This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Israel, Honourable Defender or Aggressor?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
There is a huge difference between "oops I killed one, I'm going to stop doing whatever it was that lead to his death," and "oops I killed one, and I didn't intend it so oh well" and then move on "accidentally" killing more.
Again, my argument still holds with reference to the medical community and the washing of hands between / during operations and overprescription of drugs. But you're too busy ignoring me to notice that fact. Carry on.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Again, my argument still holds with reference to the medical community and the washing of hands between / during operations. But you're too busy ignoring me to notice that fact. Carry on.
I told you I'm done arguing with you.
Besides I already answered that.
Post by
Squishalot
What, you're done because I told you that your yardstick of terrorism is stupid? Grow a pair already.
And no, you didn't answer that. You said:
A doctor who's patient dies generally didn't intend to kill.
You also said:
The problem is that the killing of innocents is inexcusable in my book. Circumstances have no bearing. And thus it's the perfect measure.
So, ignoring the circumstances, anything that results in the death of innocents is inexcusable in your book, and thus, the perfect measure of 'wrongness' or terrorism. And that, presumably, includes the intentional gunning down of civillians, negligent use of explosive devices utilised by military professional, and negligent provision of services provided by medical professionals.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What, you're done because I told you that your yardstick of terrorism is stupid? Grow a pair already.
I'm done because you're an obstinate #$%^&*!, I'm an obstinate @#$%^&*, and the second any one of our arguments turns to nitpicking or name-calling I leave, because at that point there is no point.
Why do I have to explain this for the second time this thread?
Post by
Squishalot
OOH OOH, WHAT IF MARTIANS LANDED! AND GOD WAS REALLY A WOMAN. AND IT RAINED MEATBALLS!
Because you started with the theatrics in this thread, so it seems somewhat hypocritical, especially when I'm presenting an entirely reasonable argument (which DoctorLore accepted in a separate thread, though on a slightly different spin) that your measure of terrorism is flawed.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Like I said:
obstinate ^&*!@#$
I don't need you to justify yourself or your argument to me. I understand completely.
What you don't seem to understand is that no matter what I say, you're not going to accept my position; and no matter what you say, I'm not going to accept yours. I'd like to think you're beyond taunting a guy who walks away from a confrontation, knowing it's futile. Last time that happened to me, it was a 13, or so, year old.
Providing a spirited debate that the whole community can read and participate in is a great thing even though we ourselves will get nowhere in the end. Bashing heads repeatedly in the futile effort of forcing each other to agree is not. Maybe you don't see or agree with that distinction, which is fine. But you should at least respect the fact that I see it, and I think it's important.
Post by
Squishalot
This is where you're wrong:
What you don't seem to understand is that no matter what I say, you're not going to accept my position; and no matter what you say, I'm not going to accept yours.
I am open to positions in most circumstances (but not all, I will concede). Granted, I will be an obstinate #$%^&*! and grill it until it's charred and blackened, but if it survives that, then I'm willing to accept it. I'm not claiming to have a good idea of what a terrorist is, and so, I'm willing to consider different suggestions, but I'm not going to accept something that I don't believe is correct. The reason you're not going to accept my position is simply because
I don't have a position
on this as yet. Perhaps this is why we're bashing heads over it.
What you've basically done in the last 5 pages of this thread is spit in my face, then walk away saying that you don't want a confrontation. You and I have had a lot of good arguments over the last year here, but that's just too much, really.
Again - I am looking at your idea of 'terrorism' with an open mind. If you can demonstrate to me that killing civillians is a good measure and yardstick of a terrorist, then I'll be all for it. But just as DoctorLore's proposition that 'a terorrist is someone who causes fear in others', it has the drawback of mislabelling certain people whom you don't want included in your definition. That's not an attack on you, that's me saying that your definition needs a bit of work. Please try to remember that.
Post by
MyTie
No, they aren't. Do they make it their policy to kill innocents? Killing innocents isn't justified, this is true. This must be handled appropriately, however I don't believe it is their generally accepted practice, as it is in Iran, Thailand, N. Korea, etc. They have no governmental policy that allows for innocent people to be gunned down. That is a noteworthy factor in my opinion. No military can be expected not to make mistakes, but at least they realize that these are mistakes.
What is this silly word "policy"? Just because something is not in writing doesn't mean it's not happening. Innocent people are dying because of the goverments' decisions. Year after year. That's the distinction I was making earlier between terrorism and contained terrorism. If you can contain your killing of innocents within the confines of an occupation or a blockade, then modern society doesn't seem to care, and you get away with it.
There is a huge difference between "oops I killed one, I'm going to stop doing whatever it was that lead to his death," and "oops I killed one, and I didn't intend it so oh well" and then move on "accidentally" killing more.
In this case, if Israel didn't have the blockade, I could see the possibility of many millions of people dieing. It is a tough tough decision to put up a military blockade, and it will invariably cause people to die. Argueing that just because people die it should desist is not considering all the factors. It is heinous, and terrible, but the alternatives might be moreso. The solution is not to simply drop the blockade, but to find a long term solution to the attitude of the Middle East. Dropping that blockade is calling for the destruction of Israel. That doesn't seem right, even if the blockade does cause death.
Post by
Squishalot
It is a tough tough decision to put up a military blockade, and it will invariably cause people to die. Argueing that just because people die it should desist is not considering all the factors. It is heinous, and terrible, but the alternatives might be moreso. The solution is not to simply drop the blockade, but to find a long term solution to the attitude of the Middle East. Dropping that blockade is calling for the destruction of Israel. That doesn't seem right, even if the blockade does cause death.
That doesn't sound like the MyTie who advocates not killing, even though the lack of killing will result in further killing, simply because it means that you yourself didn't kill and didn't break God's laws.
Post by
Heckler
It is a tough tough decision to put up a military blockade, and it will invariably cause people to die. Argueing that just because people die it should desist is not considering all the factors. It is heinous, and terrible, but the alternatives might be moreso. The solution is not to simply drop the blockade, but to find a long term solution to the attitude of the Middle East. Dropping that blockade is calling for the destruction of Israel. That doesn't seem right, even if the blockade does cause death.
That doesn't sound like the MyTie who advocates not killing, even though the lack of killing will result in further killing, simply because it means that you yourself didn't kill and didn't break God's laws.
Indeed, if you drop all the Middle East context and only keep the basic moral principles at work in your statement, it does seem to be in direct opposition to statements you've made in the abortion discussion. I'm not saying that means you're a hypocrite, its just interesting that you seem to be able to hold two views which appear to be polar opposites on the surface, at the same time (i noted another instance of this on Page 3 as well).
Also:
GAZA: Israel opens border for snack foods, but Gazans aren't biting
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And
that
, folks, is why I walk away from debates with Squish without saying anything usually.
Dropping that blockade is calling for the destruction of Israel.
The Palestinian government has been running on the publicly stated platform of "get Israel out of Palestine and East Jerusalem" since 2006. That is a far cry from then destruction of Israel.
Also:
GAZA: Israel opens border for snack foods, but Gazans aren't biting
"Gisha is pleased to learn that coriander no longer presents a threat to Israeli security."
Victory through superior food flavor!
Post by
Orranis
Barring any foods at all was a stupid idea that makes there enemies more angry at them, I really have no idea what they were trying to accomplish by starving civilians.
Even so, I am angered by Israel because it comes with much less then half the population and demands half of Palestine for it's own state, kicking thousands out of their homes, not to mention getting thousands of Jews who lived in surrounding areas kicked out of theirs, and victimize themselves when they are attacked.
After, when the attacks have finally died down, they instigate a vicious blockade, which I might be okay with if it didn't get people killed and it was for their safety only, not to starve civilians into doing... what exactly?
Also, they do a lot more than that. There's plenty of brutality from Israeli army towards Gaza civilians, not to mention tanks and bulldozers rolling in and destroying houses for no real justified reason.
Essentially, in my view, Palestine is justified, even if their not doing the 'right' thing, Israel is not.
Not to mention I think the whole idea of Zionism is Hitler's greatest triumph.
Oh, and not to mention that Israel looks politically bat^&*! insane, and laugh worthy "self hating Jews and anti-Semites" list, which is basically anyone who does not support Israel.
Post by
Squishalot
And
that
, folks, is why I walk away from debates with Squish without saying anything usually.
What, because I don't have a firm opinion?
Post by
MyTie
It is a tough tough decision to put up a military blockade, and it will invariably cause people to die. Argueing that just because people die it should desist is not considering all the factors. It is heinous, and terrible, but the alternatives might be moreso. The solution is not to simply drop the blockade, but to find a long term solution to the attitude of the Middle East. Dropping that blockade is calling for the destruction of Israel. That doesn't seem right, even if the blockade does cause death.
That doesn't sound like the MyTie who advocates not killing, even though the lack of killing will result in further killing, simply because it means that you yourself didn't kill and didn't break God's laws.
I agree. It is the more acceptible ground, in my mind, to allow death, instead of killing to save life. However, I have also made it very clear that this would probably NOT be practiced by me in the case of my family. Morally correctness and practicality aren't always the same. I wish I were strong enough to always take the high ground. However, point a gun at my family, or, better yet, import some nuclear weapons next door and demand that we leave: The Palestinian government has been running on the publicly stated platform of "get Israel out of Palestine and East Jerusalem" since 2006. That is a far cry from then destruction of Israel.and we are going to have problems. I can completely understand what Israel is doing. HSR, Iran is involved in the inporting of stuff to Palestine. Chocholate, jam, machine guns, and I wouldn't put explosives past them either. Really, you already know this. Let's stop ignoring the elephant in the room.
Post by
Heckler
However, point a gun at my family, or, better yet, import some nuclear weapons next door and demand that we leave and we are going to have problems.
Even if
you're
currently blockading those neighbors front door, pointing guns at them, and you have no need to import nuclear weapons because you're sitting on a large stockpile of ready-to-blow warheads?
I can see what you mean by 'ignoring the elephant in the room' concerning the existential threat facing Israel -- but you have to be able to see this from the other side, at least a little... right?
Post by
MyTie
However, point a gun at my family, or, better yet, import some nuclear weapons next door and demand that we leave and we are going to have problems.
Even if
you're
currently blockading those neighbors front door, pointing guns at them, and you have no need to import nuclear weapons because you're sitting on a large stockpile of ready-to-blow warheads?
I can see what you mean by 'ignoring the elephant in the room' concerning the existential threat facing Israel -- but you have to be able to see this from the other side, at least a little... right?
Of course. I'd love to dismantle every nuclear weapon on earth, with the assurance they would never come back. However, Israel is quite a bit more "stable" than Palestine. That is one of the things I was talking about earlier with taking different factors into consideration. Palestinian leadership changes, their allies change, their allies are terrorist organizations, etc. While I don't think that makes it ok for Israel to have nuclear weapons, or the US to have nuclear weapons, etc, I certainly want to look at the bigger picture. If you have a relatively stable neighbor to your left with a gun, and a threatening, mood swinging, violent neighhbor to your right with a gun, you are probably going to be more leery of the right neighbor. That doesn't mean you are completely comfortable with the neighbor on your left.
One doesn't make the other ok. That's not what I am saying. I'm just saying they aren't comparable.
Post by
Heckler
Fair enough -- for the record, I agree with you on this, I think if I
had
to give one side a nuclear weapon, I'd probably choose Israel.
But to continue to try to see it from the other side, the reason they're so violent and "mood-swingy" has basis in Israel's own actions (or perhaps, in their own existence).
Post by
Squishalot
Fair enough -- for the record, I agree with you on this, I think if I
had
to give one side a nuclear weapon, I'd probably choose Israel.
But to continue to try to see it from the other side, the reason they're so violent and "mood-swingy" has basis in Israel's own actions (or perhaps, in their own existence).
The question is, if Israel stopped its actions, would Palestine be less violent and 'mood-swingy'? (That's quite an amusing term)
Post by
Heckler
The question is, if Israel stopped its actions, would Palestine be less violent and 'mood-swingy'? (That's quite an amusing term)
I think a lot of the anger is in the fact that Israel exists at all (at least, in its current location), so probably not.
Post by
Dragoonman
Could just merge it all into one big country with free passage for all around it.
Problem solved?
Well... accept for Gaza.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.