Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reporting and Proportionality in Gaza
As the biggest news story of the week rolls on in bombs and blood, Israel maintains its ban on foreign journalists entering the Gaza Strip.
As outsider reporting on what's going on is barred, there are plenty of ways to work around conventional professional journalists these days, and the Israeli Defense Forces are using such modern-age conveniences as Twitter and YouTube to make sure its own version of events is getting out, even as they try to ensure no one else's is.
As I knew it would be, this piece I wrote back in July 2006 on Israel's then-current bombing in Lebanon and the discussions about blame and proportionality it generated is still relevant, and will probably continue to be for a sadly long time to come. For the most part, while reading that 2006 piece substitute "Gaza Strip" for "Lebanon" and "Hamas" for "Hezbollah."
Neu Mejican|1.2.09 @ 1:13PM|#
There is an important difference between the Lebanon situation
and the current one...Hezbollah was not the elected party governing
Lebanon, while, Hamas is, technically, the elected party governing
the Gaza Strip.
Now the complications that go along...including how complicit the
elected officials were in the rocket attacks...make things far from
clear cut, but there is a clear difference between attacking as a
result of actions of the nominal government versus attacking due to
the actions of an extra-governmental force.
Neu Mejican|1.2.09 @ 1:14PM|#
Of course, the IDF must be held responsible for their siege of
Gaza, which was clearly unjustified and has exacerbated the
tension...again.
Israel has been trying the same strategy for 50 years with no
positive results...you'd think they would try something
different.
BakedPenguin|1.2.09 @ 1:20PM|#
What was it Mercutio said? Anyway, maybe we could help the situation by stopping foreign aid to all entities involved. If they want to kill, let them pay for it themselves.
|1.2.09 @ 1:23PM|#
"Israel has been trying the same strategy for 50 years with no
positive results...you'd think they would try something
different."
Because talking things out with Hamas was going SO well. How many
rockets should a reasonable country expect to endure before it's
justified in striking back?
Other Matt|1.2.09 @ 1:25PM|#
Israel has been trying the same strategy for 50 years with
no positive results...you'd think they would try something
different.
Or it could just be that "politics" stops them before they fully
carry it out.
Personally, I find it suspicious that this starts immediately after
the History Channel airs a documentary on how Joshua basically
engaging in the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites, and how he'd
kill everything that breathes after laying siege to a town.
Joking aside, like it or not that approach did actually work at
that time. I don't say it's morally justifiable, but it did
work.
Now, the strategy of reigning bombs down on people's head then
stopping while they still either live or continue to profess to
want to resist (depending on your military goal), that seems rather
pointless to me. If you're going to go, go, don't stop halfway. If
you're not going to go, then you're wasting time and resources, and
you're stupid.
Neu Mejican|1.2.09 @ 1:26PM|#
BakedPenguin,
I believe the conflict has primarily been drawn out by the
military/economic imbalance between the two sides. Maybe stop
economically supporting Israel, who have a modern army and a strong
economy, and work to improve the situation for the
Palestinians.
Neu Mejican|1.2.09 @ 1:32PM|#
Silentz,
Because talking things out with Hamas was going SO well. How
many rockets should a reasonable country expect to endure before
it's justified in striking back?
Hard to say.
How long should people put up with a military blockade stopping
food and water and other necessities before they strike at those
who have put the blockade in place?
Both side have a lot of blood on their hands. Hamas ain't the good
guys, but Israel has grown comfortable with handing out collective
punishment.
|1.2.09 @ 1:32PM|#
Because talking things out with Hamas was going SO
well.
In fact, the rocket attacks increased tenfold after the cease fire
was allowed to lapse.
Just like the suicide bombings inside Israel stopped during the
period of peace negotiations during the 1990s and into 2000, only
to commence again when they were cut off.
If carrying out military offenses and ending negotiations had ever
actually increased Israel's security, it would be a lot easier to
respect an argument that Israel is just doing what it needs to do
to keep itself safe.
How many rockets should a reasonable country expect to endure
before it's justified in striking back? There was never a
point - not even while it was talking with the PLO or Hamas - when
Israel stopped itself from "striking back" against attacks from
Palestinian territory. Nor should there have been.
Reading the comments of the Likudniks, you'd think that Israel has
been pursuing a Ghandiite policy towards Palestinian terror until
last week.
|1.2.09 @ 1:38PM|#
This conflict is the stupidest fucking conflict on the planet. I swear that both sides want it to continue indefinitely. They're like bratty children getting attention by fighting all the time.
|1.2.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Israel has been trying the same strategy for 50 years with
no positive results.
Well, unless you count the continued existence of Israel, of
course.
I believe the conflict has primarily been drawn out by the
military/economic imbalance between the two sides.
I think I disagree. Impoverishing the Israelis/enriching the
Palestinians will most likely serve to make it more of an even
fight, and thus more of a bitter and unlimited fight.
The Israelis can afford to make very limited retaliation strikes
(relative to their capabilities, anyway) precisely because Hamas
has such limited military capabilities.
The billions of aid that have been poured into Gaza so far have
served only to make the Arafats very wealthy, and to buy stuff to
kill Jews with. Not sure why more aid would lead to a different
result.
If you're going to go, go, don't stop halfway. If you're not
going to go, then you're wasting time and resources, and you're
stupid.
I think history bears this out. The solution to aggression is to
inflict catastrophic, decisive defeat. Exhibit A: Germany after WWI
v. Germany after WWII.
Sadly, all the yammering about proportionality only serves to
lengthen and entrench conflict.
Neu Mejican|1.2.09 @ 1:38PM|#
A look at the timeline of the cease-fire breaking down...
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/01/who-ended-the-6-month-ceasefire-in-israelpalestine.html
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 1:39PM|#
Wait a minute joe, are you (again) blaming only one side for the ceasefire lapsing? Both sides have to agree to renew, and from what I hear Hamas wanted to hold out for better terms.
|1.2.09 @ 1:40PM|#
How long should people put up with a military blockade
stopping food and water and other necessities before they strike at
those who have put the blockade in place?
I dunno. Get back to me when the Palestinians start shooting up the
Egyptians who are blockading their other border.
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 1:42PM|#
The solution to aggression is to inflict catastrophic,
decisive defeat. Exhibit A: Germany after WWI v. Germany after
WWII.
You're kidding right? Or do you seriously think the big mistake of
the Treaty of Versailles was that it didn't hump Germany hard
enough?
PantsFan|1.2.09 @ 1:42PM|#
The billions of aid that have been poured into Gaza so far
have served only to make the Arafats very wealthy, and to buy stuff
to kill Jews with. Not sure why more aid would lead to a different
result.
I think this is a key. Iran is supplying the Palestinians with
rockets, but not with food/medicine. The rest of the region does
not care whether Palestinians get their own country, but whether
Israel goes away.
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 1:45PM|#
In fact, the rocket attacks increased tenfold after the
cease fire was allowed to lapse.
joe, isn't that like saying a guy had ten times as much sex after
he lost his virginity? If your partner in the ceasefire is firing
any rockets at all in your direction, that ceasefire isn't really a
ceasefire.
Neu Me;jican|1.2.09 @ 1:46PM|#
R C Dean,
I think I disagree. Impoverishing the Israelis/enriching the
Palestinians will most likely serve to make it more of an even
fight, and thus more of a bitter and unlimited
fight.
Who said anything about impoverishing the Israelis?
Economic and military parity would raise the cost of conflict,
making peace more likely.
Re: positive results, you said...
Well, unless you count the continued existence of Israel, of
course.
Fallacy. There are many possible paths to continued existence of
Israel, assuming that the course taken was the only possible course
is, well, just silly.
The billions of aid that have been poured into Gaza so far have
served only to make the Arafats very wealthy, and to buy stuff to
kill Jews with. Not sure why more aid would lead to a different
result.
All aid is not equal. Infrastructure and economic development is
much different than handing a check to Fatah or Hamas.
|1.2.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Well, unless you count the continued existence of Israel, of
course.
Unlike the militaries of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan during the '48,
'67, and '73 wars, the Palestinians aren't a threat to the
existence of Israel. Is Israel going to cease to exist because of
the Gang That Can't Shoot Straight rocketry of Hamas and
Hezbollah?
Exhibit A: Germany after WWI v. Germany after WWII. Israel
had reduced the Gaza Strip to a circumstance comparable to Germany
after World War Two before this latest action even began. They
couldn't even keep the lights on in their hospital. Have the
Palestinian military ambitions been smashed any less thoroughly
than those of Germany?
Keeping Germany in such a state after World War Two was called the
"Morganthau Plan," except Germany would have still been allowed to
have a state (or several). We didn't follow that plan, so I don't
think the comparison is apt.
Neu Mejican|1.2.09 @ 1:51PM|#
Get back to me when the Palestinians start shooting up the
Egyptians who are blockading their other border.
Oh come on.
Really?
Are you equating the Egyptian policy with Israel's?
Really?
|1.2.09 @ 1:51PM|#
cunnivore,
Wait a minute joe, are you (again) blaming only one side for
the ceasefire lapsing?
No, I am not, nor have I ever.
In fact, I will pay you $1000 for every example you can find of me
blaming one side for the cease fire lapsing.
There's the archive search feature, right up at the top right at
the page. Have at it.
What's that? You completely made that up? That's ok - I think we
already knew that.
joe, isn't that like saying a guy had ten times as much sex
after he lost his virginity? If your partner in the ceasefire is
firing any rockets at all in your direction, that ceasefire isn't
really a ceasefire. Well you see, cunnivore, unlike yourself,
I actually care about the well being of people living in Israel. I
would prefer to see fewer of them killed, rather than more, even at
the cost of having less war porn to enjoy.
Hence, the disconnect. I consider ten times as many rockets being
launched to be a bad thing, because I consider the threat of
rockets killing Israelis to be a bad thing, which should be
minimized.
Whereas getting your war on is all that you car about, so one
rocket is the same as ten.
It's just a difference in perspective.
|1.2.09 @ 2:02PM|#
A bunch of doughy armchair generals arguing about it on the Internet will solve their problems, that\'s for sure. What\'s 2000 years of two-way ethnic hatred in the face of a blog post?
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 2:05PM|#
In fact, I will pay you $1000 for every example you can find
of me blaming one side for the cease fire lapsing.
Keep your money. But while you didn't explicitly blame Israel, you
did so implicitly when you responded to a comment about Israel's
strategy for ending the conflict by mentioning that allowing the
ceasefire to lapse did not work, and that cutting off negotiations
in the past did not work, and concluding that "military strikes and
ending negotiations" in general had not worked. You're implying
that allowing the ceasefire to lapse is an element of Israeli
strategy that had not worked, just like all the others.
As for the other part of your post, I wonder if you would be so
sanguine about ceasefire violations if, say, Canada were firing a
relatively small number of rockets randomly across our northern
border. Would you think the US should still pretend that our
non-agression treaty was still in effect anyway, just to avoid
having the rocket attacks increase?
|1.2.09 @ 2:11PM|#
Then stop attributing positions to me I've never argued.
Failing to cheerlead for the team you've adopted doesn't make me a
cheerleader for their opponents, no matter how strongly you want to
believe that it does.
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Hence, the disconnect. I consider ten times as many rockets
being launched to be a bad thing, because I consider the threat of
rockets killing Israelis to be a bad thing, which should be
minimized.
Self-righteous much? If al-Qaeda were demanding concessions from us
and threatening terrible retribution if we didn't give them
everything they want, would you submit to their demands just to
avoid potential loss of life? I sure as hell wouldn't. And if my
own life and the lives of those near to me were among those lost
because we didn't give in, so be it. I damn sure value human life,
but not so much that I'd give in to a bully.
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 2:15PM|#
You did take that position, joe. Just implicitly. And no, I'm not going to give a random guy with a grudge against me my home address so he can mail me a check, so let's not pretend that bets made in the comment section of a blog carry any weight at all.
|1.2.09 @ 2:22PM|#
The cease fire was scheduled to lapse, as per the agreement
between Hamas and Israel that created it, and it lapsed right on
schedule, so clearly, the cease fire ending was the "fault" of both
sides; they both agreed to the terms about when it would end.
But it was Israel who decided to pursue a military strategy instead
of negotiating for its extension. This was a conscious choice by
Israel, because they thought it would be better for them.
I think they're wrong. I think it would have been in their interest
to pursue the talks. I think the "tit for tat" strikes and
counter-strikes that is always being denounced - Israel responding
to Hamas rockets by shooting at the rocketeers - would have been a
less-bad option than recreating the Hezbollah War of 2006 (which,
just to refresh everybody's memory, turned out to be exactly as
painful and counterproductive as some of us predicted).
As for the other part of your post, I wonder if you would be so
sanguine about ceasefire violations if, say, Canada were firing a
relatively small number of rockets randomly across our northern
border.
Why, clearly, I'd support dropping 2000 pound bombs with 400 meter
shrapnel radii in the heart of Canada's densest urban areas. After
all, those are the only options.
Would you think the US should still pretend that our
non-agression treaty was still in effect anyway, just to avoid
having the rocket attacks increase?
Who said anything about pretending? I don't think Israel should
have pretended it was still in effect - they should have taken
steps to keep it in effect, even if it wasn't eliminating the
threat entirely.
Not as a favor to Hamas, and not even just because of concern for
the well-being of Palestinian civilians, but because we all saw
this movie before, 2 years ago, and nobody who's concerned about
Israel's well-being likes how it ends.
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 2:28PM|#
joe, by your own admission Hamas was firing rockets
during the ceasefire. Your point that rocket
attacks increased tenfold after the end of the ceasefire wouldn't
make much sense if there had been no rocket attacks during the
ceasefire.
Thus, during the ceasefire, Hamas was not ceasing fire, so to
speak. Now why wouldn't Israel want to re-up on a one-sided
ceasefire?
|1.2.09 @ 2:28PM|#
If al-Qaeda were demanding concessions from us and
threatening terrible retribution if we didn't give them everything
they want, would you submit to their demands just to avoid
potential loss of life?
This is what makes the situation so frustrating - the "demands"
Hamas wanted were things like ending a military blockade of food,
water, power, and goods necessary to have a functional economy. On
the one hand, you don't want to give in to threats; on the other,
those are eminently reasonable points, and it's ultimately in
Israel's best interest for Gazans to have a functional economy.
Open-air prisons not being terribly conducive to fostering
reasonable, humane behavior.
Ultimately, isn't every cease-fire, armistice, and peace treaty
negotiated under the implicit threat that the other side will shoot
at you if a deal isn't made? Hamas would have been similarly giving
into "...or we'll bomb you" threats. That's what a cease fire
agreement is.
Other Matt|1.2.09 @ 2:29PM|#
Self-righteous much?
joe? Never! Perish the thought in a fit of Hamas launched
missles!
but not so much that I'd give in to a bully.
Therein lies the rub. Who is the bully, Hamas or Israel?
All a bully understands is getting their ass kicked. When they can
hide behind the teacher (international intervention), there is no
danger. Sure, Hamas will loose a couple, they've already done so,
but their desire for propping up their internal power will be
filled for the moment.
Take away the teacher, then suddenly the bully realizes there is
nothing to save them. There was no teacher for Germany at the end
of WW2, emotionally they were in a whole different place than Hamas
is now, and a large part of the world was coming to soundly kick
their asses then kill them.
That's where Israel needs to put Hamas, and Hezbollah for that
matter, if they want the force approach to work. If they're not
willing to do what it takes to do that, then they're being stupid.
I don't think they can today, and remain viable, as they're too
dependent upon outside aid. Therefore, targeted assassination
remains a much better approach if they want to kill people, and
save the military strikes such as this for wiping out supply lines
and "military" targets.
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 2:31PM|#
But it was Israel who decided to pursue a military strategy
instead of negotiating for its extension.
There you go again. Hamas also pursued a military strategy instead
of negotiating an extention, yet you blame only Israel for this. Or
is firing rockets into Israeli territory somehow not a military
act?
Les|1.2.09 @ 2:32PM|#
I think history bears this out. The solution to aggression
is to inflict catastrophic, decisive defeat. Exhibit A: Germany
after WWI v. Germany after WWII.
You can't really compare Germany, what it was, what it did, and
what it was capable of doing, to Palestine, what it is, what it's
done, and what it's capable of doing. I mean, you could
compare them, but then it becomes clear what a poor example Germany
is.
Sadly, all the yammering about proportionality only serves to
lengthen and entrench conflict.
I honestly believe this is the same mentality ("yammering about
proportionality") that cops use to justify tasing old women and
beating up protesters.
|1.2.09 @ 2:34PM|#
Thus, during the ceasefire, Hamas was not ceasing fire, so
to speak. Now why wouldn't Israel want to re-up on a one-sided
ceasefire?
The point about Israelis getting killed continues to elude you,
doesn't?
That MORE Israelis are dying is of such little concern to you
(certainly, of such little concern compared to the ability to
provide a legal justification for getting your war on) that it
doesn't even enter into your thinking.
If a "cease fire" agreement means the ongoing tit-for tat instead
of the all-out carnage we're seeing now, then it is a great deal
better for Israel to have a "cease fire" agreement, even if it
serves only to restrain, rather than end, Hamas' attacks.
Now, if there was any reason to believe that putting up with 10
times as many attacks and causualties would lead to a final defeat
for Hamas and the complete end of their attacks on Israel, then
ramping up the number of Israelis who get killed for a short time
may well be a smart strategic move - but you'd have to be an idiot
to think that that is going to happen.
When this episode leads to Hamas taking over the West Bank, and
Israel suffers even more deadly attacks, will that get you to
acknowledge that this was a strategic blunder?
I don't think it will, because I don't think you care about
Israelis nearly as much as you hate Palestinians.
Jerry|1.2.09 @ 2:35PM|#
If the UN & EU would stop sending aid that only help the Palestinians to procreate like rabbits, there might actually be some solution to this conflict. Now they're just breeding cannon fodder.
|1.2.09 @ 2:37PM|#
cunnivore,
Hamas also pursued a military strategy instead of negotiating
an extention No, they didn't. You are factually incorrect on
this. Hamas wanted to keep talks going. They wanted to negotiate an
extension to the "cease fire," in exchange for loosening the
blockade.
Get your facts right.
Bingo|1.2.09 @ 2:39PM|#
But Israel needs to defeat Palestine so they can build a new Temple and then Jesus can come back!
|1.2.09 @ 2:39PM|#
Now why wouldn't Israel want to re-up on a one-sided
ceasefire?
You're factually wrong about this, too. It was not a one-sided
cease fire. Israel never stopped its targetted strikes on
Palestinians, either.
The cease fire was leaky on both sides, but it did serve to
restrain both sides' actions and keep the body count down.
That last bit is supposed to enter into your thinking, and it just
never seems to. Why don't you care about more Israelis being
killed?
|1.2.09 @ 2:46PM|#
I see this all the time in these debates: the allegedly
pro-Israel people don't care about Israel's well-being, nearly as
much as they care about proving that Israel IS SO the Good
Guyz.
"So what if X, Y, and Z will get more Israelis killed? It's LEGAL.
They were PROVOKED. The Palestinians are WORSE!"
Thrillsville. Carve that on the tombs of all the Israelis who get
killed during this offensive, who would have gone on living if
their government had chosen not to take the hostilities to a higher
level.
robc|1.2.09 @ 2:55PM|#
joe,
No, they didn't. You are factually incorrect on
this.
The cease fire was leaky on both sides
You dont get both of these.
One or the other is wrong. I leaky cease fire means Hamas was
pursuing a military strategy, even if restrained.
Fluffy|1.2.09 @ 2:55PM|#
I dunno. Get back to me when the Palestinians start shooting
up the Egyptians who are blockading their other border.
This is an absolutely asinine statement.
The fact that Israel keeps its land border with Gaza closed is not
a blockade. It's called "having a border".
It's the fact that Israel BLOCKS THE SEA APPROACHES TO GAZA AND
CONTROLS ITS AIRSPACE that makes it a blockade.
So get back to me when Egypt rams ships approaching the coastline
of Gaza and patrols its airspace with military craft.
Frankly, Israel's Gaza policy is in fact new, so they are trying
something different from what they have tried since they seized
Gaza and the West Bank. Back when Israel directly occupied Gaza and
the West Bank, they were actually more limited in the atrocities
they could inflict on the Palestinians than they are now. If Israel
had randomly bombed Gaza for days and weeks at a time back when
they were occupying it, even Likudnik apologist for genocide like
some of the posters here would have been embarrassed to defend
their action. By going through the motions of giving Gaza "self
rule", while maintaining an air and sea blockade, they have
transformed Gaza into a large open air prison, which is still
effectively under their political control but is now "separate"
enough from Israel proper that they can bomb it the way you might
bomb an enemy state.
It's as if white southerners during the Civil Rights struggle had
declared that black neighborhoods had "self rule", but then
surrounded them with barbed wire fences and bombed them from the
air.
A very neat trick. Those fuckers. I really wish I could drag half
the Israeli political class to the Hague, and line em up right
behind the Bush administration figures who should be there too.
|1.2.09 @ 2:55PM|#
There was no teacher for Germany at the end of WW2, emotionally they were in a whole different place than Hamas is now, and a large part of the world was coming to soundly kick their asses then kill them. Who ever intervened to stop a single Israeli tank from going wherever the hell they wanted in Palestine? The Palestinians got their defeat - in '48, and in '67, and in '73. Certainly, Germany was never defeated as thoroughly as the Palestinians.
BDB|1.2.09 @ 2:57PM|#
It's as if white southerners during the Civil Rights struggle had declared that black neighborhoods had "self rule", but then surrounded them with barbed wire fences and bombed them from the air.
The white South Africans did this in the later stages of apartheid,
having "homelands" for blacks that they claimed were "independent"
and had "self-rule" even though they controlled them as much as
Israel controls Gaza right now. It's similar.
|1.2.09 @ 2:58PM|#
robc,
"No, they didn't" refers to the "instead of negotiating." Hamas
didn't pursue a military strategy instead of negotiating; they
wanted to keep the talks going.
BDB|1.2.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Who thinks immediate free elections in the Arab world are still a good idea when people like Hamas get elected?
Douglas Gray|1.2.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Imagine if you had a next door neighbor here in Los Angeles who
was a bonafide terrorist. The SWAT Team came in, but decided to
just bomb the house instead of rushing it. In doing, so they kill
your wife your three children, in addition to the terrorists next
door.
In the U.S. we really do believe that all men are created equal, so
such behavior would not be considered justifiable. (Unless they
were ready to set off a nuclear bomb; Hamas recent rocket attacks
have been largely ineffectual)
The trouble with having a Muslim Country or a Jewish Country per
se, is that if you are not a Muslim or a Jew, you are definitely
not treated as one who has an equal right to life.
In British Newspapers, they have lots of stories about dead
children in Gaza, it is mostly not covered here by the pro-Israeli
press.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:01PM|#
RC Dean is a tool.
His next argument will be: "you people just want the Jews to march
quietly into the sea!"
Because that's of course what anyone critical of the Israeli
actions here must hold.
Fluffy|1.2.09 @ 3:04PM|#
The white South Africans did this in the later stages of
apartheid, having "homelands" for blacks that they claimed were
"independent" and had "self-rule" even though they controlled them
as much as Israel controls Gaza right now. It's similar.
It's a testament to the political acumen of the Israelis that they
managed to impose a homelands policy on the occupied territories,
but managed to get the world to ask for that policy. They
were lauded for what the Afrikaaners were damned for.
And the Afrikaaners never bombed the homelands they created, as far
as I know. And they never tried to restrict the movement of
homeland political figures to the limited number of states that
actually recognized the homelands as independent. So the South
African policy was actually less abusive than the Israeli
policy.
|1.2.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Certainly, robc, the fact that the cease fire was "leaky" - that
Hamas merely kept a lid on the rockets, instead of stopping them
outright - supports a legal argument that the cease-fire was
broken, and Israel was therefore legally within its rights to shoot
attack them.
I'm not arguing that Israel broke a cease fire that Hamas was
observing. I'm not maknig a legal argument at all, just a practical
one - Israel was the party that chose to ramp up the war, instead
of keeping the (admittedly leaky) cease-fire in place
My point has never been that there is no justification for Israel
to attack Hamas, just that the actions they are taking are
counterproductive to Israel's own security, even if their attacks
are legal.
PC|1.2.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Neither are a part of the US, they can do whatever they want to
each other for all I care. Those crying about proportionality are
retarded, eliminate your enemy or don't do it at all.
Personally I wouldn't immigrate to a country where all my neighbors
want to kill me, but hey different strokes for different folks I
guess.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:05PM|#
Now fluffy, that kind of talk will get Alan Dershowitz to write book after book denouncing you.
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:06PM|#
The bottom line to this conflict is that there are only four
possible outcomes:
1) Continuing a weird, ad-hoc system of part apartheid, part
occupation, part garrison state.
2) Letting all the Palestinians back into Israel, which would mean
the end of an Israeli state and Zionism on one hand, or the
Palestinians packing up and leaving voluntarily on the other
meaning the end of Palestine.
3) A genocidal war of extermination in which one side or the other
is totally eliminated.
4) A partition, two state solution in which there is an independent
Palestine consisting of the whole West Bank, Gaza, and East
Jerusalem.
The fourth option is by FAR the best even though it has drawbacks,
too.
robc|1.2.09 @ 3:06PM|#
joe,
To me, a leaky cease fire is a sign that you have no interest in
negotiating. Consideirng to pursue the tit-for-tat strategy, EVEN
when the other side is doing it, shows a lack of interest in
negotiation.
To end tit-for-tat, one side or the other has to not retaliate to a
tat.
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:07PM|#
Hamas, of course, favors the third option. The Likudniks are divided between the first and third.
robc|1.2.09 @ 3:08PM|#
s/considering/continueing/
My brain and hands are not working well together today. Im blaiming
NYE drinking but I know that is a lie.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:08PM|#
"Those crying about proportionality are retarded, eliminate your
enemy or don't do it at all."
OK, so I'm tired of seeing this stupid ass argument.
If Hamas fired one missile which landed on an Israeli street
hitting no one, would Israel then be morally justified to drop a
nuclear bomb on Gaza killing everybody?
I mean, that would "eliminate your enemy," "stop the aggression"
etc.
But who in the f*ck wants to argue that's not hideously
immoral?
So there is in fact some limit on what you can do in response to an
attack and still be within the realms of moral activity.
Fluffy|1.2.09 @ 3:09PM|#
Who thinks immediate free elections in the Arab world are
still a good idea when people like Hamas get elected?
Free elections are still a good idea here, even though Bush got
elected.
"Yikes, people with a grievance elected militant figures who
promise confrontation over that grievance! I guess these people
just weren't ready for democracy."
If Americans experienced 1/10th of what the Palestinians have, we
would elect politicians who would make Stalin look like Mr.
Rogers.
|1.2.09 @ 3:09PM|#
You're kidding right? Or do you seriously think the big
mistake of the Treaty of Versailles was that it didn't hump Germany
hard enough?
No, I think the Treaty of Versailles was too hard on the Germans,
especially in light of the fact that the Germans had not been
decisively defeated in the field. A decisive military defeat would
have put an end to the "stab in the back" mythology that fueled the
new militarism that led to WWII.
Are you equating the Egyptian policy with Israel's?
If you're talking about open/closed borders, yeah. The Egyptians
also have a fortified border with Gaza that is subject to closure,
and I believe is closed right now.
It's the fact that Israel BLOCKS THE SEA APPROACHES TO GAZA AND
CONTROLS ITS AIRSPACE that makes it a blockade.
I'll give you that, but I suspect it has more to do with the
Palestinian attacks on Israel, but not on Egypt, than it does
anything else. So we get back to the "who started it" and "what
should the Israelis do while they are being attacked" argument.
Seriously, the Israelis are supposed to leave supply lines open to
people who are bombarding Israel?
joe otherwise seems oblivious to the notion that, if Gaza exercised
its right to self-rule responsibly and refrained from attacking
Israel, then Israel wouldn't blockade it and bomb it and otherwise
treat it like the open-air asylum that it apparently is.
And, of course, his response will be that if Israel didn't blockade
it, etc., Gaza wouldn't bombard Israel.
really wish I could drag half the Israeli political class to
the Hague, and line em up right behind the Bush administration
figures who should be there too.
How revealing, that joe views the Israelis as war criminals, but
not Hamas.
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:09PM|#
I should also say that some of the Likudniks favor a kind of version of the "Israeli victory" part of the second option, where they make life such a hell for people in Gaza and the West Bank that the Palestinians leave for other Arab states.
robc|1.2.09 @ 3:11PM|#
MNG,
I agree that argument has its limits, but proportionality isnt the
answer. If you attack me with a knife, even if you have no intent
to kill me, I have no problem shooting you in the head. It isnt
proportional, but it solves the problem. If you punch me in the
arm, though, me shooting you back seems wrong.
Im not sure how to define the answer, but the point is, past a
certain point, total war is the answer.
Nigel Watt|1.2.09 @ 3:11PM|#
The white South Africans did this in the later stages of apartheid, having "homelands" for blacks that they claimed were "independent" and had "self-rule" even though they controlled them as much as Israel controls Gaza right now. It's similar.
It's almost the exact same thing.
And finding that repugnant doesn't mean I endorse necklacing.
|1.2.09 @ 3:12PM|#
robc,
First, countries continue military operations even in the midst of
peace talks all the time. Our troops continued to fight in Vietnam
and Korea while peace talks went on.
Second, while it's clear that Hamas has never had any intention of
entering into Final Status peace talks - talks intended to end with
a solution that includes an Israel - they most certainly were in
favor of accomplishing a deal that would have limited the
violence.
You are right, they wanted tit-for-tat to keep going. Unless you
think this operation is going to end up better than 2006,
tit-for-tat is looking a lot better than what's going on now.
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:14PM|#
Sadly I don't think the fourth option is at all workable as long as Likud controls Israel (as they will after the next election) and Hamas controls half of Palestine. They're the worst elements of both sides.
|1.2.09 @ 3:15PM|#
"Those crying about proportionality are retarded, eliminate your
enemy or don't do it at all."
Fortunately, the Iraelis themselves (unlike their statesite
cheerleaders) are opposed to genocide. Whatever else the
shortcomings of the Israeli political elite, they are never going
to approve a Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem.
So let's put the "al-Auschwitz" solution aside. It's not going to
happen.
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:16PM|#
"Fortunately, the Iraelis themselves (unlike their statesite
cheerleaders) are opposed to genocide. Whatever else the
shortcomings of the Israeli political elite, they are never going
to approve a Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem."
Some of the extremist ones probably wish they could secretly.
Hamas of course openly proclaims they'd like a "solution to the
Jewish problem".
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:17PM|#
You know what gets me? RC Dean is banking a lot on something he
actually admits he's not sure of. That's how eager he is to defend
the tribe he likes here.
"The Egyptians also have a fortified border with Gaza that is
subject to closure, and I believe is closed right now."
I'll admit to not knowing everything about the Egypt/Gaza border,
but I do know this, that when it was breached at the Rafah Crossing
Israel threw a major tantrum at Egypt for allowing humanitarian
crossings. I suspect Egypt's border policy is part of an agreement
WITH Israel and so can hardly be used to absolve Israel's embargo
policy...
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:18PM|#
Pro L, you've never read the right wing War Blogs? Read some of the commentators especially.
|1.2.09 @ 3:20PM|#
How revealing, that joe views the Israelis as war criminals,
but not Hamas.
1. I didn't write that.
2. Hamas terrorists are subject to arrest and prosecution for their
acts RIGHT NOW. Hell, anyone who provides material assistance to
Hamas is subject to arrest and prosecution in this country. They're
listed as a terrorist group by the State Department, and Hamas
members would be arrested immediately, if not killed.
So, in other words, the only one taking a double standard towards
the killers here is you, RC. You are arguing in favor of one set of
killers, while the allegedly pro-Hamas side is arguing for killers
to be treated the same, regarless of which side they're on.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:22PM|#
"You are arguing in favor of one set of killers, while the
allegedly pro-Hamas side is arguing for killers to be treated the
same, regarless of which side they're on."
But RC's killers are the good guys, duh. If the good guys do
something it is therefore good.
PC|1.2.09 @ 3:23PM|#
"So there is in fact some limit on what you can do in response
to an attack and still be within the realms of moral
activity."
Morality in war? Frankly that is an illusion. Your fantasyland
example does not illustrate the need for morality in war, because I
think it has more to do with ROI. Dropping a nuke on Gaza would be
bad for two reasons, fallout and backlash from the international
community. For anyone to use a nuke when the other side hasn't
could be considered disproportionate thus "immoral". Then why are
nukes even tolerated? Tactical reasons, morality doesn't enter into
the equation.
Was US actions inside and around Vietnam disproportionate? What
repercussions did they face? None. Are we the new Hitler?
"Morality" in war is just a rhetorical tool.
Fluffy|1.2.09 @ 3:23PM|#
joe otherwise seems oblivious to the notion that, if Gaza
exercised its right to self-rule responsibly and refrained from
attacking Israel, then Israel wouldn't blockade it and bomb it and
otherwise treat it like the open-air asylum that it apparently
is.
You're responding to my post not joe's.
The bottom line is that the Palestinians of the occupied
territories were, prior to "self rule", being held in a state where
they were denied basic political, civil and economic rights that
were enjoyed by the Israeli settler class and by residents of the
original territory of Israel. Anyone held in such a condition by a
state has the moral right to engage in political violence, as far
as I am concerned. Period. [If the residents of Guam rise up
against their American overlords, I am also on their side.] That
situation has been worsened by the charade of self-rule and not
improved by it.
So that means that Israel and her apologists don't get to demand
reasonable conduct from anyone until they cease and desist from the
original act that put them in the wrong morally vis-a-vis their
oppressed population.
I honestly don't care what Israel's security problems are.
I am happy to admit that. I will start caring about Israel's
security problems on the day after they end their political control
of territories outside their borders [or, alternatively, offer full
citizenship rights to the population of those territories].
BTW, it is not insane to want to kill those who hold you in
bondage. If Americans lived in conditions similar to those in the
Gaza strip, gigantic majorities of our population would favor war
against whoever was holding us in such a state. And we wouldn't
care what their security problems were, and we wouldn't listen if
they said, "Hey, if you guys would just stop shooting at us we'd be
much more reasonable and we'd let everyone go." Yeah, right.
|1.2.09 @ 3:24PM|#
Pro Libertate,
The "stateside cheerleaders" of Israel are advocating
genocide?
Many of them.
How many different commenters just on this one thread have stated
that they think Israel should "elimiate its enemy," proclaimed that
the Israelis are going too easy on the Palestinians, and talking up
the "Joshua" solution?
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:24PM|#
robc
I see your point about absolute proportionality, but I see you see
mine that there is some sense of proportionality to
conflicts.
And here we have a case where one side has taken actions that
killed, what 19 people in the last year or two and the other just
killed about 400 (and killed hundreds little bit at a time before
that).
And to me that crosses the line, no matter how reprehinsible Hamas
is (and they surely are imo).
|1.2.09 @ 3:29PM|#
robc,
If Israel responded to a Hamas rocket that killed on Israeli by
bombing a Hamas military formation and killing 500 Hamas soldiers,
you wouldn't hear a peep from me.
But in this case, the disproportionate response takes out its
excess damage on, for example, the four wives and nine children of
the Hamas leader they were aiming for.
They dropped a 2000 pound HE bomg, on a house in the most densely
populated urban area in the world.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:30PM|#
PC
Are you arguing with a straight face that anything that occurs in
war is morally OK?
You can't bring yourself to say that dropping a nuke on Gaza would
be wrong apart from the practical problems it would create?
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:31PM|#
"But in this case, the disproportionate response takes out its
excess damage on, for example, the four wives and nine children of
the Hamas leader they were aiming for."
This was a guy that was training his kids to be suicide bombers
(one already was a "successful" one) so you could argue that it is
not excess damage.
PC|1.2.09 @ 3:33PM|#
MNG | January 2, 2009, 3:24pm | #
Isn't the goal to kill as many of them while sustaining the least
amount of casualties possible.
Regardless of how you felt about Afghanistan or Iraq, I was about
50-50 myself, once they go in there, should they not exploit their
advantages, in our case air supremcy, at the expense of their own
soldiers' lives?
|1.2.09 @ 3:33PM|#
You know, Mac, Dennis, and Charlie had to deal with this in the
episode
"The Gang Goes Jihad".
Dennis: This Jew's in for a ton of work.
Mac and Charlie: Oh!
Dennis: Whoa, what?
Mac: Come on, man. You can't say things like that.
Dennis: I don't know what I said. What'd I say?
Charlie: You dropped a hard "J" on us.
thoreau|1.2.09 @ 3:35PM|#
BDB-
Sounds like that father needs to be taken care of and his wife and
remaining kids given some sort of asylum after living with that
fanatic.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:36PM|#
fluffy's comments hit the nail on the head. The denial of the
Occupied Territories population of the most basic political and
human rights is going to be a mighty hard thing for Likudian
apologists to argue against.
Not that they won't try. It's always interesting if nothing
else.
A lot of these apologists love to make tough comments about the
right to resist our government if it tries to register handguns or
what not, but when it comes to those Arabs, things are suddenly
different...
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:37PM|#
Except his wives and kids have been thoroughly brainwashed and would probably try to kill whoever attempted to take them into custody.
Les|1.2.09 @ 3:38PM|#
Regardless of how you felt about Afghanistan or Iraq, I was
about 50-50 myself, once they go in there, should they not exploit
their advantages, in our case air supremcy, at the expense of their
own soldiers' lives?
This presumes that the life of a soldier, who volunteers to fight
and possibly die, is inherently more valuable than the life of the
children who were unlucky enough to be born in a war zone.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:39PM|#
But as to your specific question, if exploiting our advantages means engaging in actions which will leave a great deal of innocent civilians dead then I would say, yes we should not exploit that in that way. In fact, that's how we've been trying to behave in those two places. We do that for practical AND moral reasons I should think.
PC|1.2.09 @ 3:40PM|#
MNG | January 2, 2009, 3:30pm | #
I'm merely saying there is no morality in war, not what I might
think moral or not and to conduct war plans based on morality is
kind of stupid, based on history and trends.
During the Revolutionary War it was considered immoral to pick off
officers, how'd that work out for the british?
Is the other side, in this case Hamas worried about civilian losses
when they shoot their rockets? If Hamas had military superiority to
Israel what do you think they would do? Those who cry about
morality and disproportionality are usually fighting with obsolete
equipment, their only strength is a plea to "morality".
And if civilian casualties are what determines "morality" then war
is becoming more and more "immoral" as time goes on regardless of
the actors, soldier to civilian casualty ratios point to such.
Lincoln|1.2.09 @ 3:40PM|#
You are right, they wanted tit-for-tat to keep going. Unless
you think this operation is going to end up better than 2006,
tit-for-tat is looking a lot better than what's going on
now.
Joe, I'm interested in why you think this is true from Israel's
perspective. Exactly what is Hamas going to do that it already
isn't doing? Fire more shitty rockets and suicide bombers into
Israel right? Add to this a possibility of a ground war and Israel
is going to have losses in the mid four figures maybe. The Gazans
could be wiped from the face of the earth if Israel wants to.
According to the last article I read the losses stand at 420 to 4.
From a cold, calculated, cost-benefit scenario Israel gains more by
escalating the conflict as long as Iran or Syria does not get
involved.
Trust me, I don't mean to be glib about the loss of human life but
I don't see what the Israelis are losing here. Their people
overwhelmingly support escalation. They have the means to do it.
Loss of international support? Those who hate Israel are going to
go from hate to really hate. Those that support Israel are going to
go from support to support with reservations. Israel has thought
this through.
robc|1.2.09 @ 3:42PM|#
This presumes that the life of a soldier, who volunteers to
fight and possibly die, is inherently more valuable than the life
of the children who were unlucky enough to be born in a war
zone.
If we could get everyone to agree to form squares and march to
Belgium, that might be preferable (except to Belgium). But wars
arent fought that way anymore. Guernica is the norm now. To me,
that means you dont fight wars unless its absolutely necessary, but
when you do, dont worry about it (you know, while trying to
minimize innocent loss).
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:42PM|#
See, PC, for all that tough talk no one really believes ANYTHING
is ok in war. There is some point at which actions engaged in
during warfare can become immoral.
Now we are talking about whether this has occurred here. But let's
have none of that nonsense you're spouting because it makes you
think of yourself as one of the few unstarry-eyed realists in the
world...
PC|1.2.09 @ 3:45PM|#
MNG | January 2, 2009, 3:30pm | #
Also if the Nazis would have won WWII, we would have been most
likely tried for war crimes. The mantle of "morality" seems to be
one of the spoils of war as well.
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:46PM|#
PC is right about that, re: war crimes. And certainly, if the Nazis had done to London what we did to Dresden, we would have tried them for it. To say nothing of what we would have done if Los Angeles and Seattle got nuked by the Japanese!
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:46PM|#
Jesus you are really far gone.
Do you think there is such a thing as morality or not? I'm betting
you do (like when you hear about child molesting do you just shrug
with indifference?, well, there's no morality so what's the big
deal).
OK, if there is such a thing about morality, do you think it does
not apply to acts of war?
Why in the world would that be? Explain.
You're confusing two things
1. That in war many sides don't seem guided by any sense of
morality
2. That acts of war cannot ever be immoral.
The first is an empirical statement about the world that is
certainly true enough. But it doesn't give you the second, which is
a moral statement and so embarrisingly untrue that you yourself
cannot just come out and answer the hypos I pose above (if number 2
is true then the answers should be easy)
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:49PM|#
PC
Does the fact that some people think 2+2=5 make it so? Or does it
in some way undermine the fact that 2+2 ACTUALLY equals 4?
Likewise the fact that many people have and do still ignore the
immorality of their sides war actions in no way means that those
actions were or were not immoral.
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:51PM|#
MNG, if the Japanese nuked LA in 1945, then we won the war, don't you think we would have tried them for the war crime of using nuclear weapons?
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:52PM|#
Of course we would have. But what does this tell us about whether the nuking was immoral or not?
BDB|1.2.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Do you think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral,
MNG?
What about carpet bombing Tokyo? Were those war crimes?
Les|1.2.09 @ 3:54PM|#
To me, that means you dont fight wars unless its absolutely
necessary, but when you do, dont worry about it (you know, while
trying to minimize innocent loss).
See, but I think "trying to minimize innocent loss" means you have
to "worry about it."
|1.2.09 @ 3:55PM|#
Lincoln,
If Israel is motivated by the well-being of its citizenry, then
ratios don't matter.
If their actions get an additional 10 of the citiizens killed, in
return for a thousand Palestinians dead, that is 10 excess Israelis
dead.
The number of Palestinians who die too only counts as a bonus if
your goal isn't to secure the well-being of Israelis, but to
maximize the harm to Palestinians.
robc|1.2.09 @ 3:55PM|#
But what does this tell us about whether the nuking was
immoral or not?
One of two things:
1. Nothing
2. That nuking and losing is immoral (nuking and winning is clearly
moral). I think this leads to:
2b. Losing a war is immoral.
Les|1.2.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Those who cry about morality and disproportionality are
usually fighting with obsolete equipment, their only strength is a
plea to "morality".
This is what cops who are fighting a "war" on drugs or a "war" on
crime say when justifying unnecessary brutality. We would never
tolerate putting U.S. civilians in the danger we tolerate for
foreign civilians.
PC|1.2.09 @ 3:57PM|#
Is stealing immoral?
What if I steal a gun from an insane person?
ROI, not morality.
robc|1.2.09 @ 3:57PM|#
See, but I think "trying to minimize innocent loss" means
you have to "worry about it."
Nah, I think it just means you center the target on the military
targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legit military targets, we
werent aiming at the regular folk, they just got in the way. I dont
think the guys in the Enola Gay worried about it at all. And
shouldnt have.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 3:58PM|#
None of us here will have much effect on whether any Israelis or
Hamas members will have their actions legally condemned as
immoral.
But that in no way prevents us from discussing whether those
actions are actually moral or not.
It's also not the same thing as saying that the moral/immoral
distinction does not apply to acts of war, or whether anything done
during war is moral. That's a seperate claim not supported by any
of the above, and it's also a claim that I think no one here REALLY
believes, hence PC's inability to say "nuking a nation which has
fired one rocket at another nation is morally ok." He can't say it
because he doesn't believe such utter nonsense.
What PC seems to be clumsily getting at is that winning the war
justifies otherwise immoral acts (that the end justifies the
means). If that's what he means, and he clearly has not been able
to specify that as of yet, then at least we have something that I
think actual human beings might believe at some level.
robc|1.2.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Oh and because I think nuking Japan was okay doesnt mean I think it is okay for Israel can nuke Gaza.
|1.2.09 @ 3:59PM|#
What was the final effect, in terms of Israel's security and
foreign policy goals, of their disproportionate response to
Hezbollah's provocations two years ago?
Do you why terrorists try to goad their enemies into
over-reacting?
Because it helps them.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Really robc?
You think that losing a war is immoral?
You really think that what makes an action wrong or right is
whether that action was carried out by someone on the ultimately
prevailing side?
I don't think you think that at all.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 4:01PM|#
BDB
I agree with most of the military brass at the time that both of
those nukings were immoral.
Les|1.2.09 @ 4:02PM|#
Do you think nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral,
MNG?
Eisenhower thought so. So did lots of other generals and military
strategists.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
BDB|1.2.09 @ 4:02PM|#
But the firebombing wasn't, MNG? So it would have been OK if we firebombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but not nuked them?
MNG|1.2.09 @ 4:02PM|#
So if, during war, I initiate a policy of raping the children of
the enemy regularly, and my side wins, then those rapes were not
immoral?
Because my side won?
See what I'm getting at, noone here really believes such
nonsense.
|1.2.09 @ 4:03PM|#
BDB | January 2, 2009, 2:59pm | #
Who thinks immediate free elections in the Arab world are still a
good idea when people like Hamas get elected?
I DO
robc|1.2.09 @ 4:04PM|#
What PC seems to be clumsily getting at is that winning the
war justifies otherwise immoral acts (that the end justifies the
means). If that's what he means, and he clearly has not been able
to specify that as of yet, then at least we have something that I
think actual human beings might believe at some level.
I, as has come up many times, disagree with this. However I do
think that what are legit means in war is so large as to make the
process of deciding to go to war a very tough one.
Germany*, Italy**, Japan and Afghanistan have stepped over that
line this century, IMO.
*just once
**by association
MNG|1.2.09 @ 4:05PM|#
BDB
I think many of the firebombings were immoral, yes.
I'm not sure what you are getting at though.
If you're point is that some war actions are morally justified by
the ends they produce, then I think you should know that is
different than what I am arguing against, that is that acts
committed during war are never immoral (or that if my side wins
they are not).
If what PC and all these folks mean is the former, then we're
having a different discussion. But that's not what's been said.
robc|1.2.09 @ 4:05PM|#
Really robc?
You think that losing a war is immoral?
No, I said that is the conclusion that could be drawn from war
criminal trials. I didnt mean that I agreed with it. I was pointing
out the absurdity of basing morality on who happens to get
tried.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 4:09PM|#
I mean, really, let's settle this quickly.
Does anyone here think that if I were a Major and instructed my
troops to mass rape little children that this was
1. not wrong because done during war or
2. not wrong because ultimately my side won?
I didn't think so. Hence it's possible for actions taken during war
to be immoral, not matter who wins.
Jesus Christ, what was hard about that?
Now we can discuss whether the IDF is acting immorally here, but
let's have none of this "well it can't be immoral because its
during a war" nonsense*, OK?
*Or its equally stupid variant: that the immorality of war actions
cannot be ascertained with a standard of proportionality (see mu
nuke hypo above)
robc|1.2.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Okay, MNG, I decided I needed to explain this in detail. See, my answer #1 gives my real answer - what a war crime trial tells us about morality - Nothing. #2 is the act of applying logic to the war crime trial, since we know only the losers get tried, then clearly 2b logically follows. See, easy to understand sarcasm.
robc|1.2.09 @ 4:10PM|#
not wrong because ultimately my side won?
Are you still arguing with a sarcastic point that agreed with
you?
MNG|1.2.09 @ 4:11PM|#
robc
My apologies, but as you can read upthread there are people here
seriously arguing that war actions cannot be immoral or
disproportionate (which is just another way of saying immoral). And
they are'nt being sarcastic.
It's an amazingly common view actually given how stupid it is.
|1.2.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Israel has always pursued a policy of disproportionate response - looking at the current situation in Gaza, it's a reasonable argument to say that Israel's response is disproportionate (dropping a one-ton bomb to kill one man). However, that's always how Israel operated - they've historically been surrounded by hostile forces, and that's perhaps how they perceive they've survived (it's like a small gangster who's exceptionally brutal just to show he can't be messed with).
robc|1.2.09 @ 4:12PM|#
MNG,
that the immorality of war actions cannot be ascertained with a
standard of proportionality
I already defeated your proportionality argument. While there is a
limit, that limit is **NOT** based on proportionality.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Argh, no robc, you admited my correctness. As you said, dropping
a nuke on a nation that fired one rocket at another would be
immoral.
Because it's a disproportionate response. Then you went on to say
that you don't beleive in exact proportionality to measure the
morality of war acts, to which I said, well of course. But there is
some standard of propotionatality you believe in, otherwise why
wouldn't it be OK for me to nuke that nation that fired the
rocket?
robc|1.2.09 @ 4:16PM|#
MNG,
Im using proportional in a mathematical sense here, like is used in
some laws in some locations for self defense. That is what Im
saying you have wrong. If you arent using it in that sense, then
nevermind.
Kilgore|1.2.09 @ 4:17PM|#
"How long should people put up with a military blockade stopping
food and water and other necessities before they strike at those
who have put the blockade in place?"
You conveniently overlook the tunnels to Egypt.
robc|1.2.09 @ 4:17PM|#
MNG,
OT, but last week or so you misattributed the "justice though the
heavens fall" quote. You left the thread before I could point it
out. I figure it applies here too.
Lincoln|1.2.09 @ 4:18PM|#
The number of Palestinians who die too only counts as a
bonus if your goal isn't to secure the well-being of Israelis, but
to maximize the harm to Palestinians.
Right Joe, I agree, but isn't Israel trying to maximize harm to the
Hamas leadership - not the rest of the Palestinians? I think Israel
believes the loss in innocent life on both sides is worth it to
remove Hamas from Gaza. I think Israel believes more life is lost
by Hamas staying in power than by this war. In fact, the same
estimates I'm reading online are saying out of those 420
Palestinians who have died 300 - 350 of those are Hamas. So by
escalating the situation Israel can remove Hamas but Hamas cannot
do even a remotely similar thing by escalating things on their end.
Now this may be short sighted thinking on the Israelis part - I'm
sure someone will step in to fill the Hamas void - but Israel
clearly has something to gain by escalation. Israel believes it
worth the cost to go through with it. Are they underestimating the
cost?
robc|1.2.09 @ 4:18PM|#
MNG,
Argh, no robc, you admited my correctness. As you said,
dropping a nuke on a nation that fired one rocket at another would
be immoral.
I admitted that it isnt unlimited, not that it is proportional.
BakedPenguin|1.2.09 @ 4:22PM|#
We would never tolerate putting U.S. civilians in the danger
we tolerate for foreign civilians.
Who is included in your editorial "we"? Americans in general? The
readers of this blog? Because Americans seem way too okay with cops
putting actual human lives in great danger, so long as they can
justify it with the idea that those humans were potentially taking
an unauthorized substance.
robc|1.2.09 @ 4:23PM|#
BakedPenguin,
People dont even have a problem with putting human lives in great
danger because they share a similar address to people taking an
unauthorized substance.
|1.2.09 @ 4:24PM|#
According to the Egyptian Ambassador to the USA, in a
conversation on the PBS' NewsHour a couple of days ago, Egypt has
closed its border with Gaza to refugees because it feels that there
would be no refugees if Hamas hadn't irritated Israel into
attacking and if Israel hadn't attacked. The Egyptian-Gazan border
is still open to humanitarian and emergency medical needs, but they
are not interested in helping either Hamas or Israel in this
issue.
BDB ... chill out, dude. You're fast approaching trolldom. Try not
to hold others responsible for statements made by others over 60
years ago.
|1.2.09 @ 4:27PM|#
Lincoln,
Ah, I see. Yes, plainly, the Israelis think that this will go very
differently from 2006, and that Hamas will be "regime
changed."
I remain skeptical. I think it's more likely that Hamas will come
out of this stronger, just as Hezbollah did, and may end up in
control of the West Bank as well.
We'll see.
Fluffy|1.2.09 @ 4:27PM|#
I think the concept of proportionality is a questionable one and
it's part of the reason there's confusion here.
If two military forces are battling, and because one military force
is qualitatively superior it only suffers 10 casualties in a battle
where the losing side suffers 50,000, the fact that the losses
aren't proportional isn't really that relevant.
I have two main problems with the Israeli response here:
1. It's collective. The Israelis don't like the actions of Hamas
rocketeers, so they have decided to bomb and to starve and to
imprison all the residents of the Gaza strip.
2. The Israelis are in the wrong in the dispute as a whole. If two
parties to a conflict are launching attacks using area weapons, but
group A is the conqueror and occupier, and group B is not, I
consider group A more wrong than group B. If group A comes to me
and tries to defend their use of 2000 lb bombs by saying that group
B is shooting bottle rockets at them, they will not get a
sympathetic hearing from me.
So proportionality doesn't really come into it. Actually, I think
the proportionality argument is itself immoral, since those making
it are by implication saying that there's some amount of civilian
butchery and collective punishment that would be appropriate, but
Israel's just gone a little too far. And I don't accept that at
all.
Fluffy|1.2.09 @ 4:39PM|#
Powerline is so right. Dressing children up as warriors is proof
that your culture is evil and needs to be destroyed.
http://www.costumesupercenter.com/csc/prod/120104/i/1/product.web
http://www.costumesupercenter.com/csc/prod/114014/i/1/product.web
BDB|1.2.09 @ 4:41PM|#
"BDB ... chill out, dude. You're fast approaching trolldom. Try
not to hold others responsible for statements made by others over
60 years ago."
What in the world was that in response to, exactly?
PC|1.2.09 @ 4:41PM|#
"What PC seems to be clumsily getting at is that winning the war
justifies otherwise immoral acts (that the end justifies the
means). If that's what he means, and he clearly has not been able
to specify that as of yet, then at least we have something that I
think actual human beings might believe at some level."
Maybe we have different definitions of morality and I agree I have
been making my arguments rather clumsily, I was distracted by other
things, but now you have my attention so maybe you or someone else
can help me along.
What is your definition of morality? I'd like to know this in order
to understand from your point of view how one can fight a war
morally. You mentioned raping, but the original discussion was
proportionality somehow being linked to morality. So once we agree
on what morality is, maybe we can agree on the moral number of
bombs, or the moral number people to kill in response to another
action.
|1.2.09 @ 4:44PM|#
I love how the Israeli's pounded the Lebanese to hard they
stopped firing rockets and people like you still say Israel
lost.
War works, it really does. After Israel has killed a few thousand
Palistineans they'll stop rockets, yet clowns like you will still
say it was all in vain.
Kilgore|1.2.09 @ 4:45PM|#
"It's not like we weren't destroying whole cities before we had
nukes!"
Nukes, the new N-word.
Kilgore|1.2.09 @ 4:48PM|#
"Does anyone here think that if I were a Major and instructed my
troops to mass rape little children that this was
1. not wrong because done during war or
2. not wrong because ultimately my side won?"
The UN says it's okay in Darfur.
Fluffy|1.2.09 @ 4:49PM|#
I love how the Israeli's pounded the Lebanese to hard they
stopped firing rockets and people like you still say Israel
lost.
Israel attacked southern Lebanon to try to retrieve Israeli
soldiers who had been captured by Hezbollah. Hezbollah wasn't
launching rocket attacks on Israeli civilian areas until after the
invasion started. They stopped firing rockets when the invasion
ended. Not only do WE say that Israel's invasion of southern
Lebanon was a debacle, that's what the ISRAELIS say about it.
PC|1.2.09 @ 4:52PM|#
"1. It's collective. The Israelis don't like the actions of
Hamas rocketeers, so they have decided to bomb and to starve and to
imprison all the residents of the Gaza strip."
What are the Israelis supposed to do if Hamas does not seperate
itself from the rest of the population? Wait until they do?
"2. The Israelis are in the wrong in the dispute as a whole. If two
parties to a conflict are launching attacks using area weapons, but
group A is the conqueror and occupier, and group B is not, I
consider group A more wrong than group B. If group A comes to me
and tries to defend their use of 2000 lb bombs by saying that group
B is shooting bottle rockets at them, they will not get a
sympathetic hearing from me."
Occupier and Conquerer? What if the occupied force says that your
borders should not exist, and fires rockets at you? Are they not in
the process of attempting to conquer and occupy you? Is one side in
the wrong only when they successfully conquer and occupy you? One
must remain a martyr until that happens?
VM|1.2.09 @ 4:57PM|#
BDB - gawd. dont you know? you're spewing out little EDWEIRDO
nuggets through your keyboard.
sheesh.
*gives highnumber a look*
[ducks]
robc|1.2.09 @ 5:01PM|#
The conqueror argument has an innate time period flaw in it. What is our time length? If we even set it at something reasonable like 99 years, does that mean Israel just has to hold out another 30 or so years and then they become the right side?
PC|1.2.09 @ 5:05PM|#
robc | January 2, 2009, 5:01pm | #
Yes time is definitely a tricky thing. Would Mexico's lobbing of
bombs into Texas be acceptable? What about those Indians, would
they be in the right to scalp me? Yes we could discuss if it is OK
for Israel to exist at all since it is only sixty years old but I
don't hear anyone making that argument on this thread, at least
explicitly.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 5:15PM|#
If by proportionality you mean military losses for military
losses then to some extent I agree with fluffy. Two sides fight on
the battle field and one inflicts massive damages on the other
while the other barely nicks the former (like Agincourt). That's
not what I'm talking about, so maybe I was being clumsy
there.
What I mean is that if nation x fires a rocket at nation y
attempting to, at best case, kill a handful of people, then if
nation y chooses as a response something that will kill hundreds of
people, or if it picks something that has a very high likelihood of
killing civilians, then it's wrong.
I agree with fluffy that the major sources of wrongness as a whole
from the IDF (and to Hamas, certainly in their goals) imo are the
collectiveness of many of their punishments and the high number of
civilian deaths.
But I do think proprtionatality matters. And this is why I was not
bitching when, in response to past rocketings, Israel launched more
controlled attacks which were intended to kill a handful of the
enemy even though these attacks might have involved some civilian
casualties (I think this because certainly Israel can morally do
something about the attacks, and given the nature of the conflict
there are really not many options that will not kill ANY civilians
EVER).
I just don't think, to take an example, a massive invasion that
will result in the deaths of thousands is warranted by a border
raid that at "best" would have killed single digits of people is a
moral thing to do. And that has something to do with
proportionality I think.
Fluffy|1.2.09 @ 5:26PM|#
The conqueror argument has an innate time period flaw in it.
What is our time length? If we even set it at something reasonable
like 99 years, does that mean Israel just has to hold out another
30 or so years and then they become the right side?
There's no time limit, actually.
If Israel declared the West Bank and Gaza to be conquered and
absorbed, and to be new and permanent parts of Israel - but
made the inhabitants of those territories citizens - I would
say they conquered that land fair and square and it was theirs now.
No passage of time required.
But because Israel has chosen to seize these territories but
not to actually absorb them, the clock gets reset every
morning at dawn and it will never run out.
PC|1.2.09 @ 5:31PM|#
MNG | January 2, 2009, 5:15pm | #
But once again Hamas chooses to mingle with the population and it
would seem that the population has no problem hiding them. They did
vote in Hamas who doesn't believe Israel should even exist. Those
"civilians" agree that you shouldn't exist and have no qualms
hiding those that repeatedly fire rockets at you. They also have
friends with more advanced technology. Are they supposed to do
little attacks here and there, and once Hamas gains access to
better weapons, only then can you take more decisive measures?
Fluffy|1.2.09 @ 5:31PM|#
What are the Israelis supposed to do if Hamas does not
seperate itself from the rest of the population? Wait until they
do?
I find that in general it's usually the case that if you can't
accomplish a given end without using immoral means, there is
something wrong with your end.
[For example, consider our domestic drug policy. The fact that our
contraband laws are very difficult to enforce without abridging our
civil liberties should serve as a strong indicator that there's
something wrong with our contraband laws.]
In the case of Israel and Gaza, Israel is "forced" to resort to
starving the citizens of Gaza because they can't think of any other
way to reduce the population of the territory into submission. But
to me that's a sign that they might want to consider that their
occupation may be in the wrong. If you have to starve the
population to accomplish your goals, it's time to get new
goals.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.2.09 @ 5:39PM|#
if those jews would just go back where they came from there would be no more war.
PC|1.2.09 @ 5:42PM|#
Fluffy | January 2, 2009, 5:31pm | #
So war is never the answer? Or is war a moral means? So Israel is
just supposed to let rockets rain down and shrug their
shoulders?
Urkobold™|1.2.09 @ 5:47PM|#
FOOLS! THE CORRECT ANSWER IS THAT THE ISRAELIS SHOULD HAVE SET THEIR PHASERS ON STUN, NOT KILL.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 5:48PM|#
"But once again Hamas chooses to mingle with the population and
it would seem that the population has no problem hiding
them."
The first fact does not mean open season on the population of
course, and the second statement strikes me as very dubious. An
actual majority of Gazans did not vote for Hamas candidates in
2006. Many Gazans died in gunfights WITH Hamas members. Very likely
they often have little choice in "hiding" Hamas fighters, and also
understandable is that they root for Hamas over the IDF which kills
so many of them, starves them, blocks their economic activity,
etc.
"They did vote in Hamas who doesn't believe Israel should even
exist."
Again, many did not. Also, even though Americans have voted in
governments which provide a level of support for Israel bordering
on lunacy and in the eyes of most Arabs directly results in their
oppression an Arab who thinks that means they can attack any and
all Americans willy nilly is moralluy wrong.
"Those "civilians" agree that you shouldn't exist and have no
qualms hiding those that repeatedly fire rockets at you."
See other answers
MNG|1.2.09 @ 5:52PM|#
PC
From reading fluffy's prior posts I assume he would say that Israel
should respond to the agitation many Palestinians exhibit from
being occupied by either granting political rights to the
Palestinians as Israeli citizens or allowing them to form their own
autonomous state in which they have such rights.
Bill|1.2.09 @ 5:57PM|#
"Very likely they often have little choice in "hiding" Hamas
fighters"
Nothing wrong with that...
Amendment III:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.
PC|1.2.09 @ 5:58PM|#
"MNG | January 2, 2009, 5:48pm | #
"But once again Hamas chooses to mingle with the population and it
would seem that the population has no problem hiding them."
The first fact does not mean open season on the population of
course, and the second statement strikes me as very dubious."
OK lets forget the second statement and concentrate on the first
since we agree. Should they not retaliate at those who fire rockets
at them?
MNG|1.2.09 @ 6:05PM|#
Look PC, first I have to say I agree with fluffy on the ultimate
issue: Israel is in the wrong to the extent that they do not grant
the residents of the Occupied Territories political rights in some
fashion. Until they do resistance is justified (I don't think this
justifies anything done under said resistance btw) and the killing
of resisters is to a large extent never going to be justified
(since their resistance is just in the first place).
Having said that, yes they can retaliate against those who fire
rockets against them, but they must take into account such moral
principles as proportionatility and civilian harm discussed above.
When their attacks fail those principles, as I think they do here,
I condemn. When they seem to pass them, as they have in countless
strikes that occurred this year, the year, before, etc., by the IDF
then I do not condemn them.
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 6:09PM|#
I find that in general it's usually the case that if you
can't accomplish a given end without using immoral means, there is
something wrong with your end.
Or, what you consider immoral really isn't immoral.
For instance, I think all of us would agree that in general killing
someone is immoral. But there are particular cases where achieving
the end of preserving our own lives we must kill, so we carve out
an exception in our morality.
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 6:15PM|#
If Israel declared the West Bank and Gaza to be conquered and absorbed, and to be new and permanent parts of Israel - but made the inhabitants of those territories citizens - I would say they conquered that land fair and square and it was theirs now. No passage of time required.
But because Israel has chosen to seize these territories but not to actually absorb them, the clock gets reset every morning at dawn and it will never run out.
As the US never made Iraqis US Citizens, this implies you supported
Muqtada al-Sadr and his martyrs' brigade, correct?
MNG|1.2.09 @ 6:20PM|#
cunny
The US did make Iraqis Iraqi citizens. In fact they insisted on
it.
In fact, the US has worked its ass off to help create a state of
Iraq in which Iraqis vote for their leaders and such. So that's a
big difference between it and Israel and Palestine.
Mr. Sulu|1.2.09 @ 6:21PM|#
I don't know about the Israelis, but my phaser is set permanently on thrill!
PC|1.2.09 @ 6:24PM|#
"Having said that, yes they can retaliate against those who fire
rockets against them, but they must take into account such moral
principles as proportionality and civilian harm discussed above.
When their attacks fail those principles, as I think they do here,
I condemn. When they seem to pass them, as they have in countless
strikes that occurred this year, the year, before, etc., by the IDF
then I do not condemn them."
So previous attacks that failed to stop rocket attacks are the only
correct ones. The other side that is indifferent to attacking
civilians and denies Israel's right to exist needs to be granted
political rights.
That's the problem I still don't understand personally how many
bombs are moral and how many civilians are acceptable, nor has
anyone informed me of such.
Personally if they were lobbing rockets at me and saying at the
same time I shouldn't exist, then forget just airstrikes, it would
require complete invasion and total defeat, because that is the
only way to stop it. It seems every time a ceasefire is enacted
they just want to keep lobbing rockets, and the international
community seems to care more about granting political rights to
factions that don't think I should exist and are aligned with
factions that have attempted to invade me in the past. It's almost
as if those invading factions and Hamas think that if they continue
to provoke me and cry foul they can get their way just because they
don't have advanced enough weapons to kill me yet. And since
everyone else cries when I respond and only seems to condemn me,
then they really aren't looking out for my best interests. I'd bet
they really don't want me to exist either, since their version of
self defense is a hell of a lot different than what they considered
it when they fought against belligerents.
That is why I said in the beginning:
"Personally I wouldn't immigrate to a country where all my
neighbors want to kill me, but hey different strokes for different
folks I guess."
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 6:44PM|#
MNG, Palestinians are Palestinian citizens and they vote for their government. Fluffy was saying that unless you make all people in the occupied territory citizens of your own nation, you are considered Occupier and Conqueror, and thus fair game for attacks.
|1.2.09 @ 7:02PM|#
MNG
A lot of these apologists love to make tough comments about the
right to resist our government if it tries to register handguns or
what not
Do you disagree with that right to resist? On what basis?
MNG|1.2.09 @ 7:22PM|#
"The other side that is indifferent to attacking civilians and
denies Israel's right to exist needs to be granted political
rights."
You're making the same mistake over and over, I'm inclined to think
you're doing it on purpose. The "other side" you are talking about
includes children, women, old men, pacifists, people who have
bullet holes in them from fighting Hamas. You cannot justify
denying all of these people their political rights because some of
them are members of Hamas.
Of course they've been denied these rights since before Hamas even
existed.
And yes, of course they should be granted political rights
regardless of how they feel about Israel's existence. Do you think
human and political rights only apply to people who think Israel
was a good idea and should exist? That's a strange philosophy I
should say.
"don't think I should exist"
What is this? Are you the living embodiment of the state of
Israel?
You do know that saying that the state of Israel should not exist
does not necessarily mean you think the population of Israel should
be killed or something.
"I'd bet they really don't want me to exist either, since their
version of self defense is a hell of a lot different than what they
considered it when they fought against belligerents."
Who in the world are you talking about? Am I now the living
embodiment of the US? I think you'll find that I apply the same
standards to my nations military actions, in fact to all nations.
It's the pro-Israeli side that wants their nation to get some
special attention (because, you know, the Holocaust or
something).
"MNG, Palestinians are Palestinian citizens and they vote for their
government."
cunny-As fluffy has eloquently argued above Israel has most
certainly not given the "nation" that Palestianins are "citizens"
of even the most basic autonomy. Hence their position as
illgetimate occupiers.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 7:39PM|#
kwais
I agree that Americans, Palestinians,or anyone has the right to
resist forces that would deny them fundamental political and human
rights.
My point was that many US Israeli apologists, when discussing
domestic matters, are quick to suggest armed resistance to domestic
forces that they see as denying them fundamental rights, but
dismiss the Palestinian resistance to a nation which denies them
basic rights at gunpoint.
Palestinian citizens, whether Hamas members of not, are denied the
right to export their goods, to work for willing employers in
Israel, subject to arrest, search, seizure and even death from a
government in which they have absolutely no voice in.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 7:45PM|#
"The "other side" you are talking about includes children,
women, old men, pacifists, people who have bullet holes in them
from fighting Hamas. You cannot justify denying all of these people
their political rights because some of them are members of
Hamas."
This is a crucial, crucial point. These are the people I'm trying
to protect. I don't give a hang for Hamas, which I've said over and
over again that I see as a bunch of immoral thugs.
This is the problem I see so much from Israeli apologists, they
seem to equate giving a hang about the women, children, old people,
and anti-Hamas people living in Gaza and the other OPT as being
"pro-Hamas" or even more sadly as "anti-Israeli" or worse
"anti-Semitic."
When I think about what is right in the ME I don't just ask what
would be good for Israel (or rather its current government to be
more specific) but also have to factor in these people's rights and
welfare.
MNG|1.2.09 @ 7:57PM|#
Let me lastly address this meme that Hamas and the like are
sitting around constantly trying to kill Israelis while Israelis
have, up until last week, just meekly sat around and "took
it."
Actually, last year alone the IDF killed 245 Palestinians in
numerous strikes and incursions. They've instituted an embargo via
force that has contributed to the result of 87% of Palestinians
living below the poverty line and 75% of their factories being shut
down. The IDF has, at gunpoint, prevented Palestinains from
traveling into Israel and other adjoining nations, including
barring Palestinain spouses of Israeli citizens from residing with
their spouses in Israel. They've also continued to either allow,
encourage or actually support the continuted appropriation of
Palestinian citizens' land through continued settlements and the
building of the anti-terrorism wall.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,COI,HRW,ANNUALREPORT,ISR,47a87c07c,0.html
Now look, all of this is very complicated, I'm not trying to paint
the IDF or Israel as some kind of Nazis. We can talk about the
complex situation that Israel finds itself in and you'll find me to
be probably suprisingly sympathetic. But we've got to get this meme
of the ever violent Palestinians constantly trying to make war on a
pacifistic Israel that is just trying its hardest to do right by
the Palestinians. Come on.
cunnivore|1.2.09 @ 8:26PM|#
MNG, my original question was, would not Fluffy's statements require him to side with al-Sadr and the like in the Iraqi insurrection. Are you claiming that Iraq, circa 2005, was autonomous with respect to the US?
Michael Ejercito|1.2.09 @ 9:11PM|#
Why is proportionality important?
Was the American response to the attack on Pearl Harbor
proportional?
Hydrogen Oxygen Mixture|1.2.09 @ 9:31PM|#
Videos of various civilian
Palestinian
reactions to 9/11.
Of course, the spokeswoman at the time said these were not
representative of the Palestinians, that 'real' Palestinians
"from the
depths of our own sorrow and victimization, we reach out and feel
your pain and feel your sorrow, and will do everything possible in
order to combat such an evil. "
Which is of course why a month before they took every step they
could to stop people from blowing up a pizza parlor. Because they
are key allies on fighting such evil in the world. And don't
celebrate
it at all. Hamas,
especially, the most popular political party among the
Palestinians, has been especially invaluable in fighting such
evil.
|1.2.09 @ 10:20PM|#
cunnivore | January 2, 2009, 8:26pm | #
MNG, my original question was, would not Fluffy's statements
require him to side with al-Sadr and the like in the Iraqi
insurrection. Are you claiming that Iraq, circa 2005, was
autonomous with respect to the US?
NO,
In Iraq we don't blow up buildings in Iraq with civilians to punish
other Iraqis for the fact that Al Sadr was Iraqi.
In fact we din't even go after Sadr, we only went after the people
that were doing violence on his behalf.
So NO, Fluffy's point does not make him a Sadr supporter. Sadr's
philosofy would be closer to yours Cunnivore. That of judging a
people by their religion or ethnicity.
|1.2.09 @ 10:25PM|#
HOM,
Anecdotally I have come across many Palestinians, in Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and one that we captured in Iraq.
The ones that I have met were surprisingly non Anti American. Given
that we Americans created Israel on top of their homes, and we fund
the continued violence against them, and scare other Arab nations
away from intervening in what they consider to be a genocide.
So there is my Anecdotal evidence against yours.
|1.2.09 @ 10:28PM|#
Actually now that I think about it. I met a whole bunch of
Palestinians in Iraq. I was buying illegal liquor at a Palestinian
refugee camp in Iraq, on the Syrian border.
Imagine that, people refugeeing themselves over to Iraq of all
places. How bad did it have to suck in where they were to flee to
Iraq?
|1.2.09 @ 11:29PM|#
Please, somebody, make it stop--wish the Israelis and the Palestinians into the corn field.
crapula|1.3.09 @ 2:58AM|#
Seems to me it's not Israel's version of events but the Arabs' that gets the most play in the international media (the U.S. is an exception to this to some extent).
Fluffy|1.3.09 @ 8:51AM|#
MNG, my original question was, would not Fluffy's statements
require him to side with al-Sadr and the like in the Iraqi
insurrection. Are you claiming that Iraq, circa 2005, was
autonomous with respect to the US?
While I don't want to try to single out any Iraqi political
faction, I will say that there were certainly Iraqis who had the
moral right to employ violence against representatives of the
United States.
It's not that hard to understand, really. If you kicked down my
door, "looking for arms", and then dragged me away to Abu Ghraib
where Lynndie England played reindeer games with me for a few
weeks, and then when you let me out [not because I was granted any
due process or anything, but because you needed my cell to fuck
with someone else] I got home and found that you had knocked down
my house to build a security wall, and that my son had been shot
because he was standing somewhere close by when an IED went off,
guess what - I have the moral right to try to kill you until you go
away.
You have to leave aside geopolitical issues for a moment, and the
question of what nation and political leader did what when, and
realize one simple fact - that when states act in certain ways
towards populations subject to their rule, the members of those
populations are morally entitled to resist using violence. I
possess certain basic rights, and if a state violates those rights
I get to kill representatives of the state to make them stop. And I
don't care what problems the state has, or what series of
historical events makes them think they have an excuse to violate
my rights.
So if you're the Israelis and your army has seized control of the
place where I live, and you try to rule me while I have no right to
vote, to travel, to import or export goods, to own arms or other
categories of property, to be secure in my ownership of my current
property, I get to use violence to make you go away, and if you say
to me, "Buh-buh-but the Holocaust, but-but-but the PLO, but-but-but
suicide bombings, but-but-but the Arab states attacked us in 1948!"
I don't have to give a shit about any of that. I am a human being,
and you are the state that has asserted the right to control
[directly or indirectly] the area where I am, and my right to
resist injustice supercedes your state's circumstances and
concerns.
And that also means that if I'm in Iraq, instead, and you say,
"Well, we had to topple Saddam Hussein," that's great, but having
toppled Saddam Hussein and made yourself the occupying power you've
placed yourself in the position of the state, and I get to judge
your conduct by the same standard I would use to judge any other
state. And if you act in a way that violates my rights, I get to
treat you as a state that is violating my rights. "But-but-but we
had to topple Saddam Hussein and now there's an insurgency and
there might be a civil war if we leave and we have to act this
way!" Hey, talk to the hand.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:51AM|#
cunny
I can't speak for fluffy, but the heart of what he's getting at is
that the Palestinians are denied the fundamental rights of actual
self government. That could be solved by granting them full
political rights under the State of Israel or by giving them their
own nation (many Likudians sort of acknowledge this when they used
to say, and still now and then you'll find one of them saying, that
they should just be declared Jordanian citizens and have done with
it).
I actually think if the Palestinians don't want to be Israeli
citizens then the proper route is for them to be given their own
nation with citizenship. But I see fluffys overall point: just
holding these people in a territory you occupy is immoral.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 9:04AM|#
Several people on this post refer to Gaza as an " open-air
asylum" and comment on the lack of control over its own
residents.
One fact that is kind of relevant to saying that any government in
Gaza has to "control" their own people is this: 44% of Gaza's
population is 14 years old or younger. That's comparable to 28% for
Israel or 20% for the U.S. The population for Gaza is largely a
bunch of young unemployed poor kids. And with a very "semi"
autonomous and underfunded government, it's going to be very hard
to get total control over that.
Niccolo|1.3.09 @ 9:05AM|#
Israel is not a legitimate government. It possesses no
legitimacy; not only is it's history void of legitimacy, it's
current actions, targeting civilians and denying them basic human
rights, is reminiscent of the worst tyrannies.
If Hamas launched a million rockets into Israel every day, they
would be justified in doing so.
Until the menace of Israel ceases to exist, there will be no
justice. Israel cannot exist as a state without actively promoting
genocide of the Palestinian people; it simply exists outside of the
nature of Israelis.
How long should a reasonable state "suffer" shoot and scoot
rockets, you can ask, but this is the wrong question. How long
should a man allow his family to go hungry because a bully seeks
only to forbid his family the bread they need to live?
Not for a second.
GILMORE|1.3.09 @ 9:47AM|#
my view is = fuck em all. They are all a gang of shits who reap what they sow. And cheerleaders or partisans from either side all have to engage in self delusions and omissions to make their story sound more sympathetic and legitimate than the opposition (see above). The israeli / palestinian conflict has no good guys. Playing "whos more oppressed?!" is fucking lame. They are like a shitty family that never stops fighting and basically ruin each others lives to no purpose. T
|1.3.09 @ 9:52AM|#
My opposition to Iranian nukes is lessening every day. Jerusalam, Wall Street, the Capitol, the call centers of Mumbai, maybe even Bagdhad. Of course I'd want them to place a warning call first.
GILMORE|1.3.09 @ 10:05AM|#
FWIW, jackass "niccolo" above...
quote from his website =
".... the bravery and honor that Somali Islamists fought with
further proves why I am so admiring of their culture.
lol
oh, mercy. Somalia. 2008 winner, Worst Place on Earth Award.
Somali 'culture' in action =
"In Kismayu, a port city, 13-year-old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow set
off to visit her grandmother when three thugs pulled her off the
street and raped her.
Her family tried to report the rape to the al-Shebab militia that
controls Kismayu. But after hearing the story, the militiamen
charged Aisha with adultery and, on the spot, sentenced her to
death.
Two days later, militiamen hauled her to a city stadium, where a
deep hole had been dug. The 13-year-old was buried up to her neck.
About 50 men stoned Aisha to death as 1,000 spectators in the
stands looked on. Asked about this later, the killers explained
that they had thought she was older."
http://www.hiiraan.com/news2_rss/2009/Jan/somalia_the_worst_of_the_worst.aspx
By any measure, one would probably be compelled to argue that
Somali 'culture', whatever one means by it, is the single shittiest
example of culture the world has ever seen. They were probably
better off a few thousand years ago, and have been backsliding
since.
|1.3.09 @ 10:31AM|#
So previous attacks that failed to stop rocket attacks are
the only correct ones.
These attacks have not only failed to stop the rocket attacks, but
the number of such attacks have increased tenfold since the air
strikes began.
Just as, as Fluffy pointed out above, the strikes in Lebanon and
incursion of 2006 resulted in a vast increase in Hezbollah
rockets.
It's difficult to take seriously the protestation of allegedly
pro-Israel people who refuse to take this into account - the
oh-so-righteous,
nobody-can-criticize-them-without-being-anti-Semitic operations
Israel keeps launching make things worse for the people living in
Israel.
GILMORE|1.3.09 @ 10:49AM|#
the oh-so-righteous,
nobody-can-criticize-them-without-being-anti-Semitic operations
Israel keeps launching make things worse for the people living in
Israel.
... Compared to the oh-so-righteous,
nobody-can-criticize-them-without-being-a-Zionist-apologist
'resistance' activities of Hamas, Al Aqsa brigades, Hezbollah,
etc., which have done *oh so much* for the betterment of the living
standards of the citizens of... uh...
I mean, come the fuck on. No matter how you slice it, they're all
equally to blame for themselves.
|1.3.09 @ 10:52AM|#
The difference, GILMORE, is that maybe one out of a hundred
critics of Israel's actions actually defend Hamas' rocket attacks,
while about 99 out of 100 supporters of Israel's actions defend the
killing of civilians.
Look back at the thread, man. I count a total of one Israel critic
who claimed it was acceptable for Hamas to shoot off these
rockets.
There is no equivalence here.
VM|1.3.09 @ 10:57AM|#
US FP past few years. Cp:
"operations Israel keeps launching make things worse for the people
living in Israel."
and:
Operations the US keeps launching makes things worse...
being quick to grab the knife seems to have this effect.
whoever said above that neither side seems to want this shooting to
end has a point. It's disgusting targeting civilians. It's
disgusting shooting rockets. Killing like that is bad and
wrong.
In fact, we need the Chosen One to come up with a word that is
stronger. badong. It's badong.
Get those assholes to a table where they can talk face to face. Or
don't they have the balls?
cunnivore|1.3.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Sadr's philosofy would be closer to yours Cunnivore. That of
judging a people by their religion or ethnicity.
joe owes me $1000, so he'll give you $1000 if you can find evidence
of me actually writing something like that.
One moment you're discussing general military tactics, the next
moment you're a despicable racist. Go figure.
cunnivore|1.3.09 @ 12:26PM|#
while about 99 out of 100 supporters of Israel's actions
defend the killing of civilians.
As much as I hate going around in circles with you, I remind you
that if you supported the invasion of Afghanistan you necessarily
supported killing civilians -- when such is the unavoidable result
of action against the enemy.
|1.3.09 @ 12:37PM|#
1. The hell I do.
2. Hiding behind the impossibility of absolutes doesn't negate the
moral principle. I oppose the bombing of houses full of civilians
in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gaza.
|1.3.09 @ 12:37PM|#
You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, eh,
cunnivore?
Such a skeptic of government!
cunnivore|1.3.09 @ 12:52PM|#
2. Hiding behind the impossibility of absolutes doesn't
negate the moral principle. I oppose the bombing of houses full of
civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gaza.
Absolutely. I too believe that killing civilians should be avoided
if at all possible, and should never be done for its own
sake.
But you seriously would oppose bombing a house that contained an
al-Qaeda/Taliban operations center with high-ranking commanders in
it, if there were civilians in it also?
Kolohe|1.3.09 @ 1:54PM|#
Fluffy @8:51-
Going 'short' against the state may be morally justified but
1) You will generally fail; the exceptions are what makes
history
2) You shoot Americans, you're not going be very popular in
America, and people are automatically think you are wrong (in the
short to medium term)
cunni @12:52-
don't forget your Clauswitz. If you take out an asshole, people may
(but may not) like you. But if you take out a family that everyone
likes at the same time, people are going to forget you took out an
asshole. Maybe the tradeoff is justified and it will work out
overall; and maybe not. That's why I nominally agree with whomever
said above about 'morality' in war - that there's very little of
it. There is mostly ORM and ROI but only the traces morality. (Not
to say there aren't rules - but those rules have been developed
over the centuries mostly to improve ORM and ROI while paying lip
service to morality)
cunnivore|1.3.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Kolohe, you make good points. But the tenor of joe's and others' remarks above, and the accusations of me being a racist who jerks off to video of Palestinian civilian deaths, for disagreeing with them, makes me think their position is not based on a simple cost-benefit analysis.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 2:14PM|#
cunny
Just as I hope you don't think that opponents of recent Israeli
actions are therefore anti-Semites or unconcerned with Israeli
deaths I don't think that everyone who supports Israels actions
"jerks off to video of Palestinian deaths."
However, you have to admit that there were some posters upthread
who seemed to take the position that since a Palestinian faction
was "at fault" for the current hostilities then "the Palestinians"
get what they get (because "they" voted in Hamas, "they" hide
Hamas, etc).
I agree (and did above) that actions which may result in some
civilian deaths (albeit with very strong steps taken to limit them
as much as possible) can be morally justified. That's why my
current condemnation of Israel's large scale bombing involves the
idea of proportionatility.
|1.3.09 @ 2:19PM|#
But you seriously would oppose bombing a house that
contained an al-Qaeda/Taliban operations center with high-ranking
commanders in it, if there were civilians in it also?
Absent an imminent threat, yes. Particularly if there are far more
civilians than combatants, and those civilians were women and
children.
The most recent "Hamas commander" they killed? One dead Hamas
combatant. Four dead women. NINE dead children.
Unacceptable to anyone with a conscience.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 2:26PM|#
"But you seriously would oppose bombing a house that contained
an al-Qaeda/Taliban operations center with high-ranking commanders
in it, if there were civilians in it also?"
I think I would have to ask about whether such an attack would
result in less overall deaths down the road (killing ten civilians
and five murderers now with every reason to believe that those five
murderers would kill more than 10 people if they were not stopped)
and then I think it's still very questionable because I'd hate to
be the one who has to trade off people's lives like that.
Utilitarian thinking clashes with ideas of individual rights. It's
a toughie.
cunnivore|1.3.09 @ 2:40PM|#
joe, just an aside, you consider civilian men's lives to be worth less than civilian women's?
underzog|1.3.09 @ 3:47PM|#
The comments of the usual anti-Semitic readers aside (these
Libertarians are like the Ernst Rhoem Nazis), the author of the
piece deserves comdemnation as well for failing to mention
Youtube's efforts to keep the Israeli side off of youtube (it was
reported by many other bloggers so so-called Reason Magazine cannot
be ignorant of it.
Brian Doherty's refusal to mention youtube's efforts to keep
Israel's side off youtube while granting free reign to the Muslim
jihadists is what is known as halftruth reportng. A half truth is
no truth and should be condemned -- especally with a publication
that is so spectacularly misnamed.
underzog|1.3.09 @ 3:56PM|#
I used to support the legalization of drugs, but listening to
the anti-Semitic and irrational comments of many of the
Libertarians on this falsely named Reason site has made me change
my mind. The anti-Semitic comments of many here. Is this what
steady use of drugs does to the mind?
Scary!
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 4:04PM|#
as usual, joe is right. israel should have ignored the rockets
just like we should have ignored 9/11, then more people would be
alive.
if bill clinton were running israel no israelis would die in the
invasion that is happening now, like when we were in bosnia.
underzog|1.3.09 @ 4:13PM|#
There are some good comments amongst the Hit & Run
readers.
Of course, the anti-Semites on this board don't mention how the
Hamas is talking about killing Jews everywhere (Israelis selling
hair products were shot up in a Denmark mall).
Since silence implies consent, maybe the anti-Semites on this board
approve of Hamas killing Jews everywhere. And why not? They already
approve of the killing of Jews in Israel even after they
(foolishly) withdrew from Gaza.
Paul|1.3.09 @ 4:53PM|#
and the Israeli Defense Forces are using such modern-age conveniences as Twitter and YouTube to make sure its own version of events is getting out, even as they try to ensure no one else's is.
Modern age conveniences which out of reach for the rest of the Arab
world? Color me confrused.
Paul|1.3.09 @ 4:56PM|#
and the Israeli Defense Forces are using such modern-age conveniences as Twitter and YouTube to make sure its own version of events is getting out, even as they try to ensure no one else's is.
Modern age conveniences which are out of reach for the rest of the
Arab world? Color me confrused.
Come on, Brian, isn't that the whole point of YouTube and Twitter?
They give 'access' to everyone making a more democratic flow if
information? Or is it that Youtube and Twitter only help the
Israelis, while the Palestinians can only benefit from the New York
Times?
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 5:07PM|#
paul, your hate of brown people through your total ignorance of their lives, is showing.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 5:23PM|#
Never fear, Underzog is here!
I remember him, our anti-anti-Zionist Crusader has returned!
Fed with bullshit Likudian propaganda Underzog has the power to not
see facts which threaten his rigid world views (they are fashioned
from titanium) and to make massive leaps to from faulty premises to
unsupported conclusions, all in the service of his life long
mission to see the Palestinians neck under an IDF heel and
accompanied by his trusty companion, Commentary Magazine!
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 5:43PM|#
right on mng. these totally unprovoked attacks by israel are probably more of the bush/cheney middleast crusade. i predict the israeli elections will be won by the ultra right.
underzog|1.3.09 @ 5:52PM|#
Maybe Karl Rove is behind the Israeli response in Gaza, nobody u no but a fan of Joe.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 6:04PM|#
underzog, are you trying to out yourself even further?
nobody u no but a fan of Joe ha, joez law rulez, SPANK
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 6:30PM|#
don't bring up spanking or MNG might talk in graphic detail what he wants to do to me (again), and I just ate.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 6:36PM|#
Oh TAO, I don't know how long you've been posting around here
but that Underzog makes you seem like an open minded sentimentalist
with an IQ of around 300.
And this nobody u no guy's attempts to be funny makes one long for
the wit and erudition of SIV...
MNG|1.3.09 @ 6:41PM|#
And TAO, it was a metaphor for beating your ass intellectually,
so you can keep your lunch!
I have heard that US blacks and Palestinians are willing to convert
to Judaism so they can fit into the glaringly large exceptions you
have in your "collective punishment/individual justice"
"ideas."
You've been so quiet lately. It really was a bad term at law
school, wasn't it? Don't take it too hard. You can re-take classes
you failed (I'm guessing Contracts and Philosophy of Law) and
improve your GPA you know?
underzog|1.3.09 @ 7:01PM|#
As there are many anti-Semites in the Libertarian party, I see
no reason to really engate in debate with people who think I don't
even have the right to board a bus on one stop and come out alive
at the other. I don't think me or my family in Israel should be
killed because the Arab/Muslims are mad that the alleged lesser of
those two religions (Christianity and Judaism) has a sliver of land
where G-d gave the Jews a quit claim deed, to.
However, if any do want to learn something about the phony
Palestinian cause or anything else in that area, I offer this link:
History and Geography in the
Middle East.
Maybe after a year something will sink in other than
Hugo|1.3.09 @ 7:02PM|#
Animals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Xl68kP4wo&eurl=http://www.powerlineblog.com/
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 7:07PM|#
mng, you of all people should know that i am not joking. i am with you and joe in wishing the jews would just go back where they came from. everything would be better then, right?
Gilbert Martin|1.3.09 @ 7:12PM|#
The solution is for one or more of the surrounding Arab
countries to carve out part of their land to move those people to
and get them away from the Isreali border.
The fact is that there never was a histirically distinct
"Palestinian people" or "Palestinian homeland". They are just Arabs
like all the rest of them.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 7:20PM|#
Underzog, you're a joke.
1. I'm not a libertarian. Neither is joe for example.
2. That said, any consistent libertarian (TAO excluded for example)
is going to have trouble with the acts of Israel which negatively
effect people who have no demonstrated tie to groups which have
done anything wrong in Israel's (or anyone's) eyes. "Collective
punishment" actions are kind of hard for a true libertarian to
swallow.
3. The fact that you think "God gave some group" anything is
conclusive is hilarious. You know the Arabs think "God gave them
that land" too, right?
4. The Christians in the area are no big fans of Israel. This gets
obscured quite a bit by our media.
nobody u no
You're silly, but in point of fact if a bunch of European Jews had
not plopped down in the middle of land their ancestors had not
lived in for twenty centuries and proclaimed a state there, things
would indeed be better for a lot of people (the European Jews and
the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians). It strikes me though
that the Jews in the area who immigrated to Israel post 1948 are
probably way better off imo. But that's a level of nuance you are
not capable of I imagine, so don't worry too much about getting
it.
BDB|1.3.09 @ 7:23PM|#
Gilbert, that's horseshit. There may not have been in 1948, but there is such a thing as a Palestinian now. Partly created by Israel, I might add.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 7:26PM|#
Gilbert
You are a stupid fool.
Even the hard core Israeli Likudians have dropped this silly
propaganda idea, maybe you missed the memo. And two reasons simply
pop up right away:
1. You can call them whatever (Palestinians, Arabs, whatever) but
there were these people living in the lands that Israel declared as
a state in 1948 and later occupied via war in 1967, people whose
ancestors had lived there for centuries (something that could not
be said about the majority of Israeli citizens 1948). These people
can be declared part of Israel (but mind you not citizens!)
because, why?
2. You claim there were no Palestinian people or Palestinian
homeland, but prior to the creation of Israel the area was called
the Palestinian Mandate for some nutty reason, huh? Jesus, you
don't need to know much history to know how silly this view
is.
You should really ask yourself: how is that I, a grown supposedly
rational adult, can believe something so easily refuted? Some
introspection would follow in most folks...
MNG|1.3.09 @ 7:30PM|#
One thing there CERTAINLY is not is a "historically distinct"
Ashkenazi Israeli! That's whats funny!
Baked-here you see something. Even the U.S. is calling for a
cease-fire, not an invasion. Israel not only ignores the standards
of the civilized world, it gives that world the middle
finger.
And then it wants to be free from consequences and criticism!
We should cut our anomalous economic and diplomatic aid for six
months for every day Israel does not agree to a cease fire. All of
us who are not doing what we can to turn our government around are
indirectly responsible for the slaughter that has and will
occur.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 7:30PM|#
mng, what is your problem? everybody else is picking on you, not
me.
i agree, the jews should just go away and stop attacking the
peaceful people who live around them. it is the only way for
progressivism to spread to their tolerant neighbors.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 7:33PM|#
Funny in 1922 Britian and the world thought to call the area
"the Palestinian Mandate" but not the "Israeli Mandate" even though
there were no historically distinct area known as Palestine nor
historically distinct people known as Palestinians and in spite of
the fact that there was this well recognized area called Israel and
well recognized people known as Israelites.
Gilbert, you are walking joke for saying something so very, very
stupid. I hope you look up whatever stupid sources gave you that
dumb idea, burn them, and wear sackclothe for three days in order
to be somewhat less of a total idiot.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 7:35PM|#
Nobody
Really, there are very, very few people on this site who are as
dumb as you and would therefore think you are cute.
|1.3.09 @ 7:36PM|#
Speaking about proportionality
Hamas 75% civilian casualties
Israel 15% civilian casualties
So far according to UN stats
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 7:47PM|#
That said, any consistent libertarian (TAO excluded for
example) is going to have trouble with the acts of
Israel
Oh dear. You'll note that I've generally been critical of Israel's
actions, in that they'll likely be ineffective. Although I am glad
that you went with the "No True Libertarian" fallacy of
argumentation.
LGF Fan|1.3.09 @ 7:48PM|#
The IDF must finish all its objectives by Jan. 20th. The IslamoNazis will love Obama it will be like Dhimmi Carter's time in office!
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 7:49PM|#
aww, mng, you really have problems connecting with others no matter if they agree with you or want a nice discussion. i added you to my tribute name. perhaps you will stop pushing away those who can not wait for your next artful post.
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 7:50PM|#
Nice attempt to troll me with the law school stuff, MNG. Wasn't
it you not too long ago who theorized I hadn't even been to
college?
It's good to know that someone's obsessed with me, though.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 7:53PM|#
tao, i too thought this was a libertarian website at first, then
i started reading the boards and saw that it is truly
progressive.
i am working on my progressive path. i need to start calling people
stupid much more for great progress.
BakedPenguin|1.3.09 @ 7:55PM|#
MNG - I'd have to agree with GILMORE upthread - I'm sick of both
sides, and have trouble really seeing either one as being "right".
I agree with cutting off aid to Israel, but I see no reason to give
it to Palestinians, either.
That's actually one more reason why most of us vote libertarian -
no "entangling" alliances...
VM|1.3.09 @ 7:59PM|#
what baked said. (and it's kinda hard to get others to listen to
you when you've flaunted the same conventions for the past however
many years!)
A_R - I confess. I've been giving MNG the films I've taken of you
through your window. So any inaccuracies are my fault...
*hangs head in shame*
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 7:59PM|#
i need to start calling people stupid much more for great
progress.
Indeed you do. MNG fantasizes that he lords his "superior"
intellect over me and it hurts me OHSOMUCH that we're not friends.
*sniff*.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:02PM|#
vm, you must be stupid for not agreeing with mng.
progressive progress
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:04PM|#
upthread i noticed that someone else noticed the palestinians do
not have a good infrastructure.
if they had better public transportation they would be much better
off. their lack of unions must also be hindering their
progress.
Minion of URKOBOLD|1.3.09 @ 8:05PM|#
FOOLISH, BDB. SUCKING UP TO THE URKOBOLD WILL NOT CHANGE YOUR
FATE. HOWEVER, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SERVICE THE WEIBSKOBOLD WHEN
THE URKOBOLD IS ON VACATION.
NOW GO DEVELOP THE EXTRA FILM WE HAVE ON RANDIAN. WE'RE SURE MNG
WILL WANT TO KNOW HOW HE WAS INTERACTING WITH THE NOAM CHOMSKY BLOW
UP DOLL.
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 8:07PM|#
I regularly interact with the leather-bound edition of Heather Has Two Mommies...I wonder if that is on the film.
underzog|1.3.09 @ 8:11PM|#
>>>>>>>>>>>tao, i too thought this was a libertarian website at first, then i started reading the boards and saw that it is truly progressive.
MINION OF URKOBOLD|1.3.09 @ 8:11PM|#
ONLY THE REENACTMENT OF THE SWEATY PILLOW FIGHT SCENE ON PAGE
69.
NEXT TIME WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SCARLET JOHANSSON AND SALMA HAYEK
DEMONSTRATE.
EXCUSE ME. I'LL BE IN STEVO'S BUNK
underzog|1.3.09 @ 8:12PM|#
Something is keeping me from posting my messages on this
board.
Okay. I don't care about this board that much.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:12PM|#
tao, you are disrespectful of women, like the israelis. if you respected women like the palestinians do then mng might like you better.
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 8:13PM|#
EXCUSE ME. I'LL BE IN STEVO'S BUNK
There's no room in here, hoss! Oh, well, what the hell, I am sure
we can think of something...
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:13PM|#
underzog, it is your lack of a free mind and missing union card. it works better with either/both.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:15PM|#
"You'll note that I've generally been critical of Israel's
actions, in that they'll likely be ineffective."
Since the only thing you can find wrong with the actions is that
they are "not effective" my assessment is shown all the more to be
correct.
TAO @ 7:59-That wasn't me. "Replying" to me as if it was is
actually kind of stupid though...
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:17PM|#
Surely nobody is SIV, just like Francisco Torres was TAO
(wearing his "I know a little about economics but not a whole lot"
rather than his "I know a little about philosophy but not a whole
lot" hat).
They both are unable to construct "arguments" more than two
sentences.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:19PM|#
Soon TAO is going to answer how it is legitimate for Israel to
limit a Palestinian's, about whom there is no proof at all that
they have ever struck at Israel, right to trade, travel, associate,
be free from search , seizure, and attack, and denied a voice in
government.
And soon he will give us that quality which makes a necessary thing
good.
Oh so soon.
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 8:21PM|#
TAO @ 7:59-That wasn't me.
I'm aware. I was making fun of you. But, boy, nice zinger
anyway.
Since the only thing you can find wrong with the actions is
that they are "not effective" my assessment is shown all the more
to be correct.
That depends. Is this a war or is it not a war?
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:24PM|#
Because TAO will be moved to many lengthy and passionate posts
about the utter injustice of limiting a white person's right to
associate in order to help out the descendants of black slaves and
sharecroppers because the limitations may fall on a white person
who had no connection to such wrong doing.
But is strangely silent on much more onerous restrictions on
Palestinians on any more rights when there is no proof that
Palestinian is a threat or harm.
Of course he assures us if he saw any real discrimination he would
be first on the front lines protesting it in proper libertarian
fashion.
Right.
Ron Burgundy|1.3.09 @ 8:25PM|#
Surely nobody is SIV, just like Francisco Torres was TAO (wearing his "I know a little about economics but not a whole lot" rather than his "I know a little about philosophy but not a whole lot" hat).
That doesn't even make sense!
Now tell me more about this "Love Panther"
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:26PM|#
tao, it is only a war in the sense of how ghandi defeated the british in india or that guy with shopping bags in front of the tank in china.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:26PM|#
For TAO
Trolling=not agreeing with me or my daddy's ideas that are so
ingrained in me!
I've given you opportunity after opportunity to answer my questions
and explain your really goofy ideas. You don't.
Doesn't that make you the troll?
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 8:27PM|#
Strange. I didn't know that I had to be as passionate about
issues overseas as I did about the ones at home. I am sure that you
are selling all of your unnecessary shit (like refrigerators,
televisions, cars, clothes...) and giving it to say, the Rwandans,
right, MNG?
Am I to assume that on every issue where you remain relatively
silent that you must be supporting one side or the other? That's a
neat-o trick. They must have taught that in the oh-so-intellectual
field of political "science".
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:29PM|#
tao, i am still supporting the people of kampuchia by buying record albums. i feed africans the same way. think globally and act locally.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:29PM|#
Well, TAO, you can answer now.
You are here.
Go ahead.
Demonstrate your principles. Apply them.
underzog|1.3.09 @ 8:29PM|#
"3. The fact that you think "God gave some group" anything is
conclusive is hilarious. You know the Arabs think "God gave them
that land" too, right?
"
Jerusalem is mentioned many many times in the Tannakh. It is not
mentiond once in the Koran.
You're ignorance of the history their is most glaring. I gave you a
hyperlink for which you, Joe; etc., can start your education.
Or maybe you don't care for any accurate knowledge. Maybe you agree
with the sentiments expressed in the URL Hugo showed where a
protesting Islamic woman says, "Jews go back to the ovens. You need
a big oven."
I wouldn't be suprised.
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 8:30PM|#
Trolling=not agreeing with me or my daddy's ideas that are
so ingrained in me!
No.
Trolling = repeated name-calling and an excessive fantasy that I
give a shit about you.
I have a link for you:
Here. I am sure you can contribute
over there.
I'm your teacher. You need it.
Bye, dude. Get your rocks off "educating" someone else.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:32PM|#
underzog, if you want to believe those propogandists go right ahead. everybody knows the only thing stormfront was right about is this issue. being wrong on everything else is no reason to discount them on this.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:34PM|#
HaHaHa, TAO runs again. On both questions he has no answer, and
so he scurries! Run, run Forrest! Disappear for another couple of
days and return, slinking and full of self-doubt!
You say you are not? Well then the questions were plainly posed,
answer them.
If you can.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:35PM|#
tao and mng, perhaps you both should join me for a decaf soy latte in a non-starbucks establishment and we can all come to an agreement accented by niceness and caring?
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 8:36PM|#
actually, you know what? Never mind. I'm not interested in entertaining you. Sometimes you just have to walk away from psychic vampires.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:36PM|#
Oh my God, underzog, I never knew that the Jewish's people's
Holy Book mentioned a claim to Jerusalem.
Why that settles it, doesn't it~
HaHaHa!
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:37PM|#
underzog, are you trying to trick me? please, i am still progressing in the progressive path. i will wait for joe and mng to tell me what to think before i answer.
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:38PM|#
"Soon TAO is going to answer how it is legitimate for Israel to
limit a Palestinian's, about whom there is no proof at all that
they have ever struck at Israel, right to trade, travel, associate,
be free from search , seizure, and attack, and denied a voice in
government.
And soon he will give us that quality which makes a necessary thing
good."
You really are not a good reader, eh TAO?
C'mon, SURELY you have answers ;)
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:39PM|#
god, would someone please pay attention to me? please please please?
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:40PM|#
I mean, you're not just running because you have no satisfactory
answers? Your cruel beliefs about the poor and black would have
something to say about a man who runs and does not answer questions
plainly put to him, wouldn't it?
Jeez, this is fun.
Your daddy did not have all the answers TAO, nor did his tribe.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:41PM|#
this was not me and i wish this board would ban people from using fake handles
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:41PM|#
Hey, SIV/nobody, LGF is a 24 hour site.
They think Georgia is not a 18th century state over there. Check it
out.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:42PM|#
mng, are you sure tao hates black people? he probably wants them to have as much welfare as me you and joe do. i want them to be in unions too, but i guess you do also.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:44PM|#
mng, you lash out at your fans so much. are you a hollywood star in real life?
tao|1.3.09 @ 8:45PM|#
"That MNG, he just doesn't see what my daddy plainly explained to me. About how those blacks don't know what they are talking about, and how they always want our stuff. They don't know about individual justice and collective punishment. He also told me about Israel, how those brown people keep wanting those Special People to give them the Moon and keep bitching when they don't. Those people don't deserve individual justice, and National Review tells me I'm right..."
MNG|1.3.09 @ 8:52PM|#
TAO
There are two questions.
Plainly posed.
I cannot help if you are too much of a coward or idiot to answer
them.
I would like to hope your inability to do so would bring
introspection and change. In fact, I'm sure that's why you have
been so absent from the discussions as of late (no answer). You've
struggled through the Cato and Von Mises Institute archives for
answers, yet found them not.
I feel for you.
I can help you.
Like your daddy could or would not.
Come, TAO, let us start your education.
I have to go, but you can either supply some answers and stop
running (weeks now it is) or let me know you need my help. I'm a
Christian and would help you.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.3.09 @ 8:56PM|#
i don't know if i want to have latte with mng until he starts acting like a big boy.
Neu Mejican|1.3.09 @ 9:37PM|#
MNG,
You are off the rails on this one.
Did you consider, perhaps, that your agenda is not the same as the
others you are attempting to engage?
Is is possible that there is a better way to get someone involved
in a dialogue than attempting to cyber-brow beat them?
If you can't get along with TAO, what chance does Middle East Peace
have?
The Angry Optimist|1.3.09 @ 9:52PM|#
Don't worry, Neu. I have seen this before: MNG is probably
drinking and posting again, and when he posts he gets really,
really mean.
I
mean, truly nasty.
|1.3.09 @ 10:27PM|#
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/04/sri-lanka-war-tamil-tigers
The Sri-Lankans are bombing the crap out of there own country
Not one protest
odd that
cunnivore|1.3.09 @ 11:56PM|#
MNG is probably drinking and posting again, and when he
posts he gets really, really mean.
That must be why he switched from Mr. Nice Guy to the initials.
Sort of like when Kentucky Fried Chicken got caught using Species
47F2 instead of chicken.
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 12:00AM|#
cunnivore - XD
"Did you know like, KFC MNG totally had to change its
name because it was like, not really chicken
nice?"
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 12:25AM|#
lol awww, please be nice to mng, he is just
misunderstood. much like the lesbian poets i have had in my
livingroom since around 9 pm.
thank goodness they went home too.
cunnivore|1.4.09 @ 12:49AM|#
The Sri-Lankans are bombing the crap out of there own
country
I bet joe & MNG support the Tamil Ligers in that conflict
too.
Napoleon|1.4.09 @ 12:52AM|#
Beware of the Tamil Ligers. Not only are they ruthless they are bred for their skills in magic.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 1:23AM|#
i had to watch a show about the flying tigers after the womyn left. i think it is still on, but now i am waiting for pizza.
|1.4.09 @ 1:47AM|#
BakedPenguin | January 3, 2009, 7:55pm | #
MNG - I'd have to agree with GILMORE upthread - I'm sick of both
sides, and have trouble really seeing either one as being "right".
I agree with cutting off aid to Israel, but I see no reason to give
it to Palestinians, either.
That's actually one more reason why most of us vote libertarian -
no "entangling" alliances...
Amen
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 2:45AM|#
nm, i am new here. mng is not always this way is he? i mean,
like i am totally agreeing with him and he like called me initials
i never heard before and told me to go someplace with other
initials and it did not sound good. i did not even get to remind
him how elegant and green the palestinians are being with their
hand crafted, low carbon footprint, rockets that don't hurt anybody
vs. that big icky polluting israeli military that is like
destroying the whole planet.
he is being so totally like a progressive bill o'reilley played by
john lithgow on snl or something.
underzog|1.4.09 @ 6:00AM|#
The Libertarians as exemplified by most of the comments here are
eliminationist, anti-Semitic sickies.
No wonder you guys have to take so many drugs. Murdering Jews
because of Koranic dogma, a sense of inferiority, and just, plain
bloodlust is wrong. I think many Libertarians know this, so like
the late serial killer Jeffrey Dhamer with his alcohol binges, have
to use drugs to stamp out their consciences as regards the
Libertarians' own evil on the issue of the existence of the Jewish
State.
Again, I say those drugs should not be legalized. We don't want
more supporters or perpatrators of Nazi genocide against the Jews
wandering around. Look at the way so many Libertarians act?
edna|1.4.09 @ 7:10AM|#
no way i'm gonna cruise through 300+ posts of the usual quality
of these arguments, but this semantic twister really got me
laughing:
You claim there were no Palestinian people or Palestinian
homeland, but prior to the creation of Israel the area was called
the Palestinian Mandate for some nutty reason, huh?
it's always fun to use modern definitions in an anachronistic way.
jews who lived there prior to mng's oft-stated "magic date at which
all international boundaries and migrations should be fixed" were
called... palestinians.
certainly that term means something else now, since the "modern"
palestinians (i.e., arabs born in or descended from people living
in the jordanian and egyptian territories captured in the 1967 war
and subsequently renounced by jordan and egypt) have repeatedly
declared their desire for an apartheid state, judenrein. jews
living in the british palestine mandate (and before that, the
turkish syrian territory) were not called "israelis" because there
was no "israel." so although it is accurate to use the term in its
modern definition to refer to modern people, it is ahistorical and
dishonest to try to use the modern definition in an anachronistic
context.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 8:28AM|#
Oh please NM, TAO is all too ready to relentlessly brow beat
anyone, he's just whooped here and is playing all nice nice. His
righteous certainty is part of his bad reasoning (he has trouble
understanding opposing views because of it) and I'm doing him a
favor by not letting him squirm out of it. He can't answer the
questions posed in any way that can't be humiliatingly dissected in
a minute or so, so now he plays nice nice. Look him up in the
archives, he alternatively plays the heavy, then dissappears for a
while (I speculate detox), then comes back with the nice nice and
eventually back to the heavy.
edna
While I'd love to hear your usually funny arguments as to why
hundreds of thousands of people (many of whom cannot ever be
demonstrated to have supported violence aimed at Israel) being
ruled at gunpoint by an occuying goverment in which they are denied
the most basic political (voting), social (freedom of movement) and
economic (embargo) rights is OK (or "libertarian!), I have a family
trip today and will just address your goofy reading of the narrow
quote of mine you select. I was responding to a post that said
"there was no Palestinian homeland before 1948 so there is no real
Palestinian nation to speak of" by pointing out that even a cursory
look at history should inform one that more people had an idea of
that area as "Palestine" than they did "Israel!"
I wonder if you'd care to try to refute that the majority of
Israelis were Ashkenazis when Israel was declared a state again?
I'd guess you'd like people to forget that since you get this
incredible situation of a bunch of Europeans plopping down in the
middle of populated land which they and their ancestors had not
lived in for 20 centuries and declaring a "state!" Kind of
embarrasing for your tribe, that.
cunny-cute on the Tamil Tigers, but it strikes me you dropped out
of this conversation when I was being perfectly nice to you at 2:14
and you went off the rails with your 2:40 post about joe and I
called you on it.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 8:36AM|#
I've used a couple of sources to have to swat edna's usual move
of denying the demographic claim above though the last couple of
times he didn't even bother to try it, but in case he goes there
again here's a new quick and fun way: go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Mandate#Immigration
where you find this:
"According to official records, 367,845 Jews and 33,304 non-Jews
immigrated legally between 1920 and 1945."
"However, as anti-Semitism grew in Europe during the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (mostly from Europe) to
Palestine began to increase markedly, creating much Arab
resentment."
And then scroll down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Mandate#Demographics.2C_1920
And see the numbers. The Jewish population in the mandate, at
83,000 in 1922, was 550,000 by 1945. Even if every one of the
83,000 in 1922 were local Jews this shows pretty clearly that the
majority were wacky European Jews who had not been connected to the
area (other than in stories) for 20 centuries and who just plopped
won and said "State of Israel!"
Incredible!
edna|1.4.09 @ 8:57AM|#
given that the arab population in (whatever year you decide is
the magic one) was not autochthonous, i don't understand your line
of argument beyond, "i am personally offended by jews living
there."
immigrated legally
boom!
underzog|1.4.09 @ 9:01AM|#
Wikipedia is a poor source.
Camera letter about Wikipedia
(excerpts from the link)
"Robert McHenry, a former editor in chief of Encyclopedia
Britannica, went even farther, saying in "The Truth About
Wikipedia," a documentary that ran on Dutch public television, that
"I couldn't see how [Wikipedia] could be represented as an
encyclopedia .... It's like nothing so much as a great game. It's
the encyclopedia game, played online." It is the source of "some
very, very bad stuff," he added.
Much of that "bad stuff" is on articles about the Middle East
conflict, which are often skewed by dogmatic anti-Israel editors
who have found an easy and extremely influential venue to bash the
Jewish state.
Tellingly, those who volunteered to improve Wikipedia's
often-unreliable articles on the Middle East were themselves
targeted for criticism by partisans who seem to prefer the
Wikipedian status quo, including the pro-Palestinian Electronic
Intifada and the bigoted David Duke...." (end of excerpts)
Everyone knows that wikipedia is extremely unreliable. MNG tipped
his hand and should stop lecturing TAO about facts since he doesn't
state them.
VM|1.4.09 @ 9:34AM|#
hay MNG - you're a bit creepy with your Obi Wan lingo there. Really - put down the Dave W blow up doll and sit the next few plays out
MNG|1.4.09 @ 9:38AM|#
edna
Cute, but you know the argument I'm making(which is why in the past
you used to insist that Ashkenazi Jews did make up the majority at
the declaration).
One people: living on land for centuries.
Other people: No connection to the land for 20 centuries.
ednas of the world are in a pickle to give a coherent justification
for the legitimacy of the State of Israel. They could just say
force, but then they'd have to OK every taking of possession by
force (they kind of do this, edna used to quickly go to the "shall
we give back North Carolina to the Cherokee or Northern Ireland to
the Irish" line), but that seems obviously wrong.
Or they could say the UN fair and square gave them the land. But if
the UN grants legitimacy
Second people plop down and declare state, tell first people to
beat it to refugee camps.
edna's perrenial argument on this is: no people are autochthonous,
therefore if Israel moved into an area and took over it's OK. So
somehow no people actually own anything, even if they live there
for centuries and the other people have not for centuries. It's
laughable. Much more honest is that 1. he's Jewish and 2.
understandably roots for the well being of his people and 3. is
looking as hard as he can as a justification for the actions of his
tribe.
But why any third party would buy that is beyond me.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 9:45AM|#
Should have previewed the last one.
About the UN, if you use the British-to UN-UN-Israel chain for
legitimacy then what do you do with the UN plainly stating that all
of the post-1967 land is illegally occupied?
underzog is too easy.
1. Wikipedia is actually more accurate than you might think:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178805,00.html
2. The wiki site I linked gave the sources (they were
footnoted).
VM
Just having fun, though advice from the Urkobold is always worth
pondering. Long live Urkobold, though he be Legion let his
Influence never Wane!
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 9:48AM|#
oh, i get it, real progressives want everybody to stay where
they were born. they also want everything to stay the same as it
was. this is . . . progress . . .
thanks mng
VM|1.4.09 @ 9:50AM|#
good. gooooooooooood.
cuz the intertubez is fur teh funni!
that's known as Crane's Law (the shit's gotta be funny) of the
internets.
Named for our very own Mr. Steven Crane
underzog|1.4.09 @ 9:53AM|#
You're too easy, MNG.
You talked about the holocaust survivors as whacky European
Jews.
I recognize the phraseology. That is the way Arabs speak about the
Jewish inhabitents of Israel in Amann, Jordan.
A friend of mine snuck into Amman from the tourist city of Petra
and asked a Jordanian woman about the Jewish inhabitents of Israel
(my friend cleverly said he was from Canada -- not America). The
Jordanian woman replied that the clever and ruthless Jews were
killed off in the holocaust and all that survived were the mental
degenerates amongst the Jews.
Also, your claims of superiority against TAO; etc., are typical of
Muslim arrogance.
The Reason editors are very ignorant about the Middle East so they
would not pick up on this, but I did.
Part of the Arab/Muslim habit of lying (taqqiyah) is demonstrated
in your Mr. Nice Guy logo.
You're certainly not a nice guy.
Shul
MNG|1.4.09 @ 9:54AM|#
Yeah nobody, progressives are against people taking over other
people, even though that is a form of change. We're kind of nutty
like that.
VM
I went to the Urkobold Holy Site recently and they had all of these
blurbs from Edward but none from LoneWhacko. You guys really need
some of his cease and desist orders to go up.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 9:58AM|#
mng, so our vision of a progressive utopia in san francisco is wrong headed?
MNG|1.4.09 @ 10:00AM|#
underzog
The Zionist movement (both literally and figuratively) pre-dates
the holocaust, you know that, right?
And yes, for European holocaust survivors to move halfway around
the world to a place they had not known for 20 centuries, in which
the predominant languages which they did not speak nor the culture
did they know, was wacky.
I mean the Slavic survivors didn't move to Belize and declare a
nation.
And the fact that you know a guy who knows a bigoted Arab is pretty
worthless, unless you want people to conclude from the fact that
you are an anti-Arab bigot (I remember your postings in the past,
always undersigned with "never fear, underzog is here" in which you
commonly spoke of Arabs in the most racist terms imaginable) that
all Jews are.
Which is nutty. In fact many of the most eloquent and passionate
voices for the rights of the Palestinians and for peace between
them and Israelis are, well Jewish (kind of hurts the "anti-Semite"
card from being played against anyone who takes similar
positions).
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 10:11AM|#
mng, didn't israel leave gaza over a year ago? you must be confusing gaza with another place. no wonder your comments seem so out of place.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 10:13AM|#
I will say the debate with fluffy, robc, BDB and a few others
has really got me thinking about the question that kind of headed
this thread off: what can make certain actions undertaken during
war morally wrong? Interestingly there seem to be a couple of
factors which seem to have right-a-way appeal, but interestingly
they do not necessarily seem to go under a common philosophical
base.
1. Proportionality. While no one seems to think my military causing
more casualties to your military on the battlefield is wrong, no
one seemed to want to say that nuking thousands of soldiers in
response to, say, a single rocket attack or border raid can be
right. And there's a lot of space in between there for
debate.
2. Civilian deaths. Most people agree that you have to give special
attention to not causing them when you undertae war actions, but
few people seemed to think they are always and everywhere wrong.
Again, it's a lot of room between those poles.
3. Necessity. Some dubious actions may be justified if they end the
war quicker or in the "right" way (the morally justified side
wins). But certainly not everything can be justified by this, and
again a lot of room there.
4. Who is ultimately in the right. As fluffy says, this seems to
factor in when judging military actions, but I also think it
certainly cannot justify everything.
So I can say I've learned something from this debate and some hard
thinking has been provoked in my case...
MNG|1.4.09 @ 10:17AM|#
Yeah nobody, they "left" Gaza. They "left" it so well that they
killed 245 people that live there prior to the current slaughter.
The "left" there so well that they embargoed the nation. They
"left" it so well that they regularly use its airspace. They "left"
it so well that collect all taxes and duties at the borders "for"
the Gazans.
So like fluffy said above it's as if the whites during the civil
rights era walled up black neighborhoods, bombed them regularly,
controlled all movement of goods and persons in and out and
declared the areas "autonomous."
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 10:18AM|#
mng, true, we progressives must be passificists unless we are talking about israel.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 10:20AM|#
or like the slaughter of the peaceful, innocent MOVE people in philly just for trying to be good neighbors and being a little different too?
Fluffy|1.4.09 @ 10:22AM|#
Edna and MNG have taken the debate in an irrelevant direction.
The ethnic background of the inhabitants of the territory in
question doesn't matter. Their immigration dates don't matter.
Their "national" distinctiveness from inhabitants of other
locations doesn't matter. Their religion doesn't matter. All of
that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is that Israel, the state, established
its rule, for many decades, over a particular geographical area,
and kept the inhabitants of that area in a rightless condition. It
wouldn't matter if the inhabitants of the occupied territories were
Chinese or Nigerians or Martians. Beyond that, Israel moved
settlers into some areas, and those settlers had full citizenship
rights while their neighbors did not. Such a situation is
intolerable and those subjected to it have the right to
rebel.
If the United States seized the northern tier of Mexican states,
sent settlers in, and granted the settlers full citizenship rights
while telling the original inhabitants of those states that they
were shit out of luck, weren't citizens, had no basic rights of any
kind, could basically be shot at will if they were standing in the
street at the wrong time, and told them that the best thing they
could do was leave and go live in rump-Mexico, the United States
would be in the wrong and ethnicity, religion, what have you would
have nothing to do with it.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 10:22AM|#
"we progressives must be passificists unless we are talking
about israel."
Or in regards to your mom nobody, though there she actually
consents to take it rough, so I guess that's not so
relevant...
But if we were being serious I'd note that if joe and I are the
only progressives here then neither of us has advocated any
military force be applied against Israel so you're kind of talking
nonsense. In fact, we've both condenmened Hamas' thuggish
tactics.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 10:29AM|#
I see your point fluffy, but if the US were to go into Northern
Mexico and declare it part of the US while granting the residents
full US citizens when the Mexicans living there were against being
ruled by the US then I think you have a problem too.
And if the people that did that came from, say, Germany I think it
would be even worse.
"or like the slaughter of the peaceful, innocent MOVE people in
philly just for trying to be good neighbors and being a little
different too?"
I'm really so happy you brought this up because I think this is a
good example of what started the thread, the propotionality debate.
Let's say the Philly police had the right to "move" on MOVE, I
should think their firebombing the whole neighborhood was wrong.
Why? Because it was out of proportion, because it put non-MOVE
innocents in harms way. And this is the problem we have with the
current Israeli actions (remember, me and joe are on the record as
saying the more limited strikes that have occurred in the OPT can
be more justified).
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 10:29AM|#
mng, what is your fascination with the parents of people you
never meet. is it a feature of every set of comments you make in a
thread? you are a strange bird.
you condemned hamas and wrote about it for days and days, pages and
pages, like you did about israel? i missed it, where is it? was it
proportional?
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 10:31AM|#
mng, they firebombed a whole neighborhood? i red of it different, but you seem to know everything about this stuff.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 10:31AM|#
Remember the only thing I advocate "doing to" Israel is to
1. cut off its aid
2. stop supporting it diplomatically (those UN vetos that border on
lunacy for example)
Well, gotta travel now. TAO can slink back into the fray, it's
safe, I'll be gone all day ;)
|1.4.09 @ 10:35AM|#
"On May 13, 1985, the Philadelphia Police Department attempted
to clear a building in which the MOVE members lived. The police
tried to remove two wood-and-steel rooftop bunkers by dropping a
four-pound bomb made of C-4 plastic explosive and Tovex, a dynamite
substitute, onto the roof.[6] The resulting explosion caused the
house to catch fire, igniting a massive blaze which eventually
consumed almost an entire city block. Eleven people, including John
Africa, six other adults and four children, died in the resulting
fire.[7]
Mayor Wilson Goode soon appointed an investigative commission, the
PSIC or MOVE commission, which issued its report on March 6, 1986.
The report denounced the actions of the city government, stating
that "Dropping a bomb on an occupied row house was
unconscionable."[8]
In a 1996 civil suit in U.S. federal court, a jury ordered the City
of Philadelphia and two former city officials to pay $1.5 million
to a survivor and relatives of two people killed in the incident.
The jury found that the city used excessive force and violated the
members' constitutional protection against unreasonable search and
seizure.[9]"
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 10:40AM|#
wikiman, that is similar to what i remember. how does an explosion causing an accidental fire become a firebombing? i need to learn some progressive wording too.
Neu Mejican|1.4.09 @ 11:39AM|#
mng, what is your fascination with the parents of people you
never meet.
Wait until there is an immigration debate...
underzog|1.4.09 @ 11:47AM|#
Fluffy is far out!
Israel withdraws from Gaza (and gets missiles in return for such)
and she still complains about Israeli occupation and the Gaza based
justification for destroying Israel.
Other than Jews dying nothing will satisfy these people.
The person with the logo fluffy is also misnamed like MNG (Mr. Nice
Guy).
green mamba|1.4.09 @ 1:19PM|#
It's weird how people who will defend the right of anyone to immigrate to the West will suddenly become all blood-and-soil on the subject of Israel and 'Arab land'.
green mamba|1.4.09 @ 1:22PM|#
I guess mng would be happier if those "wacky Jews" who left for Palestine pre-WWII had stayed in Europe to be slaughtered. (What was their wacky reason for wanting to leave Europe anyway?)
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 1:30PM|#
oh yea, i forgot about the open borders stuff. this progressivism is getting complicated.
|1.4.09 @ 1:55PM|#
@MNG
"One people: living on land for centuries.
Other people: No connection to the land for 20 centuries"
True true, but these where different times eh?
When the state of Israel was formed roughly 150,000 Muslims and
Christians moved into the region designated Palestine.
When the state of Bangladesh was formed
approximately 20-30 million Hindus, Sihks, Buddists and Christians
where forced to leave the land under threat of violence.
There was no historical link between Muslims and the land, other
than a slighty higher demographic that other parts of the Indian
Subcontinent.
I never hear anyone debate the legality of the creation of
Bangladesh but obiviously the creation of Israel was an
"injustice".
I consider myself a classical liberal but I would assume no
libertarian, could support the sea and air blockade of Gaza.
However the issue here is Hamas really. They may of won an election
but they soon after executed their oposition (Fatah) so their
democratic credentials arn't to strong.
Hamas are a very very very right wing party who's manifesto would
be illegal in the EU due to its contradiction of the european human
rights act. Hamas and Hezzbollah make extremely odd bedfellows for
the socialist left in the EU or what you Americans refer to
liberals. But the streets of every captital in the EU are full of
"we are all Hezbollah now" posters and placards.
There's are no protests about the Sri Lankan governements decleared
intention to "wipe out" the Tamil Tigers. This is exactly what
Isreal intend to do to Hamas but our friends of the left don't seem
to care.
Maybee thats because "the left" really care about what happenes to
Muslims but don't care about Hindus.
Maybe its another reason but I can't think what that could be.
1000 words|1.4.09 @ 2:00PM|#
2nd pic from the top
Look like 'brown people' to me.
Ditto this guy
As well as this one.
Where da white boys at?
Or was Lysenko right? Did they all become brown by growing up in a
sunny clime?
BDB|1.4.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Jews and Arabs look very similar, especially Sephardic
Jews.
If you took a typical Israel, put him int he sun for four weeks,
and let him grow a beard, a lot of people would look at him here
and think "Arab".
That's why it's not about skin color, at all.
|1.4.09 @ 2:08PM|#
KILINOCHCHI, Sri Lanka (AP) - Battle tanks rumbled north, attack
helicopters flew overheard and artillery fire roared through the
jungles as Sri Lankan forces pushed ahead Sunday with an offensive
aimed at capturing the Tamil Tigers' last strongholds and crushing
the rebel group.
Can you even find a statistic for the number of Sri Lankans
killed?
No aid, no UN statistics, no internation demands for a ceasefire,
not a mention on the news shown here in the EU (BBC, Fox, SKY, Euro
News, Al jazeera, CNN)
BDB|1.4.09 @ 2:09PM|#
That is because 1)we don't have six million Sri Lankans living in the United States and 2)our Gods don't come from Sri Lanka.
|1.4.09 @ 2:31PM|#
BDB, you advance that there are legitimate reasons why Americans are much more interested in Israel than in Sri Lanka. Granted, but the post was not America-centric, and America's interest in Israel doesn't explain the actions of the U.N., the anti-war demonstrations in cities worldwide, the disproportionate attention paid to Israel by "human rights" groups and "international law" advocates, and the lack of same regarding Sri Lanka and the Tamils.
|1.4.09 @ 2:38PM|#
in fact, the rocket attacks increased tenfold after the
cease fire was allowed to lapse.
haha. Now that is funny. Good one joe.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 5:11PM|#
ah, yes fluffy, keeping tax monies from the palestanians in gaza
just because hamas threatens israels destruction is a blatant
violation of gazan free speech rights. that is no good reason to
stop the flow of government.
maybe under obama the israeli embargo on city planners will be
lifted so that their towns will not look so dingy. public
transportation will help too, well planned of course.
|1.4.09 @ 5:14PM|#
Not so much "funny" as "accurate" and "easily verified."
BTW, awesome seeing my troll defend the MOVE firebombing on the
same thread where she defends the Israeli assault on Gaza. Really
helps to put things in perspective.
|1.4.09 @ 5:16PM|#
That is because 1)we don't have six million Sri Lankans
living in the United States and 2)our Gods don't come from Sri
Lanka.
also, 3) did you notice the phrase "moving through the jungle" in
that news report?
Not a lot of targets in remote jungle areas, far from dense urban
areas, in the Gaza strip.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 5:19PM|#
joe, i did not know you were a military expert on top of economics. you are so awsome.
|1.4.09 @ 5:19PM|#
?it's always fun to use modern definitions in an
anachronistic way...the "modern" palestinians (i.e., arabs born in
or descended from people living in the jordanian and egyptian
territories captured in the 1967 war and subsequently renounced by
jordan and egypt) have repeatedly declared their desire for an
apartheid state, judenrein.
Way to stand up against those misleading anachronisms, edna!
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 5:20PM|#
israel broke the cease fire? joe, i would not know anything if it were not for you.
|1.4.09 @ 5:21PM|#
joe, i did not know you were a military expert on top of
economics. you are so awsome.
Um, yeah, figuring out that the Sri Lankan military campaign is
being carried out in a jungle area doesn't actually require a
master's degree from the Army War College. You could, for example,
read the news reports. Or, the clip from a news report posted on
this thread.
Or, in general, make the slightest effort to be aware of
commonly-understood and easily checked facts.
Or, you can just keep checking your unerring gut.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 5:23PM|#
wow and you spanked everybody but me without even quoting yourself
|1.4.09 @ 5:40PM|#
Mister Nice Guy,
I am not really sure what the thing you have with TAO is. As I
understand your question, it is:
If Blacks and other races deserve to be judged individually,
and not as a race (as in Afirmative action, or segregation laws),
then how come Palestinians don't?
Is that about the question?
I haven't seen any rhetoric by TAO to suggest that he doesn't
believe in human rights for all. I mean, I am not going to re-read
400 or so comments.
But the only thing I remember him really disagreeing with you in
this thread were facts or interpretations of the situation.
I don't remember him ever arguing that the people in Gaza didn't
rate human rights (as expressed in our constitution, or as
libertarians profess to believe in).
|1.4.09 @ 5:43PM|#
israel broke the cease fire? Israel and Hamas both
violated the cease fire. Israel decided to cut off talks aimed at
strengthening it, and chose instead to rachet up the tit for tat
violence that was killing less than one person a day to a level
killing dozens. Once again, easily verified facts. Not found in
your gut.
joe, i would not know anything if it were not for you. No
kidding. You didn't even know that Keynesians support paying down
public debt during economic booms.
The amount you wouldn't know unless I told you could fill two
floors of a library.
wow and you spanked everybody but me and now I've spanked
you too
without even quoting yourself Yeah, I didn't get to show
that you had completely misrepresented something I wrote this time.
Don't worry, you always fall into the same holes, so I'm sure I'll
get to do it again.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 5:51PM|#
You didn't even know that Keynesians support paying down
public debt during economic booms.
yes i did know that.
spank
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 5:53PM|#
Yeah, I didn't get to show that you had completely misrepresented something I wrote this time. when did i ever do that to my hero?
|1.4.09 @ 5:53PM|#
I am thinking that MNG and the New Mexican like to oftentimes
come in on Joe's side of the argument.
And Joe believes (if I remember correctly) that Affirmative action
is a good thing, even though it is infact racism, because it
redresses past abuse.
I am guessing that TAO opposes affirmative action, because it is at
one time collective punishment of whites (I for example am whitish,
and did not ever segregate, have a slave, nor oppress anyone), and
also probably that affirmative action gives the power to government
to devide people in groups, instead of individually.
I am guessing that you and joe support affirmative action, because
you judge the harm to be small, and the good that it does overrides
the small imorality of it.
I oppose affirmative action because I believe that government
shouldn't decide how you are treated based on race. I also oppose
it because I believe that it is ultimately counter
productive.
I follow that line of logic with the Palestinian, Israeli conflict
also. I think that Isreal while in charge of the land and its
inhabitants should treat all equally whether Jewish, Moslem,
Israeli, or Palestinian. And that what a religious book says, or
where you ancestors come from is irrelevant.
I think that puts me in the same area as Fluffy, even though he
thinks I am a bigot.
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 5:53PM|#
kwais - MNG's crush on me has spanned multiple threads. He seems
to think that somehow, somewhere, I have defended the blockade of
Gaza and the current Israeli actions, neither of which is
true.
I wish he would find someone else to constantly talk about; his
man-crush is getting creepy and annoying.
|1.4.09 @ 5:57PM|#
The amount you wouldn't know unless I told you could fill
two floors of a library.
Wait, does this mean that the amount of knowlege you have and can
share is equivalent of that which could fill two floors of a
library?
Isn't that presumptuos?
How big is this library?
|1.4.09 @ 5:57PM|#
yes i did know that (Keynesians support paying down public
debt during booms) Then why did you write exactly the
opposite?
when did i ever do that to my hero? Just about every time
you post.
|1.4.09 @ 5:59PM|#
How come no one gets a man-crush on me? I can be very
Polemic.
You got one, Joe got one, Dr T got one.
|1.4.09 @ 6:00PM|#
I'm talking one of those small-town libraries that Carnegie used
to build. Or maybe something you'd see at the head of a Common in a
New England town.
Before microfiche. Or the 'net.
OK, how about: the amount my troll wouldn't know unless I told him
needs it's own drawer in the Dewey Decimal catalogue.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 6:00PM|#
i am for affermative action because affirmative is such a powerfully positive word.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 6:02PM|#
Just about every time you post
like when? can my hero only quote himself?
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 6:07PM|#
How come no one gets a man-crush on me?
I dunno, man...maybe one day men will sit around bars and say "you
know, I don't swing that way, but if I did, that kwais..."
Israel and Hamas both violated the cease fire. Israel decided
to cut off talks aimed at strengthening it, and chose instead to
rachet up the tit for tat violence that was killing less than one
person a day to a level killing dozens.
joe, I am curious: do you believe that the current Israeli response
amounts to a grievous breach of ethics and decency, or do you
believe that the current Israeli response is a strategic error?
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 6:12PM|#
Israel and Hamas both violated the cease fire. Israel
decided to cut off talks aimed at strengthening it, and chose
instead to rachet up the tit for tat violence that was killing less
than one person a day to a level killing dozens. Once again, easily
verified facts. Not found in your gut.
it also shows that the green, low carbon footprint, hand crafrted
rockets of the palestinians are much more human friendly than the
carbon excessive planet killing arms of israel.
|1.4.09 @ 6:17PM|#
@Joe
I've read estimate of 70,000 Sri Lankans have been killed since
1980
I don't think you can really dismiss the legitimacy of military
action based on it's in the "jungle"
by that logic when you lot were bombing the crap out of Vietnam
there were no civilian casualties
What I was saying is that right now as we speak two governments are
trying to eliminate militant groups. The world is going crazy mad
about the legitimacy of one and doesn't give a shit about the
other
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.4.09 @ 6:21PM|#
mm, the problem there is that nixon was killing progressives in the jungle. see?
|1.4.09 @ 6:34PM|#
Didn't say it wasn't "accurate" or "easily verified". Just funny. Keep 'em coming.
|1.4.09 @ 6:37PM|#
TAO,
A bit of both, but more towards the latter.
MaterialMonkee,
What I was saying is that right now as we speak two governments
are trying to eliminate militant groups. The world is going crazy
mad about the legitimacy of one and doesn't give a shit about the
other
And what I'm saying is, there's a difference between the killing
the civilians and the killing of members of "militant groups" or
armies.
Not to mention, the United States, Europe, and the Middle East all
have connections with Israel and Palestine, so we pay more
attention to what goes on there.
|1.4.09 @ 6:42PM|#
MM,
Colombo Sri Lanka's military says it is closing in on the last
hideouts used by the Tamil Tigers - but the country is braced for
suicide attacks in retribution. Police set up checkpoints across
the capital, Colombo, while tanks and helicopters were said to be
poised for a final push into the jungle stronghold of
Mullaitivu, where the rebel leader Velupillai Prabhakaran is
believed to be. However, analysts say that the 25-year
civil war is far from over.
Hideouts. Jungle strongholds.
Not the densest urban area on the planet.
|1.4.09 @ 6:51PM|#
"And what I'm saying is, there's a difference between the
killing the civilians and the killing of members of "militant
groups" or armies"
according to the UN the majority of the people being killed are
Hamas militants (75 %)
(Hamas says more Israeli says less)
If the Israeli's could magically only kill Hamas would that be
OK?
Bearing in mind that Israelis are being killed
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 6:54PM|#
Kilinochchi is where the story was filed from
In fairness, it is also the city that the Sri
Lankan army captured on either the 31st or the 1st.
A bit of both, but more towards the latter.
Total agreement, although I am starting to wonder why Israel is
persisting in doing what it is doing...
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 6:55PM|#
If the Israeli's could magically only kill Hamas would that
be OK?
Uh, yes. For what it's worth, I am not totally outraged like most
individuals are at the Israeli response. I understand it, but I
think that it is a total mistake.
Again, the United States learned that "shock and awe" does not work
in conflicts like this. You would think the Israelis would know it
by now.
BDB|1.4.09 @ 6:58PM|#
I pretty much agree with TAO. It's a horrible strategic error and it will bite them in the ass while emboldening Iran, while at the same time undermining the Egyptian and Jordanian govts.
|1.4.09 @ 7:06PM|#
MM,
So, that leaves 25% civilian deaths. We're well into the three
figures now. Women, children, old men.
If the Israeli's could magically only kill Hamas would that be
OK? Fine with me. Have I ever said otherwise? Did you ever see
me complain about Israel's assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah
leaders?
Bearing in mind that Israelis are being killed There were
less than 10 Israelis killed by these rockets in the past year.
Certainly, this is a justification for Israel to take action, as
they were during the cat and mouse "cease fire."
Bear something else in mind: a great deal MORE Israelis, including
a great deal MORE Israeli civilians, have been killed since Israel
launched this military assault - just as, two years ago, the
military assault they launched on Hezbollah greatly increased the
number of Israelis killed.
It's frustrating to see this same mistake made over and over - the
conflation of "doing something" with protecting the well-being of
Israeli civilians. It's frustrating watching people who don't ask
"Is bombing and invading Gaza to get Hamas a good idea?" because
they think that military action is, by definition, always a good
idea. It was frustrating watching my own country blunder along that
path in 2003, it was frustrating watching Israel blunder along it
in Lebanon in 2006, and now it's happening again.
Sometimes, the Dow Jones goes down. Sometimes, housing values
decline. Sometimes, military adventures go badly, and fail, and
make things worse. It's not just a question of "Do you want to do
awesome, or do nothing?"
|1.4.09 @ 7:09PM|#
TAO,
In fairness, it is also the city that the Sri Lankan army
captured on either the 31st or the 1st.
Right, but it is not the rebel stronghold being hammered by planes,
artillery, and helicopters.
Total agreement, although I am starting to wonder why Israel is
persisting in doing what it is doing...
I'm starting to think that this is an effort to get more
concessions from Hamas at the bargaining table.
LGF Fan|1.4.09 @ 7:11PM|#
I'm starting to think that this is an effort to get more concessions from Hamas at the bargaining table.
Come on now joe, don't harsh my wargasm!
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 7:15PM|#
So shortsighted. The long-term health of the state of Israel is going to depend on peaceful neighbors. This will not succeed in yielding peaceful neighbors.
BDB|1.4.09 @ 7:17PM|#
TAO, I'd like to know what you and joe think of the Arab Peace
Initiative, a.k.a. the Saudi Peace Plan.
It seems reasonable to me, and would succeed in getting peaceful
neighbors and a fair price.
|1.4.09 @ 7:30PM|#
BDB,
I think it's a reasonable stab.
I question whether resettling Palestinians in other Arab countries
is workable.
I think it leaves out the necessary transfer of additional Israeli
land to Palestine in order to 1) compensate for those settlements
that aren't going anywhere and 2) achieving territorial
contiguousness between the West Bank and Gaza.
But ultimately, I don't think the problem so far is the
impossibility of solving the cartographic issues, or even the
"right of return." I think there are still too many people on both
sides who don't want a peace deal. I think there are too many
Palestinians who would use terror attacks to scuttle it, and too
many Israelis who would accommodate them by making the cessation of
terror attacks by groups opposed to the deal-making Palestinian
government a pre-condition for talks. They basically give the
most radical, violent Palestinian factions veto power over any
peace deal, because they don't want one.
BDB|1.4.09 @ 7:32PM|#
Joe--
I think the re-settlement of Palestinians in
Gulf Arab countries is entirely workable!
Do you know how many Hindu Indians Saudi Arabia imports to be
workers?
They'd much rather have Arab Muslims from Palestine.
The free-marketer in me says this is part of why they proposed
it.
|1.4.09 @ 7:33PM|#
"It was frustrating watching my own country blunder along that
path in 2003, it was frustrating watching Israel blunder along it
in Lebanon in 2006, and now it's happening again"
I don't think you can compare it to Iraq
Saddam = secular socialist
Bin Laden = trying to overthrow current Arab governments
If Bin Laden had WMD he'd be using it against Saddam.
There was no link between the two. That was a random attack on a
random country.
The 2006 war was considered a blunder but the UN peace keeping
force installed as a ceasefire term seems to be doing the job now.
If the UN move into Gaza its probably the best step towards
achieving a two state solution as then the rocket attacks will stop
which is the big stumbling block.
I should imagine trying to get a UN peace keeping force involved is
the Israeli motivation.
|1.4.09 @ 7:36PM|#
The air and sea blockade needs to go
so hopefully Fatah can convince the Israelis to do that as a
ceasefire term
|1.4.09 @ 7:44PM|#
BDB,
If the Palestinians themselves are up for it, that would be
awesome. I suspect there might be some suspicion, though: "It's
just another way to get rid of us and take our land."
MaterialMonkee,
I didn't intend to compare the legitimacy of the cases for war -
obviously, the Israelis have a much more legitimate cause vs. Hamas
in Gaza than we had against Saddam in 2003. My point was that in
both cases, the hawkish politicians and their cheerleaders strutted
around talking about how awesome it was going to be - Arab Spring!
Suck. On. This. We'll show the h8terz who's boss! - and when faced
with arguments about why things probably weren't going to work out
the way they hoped, the response isn't to consider the situation
strategically, but a lot of personal attacks on critics, wishful
thinking, willful obtuseness, and blather about anti-Americanism,
anti-Semitism, manliness, pacifism, and moral clarity. None of
which made the blunders any less tragic.
I think you might be right about the UN peacekeepers, though.
Wouldn't that be a corker, the Israelis of all people calling for
the UN to put troops on their territory?
|1.4.09 @ 7:47PM|#
so hopefully Fatah can convince the Israelis to do that as a
ceasefire term
Heh, good cop Fatah.
Hey, look, I'm with you, but that guy's CRAZY!
MNG|1.4.09 @ 7:55PM|#
Wow, if there is one thing that speaks to the magic of my posts
here it's seeing TAO play all nice nice with joe! "See, I'm not so
bad" Hilarious...
Kwais
It may suprise you to know that I oppose affirmative action. I've
done so on H&R quite a bit, disagreeing with joe quite a bit as
he could probably testify.
My beef with TAO is this: a while back he was able to work himself
into a lather about anti-discrimination laws because, while they
help a group of people who are punished by current phenomena
fostered by evil government policy of the past, they restrict the
associational freedoms of all whites, whether their ancestors
supported the evil government policies or not.
But I have yet to hear him say that Israel's blockade, it's theft
of Palestinian property through the construction of the security
wall, or its current strikes are morally wrong. I've seen him say
they are ineffective, but I find it amazing how someone can get in
a lather about anti-discrimination laws but not about the
deprivation of associational freedoms, freedom of trade, contract,
movement etc that goes on daily in the OPT.
I think it probably has something to do with what he said on
another thread, that he just doesn't care about black or poor kids
because he didn't put them in their situation.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 7:59PM|#
The Tamil Tiger stuff is fun though. Because of course we give 3
billion dollars a year and fairly unconditional support to Sri
Lanka.
The Israel thing always bothers me more because our nation can
effect their actions without risking one of our soldiers lives or
shooting a bullet, or spending one dollar (in fact we could
influence them by not spending).
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 8:01PM|#
Wow, if there is one thing that speaks to the magic of my
posts here it's seeing TAO play all nice nice with joe!
Keep giving yourself congratulatory handjobs, ol' sport. Someone
has to. joe and I have had the same position on this since the
thing started.
My beef with TAO is this...
Shorter MNG "The Angry Optimist does not get mad about the things I
get mad about...so neener neener that proves he's
inconsistent."
Ho-kay, champ. Please stop talking about me now.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 8:22PM|#
I think it was one of the Soderbergh/Che threads a few weeks ago
everyone should check out to see a quite different tone and
attitude from TAO concerning joe. Good stuff!
"Please stop talking about me now."
This is funny since you popped up on this thread talking about me
when I had not mentioned you about 100 posts in...
""The Angry Optimist does not get mad about the things I get mad
about...so neener neener that proves he's inconsistent.""
No, I just think that someone who gets worked into an angry lather
over anti-discrimination laws, on ostenibly libertarian principles,
but is not much moved by the restriction of hundreds of thousands
of people of pretty much every fundamental right a libertarian
could hold dear probably has a shady reason for hating
anti-discrimination laws so much.
Hmmm, you iirc you like to defend the South on those threads
too...
MNG|1.4.09 @ 8:25PM|#
In my experience I've found nothing funnier than when a bully
gets bullied.
They get SO mad!
But hey TAO, if you want, then truce (or in the spirit of the
thread, cease-fire). I'll let you have the last word, and I vow not
to mention or address you for the next month if you think you can
do the same.
It'll mean less education for you, but I guess I can give up on ya
;)
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 8:29PM|#
Shorter MNG: I'm going to imply The Angry Optimist is a racist
without saying.
And you wonder why I am not interested in engaging in conversation
with you.
|1.4.09 @ 8:31PM|#
the discussions about blame and proportionality it generated
is still relevant, and will probably continue to be for a sadly
long time to come
I haven't read through all the comments because I just couldn't
take it. All this apparent fog about who's to blame for what, and
who is or isn't justified in doing what, really isn't hard to see
through.
Warning: some of the metaphysical wimps here are going to have a
nervous breakdown when they hear the answers.
The world was not made for the comfort and well being of humans,
plain and simple. The "fog" surrounding this whole issue -- if in
fact there is any -- comes from the minds of the many who have,
since the beginning of time, wished that the world isn't the way it
really is.
Take a look at how monkeys treat each other in the wild. They beat
each other, they'll take each other's food, they're rude to each
other. They may not often kill each other, but that's in large part
because it's not as easy for monkeys to do.
Look now at what goes on in the Middle East. It's the same thing.
Turf wars between gangs and mobs, everybody fighting everybody to
see who gets to walk around with their tail raised up behind them.
If you raise your tail, you're inviting anyone and
everyone to come beat on your ass.
This is Nature. It is what Man is given in life, it's all that he
has to start out with. Read history and you'll find that most of
the globe, throughout most of time, has not been much different
from what you see going on in the Middle East today.
If we want to do any assigning, we have no choice but to lay The
Ultimate Blame on God (if you believe in one) who made the world
what it is. Men can believe whatever they like, come up with the
grandest philosophies, learn the greatest of truths. But changing
the way the world is, is entirely beyond Man's
capacities.
Ultimately no one but God is to blame in the Middle East. Once the
wheels start turning people simply do what they do because, they
are what they are.
The End of the question of blame. It's simple metaphysics. Life is
what it is, no more and no less.
In Nature, the whole concept of Good and Evil exists only in the
most rudimentary of forms. It amounts to little more than what
keeps you alive, and what doesn't. It is true that these conditions
are far from ideal for human beings, yet this is all that Nature
gives us to start with.
But Man has the capacity to build things that are not given by
Nature. He can build an environment where the rules are different.
Call it a House, A Tiny Bubble, A Nation-State, whatever. Within
the Bubble we can set up our own rules, and this is the realm that
our philosophies and our ethical theories live within.
Once a Bubble has been created, we can justifiably argue about the
quality of what's inside. But what we must never forget is that it
is a Bubble, and the fact that we've built it has not changed
Nature as it exists outside.
Nothing outside has changed. Our Bubbles do no revamp
metaphysics, and they never will.
The fact that nothing outside has changed, is the first thing that
people born inside Bubbles tend to forget. Or more likely, they
never learn it. Hence the apparent "fog".
Whether anyone likes it or not, there are boundaries to our
philosophical and especially our moral theories and standards.
Those boundaries are the Bubbles that we build ourselves to live
in. And when two Bubbles collide, as they so often do, the laws of
Nature are once again predominant.
Wars are going to happen. Deal with it.
The Geneva Convention may be an orgasm for pacifists and others who
wish the world wasn't so. And if two colliding Bubbles contain
similar enough moral rules, then they may be able to fight wars
according to something like the Geneva Convention. But if a nation
outside Western Europe and the US gets involved, you can bet the
Geneva Convention is more or less going by the way side. We've
already discussed the reason why.
Still, if I was an Alexander I myself, I would endeavor to
more or less follow the Geneva Convention to the extent I could.
Simply out of preference for a civilized order, over and above what
Nature gives us. Yet if effectiveness in war demanded, I would
violate it in a heart beat. Especially if I thought doing so would
save lives and/or reduce destruction in the long run. Again, out of
a preference for man-made law and order over Nature.
Nothing in the Middle East is going to settle down until somebody
pulls an Alexander the Great stunt. Alexander was a big strong
monkey who looked around at all the fighting and said, "Hey, this
is stupid. I'm going to fight everybody, and win." And he
did.
Then Alexander set up his own Bubble. But only after he knocked
everybody's heads together and subdued the masses.
What actions are or are not justified, in the process of doing what
must be done to build a Bubble? I'd argue, most anything that's
effective is justified. Because in most cases throughout history,
even Bubbles with bad contents are better than what we get from
Nature.
Law, order, and justice are not given to us by Nature. They are
imposed over top of Nature, by Man. But no ruler can impose beyond
the boundaries of the realm he effectively rules over.
Of course if an Alexander the Great rose up and attempted to
conquer the Middle East, the UN would probably stop him (if it
could). There was a budding Alexander in Egypt, somewhere back
around 1850 (sorry, I forget his name by now). He was on the road
to building an effective state in the Middle East, and was knocking
the crap out of the decaying Ottomans. But France, England, and I
forget who else stepped in and cut him down to size.
Cutting him down was, I contend, not a good thing. The Middle East
today might well be far better for it if he had succeeded. Every
nation in history, every successful Bubble that was built, was
built atop bloodshed and what we Westerners today would consider
atrocities.
Now you know why I'm no fan of the UN. Or any other European
philosophy in the realm of international relations.
Given all of this, we may still have preferences for one side or
another in the current Middle East situation. Contrary to the
persistent beat of the MSM, I have to side with the Israelis.
You could argue that Israel should not exist, because the Arabs
were there first. I understand well the case to be made here, but
by now it's a moot point. The existence of Israel is a fiat
accompli, and arguing that it should not now exist is tantamount to
arguing that no nation in all of history had the right to exist.
For surely, none of them was given to us by Nature.
In Nature the rules are simple: what is, is, and what is not,
isn't.
I side with the Israelis because they are the only ones in the
Middle East who've managed to build an actual, civilized nation. As
opposed to a third world hell hole ruled by tyrants and/or
terrorists. This is what's going on, and the failure of the Arab
states is most certainly not the Israelis' fault.
It is not the Israelis who station their soldiers amongst
civilians. It's not the Israelis who are using women, children, and
the elderly as human shields for their military forces. And it's
not the Israelis who are carrying out suicide bombings of innocent
civilians. The Israelis hit civilians only because their opponents
give them no other options when fighting back.
What I see inside the Israeli Bubble is far superior to anything I
see going inside any of their neighbor's Bubbles. And this
fact is really not Israel's fault.
is still relevant, and will probably continue to be for a sadly
long time to come.
It will continue to be relevant for a long time to come, because
our intelligentsia here in the West are a bunch of idiots and to
prove it they've created the UN. The UN will stomp out any
Alexander who attempts to rise up and put an end to the Middle East
mess.
The Middle East will not change until, first, the West has finally
grown so weak that it can no longer interfere in the natural course
of events in the Middle East, and second, a new Alexander has risen
and conquers the playground.
Note that Alexanders are not always much better to start with than
Saddam Hussein. But the empires they create may grow into better
creatures as they age. In fact, this has been the real story of all
real nations in history. Few to none of them were born with great
moral stature right out of the gate.
|1.4.09 @ 8:37PM|#
"The Tamil Tiger stuff is fun though"
your humanitarian credentials really are impeccable!
dead people in the middle east bad!
dead people in south asia FUN!!!
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 8:37PM|#
In my experience I've found nothing funnier than when a
bully gets bullied.
I'm a bully? Who is it who routinely implies that the people with
whom he is arguing failed school or are unacademic? Who is it who
routinely calls people "fags" or talks about obscene sexual acts
with their mothers?
Hint: it's not me.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 8:41PM|#
One has only to look at TAO's history of posting to see the
asshole bully that he is.
Like a lot of bullies when he knows he's met more than his match he
plays nice nice.
Sometimes. But his nature gets the best of him too sometimes.
And oh, I'll just say you're most probably a racist, you can keep
implying it without saying it.
MatericalMonkee
I meant the bringing up of the Tamil Tigers as if joe and I or
anyone who is concerned with Israel's military actions must support
the actions in Sri Lanka. That kind of arguing is fun, because its
so stupid.
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 8:44PM|#
I am called the asshole and the racist...and I am the
bully.
Amazing.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 8:50PM|#
Ahh, here it is:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130506.html
His exchanges with joe and lamar, good fun (he even brings up
Lamar's mom). Notice his gentlemanly comportment!
It's also the debut of his now famous nonsensical wonder "necessary
acts are good acts."
Kolohe|1.4.09 @ 8:51PM|#
so hopefully Fatah can convince the Israelis to do that as a
ceasefire term
Heh, good cop Fatah.
Hey, look, I'm with you, but that guy's CRAZY!
Triangulating between Fatah and Hamas has been an explicit part of
Israeli strategy for some time, I thought. At the very least, the
elections and the ensuing mini civil war won by Hamas was the
explicit reason for the ante (current) bellum Israeli sanctions on
the Gaza Strip.
BDB|1.4.09 @ 8:54PM|#
I'm really bored with the TAO vs. MNG flamewar.
Why, it's almost becoming like Israel vs. Palestine!
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 8:57PM|#
*sigh* MNG, it is obvious that you are so desperate for my
attention that you'll just do anything to get it.
Go do something with your family. Or watch a movie. Something else
other than trying to smear me constantly, please.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 8:58PM|#
Hmm, calling someone Queen Attention Whore, Douche Champion,
fucking prick, Old Man Suspenderson... And has the balls to lecture
others on gentlemanly behavior. Ah, the self righteous myopic
nature of youth.
You should've taken the cease fire young man. You're Gaza and I'm
the IDF here.
I'm going to watch the final episode of Rome now and let the Good
Honorable Sir from Buckeye land do his dance solo for a while.
MNG|1.4.09 @ 8:59PM|#
Hey BDB, I offered @8:25. No bite.
He loves it what can I say.
Masochism is more common than we might guess.
|1.4.09 @ 9:14PM|#
On why we care about Israel more than about the Tamil
Tigers;
1) Our God
2) We created Israel
3) The other people who care about Israel have oil
4) The Israeli lobby in our congress is WAY more talented and
conniving than the Tamil tiger lobby if there is one.
5) We wrongly give Israel and Egypt 3 Billion a year each.
Incidentally, i have served with Sri Lankan soldiers, so I think I
have a little anecdotal perspective on that conflict. I guess Tamil
Tiger terrorists are worse, have inflicted more casualties than all
of the different Arab terrotists combined.
And our government, though no one reads about it has put the reigns
on the Sri Lankan government a few times. Sri Lankans soldiers say
the conflict would have been over a while ago if our government
hadn't intervened.
I don't have links or anything to any of this. It is just
skuttlebut.
|1.4.09 @ 9:17PM|#
Speaking of flame wars, what happened to the libertyMike vs
Underzog flame war?
How come that didn't go down?
I was mildly interested in that happening.
Maybe it is the same person?
|1.4.09 @ 9:21PM|#
MNG,
You don't think that a reasonable non-racist person can oppose
anti-discrimination laws as a violation of freedom of
association?
I don't really oppose anti-discrimination laws, but I think that
not opposing them is the one that is logically the non libertarian
position.
Fluffy|1.4.09 @ 10:30PM|#
Shorter MNG: I'm going to imply The Angry Optimist is a
racist without saying.
And you wonder why I am not interested in engaging in conversation
with you.
Well, if the answer isn't that you're racist - and I am assuming
that's not the answer - maybe you could clear the matter up by
giving us your actual response.
For several posts now MNG has asked you to explain why the
Palestinians don't count when it comes to the basic political and
economic liberties libertarians are supposed to support, and you
won't answer. You continually produce non-answer answers like "So
now you're saying I'm a racist" or "Why are you obsessed with me"
or whatever. I'm starting to suspect that you don't have an
answer, so you will write anything but an answer.
BTW, with regard to the Tamil Tiger situation, I don't talk about
it because I frankly don't know that much about it. I also don't
know a lot about East Timor.
The Angry Optimist|1.4.09 @ 11:30PM|#
For several posts now MNG has asked you to explain why the
Palestinians don't count when it comes to the basic political and
economic liberties libertarians are supposed to support
I will say this one. last. time. I never said that
Palestinians "don't count" Fluffy. I even said it upthread. Did you
read my comments?:
For your edification.
I sure hope we're all done here. Fuck me.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.5.09 @ 4:09AM|#
mng has the most vivid imagination of all of my heros.
underzog|1.5.09 @ 5:09AM|#
The misnamed Fluffy doesn't have the decency to understand that
shelling Jews with rockets after they left a supposed occupied area
and blowing up pregnant Jewish women in buses is not an economic
and political right -- but any decent person would understand that
murder and attempted murder via terrorism is evil.
Incidentally, the misnamed MNG (Mr. Nice Guy) and Fluffy are
reminiscent of the names the Nazis took on in Germany when the
Weimer Republic banned them for a short time. The Nazi party called
themselves "The Quiet Lake, The Gentle Stream"; etc.
MNG outed himself as an Arab/Muslim with his "whacky holocuast
survivors" belief. Fluffy, I haven't read as much and really don't
want to.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.5.09 @ 5:19AM|#
underzog, fluffy and mng need to defend themselves from these
baseless zionist attacks. everybody knows that islam is the religon
of peace, oprah said so.
when obama takes over the world you will see. we will have a
glorious dialogue.
underzog|1.5.09 @ 5:43AM|#
I am humbled and chastend, nobody u no....
I think 20 out of 23 conflicts in the third world involve Islam.
Islam fighting other Islam sects or fighting someone else, but as
Ekaterina Jung points out, none of this is the fault of Islam but,
instead, the Islamophobes.
I hope someday that the Marxists of so-called Political Correctness
and the Muslims with their rock god Jallah can find it in their
heart to forgive me.
"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.5.09 @ 5:48AM|#
underzog, see how simple it is?
once the world gets over its islamophobia we can progress to proper
progressive sharing and goodness.
when the world adopts keynes-boyle boyle-keynes
economics nobody will be wanting and we will have a wonderfull
dialog.
MNG|1.5.09 @ 9:00AM|#
Fluffy
There's a reason why TAO doesn't just come out and say "I've always
said Israel is committing horribly immoral acts in regards to the
occupation of Palestine" in response to your question, and one as
to why he doesn't just quote himself directly from upthread.
Instead he links, hoping noone will take the time to click. But it
only takes a second or two to look over every one of his posts on
this thread. So what does the tape speak of when we run it?
1/3 7:47 he says "You'll note that I've generally been critical of
Israel's actions, in that they'll likely be ineffective."
So he can't say it's wrong because the Palestinians rights are
violated, but he can say it's not very effective from Israel's
point of view. I point that out to him btw at 8:15 (I'm always
trying to help the guy) but he cannot or will not answer even with
help.
@8:21 After I helped him as mentioned supra we get this exchange
(first part my help, then his response):
"Since the only thing you can find wrong with the actions is that
they are "not effective" my assessment is shown all the more to be
correct.
That depends. Is this a war or is it not a war?"
You see fluffy, he unequivocally answered whether Israeli
Occupation policies or the current actions are morally wrong. He
says "it depends!"
Later the next day @6:55 he says "For what it's worth, I am not
totally outraged like most individuals are at the Israeli response.
I understand it, but I think that it is a total mistake."
Glad he cleared his opposition to Israeli practices up there,
eh?
So fluffy it's understandable how you or anyone else can think TAO
cannot condemn certain Israeli actions as morally (as apart from
practically) wrong. All he had or has to do is just say it:
Israel's embargo is morally wrong, it's occupation of the
Palestinians as a whole people denying them the right to vote, run
for office (he actually thought they could do that until I showed
him otherwise the other day, but then when would the right wing
rags he reads ever tell him otherwise) is morally wrong.
In saying it he would show some libertarian principles. But he
cannot and will not. Why not become the natural question for
anyone. And him convincing himself that my asking it is due to an
obsession with him I guess protects him from seeing how glaring
that ommission is to ANYONE.
In fairness, I think it's actually tough for him. We're talking
about a man who confesses his admiration for Rush Limbaugh, who
consistently links to right wing think tanks when searching for
empirical facts. And those kind of sources will never foster a
principled ideology. He's young, and as he's humiliated in relying
on such nonsense he will eventually branch out beyond such sources
and as he's quite bright we'll hopefully see a bright young man
with more defensible principles.
But Rush Limbaugh will sadly become less impressive to him when
that happens. It's a fair trade I think.
MNG|1.5.09 @ 9:03AM|#
Kwais
Yes, a person can be opposed to anti-discrimination laws and not be
a racist, by all means. But I argue that a person who gets furious
at anti-discrimination laws because they restrict the associational
freedoms of some but cannot condemn the restrictions on political,
associational, economic, movement, and other freedoms incurred by
the residents of the Occupied Territories has some serious
explaining to do...
|1.5.09 @ 10:43AM|#
MNG
Affirmative action is complete and utter racist bollocks.
If your trying to derive a formula to describe a physical
phenomenon you have use an extreme situation to test if it stands
up. The same goes for social policy.
Affirmative action basically means its possible for a poor Asian
kid who is very intelligent to loose a university place to a rich
African kid of mediocre intelligence just because he's the wrong
race.
Therefore its morally wrong.
I can say quite assuredly say that if you have a working class kid
and an upper class kid with exactly the same exam results. The
working class kid is probably a hell of a lot more
intelligent.
Positive discrimination based on parents' salaries probably is very
sensible because rich people tend to pay more for private tuition
and education (private stuff is better as the libertarians say) and
rich kids typically don't have to work part time which can be a
drain on time spend for studying..
When applying for a job an IQ test will suffice. I work in
engineering had to take an IQ test. Half my department are black or
asian so there seems to be no problems there.
|1.5.09 @ 12:07PM|#
"it's occupation of the Palestinians as a whole people denying
them the right to vote, run for office"
er forgive me for correcting you here
but Palestinians had exactly those rights.
Fatah and Hamas
ran for office,
The Palestinians voted for both parties but unfortunately Hamas
won.
These right got taken away when Hamas executed all the opposition
parties
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-seizes-fatah-base-as-bloody-battles-push-gaza-towards-civil-war-452897.html
If George Bush started executing democrats I presume you'd think
that was bad
When Hamas does that suddenly it becomes Israels fault
|1.5.09 @ 12:27PM|#
The reason why people have difficulty with the situation in the
Middle east is the history of it
Clearly the embargo is wrong and the Israelis act like cunts, but
they've been pushed into by history.
I've got loads of Hindu mates who's grandparents were ejected from
what became pakistan and bangladesh in 1947 but they've made new
lives and are sad but not bitter.
In 1947 the Palestinians were given a sizeable chunk of land and
had more freedom and opportunity than most African Americans during
the same period.
They chose violence at every opportunity
1948, 1967, 1973 and now they are in a dire situation
In the same time using non-violent protest African Americans have
gone from a situation of not being able to vote or marry who they
chose to having someone as president.
MNG|1.5.09 @ 12:49PM|#
Material-I agree that affirmative action is wrong. That's what I
said above. Ending race based affirmative action is probably the
single issue I've devoted the most of my time and money to in my
life. I'm not sure where you got otherwise. I'm for
anti-discrimination laws, but very much against affirmative
action.
Palestinians can vote for and run for offices for the Palestinian
Government which is of course nothing like a real government as
Israel still controls the air space, the borders, customs and
duties collections and retains the right to enter the area at will.
How many times can this be brought up to you before you get that?
Even the Israeli's refer to this as "limited autonomy." So no, they
don't get to make meaningful decisions about their lives like
people with full political rights do.
I think forcing those folks to move to create Bangladesh, if that's
what happened, was wrong.
I would also like to see Palestinians get their rights without
recourse to violence. I don't want a single Israeli harmed.
Did I ever say otherwise?
The Angry Optimist|1.5.09 @ 1:12PM|#
You see fluffy, he unequivocally answered whether Israeli
Occupation policies or the current actions are morally
wrong.
Aww...it's called an "academic question" in an attempt to foster
discussion. I am not surprised you did not recognize it as
such.
when would the right wing rags he reads ever tell him
otherwise
I don't read "right wing rags". Casting aspersions again, eh?
who consistently links to right wing think tanks
Now you're just a liar.
He's young, and as he's humiliated...
And this continued obsession with talking about me like I am some
kind of weird scientific case study and/or a man-crush on your part
is creepy.
B|1.5.09 @ 5:58PM|#
"in fact, the rocket attacks increased tenfold after the cease
fire was allowed to lapse."
Unless these rockets attacks increased tenfold from zero, there was
never really any ceasefire to begin with, now was there?
|1.5.09 @ 8:00PM|#
@joe
"Wouldn't that be a corker, the Israelis of all people calling for
the UN to put troops on their territory?"
seems to be happening from what I'm reading
"the potential deployment of a "robust" international force along
Gaza borders was emerging as a key component of talks between
Israel and the international community.
Some European countries - notably Britain - argue that
international efforts should be mounted to reinforce Egyptian
security at the southern Gaza border to halt smuggling of weapons
by Hamas if the fighting ceases.
Such a plan envisages that the international force would
effectively be a quid pro quo for opening crossings - including for
commercial goods - as a means of reviving Gaza's economy since
Israel imposed its embargo after Hamas's enforced takeover last
June"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-takes-fight-to-the-streets-of-gaza-1228134.html
MNG|1.6.09 @ 7:58AM|#
Wow, TAO, wow.
Look, as fluffy said, you're just using this "you're obsessed with
me" stuff to continue to not answer the question and face the
situation you've got caught in.
In several instances you've loudly and proudly denounced what could
be seen as collective punishment of a group effecting a fairly
limited area of freedom (anti-discrimination laws in the U.S.
restricting associational freedom). But in a situation where there
is a collective punishment of a group on a fairly wide set of
freedoms (the occupation and embargo of the OPT restricting freedom
of movement, contract, and association) you are not only silent,
but when explicitly called upon, not just by me whom you can pout
and stamp your feet over as just 'messing with you', but others
like fluffy who certainly have no beef with you, you cannot muster
up a moral (as opposed to practical) objection to the latter.
Now fluffy might want to give you the benefit of the doubt and just
conclude that you simply don't have an answer, a reading which I
guess could be true considering you didn't know something as basic
to this debate as that the residents in the Occupied Territories
cannot vote or run for office in the Knesset (and so perhaps this
is why you've never denounced it and you're embarrassed, a common
enough trait in the young, but surely you knew what an embargo is
and that one is in effect in the OPT).
But I've seen and marked your persistent nastiness, you're
admiration of cowardly thugs like Limbaugh, your cavalier disregard
for human life, your bullying of honest guys like Lamar, etc. I
think you have an answer, one that does make your seemingly highly
anomalous views consistent, and it's this:
Collective punishment is wrong. When it effects my tribe (white
people).
This could explain the (certainly you can see) somewhat strikingly
strange of a libertarian crying foul, foul, loudly foul about a
relatively minor and limited collective punishment that fell on his
tribe, but not being able to bring himself, even when called upon,
to condemn collective punishment that falls on some darker skinned
tribe across the world.
|1.7.09 @ 6:14PM|#
Its gotta be said I don't know much about US anti-discrimination
laws so I can't say much about that.
Back in the 50's in the UK you used to get hotels etc that had pubs
saying "no blacks no dogs no Irish" and so a law was passed banning
that kind of behaviour. I can see no problem with that kind of law
and can't see the link with freedom of association.
On the palestine issue I can see why people are cynical
my view follows the line of the libertarian-marxist journal from
the UK spiked
www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6078/
As Israel's assault on Gaza enters its twelfth day, with 560
Palestinians reported dead, many people - including we at spiked -
are keen to offer solidarity to the Palestinians under attack. But
it's important to make a distinction between the anger felt by
individuals over Israel's actions and the rise and rise over the
past five to 10 years of an increasingly influential, almost
semi-official anti-Israel lobby.
"This lobby, a peculiar alliance of European officials, well-to-do
journalists, sections of the old left, anti-globalists, Islamic
fundamentalists and neo-Nazis, is drawn to the issue of the Middle
East, not because it is committed to meaningful self-determination
for Palestinians, but because Israel has become a convenient symbol
of many of the things it instinctively hates: national sovereignty;
unilateral action; forcefully defending one's interests; refusing
to bow to 'international morality'; even a sense of commitment to
modernity itself. Some very dubious arguments, emanating from a
motley crew of organisations, are being promoted under the guise of
solidarity with Palestinians"
|1.7.09 @ 6:15PM|#
In liberal circles, Israel is ultimately seen as a symbol of America, a smaller, more compact, more robust expression of what the anti-Israel lobby sees as the sins of contemporary capitalism and progress. If America is viewed by many anti-globalists and Islamic fundamentalists as the main rotten representative of destructive modernity (in Osama bin Laden's environmentalist words, America is putting 'all of mankind in danger because of the global warming resulting from the factories of its major corporations'), then Israel is seen as an even cruder, more unapologetic, militarised expression of destructive modernity (2). In contemporary debate, 'America' has become a codeword for greedy, obese, polluting progress - now 'Israel' is increasingly a codeword for progress at its most obscene, for the backward idea that, as one critic of Israel put it, the 'genocide' in Gaza represents 'the crême-de-la-crême of Judaeo-Christian civilisation' (3).
|1.7.09 @ 6:20PM|#
The new-left anti-globalists simply projected on to Israel-Palestine the simplistic politics of anti-progress that they had developed in the mid- to late 1990s. This was not about getting to grips with the complexities of an historic conflict; rather, in one author's words, it was about 'young Westerners disillusioned with their pampered modern lives' letting out a scream of angst in a part of the world where the clash between the forces of militarised modernity and ordinary people seemed most explicit: the Palestinian territories
|1.7.09 @ 6:27PM|#
Likewise, radical Islamist groups like al-Qaeda have only recently embraced the 'Palestinian cause'. If you read Osama bin Laden's statements of the past 15 years, you will notice that he says little about Palestine in the 1990s; his main concern is with the blasphemy of the Saudi rulers or with the failure of the West (ironically) to assist Bosnian Muslims. It is only at the turn of the millennium, in 2002 and 2003, that bin Laden suddenly realises that his raison d'être is standing up to 'the destruction and murder of our people' in Palestine (9). He, too, is subconsciously responding to the official and academic demonisation of Israel that followed 9/11 in particular, and adopting a cause readily recognisable in the West - Israel: bad, Palestine: good - in order to renew and re-justify his archaic, anti-modernity politics and violence.
|1.7.09 @ 6:28PM|#
Amongst young radical Islamists in Britain - some of whom explicitly model themselves on al-Qaeda and praise bin Laden - the adoption of a quite sudden and furious stance on Israel ('the great evil') and Palestine ('our people') is bound up with their sense of distance from, and disgust with, contemporary Western values. Effectively, they express their alienation from Western society by taking a noisy, spectacular, fancy-dress stand, usually in front of TV cameras, against that crudest flag-waver for the values of 'Western society': Israel. The banner carried by a group of shouting Islamists at a demo in the UK last week - 'ISRAEL IS THE CANCER, JIHAD IS THE ANSWER' - summed up both today's childish attitude to a complex conflict and the contemporary view of Israel as a kind of disease poisoning the globe, as the 'top threat to world peace'
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245