Gaza Strip

[alanschu]

People's lack of logical arguements astound me.

 

Although it was you that commented that murder of innocents is never acceptable, yet accept the mass slaughter bombings because it "may have saved lives."

[EnderAndrew]

I was under the impression that they went in without UN approval.

Again, Bush said he believed he already had UN approval on two grounds.

 

1 - The cease-fire was based on Iraq's total duplicity, which the UN said didn't exist. Thusly, we had an initial authorization from the UN to go into Iraq, and the cease-fire was made null and void.

2 - Right after a 9/11, the UNSC passed another UNSCR saying comply immediately or else, and then found they weren't complying. Two years later, we figured the "or else" clause kicked in.

 

The UN did authorize the war officially and made it all legal after the fact.

 

Since the invasion began without the explicit approval of the United Nations Security Council, some legal authorities regard it as a violation of the U.N. Charter. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal." [2] There have been no formal charges under international law.

The opinion of one individual does not change the fact the UN did officially sanction the war.

[Commissar]

Doesn't anyone have a response for this:

 

If Palestinians are justified in murdering innocent civilians (which they aren't) because of a land grab 50 years ago, then Jews should be justified in killing everyone of Roman descent, or Egyptian descent for the times they were forcibly removed from their homeland.

 

Let's throw Germany in there for good measure.

 

People's lack of logical arguements astound me.

 

I think I'll just keep repeating it until someone does come up with a response to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Repeat it all you want, but it doesn't have any bearing on what we're talking about.

 

Nobody is justifying murdering innocent civilians; we're justifying Palestine's desire for a state of its own, and its desire to have its land back. How they're going about it is quite frankly of little interest to me. I will observe, however, that they seem to be well on their way to accomplishing their goal, so they must've struck on a workable method.

[EnderAndrew]

Now you've called me a liar and a hypocrite.  What's next, anti-Semite?  Honestly, Ender, I know that Comissar wanted more active political debate on the forum, but I don't think he meant that we should sink to that level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you use UNSCR as the definition of legal and illegal.

 

You recognize the UNSCR against Israel, but don't recognize UNSCR recognizing the war in Iraq as being legal.

 

By claiming it doesn't exist, you lie. Refusing to accept your own source is hyprocritical.

 

And I called the two specific actions either lies or hypocritical. I did not label you specifically a liar or a hypocrite. I'd wage we've all lied or acted in hypocritical fashion in some point in our lives. I have not said that you lie more than another for instance, but merely pointed out one instance where you are lying.

[alanschu]

The opinion of one individual does not change the fact the UN did officially sanction the war.

 

Even if that one individual is speaking on behalf of the UN?

 

 

When did the UN officially sanction the war?

[Commissar]

I was under the impression that they went in without UN approval.

Again, Bush said he believed he already had UN approval on two grounds.

 

1 - The cease-fire was based on Iraq's total duplicity, which the UN said didn't exist. Thusly, we had an initial authorization from the UN to go into Iraq, and the cease-fire was made null and void.

2 - Right after a 9/11, the UNSC passed another UNSCR saying comply immediately or else, and then found they weren't complying. Two years later, we figured the "or else" clause kicked in.

 

The UN did authorize the war officially and made it all legal after the fact.

 

Since the invasion began without the explicit approval of the United Nations Security Council, some legal authorities regard it as a violation of the U.N. Charter. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the U.N. charter point of view, it was illegal." [2] There have been no formal charges under international law.

The opinion of one individual does not change the fact the UN did officially sanction the war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This belongs on a different thread.

[Commissar]

People's lack of logical arguements astound me.

 

Although it was you that commented that murder of innocents is never acceptable, yet accept the mass slaughter bombings because it "may have saved lives."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Score one for Alan.

[EnderAndrew]

Repeat it all you want, but it doesn't have any bearing on what we're talking about.

I'll prove you wrong with your own words. Let us continue.

 

Statement #1

Nobody is justifying murdering innocent civilians; we're justifying Palestine's desire for a state of its own, and its desire to have its land back.

Statement #2

How they're going about it is quite frankly of little interest to me.  I will observe, however, that they seem to be well on their way to accomplishing their goal, so they must've struck on a workable method.

 

I won't call you a liar, but you made two contradicting statements. They can't both possibly be true. So pick which one is true, and let me know which statement you made isn't true.

 

You justify their methods and yet say no one is justifying their methods.

 

I have also quoted others justifying their methods, so I'm going with statement 1 being wrong.

[Commissar]

Repeat it all you want, but it doesn't have any bearing on what we're talking about.

I'll prove you wrong with your own words. Let us continue.

 

Statement #1

Nobody is justifying murdering innocent civilians; we're justifying Palestine's desire for a state of its own, and its desire to have its land back.

Statement #2

How they're going about it is quite frankly of little interest to me.  I will observe, however, that they seem to be well on their way to accomplishing their goal, so they must've struck on a workable method.

 

I won't call you a liar, but you made two contradicting statements. They can't both possibly be true. So pick which one is true, and let me know which statement you made isn't true.

 

You justify their methods and yet say no one is justifying their methods.

 

I have also quoted others justifying their methods, so I'm going with statement 1 being wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I guess I was prophetic when I earlier stated that "justified" means different things to different people, wasn't I?

 

Let me make it a little more clear: I didn't say the Palestinians' methods were morally right.

 

I said they were working.

 

There's a big difference. That, to me, does not justify them. Then again, I'm not a neo-con, "End justifies the means" type.

[EnderAndrew]

People's lack of logical arguements astound me.

 

Although it was you that commented that murder of innocents is never acceptable, yet accept the mass slaughter bombings because it "may have saved lives."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Score one for Alan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bombing a military target where "civilians" work is different from bombing an elementary school.

 

And how does bombing an elementary school save lives?

 

Your inability to see the difference proves your ignorance in this manner.

[Commissar]

People's lack of logical arguements astound me.

 

Although it was you that commented that murder of innocents is never acceptable, yet accept the mass slaughter bombings because it "may have saved lives."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Score one for Alan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bombing a military target where "civilians" work is different from bombing an elementary school.

 

And how does bombing an elementary school save lives?

 

Your inability to see the difference proves your ignorance in this manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We weren't referring to pinpoint bombing of military targets in which civilians die; we were speaking of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and the countless other cities that were bombed into near-rubble by the Allied bombing campaign in World War II.

 

And since we've got a moderator waiting in the wings for something to justify (there that word is again!) shutting the thread down, I'd advise a little less heat.

[EnderAndrew]

Well, I guess I was prophetic when I earlier stated that "justified" means different things to different people, wasn't I?

 

Let me make it a little more clear: I didn't say the Palestinians' methods were morally right.

God, you are a trip! You just feed me with ammo all day long.

 

You said you didn't care. The fact that you didn't see murder as wrong says that you feel their methods are justified. Perhaps you should read your own posts.

 

There's a big difference.  That, to me, does not justify them.  Then again, I'm not a neo-con, "End justifies the means" type.

How do you keep contradicting yourself?

 

You're not justifying them, but the end justifies the means and they are working?

 

Since they worked in the end, they are justified!

[EnderAndrew]

There is no grounds to close the thread that I know of save for someone calling me a racist.

 

If I said "this comment comes across hypocritical" I have not attacked a person.

 

I however have been attacked personally. Again, people fail to see distinctions when important distinctions exist.

[Commissar]

Well, I guess I was prophetic when I earlier stated that "justified" means different things to different people, wasn't I?

 

Let me make it a little more clear: I didn't say the Palestinians' methods were morally right.

God, you are a trip! You just feed me with ammo all day long.

 

You said you didn't care. The fact that you didn't see murder as wrong says that you feel their methods are justified. Perhaps you should read your own posts.

 

There's a big difference.  That, to me, does not justify them.  Then again, I'm not a neo-con, "End justifies the means" type.

How do you keep contradicting yourself?

 

You're not justifying them, but the end justifies the means and they are working?

 

Since they worked in the end, they are justified!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll try to clarify: I see murder as wrong, in most cases. That doesn't mean I particularly care if it happens. If some dude in Kansas gets killed because he's cheating on his wife, I don't stop my day.

 

I also specifically said that I am not an ends-justify-the-means type. Shooting the guy who gets on my nerves at work would put an end to the problem of him getting on my nerves; that doesn't mean it's justified, in my eyes.

 

Again, to be clear: I do not believe that the given outcome of a particular action thereby assigns that action any moral tone.

[EnderAndrew]

I totally misread your statement. I thought it said "I am an ends-justify-the-means" type of guy.

[Commissar]

I was kind of wondering.

[EnderAndrew]

Let's go back to this:

If Palestinians are justified in murdering innocent civilians (which they aren't) because of a land grab 50 years ago, then Jews should be justified in killing everyone of Roman descent, or Egyptian descent for the times they were forcibly removed from their homeland.

 

Let's throw Germany in there for good measure.

You say it isn't relevant, but the primary arguement in this thread is that Palestine has a right to practice terrorism because of a land grab.

 

This destroys that arguement.

 

I'm waiting for a new arguement and I've seen one.

[alanschu]

Bombing a military target where "civilians" work is different from bombing an elementary school.

 

Like the people living in Dresden. Or Japan.

 

 

But if you think the bombs of Hiroshima or Nagasaki were merely attacking military installations and industry, then I don't know what to say.

 

Those bombs were dropped because they would cause heavy duty loss of life, in order to pound the enemy into submission.

 

 

Fortunately for Israel, they can do whatever they want and just write it off as "intelligence that indicated their were insurgents in the area." Then the BBC and CNN will report that and then people like yourself will swallow it up at face value.

 

Not that I'm surprised. Like you yourself has stated, they've been under attack pretty much forever. To not want some sort of "payback" would be unusual to say the least.

[EnderAndrew]

Those bombs were dropped because they would cause heavy duty loss of life, in order to pound the enemy into submission.

If the purpose of the bombs were to kill civilians and cause massive loss of life, then they would have been dropped on Tokyo. There were dropped on small towns that had small populations, yet held military and strategic value.

 

Steve was the one that brought up the point, and his own source said the targets were chosen because of their military value.

 

Dresden was another issue since Germany was already defeated. That was flat-out wrong. The bombing of Dresden didn't save any lives, or do anything other than work out frustration.

 

Fortunately for Israel, they can do whatever they want and just write it off as "intelligence that indicated their were insurgents in the area."  Then the BBC and CNN will report that and then people like yourself will swallow it up at face value.

I've seen both CNN and BBC broadcast plenty of anti-Israeli news. His source only told one side of the story, and there are conflicting reports. Without a reputable news agency, the facts are in doubt.

 

Not that I'm surprised.  Like you yourself has stated, they've been under attack pretty much forever.  To not want some sort of "payback" would be unusual to say the least.

And yet instead of destroying Palestine, which they could with their military might, they force their own citizens out of the Gaza Strip instead. Truly their intent is to kill any Palestinians they come across!

[Commissar]

Let's go back to this:

If Palestinians are justified in murdering innocent civilians (which they aren't) because of a land grab 50 years ago, then Jews should be justified in killing everyone of Roman descent, or Egyptian descent for the times they were forcibly removed from their homeland.

 

Let's throw Germany in there for good measure.

You say it isn't relevant, but the primary arguement in this thread is that Palestine has a right to practice terrorism because of a land grab.

 

This destroys that arguement.

 

I'm waiting for a new arguement and I've seen one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My argument has never been that Palestine has a right to practice terrorism because of a land grab. My argument is that Palestine had a right to a state including the lands that previously belonged to it.

 

I asked you before if someone who battles an oppressive government by targetting civilians is a terrorist or a freedom fighter, since the two definitions intersect, and that is in fact what's going on. I have a pretty good idea of what your answer is, but like I also said, it doesn't much matter.

 

Some Palestinians have chosen terrorism as a way to get what they want. Based on the pullout from Gaza, it seems to have worked. Whether it's right or wrong isn't the point, at all, nor is it the point of this thread.

 

The point of this thread was you being upset that Jewish settlers are being pulled out of their homes by soldiers. It's not the Palestinian soldiers doing the pulling; it's the Israeli ones. The Israeli government decided to pull out of Gaza, for whatever reason. You see it as a result of Palestinian terrorism, and that does indeed doubtlessly play a great role in this decision. But whereas you assign all the blame on Palestine and leave Israel in the role of the martyr, I assign equal blame to both.

[Commissar]

If the purpose of the bombs were to kill civilians and cause massive loss of life, then they would have been dropped on Tokyo.  There were dropped on small towns that had small populations, yet held military and strategic value.

 

Steve was the one that brought up the point, and his own source said the targets were chosen because of their military value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You really do have to be kidding. If we were concerned with only taking out the military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, B-29s dropping conventional bombs would've done just as well, and not leveled the cities.

 

The atomic bombs were dropped to show Japan we could obliterate their cities at will if we chose to do so. End. Of. Story. We couldn't drop it on Tokyo, because that would've resulted in, most likely, the Emperor's death. Aside from being a bad political move, there was a fifty-fifty shot at that simply strengthening Japanese resolve to fight to the last.

 

We dropped them to level cities, not to take out specific industrial targets within those cities. Any suggestion otherwise is ludicrous.

[EnderAndrew]

My argument has never been that Palestine has a right to practice terrorism because of a land grab.  My argument is that Palestine had a right to a state including the lands that previously belonged to it.

Yet you say that you don't care if they use terrorism or murder as tools. You apparently find the tactic justifiable since you don't see anything wrong with murder.

 

I asked you before if someone who battles an oppressive government by targetting civilians is a terrorist or a freedom fighter, since the two definitions intersect, and that is in fact what's going on.  I have a pretty good idea of what your answer is, but like I also said, it doesn't much matter.

I linked to the Dictionary since you don't know the definition. Then I explained it three times.

 

Terrorists hit civilians. Freedom fighters target the government. Palestinian terrorists are killing civilians. There is the difference. Let me know when you get that. I can repeat it a few more times.

 

Some Palestinians have chosen terrorism as a way to get what they want.  Based on the pullout from Gaza, it seems to have worked.  Whether it's right or wrong isn't the point, at all, nor is it the point of this thread.

I created the thread and asked the initial question, and thusly I think I'm a good source on what the point of the thread was.

 

I asked "How is this in any way cool or justifiable?"

 

People say Israel shouldn't have the Gaza Strip because of the six-day war, in which Israel was defending themself. That's great. So Palestine should get land that never belonged to them, because we don't want Israel to have it? Never mind that Palestine didn't want it before, but now that Israel spent tons of money fixing up the area, we want it now!

 

The point of this thread was you being upset that Jewish settlers are being pulled out of their homes by soldiers.  It's not the Palestinian soldiers doing the pulling; it's the Israeli ones.  The Israeli government decided to pull out of Gaza, for whatever reason.  You see it as a result of Palestinian terrorism, and that does indeed doubtlessly play a great role in this decision.  But whereas you assign all the blame on Palestine and leave Israel in the role of the martyr, I assign equal blame to both.

The reason for the pull-out is that people like Bush (of which people like Mkreku think I'm a fanboi, which I'm not) totally misunderstand the situation. People think that if we attempt to appease the Palestinians, that violence will stop. There has been violence in the area targeting Jews long before the state was created, or before Israel got the Gaza Strip. The violence isn't about the Gaza Strip.

 

Let's say that you have a baby. It has a dirty diaper and a horrid diaper rash. It is really upset about the diaper rash, and the baby is crying. So we're going to steal formula from another baby to feed the first one, in hopes that it will stop crying.

 

Either you stand by the decision to create the state, or you don't. Either you say Israel has a right to live there and defend their homes, or you don't. If that's the case, then the world should step in, and crack down on terrorism. We should probably create two seperate states with a nice wall between the two.

 

But there are those who have vocally said their goal is to see all Jews dead. Removing Jews from the Gaza Strip won't combat religious fanaticism or dire hatred.

[EnderAndrew]

We dropped them to level cities, not to take out specific industrial targets within those cities.  Any suggestion otherwise is ludicrous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This whole arguement is off-topic. US bashing does not justify Palestine's policy or the Gaza Strip pull-out.

 

I have said the purpose was a demonstration of power, but we could demonstrate our power in any city. We choose cities that had lesser population, and still had military signifigance. That seperates the act from the 9/11 attack on the WTC. There was ZERO military relevance there.

[Commissar]

Your definitions don't help me out much. See, it simply says that a freedom fighter is one who is engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government. I'd classify the Palestinians that way.

[EnderAndrew]

Your definitions don't help me out much.  See, it simply says that a freedom fighter is one who is engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.  I'd classify the Palestinians that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are they targeting a government or are they targetting civilians?

 

Freedom fighters fight the government.

 

Again, I can repeat this a few more times. Let me know when you catch on.