What's Kind of Civilian Killing is Worse? | 54 comments (54 topical, 0 hidden)
Bad Logic (none / 1)
This question is wrong, and the logic is bad. The Palestinians initiated this recent nonsense. Their rockets interrupt Israel's commerce and happenings-- and they have for several years. They force people to flee to shelters for hours. They destroy property. "There were only 7 casualties last year." Uh... and? THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE F--ING DIED.

On CNN they read an email from a guy who said that during all 5 of his visits to Israel he was forced to flee to a shelter because Hamas was launching missiles at it.

I'm tired of this "only 7 were killed last year" nonsense. DON'T F--ING DO IT, you morons. It's really that simple. They don't have a leg to stand on.

by FlaccidMember on 01/04/2009 11:50:23 AM EST

is it really? (none / 0)
So what would you have the Palestinians/Hamas do?
Remember that:
1. Their land was taken from them by force
2. Israel did build a big wall around the litte land that the Palestinians have left and imposed blockades on it (both illegaly)
etc


So you think that the Palestinians should just peacefully accept that? Maybe if you were in their shoes you would do the same thing, who knows?

Killing is always wrong, BUT when the palestinians dont have the military means to break an illegal blockade that hs been imposed on their land for example and want to strike back on Israel then how do you do it?

By the only means availible: rockets and suicide bombings (hamas have not conducted those for over a year now).

I think FM that you see the whole conflict in black and white - but its not that simple.
And btw maybe the Palestinians did initiate "the recent nonsense" but its not crystal clear if they did or not.

by DrT on 01/04/2009 02:14:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
blah blah subject who fing cares (none / 0)
"1. Their land was taken from them by force"
__________

Debatable. In my opinion, only tiny tracts of land were "taken by force." I've read "The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz. He actually makes the case that NOTHING was "taken by force."
This "justified because it was taken by force" argument is nonsense on its face. By this rationale, The Cherokee Nation, Navajo Nation, etc. have a right to launch random missile strikes against the United States. Such an occurence would probably amuse me.. until our government destroyed them. The other analogies of Cuba or Mexico launching strikes against us is not farfetched. We ALL know that we would destroy them-- without the patience that the Israelis have displayed, and definitely without a single care about "proportional violence" (whatever the hell that means).

"2. Israel did build a big wall around the litte land that the Palestinians have left and imposed blockades on it (both illegaly)"
____________

Great. Hey, I know the best way to combat such things: fire missiles at it randomly for several years. Actually, that's just fucking stupid. When the Israelis invaded Gaza the Palestinians claimed DELUSIONAL things about their destruction, which caused me to wonder if Hamas believes that through the power of magic Muhammed they can actually destroy a superior military force.

"And btw maybe the Palestinians did initiate 'the recent nonsense' but its not crystal clear if they did or not."
__________________

Almost every flare up of violence in the Mid East and every debate about such flare ups is nonsense to me because it is mostly rooted in religion. "Native Americans" would not dare to attack U.S. states with the inevitability of their destruction because they don't have the Palestinians' religious fervor against us. The&n bsp;Israelis would probably regard the Palestinians better if they shared the same religion.

Aaaand, finally, yes, they DID initiate it-- it's a fact that not even Arab countries dispute. They oppose the ground offensive, but they supported or were silent about the air strikes BECAUSE they know that the Palestinians were out of line.

by FlaccidMember on 01/04/2009 04:31:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
let me respond (none / 0)
"Debatable. In my opinion, only tiny tracts of land were "taken by force.""

But you do admit that there were bits of land taken by force? And even if the rest were not taken by force you think that the Palestinians just gave their lands to the Israelis and then had a change of hearts?

"This "justified because it was taken by force" argument is nonsense on its face. "

Please give me concrete examples why you think so because if someone would kick me out of my home/ country I would try to get it back. Just because Israel has the means to "crush" the palestinians you think they should?
Sure if some native americans would today be angry about their landloss I would understand it. But it wouldnt give them right to fire rockets with intention to kill people, thats not what Im saying. What I AM saying is that I do understand their situation. And it seems to me that you think that the Palestinians should simply accept what has happened to them? Would you do the same thing? 

"Great. Hey, I know the best way to combat such things: fire missiles at it randomly for several years. Actually, that's just fucking stupid."
 
Yes, indeed its very stupid and unjustified. But with no other means to strike back and with so low education level - how would you combat what you think are the invaders?

"Almost every flare up of violence in the Mid East and every debate about such flare ups is nonsense to me because it is mostly rooted in religion. "

It shouldnt be nonsense to you, its never nonsense when people are dying and struggling. Yes there is almost always religion involved in the middle east, but it occur on both sides.

"Aaaand, finally, yes, they DID initiate it-- it's a fact that not even Arab countries dispute."

Please read next topic.

Again you seem only listen to one side in this conflict and not trying to understand the other side. Sure some Palestinians are killing Israelis but the threat is almost more theoretical than practical. There is a lot of hoplessness, poverty, unemployment and even starvation among the Palestinians. Surely it cant be that hard to see why they would strike against Israel.

by DrT on 01/04/2009 05:14:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Cherokee Nation, Navajo Nation, etc??? (none / 0)

Although I liked your Native American analogy, you're a little off.  The Cherokee Nation, Navajo Nation, etc. did fight to get their land back.  Remember the American Indian Wars?  American records list over 300 years worth of battles, and a lot of people died on both sides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Indian_Wars

the US fought them to submission and nearly extinction, but eventually we gave them equal rights as Americans and autonomy as sovereign people.  The Palestinians have none of this.  If we built walls around Native American territories, restricted their trade, sent in armies to occupy their streets and removed all of their freedom, liberties and hopes for the future, I assure you we would still be fighting.

Is Israel willing to do what we did to the American Indians? This war has been going on for decades, and bombing civilians hasn't made Israel any safer.

Maybe they should just skip to the end and give the Palestinians equal rights, freedom and sovereignty, like the US eventually did with the Native Americans. 

by YourLeftOne on 01/06/2009 12:01:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"this recent nonsense" (none / 0)
You can conveniently say that the recent violence began with Hamas' Qassam rocket attacks but that opinion and the mainstream media fueled conventional wisdom it represents is short sighted. What I'm about to say may look like an angry tirade because there's no inflection in text communication so know that I mean no offense, fellow young turk. To say that the fact that Israel's revenge has killed disproportionately more people doesn't matter because the rocket attacks from Gaza "interrupt Israel's commerce and happenings" is laughable. The Israeli army controls the air space, territorial waters, offshore maritime access, population registry, entry of foreigners, import and export of goods as well as the tax system in Gaza and they've abused this control to collectively punish the Palestinians. There is an extreme shortage of food, fuel and medicine in Gaza as a result of the military blockade. Gaza is being starved. The Israeli military continued to collect VAT taxes on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in calendar year 2007 but refused to hand over the collected revenue to the government or alternatively return it to tax-paying citizens. They've also seized the assets of Palestinian banks (at gun point) and curtailed the flow of sheckles into the occupied territories. Gaza is being robbed. Compare hiding in a bomb shelter for a few hours to living in the world's largest ghetto.

by sovnarkom on 01/04/2009 04:40:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nonsense. (none / 0)
Yeah, wonderful, man-- let's assume that your allegations are all true.

No one is answering this question: does is justify the constant daily stream of rockets into Israel? Is there a better means of proesting the Israelis? Apparently you guys believe that there isn't a better means of protesting them.

This is all Deductive Logic 101 to me, but it's expected because I understand how human beings view things. They take one side of an argument then everything else about the other side is warped or meaningless to them. To me and anyone else who has a firm grasp of logic, the issue is "who is initiating the violence? Who has outright declared war against the other side?" You can say "the Israelis did this and that covertly 20 years ago and this and that 15 years ago and that thing with the thing 5 years ago, therefore Israeli civilians should just take missiles up their asses daily and try to go on about life as normal." Beautiful. To me, it's bullshit.

When blacks protested violently&nb sp;in Watts during '65 and around the nation during '92 I guess you guys would make the case or made the case that based on America's history it was all justified. In fact, blacks should have taken it a step further-- maybe they should have formed their own colonies, declared war against the states then launched random missiles against the U.S. I don't know... and I'm starting to think that I don't WANT to know how people who side with Hamas think.

I will say that I would never label Hamas "a terrorist organization" because it's counterproductive to Palestinians' sovereignty and the long term stability of the region. Our moronic politicians label Iranians terrorists without a second thought, so it's also expected.

In conclusion, you guys are f--ing crazy. No, I kid.

by FlaccidMember on 01/04/2009 05:17:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
100% right, 0% wrong (none / 0)

in my humble opinion.

There's a reason the Palestinians are often shown throwing rocks as weapons. 

Seems to me that Israel was already itching for an excuse to bomb the shit out of Hamas.

by desertpear on 01/04/2009 05:30:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Question (none / 0)

Can't you see how much of a one-sided view that is?

The Palestinian civilians who die DON'T LAUNCH THE ROCKETS.

They are equally as innocent as the Israeli civilians who are victims of the rocket attacks.

They also shouldn't have f-ing died.

The only solution is peace.

One-sided views will not lead to peace.

by huwrj on 01/04/2009 08:12:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Listening to Cat Power + not wanting to title shit (none / 0)
"The only solution is peace."

Yes, I agree. Maybe you should have told the Palestinians that peace is the only solution before they elected Hamas leaders. Maybe you should have told them that peace is the only solution before they pissed away millions of dollars on missiles to provoke Israel-- millions of dollars that could have been spent to improve their education  and general welfare.

Peace is great, man.

by FlaccidMember on 01/04/2009 10:37:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]

What's Kind of Civilian Killing is Worse? | 54 comments (54 topical, 0 hidden)