apply that term, perhaps you belong to the extreme in the other direction..... those who see the reluctance to take a firm position, no matter how obvious the situation (especially in support of the United States), as a badge of enlightenment. I don't know the correct word for that view..... perhaps relativist. I hope you don't think that way, but I've seen a lot of it around here, and I don't know how to otherwise account for the condescension. I can assure you, however, that relativists don't have a monopoly on insight.

You say there are REASONS why they are constantly deliberately killing as many innocents as possible. Hmmmm. Actually everyone has reasons for what they do, but I'm more interested in whether they're valid. I don't recall your putting up as much a defense for Timothy McVeigh. As I remember, he had reasons too - well articulated ones that were aligned pretty closely with the concerns of some prominent politicians. I've spent years listening to the news about Palestine. They (anyone from Arafat to professors, to the man in the street) have been stating their reasons ad nauseum for that duration. Believe me, I've heard it. It's the same old ethic/religious resentment and hatred couched in the language of borders for the TV cameras. After all of it, I'm convinced that further negotiations, initiatives, and plans will be about as effective as telling a charging lion to "stop that this instant."

REPLY:

Actually it is not a singular word, but your assessment of a culture. The comparative "superior" invites discussion as to peoples and their actions in desperate times, yourself included (fair or not). Cultures are are distorted by hard times, more so by active oppression (Israel) and from subsequent interfering assistance (Syria, Iraq and Iran). They are wounded, and act as such.
I did not refer to you as a chauvinist, only your posts. It is not because you chose one nation's side over another, but the words are implicit to a questionable moral superiority. Oddly and by inference, you accuse me of not having a firm stance. I felt I was quite clear on the matter. If I claim any insight, it comes not only from my education and readings from multiple viewpoints, but having friends and family on both sides of the fence who lived or are living there. I would suggest that you review the history of the area from an Arabic perspective, rather than assert your own.
You might notice just how harsh the Israeli government has been on the Palestinians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nepenthe
I loathe the homicide bombings as much as anyone, then again I feel the same when I hear that civilians are being crushed under bulldozers and blown to bits by helicopter gunships and missiles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by torsten
You still aren't acknowledging the only point that really counts here: The fact that civilian deaths at the hands of Israelis are not the intended target, while those at the hands of Palestinians are deliberate. One side tries to avoid hurting innocents; one tries to inflict as much carnage on them as possible. If you won't make that basic distinction and understand its fundamental importance, there's no real point in discussing this.

REPLY:

It is not factual. You cannot bulldoze a building with people inside or fire a missile into a crowd of people and state that you did not intend to harm civilians. Draining wells and destroying police stations was done deliberately by Israel to destroy Palestinian infrastructure.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nepenthe
The funny thing about brainwashing, propagandism and other forms of mind control, is that the subject does not realize that he is a subject. He believes that he is armed with the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by torsten
What are you getting at here? Moral culpability? A pit bull attacking a baby doesn't realize the full extent of the situation either, but I doubt that would stop you from shooting the dog if the baby were your own. If you were on one of the sept 11 flights, would your thoughts have been, oh... the poor things have been brainwashed? Or would you have tried to end their existence before they ended yours?

REPLY:

In context, it was meant as a comparative. Though you would probably accuse me of relativism. Your mindset offers your perspective of what is right. We are all programmed.
The choices you make in analogies are often rather poor. I do believe that they and your metaphors are what sets people off. You are not stating facts by using them, rather you are inviting people to make judgments based on incomplete histories divergent circumstances. It leads those who would disagree with you to believe that you are insulting. It assuredly is twisting of fact.
If armed, I would shoot a pit bull before it attacked my child, but I would reason with an angry man. I have yet to meet a Palestinian who wished to kill me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nepenthe
Which member of the of the 9-11 cell was Palestinian?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by torsten
Read the whole paragraph. It begins... "the sentiment in the region is irrational." I was speaking in more general terms than just Palestinians. Surely you've had occasion to read one of my rants about fundamentalism whether manifested by Al Qaeda, the Palestinians , or the Iranian govt.

REPLY:

Yes, but it is irrelevant. It conjects that 9-11 and the Palestinians, which is not wholly truthful

[jayyy]

Originally posted by Ghosthunter
Javvy,

You offended me a lot for personally attacking and flaming me every chance you got i would say you are using karl rove tactics as well.

I dont see anything that torsten said or did warrented your negative attacks.

Sorry if it offended you, I guess...it was too bad I couldn't delete it fast enough. It was personal and it had nothing to do with the argument.

But saying it wasn't a tactic, or even any kind of argument. Just my opinion.