Terract in Jenin!

[Ecthy]

Even we have rules, KH...

[chequita guevara]

Floyd somehow seems to believe that rights trump reality. He's going to get himself killed one of these days.

[Ecthy]

Yeah. He'll get mugged. Then tell the bugger "hey, you have the right to take this, but I have the right to kick your arse for it" and then get shot. While falling to the ground he'll rant to himself in thought "damn, I have the right to stand not fall, why am I disturbed in my right to breathe" etc etc... he'll never learn his lesson

[Sirotnikov]

Nope. Floyd has no right to kick anyone's arse. It takes away the liberties of his poor victim/mugger.

It removes vital civil liberties, which is always a bad thing. Civilians can decide for themselves if they want to take risks, they don't need Big Brother.

Vital civil liberties include staying alive.
The curfew helps the civilians stay alive, and helps the soldiers to be concentrated on their mission.

They're fine if you get a specific warrant from a judge detailing specifically what is being looked for in every case of a search, and there is reasonable cause to believe something illegal is being done. Otherwise, they are ridiculous limits on liberty.

Hmm... And here I thought that it was the general staff that was deciding on war actions.

I'm waiting to see the entire list of warrants America got for it's Afghanistan actions

US involvement was certainly wrong, and any attacks on German civilians were wrong as well, as were restrictions on German civilians.

Aha.

So what you say, is that instead of fighting an actual war, US should have fought a legal war?

FDR: Hitler, you are breaching civil rights of your people. We can not fight you as that will hurt the civil rights of stray civilians or illegal combatants, though.

Hitler: You're right. I shall step down from power immediatelly.

FDR: I'm glad we have this resolved.

Hilter: Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!!! (slaughters 10 million civilians).

You haven't yet decided if bombing civilians intentionally was moral or not? That doesn't really seem to be a tough one to me.

Bombing specifically civilians is wrong.

Bombing an enemy productive town isn't.

The Atom bombs is a more difficult case. Not only were those productive towns, this also helped finish the war faster and with less casualties on both sides, though with heavier troubles to the japanese.

Wait a minute, curfews and searches aren't nice? I thought you said above that they were intended to help civilians? How can that not be nice, unless that is not the real intent?

That's not related.

You're using the logic
if it's intended to help civilians then it's nice.
If it's not nice it's not intended to help civilians.

But, it depends what is it compared to.

I say it's not nice compared to... say... normal life, peace on earth and prosperity.

If that was the situation, Israel would indeed be guilty of hurting the people's rights.

However, the situation is actually - war, killing, battles on the streets.

Compared to it, staying at home, being assured you won't be targetted is nice.

Therefore Israel is doing them a service.

Further, just because wars are not nice does not justify actions during war.

Not, but it justifies actions meant to make them nicer.


Che is right. You do not live in a world by Kant or Locke, yet. You have to step out to the Hobbes world and fight once in a while.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
You haven't decided if bombing 700 000 civilians without any industrial or military significance is moral or not?

Frankly, I don't know enough exact facts to decide.

It always seemed on the immoral side.

What's wrong with bombing 'nazis' ?

[KrazyHorse]

Not Nazis, Siro; dirty Krauts.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sava
And after days/weeks/months of anti-israeli trolling, it will be found out that these "civilians" all had ak-47s, explosives strapped to their chests, and maps of Israeli elementary schools.

No, it will turn out that 3 of the dead were schoolchildren who got blown up by a tank shell. Pretty crappy troll.

But it's okay to lob tank shells at people to warn them away; if someone gets killed it was an accident and no one's to blame.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Frankly, I don't know enough exact facts to decide.

So why do you keep quoting it then, if you apparently don't know what you're talking about...???

It always seemed on the immoral side.

That's because it was - vast numbers of civilians, wounded AND ALLIED POW's were burnt to a crisp in a giant open air oven!

The official excuse is that it was a transport hub, if so then destroy the transport but not flatten a civilian 'soft target'... It was 1945 for christ's sake - Germany was beaten. There was absolutely no need for this kind of mass murder of defenseless civilians!

What's wrong with bombing 'nazis' ?

That's sick, Siro. The overwhelming majority of Dresden would have been innocent of active participation in Nazi acts. Their only crime was the unfortunate coincidence on living in Nazi Germany...

Still it gains yet another insight on how your little Zionist mind works - you wouldn't like it if I turned round and said 'what's wrong with bombing Israeli civilians, they're Zionists...

I digress...

Apparently the people of Jenin thought the curfew was lifted during the day (for whatever reason) and they went to the marketplace to stock up on food (because they have to eat! ), apparently as a 'warning' Israeli tanks fired shells into the crowd...

Oh, it was an accident...

It will probably be swept under the carpet as usual. Could our Israel friends please keep tabs on this story and let us know when those guilty are court martialled and convicted of murder!



Actually, come to think of it - was anyone court martialled for the Liberty 'mistake', obviously if it was an error a bunch of high up Israelis would have been busted BIG TIME! Think of that as another concurrent task Siro et al. Maybe if you can prove there was a bunch of high ranking court martials, perhaps I might change my mind as to the brutal and unprovoked attack against the USS Liberty - cos if no one got court martialled, it wasn't an accident...

[GeneralTacticus]

Still it gains yet another insight on how your little Zionist mind works - you wouldn't like it if I turned round and said 'what's wrong with bombing Israeli civilians, they're Zionists...

What if we turned around and asked 'what's wrong with killing Palestinianian civilians, they're terrorists?' Quite apart from that, I have no idea where you got this strange idea that Zionism = Nazism from.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Still it gains yet another insight on how your little Zionist mind works -

Ahem!

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
They were Germans. Bombing Krauts is always moral.

[Gatekeeper]

It's always fun damning our predecessors for what they did in World War II from the comfort of 55 years removed, in societies that exist and prosper today precisely because Adolf Hitler and his likes lost the war they instigated. Our predecessors sure as hell weren't saints, but neither are we. I can imagine some yahoo a century from now sitting in an ivory tower, looking down on his or her own decedents while indirectly enjoying the benefits of the decisions we made in the here and now.

Hiroshima was bad. Nagasaki was bad. Dresden was barbarous. Easy for us to say, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the victors.

It's always a question: Where does one draw the line when looking back into the past? Where does the boundary exist, if one exists at all? Perhaps we should walk a mile in their shoes. Perhaps we should exist in their world for a time. Experience their mindset. Their fears. Their hopes. Perhaps only then can we realize why things were done they way they were done. And, unfortunately, some of those reasons will be stupid ones. Barbarous ones, even. But others will have been because they wanted a better world for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Us.

Gatekeeper

[David Floyd]

Nope. Floyd has no right to kick anyone's arse. It takes away the liberties of his poor victim/mugger.

Doesn't work that way - my right to liberty doesn't extend to violating someone else's right to liberty. If I decide to violate someone else's liberty, they can defend themselves.

The curfew helps the civilians stay alive,

Yes, and Big Brother knows better than the people themselves, doesn't it?

and helps the soldiers to be concentrated on their mission.

Why do you think I give a rat's ass about the soldiers?

I'm waiting to see the entire list of warrants America got for it's Afghanistan actions

A)Slightly different situation
B)You are correct - if we wanted to bomb Afghanistan we should have declared war, and we should never have trampled private property rights without the consent of Afghan courts.

So what you say, is that instead of fighting an actual war, US should have fought a legal war?

No, the US should have fought no war at all.

Bombing an enemy productive town isn't.

The Atom bombs is a more difficult case. Not only were those productive towns, this also helped finish the war faster and with less casualties on both sides, though with heavier troubles to the japanese.

Both Germany and Japan were already thoroughly beaten by the time of Dresden and the firebombing/atomic bombing of Japanese cities. It was unnecessary, but even if it had been necessary for victory, victory would not have been worth incinerating innocent civilians.

That's not related....blah blah blah

OK, we both know damn well that the curfews/searches are meant to protect Israelis. Israel doesn't give a flying **** about the Palestinians and their rights.

Gatekeeper,

It's always fun damning our predecessors for what they did in World War II from the comfort of 55 years removed, in societies that exist and prosper today precisely because Adolf Hitler and his likes lost the war they instigated. Our predecessors sure as hell weren't saints, but neither are we. I can imagine some yahoo a century from now sitting in an ivory tower, looking down on his or her own decedents while indirectly enjoying the benefits of the decisions we made in the here and now.

So basically, don't condemn immoral actions in the past, because if things had been done differently history might have come out a different way. Is that what you're saying? If so, we might as well not condemn any immoral actions at all, even present ones - who are we to judge, eh?

Hiroshima was bad. Nagasaki was bad. Dresden was barbarous. Easy for us to say, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the victors.

Actually it's a lot easier for the survivors of Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki to say than it is for us to say.

It's always a question: Where does one draw the line when looking back into the past? Where does the boundary exist, if one exists at all? Perhaps we should walk a mile in their shoes. Perhaps we should exist in their world for a time. Experience their mindset. Their fears. Their hopes. Perhaps only then can we realize why things were done they way they were done. And, unfortunately, some of those reasons will be stupid ones. Barbarous ones, even. But others will have been because they wanted a better world for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Put yourself in Hitler's shoes. He thought that by enacting the Final Solution, he would make things better for Germans.
Put yourself in Truman's shoes. He thought that by incinerating civilians, he would make things better for Americans.

Regardless of perspective, both actions are morally reprehensible. Good intentions? Maybe - but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the end cannot justify the means.

[TCO]

DF, it's ok to kill innocent military, but not innocent civilians? Quite a mideaval point of view. Remember Pearl Harbor...

[David Floyd]

DF, it's ok to kill innocent military, but not innocent civilians? Quite a mideaval point of view. Remember Pearl Harbor...

Actually I don't think war is OK, except in self-defense.

As to your argument about killing innocent military - come on. If someone is charging you with a gun, or trying to destroy your ship or airplane, it's OK to fire back. If someone is sitting at home drinking tea and playing gin rummy, it's not OK to shoot at them.

[chequita guevara]

The military, by definition, is not innocent.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
So why do you keep quoting it then, if you apparently don't know what you're talking about...???

I don't recall mentioning the bombing of Dresden that often.

It seems to me you are just so exhilarated to find some issue which I don't know as much about, hoping that this time I won't notice your ignorance and twisting of the facts.

Don't worry, I've got others covering me.

That's because it was - vast numbers of civilians, wounded AND ALLIED POW's were burnt to a crisp in a giant open air oven!

The A-bombs were much much worse. The question is, whether it saved lives in the long-run. It appears that the A bombs have, and Dresden haven't.

And here's yet another sign of your hypocricism.

You seem to have capitallized and boldened the mentioning of Allied POWs.

That suggests, that deep inside you are infact a bigot, since your care for allied p.o.w.'s, which means legal combatans - soldiers, seems to be much greater than your care for innocent civilians, solely because the POWs were allied.

What does it mean? It means that you care for the allied soldiers more than you care for the german civilians.

Now doesn't that sound like something you are accusing Israelis of doing?

You f*cking two faced biggot.

The official excuse is that it was a transport hub, if so then destroy the transport but not flatten a civilian 'soft target'... It was 1945 for christ's sake - Germany was beaten. There was absolutely no need for this kind of mass murder of defenseless civilians!

Most probably it was indeed useless.

That's sick, Siro. The overwhelming majority of Dresden would have been innocent of active participation in Nazi acts. Their only crime was the unfortunate coincidence on living in Nazi Germany...

No no no no, you go tell that to your friend, CyberGnu. CyberGnu doesn't believe in innocent people. If they weren't actively resisting the Nazis, then they are as guilty. CyberGnu said.

I don't remember you criticizing CyberGnu. Infact, you seemed to like his way of thought very much.

Still it gains yet another insight on how your little Zionist mind works - you wouldn't like it if I turned round and said 'what's wrong with bombing Israeli civilians, they're Zionists...

That's what your best pal CyberGnu is saying. I remember you only flattering him. I guess that for you bombing Germans is wrong, while bombing Jews is alright.

Apparently the people of Jenin thought the curfew was lifted during the day (for whatever reason) and they went to the marketplace to stock up on food (because they have to eat! ), apparently as a 'warning' Israeli tanks fired shells into the crowd...

No, actually Israeli tank fired shells near the crowd, and one accidentally hit really near a crowd. That's why there were so little casualties. If the tank had shot into the crowd, there'd be dozens of dead.

You again get a kick out of twisting things.

Oh, it was an accident...

Yeah, and so was US troops killing Candians (iirc) several months ago in Afghanistan. What are you going to do about that?

It will probably be swept under the carpet as usual. Could our Israel friends please keep tabs on this story and let us know when those guilty are court martialled and convicted of murder!

I don't think you have any friends, be they Israeli or not. Well, Saddam and Bin Laden might be an exception.

So that's what the light coming out of your ears means... You have an idea! I thought your brain was on fire from overload. My bad.

Actually, come to think of it - was anyone court martialled for the Liberty 'mistake', obviously if it was an error a bunch of high up Israelis would have been busted BIG TIME!

There were several inquiry comittees into it. I don't know what were the consequences except it being labeled a mistake.

Think of that as another concurrent task Siro et al. Maybe if you can prove there was a bunch of high ranking court martials, perhaps I might change my mind as to the brutal and unprovoked attack against the USS Liberty - cos if no one got court martialled, it wasn't an accident...

Only, if you would be so kind to provide me evidence of court marshalls of American troops which killed their own foes and allies in afghanistan.

Of course, if there wasn't a court martial, it wasn't a mistke



See ya, stooge.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, the pilot that bombed those Canadians may be court marshalled.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Doesn't work that way - my right to liberty doesn't extend to violating someone else's right to liberty. If I decide to violate someone else's liberty, they can defend themselves.

So you can defend yourself, no matter whether you are a victim or not, in the simple picture?

Then, Israeli soldiers can infact defend themselves, by enforcing a curfew, since when people are not allowed to roam the streets, there's less chance they will hurt IDF soldiers.

Yes, and Big Brother knows better than the people themselves, doesn't it?

Again, the concept of war seems to grasp your fragile understanding.

The world does not have an absolute Kantian morals system. Beings do not "radiate rights". I remember about arguing about that too.

When there is war, the Army does it's best to defend itself and defend civlians.

Anyway - look at the consequences which obviously prove I am right.

The civilians decided to go out, the soldiers weren't sure who they were, fired warning shots, one of which accidentally killed 4 people.

You seem to live in a wierd twisted world with a globe encompasing and absolute evil "big brother" which forces himself on civilians.

This is not at all the case.

There are many bodies, which care about civilians in different measures, and have their own interests, which affect the civlian life.

Why do you think I give a rat's ass about the soldiers?

Then why should the soldiers give a rat's ass about you?

The soldiers are simply trying to defend several rights for life, by preventing friction between civilians and military, thus minizing civilian losses.

A)Slightly different situation

How?

B)You are correct - if we wanted to bomb Afghanistan we should have declared war, and we should never have trampled private property rights without the consent of Afghan courts.

So you suggest that even when declaring war, you have to get consent fof military moves from the enemy nation?

Are you as thick as you appear?

No, the US should have fought no war at all.

But instead should have begged for forgiveness?

The US was as brutally attaked by a thug, as you were in our imaginary scenario a few posts above.

And the US has a right for self defense, even if did something to anger the thug, into attacking.

That self-defence is the war on afghanistan and persecution of terrorism.

Both Germany and Japan were already thoroughly beaten by the time of Dresden and the firebombing/atomic bombing of Japanese cities. It was unnecessary, but even if it had been necessary for victory, victory would not have been worth incinerating innocent civilians.

Incinerating innocent civilians is never a nice thing, unless done on brunches .

However, the US government believed at the time, that this was the necessary ultimate force, to stop the war immediatelly.

Infact, as they believe, and their belief is shared by several historians, they have saved more lives than they have taken.

Because, if not for that bombing, the war could have go on for several more years, more civilians would have been conscripted and killed in battle on both sides.

You have to admit, that it is better to win by a KO in the second round, than fight your way into the 15th round, when you and your opponent will be severely beaten.

OK, we both know damn well that the curfews/searches are meant to protect Israelis. Israel doesn't give a flying **** about the Palestinians and their rights.

Not at all true.

Israel has been supplying Israeli produce to stores in between curfews.

Israel has been helping several palestinian companies export their products to europe, which they couldn't do because of curfews and transportation limits.
Israel has helped send Palestinian flowers, citrus fruits and more, to europe.

The curfews save lives on both sides. When there is less contact between civilians and soldiers, the soldiers have less people to be suspicious about.

the end cannot justify the means.

To this I agree.

However, even then there is a perspective.

Sometimes, it's better to do things which will have a better effect in the long run.

It all depends on what is the morality of the end and how the means compare to it.

Suppose we want to save the world from some disease. Excellent idea!

But to do that, we decide to kill every carrier of that disease, so he won't infect his sorrounding. Now, that is immoral and is wrong.

However, if we choose to quarantine them, and we choose to vaccinate the rest of humanity, it is the right way of action.

Even though, putting quarantine on people is wrong.
Even though, forcing people to get vaccination is wrong.

Why is it the right course?

Because we are using means which inflict the least amount of damage to human and civil rights, in order to assure the protection of life of humanity as a whole.


So I agree, dropping the A-bombs wasn't completely right using this defenition for justifying generally wrong acts.

A better thing would be to drop A-bombs in unpopulated areas, or in the sea, where it could be seen.

That way a very similar effect of shock would have been achieved, and no civil life loss.

[GePap]

I hate the idea of self-defense.
It is always aout self- defense, isn't it? When is an act not self- defense? Lets say person A-kills person B. Now person C, related to B, syas "hey, A wanted to kill me and B, so I have to defend myself". The person C goes and kills D and E, both of which helped A kill B. Here is where the problem starts. Person F (ar we keeping up?), related to E, says "person C, who killed D and E, would also kill me, since I knew A (again, the issue of self-defense). The way to defend myself is to kill C, and maybe also G, both of whom want me dead.

Does person F have the right to deend themselves against the possible attacks of C? Some would say no, since they helped kill B (where it all begun), yet Hobbes said that self-defense was the only right tha leviathan could never take away from anyone. So, if F is being hunted down by C, why doesn't F have the same right to kill as did C? The issue then or course is that this is an endless cycle, not of violence, but of cowadice and self-rationalizing. unitl someone in this cycle decides to be brave enough to forget about self-defence and think about rght and wrong, the violence never ends. saly, the only people currently forgetting about self-defence are those who also forget about right and wrong and go commit crimes against innocent, the suicide bombers. veryone else is a coward, too busy feeling sorry about themselves and justifying why they have the right to feel sorry about themselves and keep the killing going.

Well, damn them all, all those that invoke self-defense. Your lives aren't worht that much anyway. Why don't you decide to take the risk (I don't doubt how great it is) and do what's right instead? most likely you will find that it will also save your skin.

hat are the practical inplications for this risk taking, not self-defending (ie. cowardly, greedy, ineffectual) policy? One, stop 'defending' yoursleves from occupation and settlements and stop killing innocent people. Stop 'defeding' yourselfs from attacks by crushing civil rights and denying political and human ones.


But this won't happen for a while of course, becuase in truth, neither side is acting out of self defese (only 2000 people have died since 9/2000 in this area, compare that to the much larger number of deaths in central africa, or hell, Colombia!) bu out of political and historical ideology. Palestininas refuse to accept Israel and their accomplishments because they beleive it invalidates thier own rights and history and gives up their historical homeland. Israelis refuse to recognize the palestinians either (as for Likud) because it destroys a practical politcal aganda (Greater israel) or, in eneral, because they fear that recognizing the crime against the Palestinians invalidates their state or thier many achievements. eeryone is too afarid to recognize that they have wronged the other for fear that then they can't claim to be the victim. Well, get over yourselfs. both of you are the victims, bot of you ae guilty.

[GePap]

Forgive the spelling above, as I typed this while angry at the general and stupid bickering in this thread, but of course, all threads on the Middle East end in stupid bickering.

[Sirotnikov]

well, i don't think we've recognized all of our shame, but the pals recognized much less.

sorry for it being a "they are worse" post, but, we need two to tango.

Most Israelis already accepted that Pals are here to stay and that they have the same rights for this land.

Most palestinians haven't accepted it yet.

And the real problem - Israel has a democratic government - meaning, the israeli public can choose it's policy.

Palestine has it's policy set by tyrants who started their way in the 60s and continue to hold the same political views.

That's why it's important to replace Arafat and friends.

why not Sharon? because Sharon will fall automatically as soon as Israelis see a hope for peace.

Arafat and his similars, are infact tyrants and will not change.

[GePap]

Siro:

I agree with you that there has been an open debate in israel and tha many israelis recognize their faults, but you are not being convincing by blaming Arafat for the problems of the Palestinians. Yes, I agree with you completely that Arafat is ineffectual, authoritarian, and highly corrupt. But he has been in power there only since 1993 at best. What about the time from 1967 to 1993? He wasn't in the occupied territories then, Israel was. Did Israel try to help the Palestinians initiate their own debate? There was a small ray of hope when in the eighties the palestinians got to elect some local officials, but in the end, israel quashed all semi-democratic practices in the occupied territories until 1993, when Arafta took that job over. If the palestinians don't have a democracy and have not been able to hold the same open debate as Israelis, that is as much Isales fault as Arafats, when one looks at how long each of those two sides had civil control.

I have no problem with seeing Arafat gone, but not if the end result is more stifling of the possibility of an open and democratic Palestinian debate, and such a debate certaintly won't happen under a new Israeli occupation. To carry out a debate you need newspapers and you need the ability to protets and form groups and move around and speak and voice opinions, just like the Palestinians that sent that ad to Al Quds have. But under curfews and martial law this won't happen. With checkpoints and armed raids this won't happen.

Until someone can find a way to foster this open debate, which has been denied the Palestinians for so long while trying to reing in the militants who already oppose such a debate then there wont be peace. sadly a man like Sharon, or the current US admin. don't have the scrupples, guts, brains or balls to try the radical solutions that may be called for.

[Sirotnikov]

Well, before actually starting a democratic government one should actually get out of the medieval ages.

And basically Israel is reponsible for any quality of living the Palestinians had.

Israel slowly did try to initiate political debate, but often it went into places Israel didn't want it to go (anti-israeli) so Israel stopped it.

Obviously, quite stupid, but nevertheless, it's what we did.

Infact, Marwan Barghoutti and several others have been supported at times by Israel... and sat in prisons at other times, for their duty in the Intifada.

Democracy doesn't grow out of nowhere, and the Palestinians had to grow into a culture of democracy. There's a reason why democracy doesn't exist in the Arab world - the arab world wasn't ready for it. It takes getting used to and some intellectual process. (of course, not to say they had no intellect, but rather they didn't think in that direction. for them it was theocracy or patriarchic feudalism).

Arafat, when came to power, has only done worce for their democracy. Not only has he jailed resistors and critics (much like Israel did under it's military law) but he also practically stripped the only real Palestinian somewhat democratic bodies of all power. Did you ask yourself what was the last thing the PNC (Palestinian National Councel - their parliament) did?

However, I can tell you more.

After 1993, Israel tried to invest alot into Palestinian education and joint projects for universities and educational centers arose.

Sadly, the people who are often invited to give lectures there, are religious clerics, and Hamas and Jihad are like Fraternities there.

There are several Palestinian newspapers, some controlled by the government, some free, everyone threatened and bullied by Police or Fatah-Tanzim (militia like non-official force. Kinda like the Black shirts or SA).

Again, you talk about curfews and martial law - but don't forget that curfews and martial law are only back in palestine since december 2001 when Sharon actually invaded for longer periods of time.

And each time we pull out -there are newspapers. some even quoted on CNN (sadly, only when the content fits their pro-palestinian p.o.v).

But from 1993-2001 there were newspapers. THere still are. But Arafat's police threaten them, put them in jail or steal their evidence. So how is that free press?

Not to mention- a debate is going on. But since Arafat's grip is still very tight (unlike Pals claim, Israel mostly hit Arafat's personal militia and some intelligence mechanisms, and not his police force) and in anycase, they are not used to shifting leaders out of power.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Most Israelis already accepted that Pals are here to stay and that they have the same rights for this land.

Excuse me???

Listen to what you're saying...

This was Palestinian land in the 1st place (that is, of the population living in Palestine - including about 10% Jews), how the hell can you turn round and say 'the colonists have now decided that the natives are here to stay???'

What, because after 50 years of ethnic cleansing those stubborn SOB's still won't go away?

As for having the same rights...? What are you, a comedian?

Most palestinians haven't accepted it yet.

Funny that, they get invaded, they are forcibly evicted/have to flee for their lives, their land is stolen from them and they have no right of return...

On top of that, what land they do have is occupied, is still being stolen by Zionist settlers to this very day!, they have farmland and houses routinely bulldozed... etc, etc...

You really are funny in the head if you think this is acceptable treatment to the Pals...

Put yourself in their shoes - just try it. Imagine what the average Palestinian refugee family has been through - try and figure out how p1ssed you'd be if you were them...

[Sava]

MOBIUS, the Israeli settlers are only reclaiming the land that was stolen from them. Ever read the bible, torah, qu'ran?

[David Floyd]

So you can defend yourself, no matter whether you are a victim or not, in the simple picture?

What? Self defense is only applicable when you are a victim of an assault. And what simple picture do you refer to?

Then, Israeli soldiers can infact defend themselves, by enforcing a curfew, since when people are not allowed to roam the streets, there's less chance they will hurt IDF soldiers.

That's a bad analogy, because in the process of defending myself, I can't take out an Uzi, spray down 4 innocents and my aggressor, and say it was legitimate self defense. No, there are two acts, one is self-defense in killing the person attacking me, and the other one is four counts of murder.

However, that doesn't even apply to the situation we are discussing, because Israel is, in fact the original aggressor. The Palestinian suicide bombings which Israel claims is the aggression are actually Palestinian attempts at self defense. They are also murder, though, when they kill civilians rather than soldiers or government officials. But this doesn't justify Israel in doing the same thing.

Again, the concept of war seems to grasp your fragile understanding.

No, I quite understand the concept of war. I hate the concept, and I think that wartime is never a justification for trampling any civil liberties, but I do understand what war is.

The world does not have an absolute Kantian morals system. Beings do not "radiate rights". I remember about arguing about that too.

Of course beings don't radiate rights - beings possess inherent and absolute natural rights.

When there is war, the Army does it's best to defend itself and defend civlians.

But it ceases to be self-defense when civilians are killed, we covered that above.

Anyway - look at the consequences which obviously prove I am right.

The civilians decided to go out, the soldiers weren't sure who they were, fired warning shots, one of which accidentally killed 4 people.

Let's make another example. Let's say 6 people walk towards me, and I can't tell if they are hostile or not, so I throw a grenade in their general direction as a warning, but end up killing some of them, it's still murder.

You seem to live in a wierd twisted world with a globe encompasing and absolute evil "big brother" which forces himself on civilians.

This is not at all the case.

It certainly is in most countries, including the US.

There are many bodies, which care about civilians in different measures, and have their own interests, which affect the civlian life.

They may or may not care about civilians, but they care about their own interests more, which is the problem.

Then why should the soldiers give a rat's ass about you?

He doesn't have to care, but he has a moral obligation not to murder me.

The soldiers are simply trying to defend several rights for life, by preventing friction between civilians and military, thus minizing civilian losses.

Yes, but this wouldn't be a problem if Israel wasn't invading the West Bank/Gaza.

How?

For one thing, it was a civil war, and we didn't recognize the Taliban.

So you suggest that even when declaring war, you have to get consent fof military moves from the enemy nation?

No, but in war civilian rights - even property rights - are still absolute and inviolable, regardless if they are American, Israeli, Palestinian, or Afghan.

But instead should have begged for forgiveness?

The US was as brutally attaked by a thug, as you were in our imaginary scenario a few posts above.

I was talking about Germany - we actually shot first against them.

And the US has a right for self defense, even if did something to anger the thug, into attacking.

Yes, we certainly had a right to self-defense against Japan, because aggressive war is never justified, but it must also be remembered that the war wouldn't have happened at all if we didn't cause it through economic and, to a lesser extent, diplomatic means.

However, the US government believed at the time, that this was the necessary ultimate force, to stop the war immediatelly.

Infact, as they believe, and their belief is shared by several historians, they have saved more lives than they have taken.

Yes, the US believed it was acceptable to trade Japanese/German civilians for American soldiers.

But that is totally unacceptable.

Because, if not for that bombing, the war could have go on for several more years, more civilians would have been conscripted and killed in battle on both sides.

Not really - Japan had no access to any resources. Morally, we should have let food and medicine through the blockade, in order to spare civilian lives, but a war machine can't function without oil, etc. Further, we could probably have achieved a surrender by dropping atomic bombs in unpopulated areas, although this would still be wrong because of radiation poisoning, but in light of the fact we weren't really aware of the danger at the time, I could not criticize that action today.

You have to admit, that it is better to win by a KO in the second round, than fight your way into the 15th round, when you and your opponent will be severely beaten.

Yes, unless in the process of KOing him in the 2nd, you also KO his trainer, manager, cut man, and the referee.

Israel has been supplying Israeli produce to stores in between curfews.

Israel has been helping several palestinian companies export their products to europe, which they couldn't do because of curfews and transportation limits.
Israel has helped send Palestinian flowers, citrus fruits and more, to europe.

None of which addresses the fact that curfews are in place to protect Israel and Israeli lives.

The curfews save lives on both sides. When there is less contact between civilians and soldiers, the soldiers have less people to be suspicious about.

I suppose that's true - if you're doing what you're supposed to, you have nothing to worry about, eh?

Can't say I agree with that philosophy, seeing as how it is a justification for severly curtailing civil liberties, but whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

To this I agree.

However, even then there is a perspective.

Sometimes, it's better to do things which will have a better effect in the long run.

You just contradicted yourself - do you think the ends justify the means or not?

It all depends on what is the morality of the end and how the means compare to it.

You seem to misunderstand the phrase - what it means is that immoral means cannot justify moral ends.

Suppose we want to save the world from some disease. Excellent idea!

But to do that, we decide to kill every carrier of that disease, so he won't infect his sorrounding. Now, that is immoral and is wrong.

If they are human it certainly is.

However, if we choose to quarantine them, and we choose to vaccinate the rest of humanity, it is the right way of action.

Even though, putting quarantine on people is wrong.
Even though, forcing people to get vaccination is wrong.

Forcing people to get a vaccination is of course wrong. However, putting sick people in quarantine is not wrong, because most likely this "killer virus" - let's say Ebola, for example - renders people unable of moving around anyway

Because we are using means which inflict the least amount of damage to human and civil rights, in order to assure the protection of life of humanity as a whole.

So then you think the ends justify the means. You also believe in something called the "common good", or "good of society". At least we established that much.

So I agree, dropping the A-bombs wasn't completely right using this defenition for justifying generally wrong acts.

"Wasn't completely right"? This implies that it was right at all, which it wasn't unless you believe the ends justify the means, which you clearly do.

A better thing would be to drop A-bombs in unpopulated areas, or in the sea, where it could be seen.

I agree.

[Sirotnikov]

@ Mobius.

You know, using so many smilies in the same post only makes you seem like more of a clown.

The avarage Palestinian refugee family had no deal with the Jews. The avarage Palestinian refugee family was told in the 20s by it's greedy leaders that the jews are the sons of satan and we can't have them settling in the same neighbourhood.

The avarage Palestinian refugee family helped perform sabotage and massacare against Jews who were simply settling in Palestine, whether on their own bought lands, or on free lands, just like other immigrants from other countries did.

The avarage Palestinian refugee family might have had part of it's family immigrate to Palestine in the late 19th century, when Palestine began to develop work opportunities, or in the 20s of the 20th century, for the same reason.

The avarage Palestinian refugee family, fled Palestine in 1947 on thier own, following the announcement of a suggested partition plan, knowing that the Arab armies would attak.

The avarage Palestinian refugee family heard rumors about the jews, whether from arab friends or religious leaders and decided to leave.

The avarage Palestinian refugee family has relatives which were forcibly removed from their homes, just like Jews were removed from their homes in areas being invaded by Jordanians.

The avarage Palestinian refugee family, has fled to Lebanon, to see thousands of it's brothers slaughtered by the Lebanese.

Now they live in Lebanon with no rights what so ever, and no chance of getting a normal life.

Or maybe they lived in the refugee camps in the west bank and gaza. They weren't allowed to form normal homes then, and aren't allowed to now, under Arafat their 'beloved' leader.


Don't you white ass "I'm gonna lower my intelligence to have some friends" go telling me what the average Palestinian refugee family has been through.

You with your fake pseudo-intellectual sympathy can never understand what people here are going through and where they are coming from.

Maybe you should stick to your newly acquired friends, who like you being dumber.

[Sirotnikov]

I don't think that the end justifies the means. Which means, I don't believe in using "any measure" to get the end.

However, when you have several means to get to an end, you should strive to choose the one which is the most effective and the least harmful.

Killing 100,000 and ending the war is better than having the war continue 3 more years, thus killing 3,000,000
(example figures).

Obviously killing 0 and ending the war is even better, but who knows what went on in their minds.

I do think that killing 100,000 is better than killing 3,000,000 which is why, dropping the bombs was right.

It could have been more right, if they had dropped them in the sea.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Sava
MOBIUS, the Israeli settlers are only reclaiming the land that was stolen from them. Ever read the bible, torah, qu'ran?

Right.

Can the Celts get Britain back now?
(hey, and why don't we return the entire world to its original configuration in 2000BC?)

(and iirc, it's the qur`an, not the qu'ran.)

[Sava]

Maybe in your country. In my Religious Studies book from last semester its "qu'ran".

If there were 10 million Celts that have been escaping persecution for over a thousand years, and they wanted to settle in England, and every major religious scripture that mentions the Hebrews speaks of Israel belonging to them, promises England to the Celts, I would have no problem with them reclaiming the land.