Gaza Strip

[Laozi]

Nah, it's aliens.  It's got to be those damn aliens - they're always responsible for everything dodgy going on in the world.  As soon as they show their midget faces I'm sure we'll all unite against those anal-probing toters - Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists (okay, maybe not Buddhists), Ninjas & Jedi alike.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats probaly true, and best of all you're not calling for anything too irrational, like ninjas and pirates working together

[Dark Moth]

By the way, all the mentions on "Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11" is bullcr@p. It's been proven that this particular footage was actually filmed A DECADE BEFORE 9/11, in 1991, during the invasion of Kuwait.

 

*goes to sleep, wondering how this debate will proceed once the frequent posters come online*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interesting. May I ask where you got this information, or if you have anything to back it up?

[Azarkon]

You know my feelings on terrorism. Or should do. Laozi said "innocent people are dying any differently just because one guy had a uniform and the latest equipment of death, and another had a bomb". This would be true, except it actually does make a difference if someone is a uniformed combatant, acting under the orders of a recognised state, and within the framework of some kind of code. A pilot acting under a condition of war who kills you is in fact different from some pimply teenager doing it because they listened too much to their uncle as a child. Just like a policeman who arrests you is not guilty of kidnapping.

 

You can be all faux intellectual and say 'yeah well there's two sides', but I really don't see that there are. If a private citizen decides they are above the political authority and go out and kill people to get their way, er... wrong in my book. More importantly this certainly qualifies as a crime, that the state can hardly be blamed for trying to counter.

 

Except, of course, that the terrorists believe that they are acting under conditions of war, that they are fighting for a legitimate state, that in fact, they are as much of a political authority as there will ever be in that area.

 

It really doesn't matter if the rest of the world recognizes them or not. The British didn't recognize the US as a state, but did that stop us from starting or fighting the War of Independence?

 

A criminal either has no political objectives, or he does but is small and alone enough that he and his cohorts can be ostracized and condemned. A colony of criminals, however, operates by its own rules, and becomes, if it can resist outside attempts of control, a state. The terrorists do not operate alone; they operate through their own organizations and are a political faction, albeit extremist and violent. They also have support from portions of the populace.

 

In this respect, I must abide by the age-old observation that might is often right, in that the only real difference between a criminal with a political objective (ie an anarchist) and a political faction that eventually gains sovereign power is that one failed while the other succeeded. If the terrorists fail, if they are ever wiped off the map and their deeds turned into anti-terror propaganda, then they will be remembered, I think, as criminals. But if they succeed in driving out the US in Iraq and Israel in the Middle-East, then I can't help but fear that they will become something different altogether. Maybe even heroes.

[Cantousent]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This seems like a reasonable side issue for the main topic.

[Cantousent]

Thanks for keeping it civil, fellows. Having spent the day in glorious Dungeon Siege 2 gaming with a friend, I find it refreshing to see a lively, reasoned debate.

 

Mouth foaming is quite alright, as long as there's no blood in the foam.

 

As Steve said, it's best to come to an agreement on the terms rather than rely on the dictionairy.

 

When I was a History undergrad, I did my honors thesis on Japan and the Atom bomb. For that reason, I know folks will forgive me for running like hell when I see the issue spring up on the boards. hahaha.

 

Anyhow, get another 28 pages of flame free posts and you'll get to the thread length hall of fame.

[EnderAndrew]

By the way, all the mentions on "Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11" is bullcr@p. It's been proven that this particular footage was actually filmed A DECADE BEFORE 9/11, in 1991, during the invasion of Kuwait.

 

*goes to sleep, wondering how this debate will proceed once the frequent posters come online*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interesting. May I ask where you got this information, or if you have anything to back it up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Someone made the claim that it was stock footage, but CNN came right back and swore it wasn't stock footage.

 

Why would there be stock footage from 10 years ago where Palestinians are celebrating Americans dying pray tell?

 

Watch the Footage

 

The images of exuberant, cheering Palestinians

[Commissar]

Doesn't much matter, either way. People are allowed to hate us, after all, and America's not really the issue here. Israel is.

 

Alright, Ender, you asked how people being forced out of their homes is cool or justifiable. Simple answer? It's a step in the peace process. That's what justifies it. The good of the many over the personal preference of a few.

[Laozi]

Ya, I'm sure there was atleast one native american who did a happy little dance after 9/11

 

 

 

 

and I'm sure atleast some of you heard Bobby Fischer's insano rant

[LoneWolf16]

Doesn't much matter, either way.  People are allowed to hate us, after all, and America's not really the issue here.  Israel is.

 

Alright, Ender, you asked how people being forced out of their homes is cool or justifiable.  Simple answer?  It's a step in the peace process.  That's what justifies it.  The good of the many over the personal preference of a few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't call your home and all your belongings a "personal preference"...At the very least, you give the people time to pack their lives up.

 

But no, common decency apparently isn't so common.

[EnderAndrew]

I wouldn't call your home and all your belongings a "personal preference"...At the very least, you give the people time to pack their lives up.

 

But no, common decency apparently isn't so common. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't agree more. And I bet you money this does absolutely nothing to bolster peace.

 

We're treating a gun shot wound with a band-aid, in the wrong location to boot.

[Laozi]

Ender, besides carpetbombing, what do you think would be a good way to promote peace?

[EnderAndrew]

Ender, besides carpetbombing, what do you think would be a good way to promote peace?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are options besides carpetbombing?

 

And are you asking as a general rule, or in this situation?

 

All parties, including outside parties seem to think seperate states are needed. Frankly, if we're going to relocate people, I think we should build a wall, establish a border and two completely seperate states. Israel can't scream anymore about terrorism and security, because they would have the option to be hermetically sealed.

[Commissar]

Doesn't much matter, either way.  People are allowed to hate us, after all, and America's not really the issue here.  Israel is.

 

Alright, Ender, you asked how people being forced out of their homes is cool or justifiable.  Simple answer?  It's a step in the peace process.  That's what justifies it.  The good of the many over the personal preference of a few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't call your home and all your belongings a "personal preference"...At the very least, you give the people time to pack their lives up.

 

But no, common decency apparently isn't so common.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They weren't forced to settle the Gaza Strip, by any means. They chose to do so, knowing full and well that it'd be at the very least dangerous, and that something like this could quite possibly happen.

[LoneWolf16]

Doesn't much matter, either way.  People are allowed to hate us, after all, and America's not really the issue here.  Israel is.

 

Alright, Ender, you asked how people being forced out of their homes is cool or justifiable.  Simple answer?  It's a step in the peace process.  That's what justifies it.  The good of the many over the personal preference of a few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't call your home and all your belongings a "personal preference"...At the very least, you give the people time to pack their lives up.

 

But no, common decency apparently isn't so common.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They weren't forced to settle the Gaza Strip, by any means. They chose to do so, knowing full and well that it'd be at the very least dangerous, and that something like this could quite possibly happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So...they deserve this, for taking that risk?

[Laozi]

So...they deserve this, for taking that risk? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Maybe, depends on their god I guess.

[Commissar]

So...they deserve this, for taking that risk? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all what I said. I said that the good of the many outweighs the personal preference of the few.

[EnderAndrew]

Not at all what I said.  I said that the good of the many outweighs the personal preference of the few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like A Modest Proposal to me.

 

Click and see why that logic is sound, but doesn't fly in society.

[LoneWolf16]

So...they deserve this, for taking that risk? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all what I said. I said that the good of the many outweighs the personal preference of the few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still fail to see how your memories, posessions, and your home are considered a personal preference.

[Laozi]

Not at all what I said.  I said that the good of the many outweighs the personal preference of the few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like A Modest Proposal to me.

 

Click and see why that logic is sound, but doesn't fly in society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I wouldn't mind eating a few babies instead of potatos. Funny, I don't remember and baby eating in Gulliver's Travels, I would have thought it would have made its way in there

[EnderAndrew]

We operate on silly premises that individuals must have rights even in the face of a larger need of society. That is why we aren't a pure capitalism for instance.

 

Saying that individuals should get the shaft simply to serve a greater good doesn't work as a blanket policy.

 

Otherwise you'd be hard pressed to argue with the logic of articles like A Modest Proposal.

[Laozi]

We operate on silly premises that individuals must have rights even in the face of a larger need of society.  That is why we aren't a pure capitalism for instance.

 

Saying that individuals should get the shaft simply to serve a greater good doesn't work as a blanket policy.

 

Otherwise you'd be hard pressed to argue with the logic of articles like A Modest Proposal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I see what you're saying, but thats not really the issue, atleast to me. Any jewish person has the right to try and make a living in the Gaza Strip as an individual. Its when you move a large military presence into the area where things change a bit.

[EnderAndrew]

Except now individuals can't live in the Gaza Strip.

[Laozi]

Yes they can, they'll just have to accept the consequences. That might seem juvenile, but that is indeed the case.

[Commissar]

So...they deserve this, for taking that risk? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all what I said. I said that the good of the many outweighs the personal preference of the few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still fail to see how your memories, posessions, and your home are considered a personal preference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because they chose to live in the Gaza strip. They could've gotten out months ago. They could've gotten out two years ago when Sharon started taking pullout. They stayed, and now they're getting pulled out. But it's what they chose to do.

[EnderAndrew]

If people were allowed to stay, they wouldn't been forcibly torn out of their homes.

 

Jews are no longer permitted to live in the Gaza Strip, period.

 

And this is supposedly a step towards peace? It is a step towards segregation. Either segregate or don't. Either you think you can live together in peace, or you can't.

 

These half-hearted moves don't solve the problem, but create victims in the mean time.