Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumIt seems Israel just picked another fight beyond its borders
http://972mag.com/it-seems-israel-just-picked-another-fight-beyond-its-borders/65154/Yesterday morning’s air strike in Syria was apparently the latest instance of Israeli aggression posing as self-defense.
No Israeli public figure I’m aware of has spoken out against yesterday morning’s attack on an arms convoy transferring weapons (reportedly not chemical ones) from Syria to Hezbollah, which, according to foreign news agencies, was carried out by the Israel Air Force. Everybody here is scared – look what’s happening in Syria, there’s chemical weapons up there, the country’s breaking up. “The entire area is raging and we must be prepared and strong and determined in the face of any possible development,” Netanyahu said this week, and everybody, as usual when the leader invokes national security, is dutifully quiet.
---
Imagine what Israel would do if any foreign entity tried to fly spy planes over its airspace. But we’re entitled to because we’re good, and they’re not because they’re bad.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Animal Chin
(175 posts)This article seems to take a position sympathetic to Hezbollah defending itself. I don't get that.
And it characterizes Israel as the aggressor for stopping weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists?
Israel may act aggressively at times and I don't always (often, even) support their positions, but I have no problem with this action, at least as described here.
...attack on an arms convoy transferring weapons (reportedly not chemical ones) from Syria to Hezbollah...
Sounds like a win for everybody (except the terrorists).
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Animal Chin
(175 posts)Opinion piece, really.
Israel did not "attack a foreign country." It disrupted the distribution of weapons to a terrorist organization that (1) has attacked Israel in the past, (2) currently has tens of thousands of rockets pointed at civilian targets in Israel, and (3) has stated its primary mission as being the destruction of Israel.
No different that the U.S. preventing the transfer of weapons to al Quaida, except that al Quaida is not as powerful as Hezbollah, nor has it ever represented the same risk to the U.S. that Hezbollah does to Israel.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Being disingenuous is no way to go through life.
Animal Chin
(175 posts)And please don't presume based on two posts on an Internet forum that you know anything about how I go through life.
If you don't want to talk about it anymore, just say so. Or don't reply.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
Want to go from there?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Did Israel's military conduct an attack? Every source - including Israel - points to "yes," the IAF attacked a Syrian government convoy apparently shipping weapons into Lebanon.
Did this attack occur within Israel? Every source - including Israel - says "no," the attack occurred somewhere around the Lebanon-Syria border.
Israel attacked acting agents of another nation's government, outside of its own territory; it attacked another nation.
Now, if you want to argue that it was justified, sure, go ahead, that's an argument that could be made. But you're trying to pretend this never happened. Sadly, even Israel disagrees with you on that.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Syria is at war with Israel, and that fight has been on since 1948. Hezbollah is also at war with Israel. So all Israel did was interdict the flow of arms from one military adversary to another. Hardly picking a fight.
"Imagine what Israel would do if any foreign entity tried to fly spy planes over its airspace. But we’re entitled to because we’re good, and they’re not because they’re bad."
We don't have to imagine it. In the 1970's, the Syrians flew Mig-25's over Israel; especially over Dimona. The Israelis sent up some F-4's to intercept. The Mig's flew so high and fast that no intercept was possible. But unlike you and Derfner, the Israelis never ventured into moralizing. They are much more realisitc than that. What the Israelis are entitled to do is defend themselves, and that includes stopping the flow of arms to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Are you a partial owner of that site?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Oberliner's totally cool with Gatestone Institute, Arutz Sheva, CAMERA, PalWatch, UNwatch, and all sorts of other bogus right-wing propaganda outlets. That's how you can tell he's a progressive Zionist; the regressive Zionists think Arutz Sheva is too leftist!
bemildred
(90,061 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)That excuse is getting pretty tired and used up, and the people that use it? I'll let others draw their own conclusions as to the validity of such posters rhetoric.
"But, but, but Israel has no borders!" How many countries can claim that hollow and bankrupt excuse as a prelude to annex away what is left of another people's home? And before we get into the, "Well we there here first" song and dance, let's just put that old vaudevillian number to rest.
This is reality and not some eleven year old trying to argue before his parents why it's alright to punch his brother in the face. If you want to be accepted as an adult then at least try to act like one and bring something of substance to the table.
Israel has thumbed its nose at international law, as well as UN resolutions, for decades, and all they while they have continually encroached on Palestinian lands, setting up colonies, while turning the West Bank and Gaza into an apartheid state. For any modern democracy to act in such a manner, regardless of the excuses of what has happened in other countries or throughout history, is in the very least is appalling. No amount of finger pointing at the other side justifies such actions.
The Palestinians also share the blame equally for their aggressive behavior, but when it come down to brass tax Israel, the so-called democracy, has a responsibility to behave responsibly while dealing with a population that is under their heel. That's right heel. If you don't like the word then perhaps Israel, and half a million colonists that shouldn't be in the West Bank, should tend to its own democracy and bring its people home.
Why supporters of Israel refuse or pretend to see that is beyond me. No, actually I believe that most understand why Israel's supporters would stoop to this level of cavalier immaturity as a defense. It beats having to admit that they are wrong, that Israel is as aggressive as the Palestinians but are more successful at it and that Israel has no intentions of following international law or UN resolutions; crying to them every time they get their nose bloodied in a fight that they could have helped stop long ago.
I remember a line from the movie The Treasure of the Sierra Madre where a Mexican bandit called Gold Hat says, "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"
That's what your comment and others that I have seen, with reference to Israel, mean to me.
Perhaps I am wrong on all of this, and you wish to convince me and others here as to what your two word question really means.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)
we'll start with the "attitude" that somehow the israelis have to be "more responsible" or that the Palestinians are "less responsible." The Palestinians have proven time and time again that they have the ability to affect the environment, only those that believe because some have defined them as "victims" that are not responsible for their actions and the subsequent consequences....but reality says different....
And that is the key, what is generally not acceptable in these forums::Whereas "justice" is subjective and related to culture (let the iranians explain to you why it just to hang homosexuals and how that is the true meaning of universal justice). actions or non actions have very real consequences.
for instance....Whereas Israel left gaza, the Palestinians had a very real responsibility and option to turn that place in to some kind of club med, to prove to israel that they in fact can live with israel, and that the settlements were in fact the problem.
the Palestinians of gaza not only made it clear that the problem was not the settlements but also showed that they reject the whole concept of western civil rights, western justice by voting in hamas, with the subsequent 10,000 rockets fired upon israel and countess IED's mortars and just general attacks over the border.
they chose to import and manufacture the rockets, they chose to hide them and shoot them in the afternoon hours (when kids were getting out of school). They chose to put their limited resources in making bombs or 5 star hotels as opposed to importing food or computers etc. They chose....nobody chose for them....and their are real consequences for those very actions.
Those actions take by the Palestinians of gaza can very well be repeated in the west bank, with the consequences being much worse for both sides.
In Lebanon there is something similar: Once israel left lebanon, the actual attacks over the border did not stop, be it snipers, a mortar etc, not enough for israel to retaliate, but hizballa knew that eventually israel would...one day (2006). So Hizballa also must take its share of the responsibility. Does the UN do its job of preventing Hizablla from rearming? no. Does hizballa, an armed militia that has taken over S. Lebanon even have the right to exist? again the answer is no.
again consequences count: Hizballa with rockets aimed at israel is simple something that shouldnt exist and has real consequences when they are fired.
israel does have a responsibility towards it own citizens, so the next time Israel has to destroy the rockets of Hizballa, its best if they can do it quickly and efficiently, that means keeping the anti aircraft missles out of s. lebanon. The history of Lebanon, is that israel has invaded several times, and always after prolonged attacks from Lebanon, consequences for their attacks.
i shall repeat the 2 points:
hizballa and the Palestenians are equal partners with israel in the actions that they decide upon will have consequences
Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens and that includes making less than ideal decisions that may prevent even worse choices in the future.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)
to justify Israeli aggression.
Your words: we'll start with the "attitude" that somehow the israelis have to be "more responsible"
If you had bothered to read my post you would have seen this: "The Palestinians also share the blame equally for their aggressive behavior..."
That goes for Hizbollah, the IDF and all organizations that use brute force tactics to get their way.
So apparently you are arguing two points here. Israel can take Palestinian land (your words: "They >>Palestinians<<chose....nobody chose for them....and their are real consequences for those very actions."
and thumb its nose at the world.
On the second point Israel can unilaterally attack another country to destroy what it wants. It now appears what they destroyed is in question to whether it was a hard target or convoy.
You are correct when you write that "consequences count", but I guess that consequences count only for others and not for Israel.
Seeing how Israel attacking Syria may prompt a retaliatory strike one might come to believe that Israel was trying to get just that in order to justify a full response or drag other players into the fight.
Nobody want to see a wider war...or any war if they're smart, but one way to get that would be to incite another country to retaliate for an attack that could have taken place in Lebanon instead. Israel has the right to defend itself and its citizens, but once it goes beyond that it risks a wider conflict that could endanger the very thing it says it wants to protect.
But to get back to the original point, my reply was to bemildred who apparently believes that Israel doesn't have borders or something to that effect. Perhaps s/he will reply in full.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You have to remember that many people in this country have never come back from the Cold War. They still see foreign countries and revolutionary movements as we were taught to see them then. On the one hand:
There were our freedom loving allies and friends. We loved them, and they loved us. We forgave their faults and crimes because those faults and crimes were always justifiable. Anything our friends and allies did, however heinous, they did to save the Free World from enslavement to a Godless Communist Empire and its despicable lackeys and stooges (In the current case substitute "Fanatical, ignorant Muslims out to restore the Medieval Caliphate in its entirety). Our allies and friends in the struggle against Communism could always count on our full support, until the last ditch.
On the other hand:
There were demonic Communists and their captive peoples. We were taught to hate and fear them without exception. Anything they did was evil, no matter how good or charitable it might have seemed on the the face of it. They were implacable, deceptive, and hugely sly enemies. All Communists were utterly committed to the destruction of freedom, democracy and capitalism, as embodied by the Greatest nation which ever existed, us. Any American who had a single good word to say about Communists or anything they did was a traitor of the worst kind.
Now, of course, all Muslim revolutionaries are just as totally evil as the Commies were then, and (need I add) the current government of Israel is completely blameless and completely justified, even if it drops millions of cluster bomblets to create a no-go zone for miles beyond its Northern border, or uses white phosphorus munitions to attack refugee shelters full of women and children.
shira
(30,109 posts)So yeah, USA, UK, Israel, France >>>>> Communism, Islamic Theocracy, Secular Dictatorship
What's difficult about this?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)We are good and have rights, both human rights and sovereign rights, correct?
They are bad and deserve no rights at all (unless we decide to grant them) right?
shira
(30,109 posts)...totalitarian, secular/religious dictatorships?
"They" have no rights and it's not because of "us". Their leaders have no right to rule w/o granting basic civil rights.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Dictatorships should all be abolished and all the peoples of the Earth should be self-governing and free. That is the ideal which everyone of good will should champion and try to bring to fruition. We are not, however, nearly there yet, and we still have to deal with the gangsters and thugs who rule in so many nations. How else besides negotiating with them as tacit equals can we hope to modify their criminal regimes and perhaps even improve the lot of their subjects?
We could, of course, launch a World-wide crusade against all non-representative and cruel governments. We could kill and destroy until all the survivors of our savagery might be able to live free and democratically, at least I suppose we could. But how much support do you think that idea would have?
One thing we can not and should not do is assume the mantle of national superiority and exceptionalism, history is too full of stories about what making that mistake leads to.
delrem
(9,688 posts)The European and NA countries have graduated toward democracy *for themselves*, but even within those strictures only for segregated parts of themselves while remaining inertly complacent about gross inequalities until at point after point that complacency has been rudely interrupted. E.g. the struggle of Susan B. Anthony. But at the same time these proto- and semi-democracies have been enforcing and exploiting imperialist dictatorships over the people of other countries, raiding their resources and justifying the lot of it with some admirable spin.
The *ideas* of democracy and human rights belong to *reason*, not to countries. Instances can only be verified in situ and case by case. E.g. the USA can rightly call itself very democratic and rightly claim that it is an example of democracy, but it cannot rightly say that it has been "spreading democracy and freedom" throughout Central and South America, and the Far and Near East - except in very isolated instances ann argument might be made that some good came of it all. The USA might *say* it has, but in point of fact it hasn't -- and to the contrary it has contributed to the military overthrow of some democracies and in the case of Chile this was blatantly and self-righteously so (I believe it was Kissinger who said something awful about the innate goodness of the US saving the poor fools from their democratic selves).
As far as I can see the US has never come to terms with this history, and until it does IMO both it and its citizens should just STFU about how it should or could act in all its self-evident moral righteousness as "policeman of the world".
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The U.S. has enjoyed a good run of being top dog country in the World. We've had that status for nearly a full century, and, honestly, we have hardly been the worst country ever to hold the position. That being said, we have also not been exactly altruistic angels either. Greed and indifference have advised our foreign relations at least as much as charity and concern for the human condition. Many currently see us as a monstrous empire, taking what we want and destroying those who dare to stand against us. Sadly, our de facto support of Israeli expansion into the West Bank contributes to the negative view of our image.
One thing we can't seem to come to grips with is the rock solid certainty that our time at the top of the pile will one day end. In fact, many say it is already ending. Our country would be wise to spend more time and effort mending fences and cultivating a variety of good friendships around the World. Soon we may well need them like never before.
shira
(30,109 posts)Also, get the tyrants out of UN policy & decision-making groups. Sure, give them a voice and let them spew their propaganda, but they don't get to judge western democracies until they become one.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Yes, I largely agree that is the way to move forward. I do think other nations, even those who deserve little respect, will insist on more inclusion in the process, and letting that be so to a degree might speed their acceptance of more democratic and less repressive institutions. We, the West, do still have three out of five permanent vetoes on the UN Security Council, so any attempt to ram through truly unfair motions or actual reprisals can easily be quashed at that level.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)are you actually going to claim that irans justice system, where homosexuals are hung for being homosexual is somehow a lesser justice system that yours? or shall you defend it as per your request that we should not assume the mantel of national superiority and that it is equal to that of the west.
how about honor killings?...i know several cultures that believe its very important. Are you going to claim that in your version of "cultural equality' honor killings are 'not immoral"?
perhaps you would like to defend the talilban philosophy of females wearing potato sacks and not being educated?
_____
please defend those practices as morally equal to your western culture.....or at least that those practices should be allowed to exist since they part of other cultures.
you dont want to claim moral superiority about other cultural practices now do you
pelsar
(12,283 posts)consequences count....for both sides, i never said it didnt. (though i was using the Palestenians/hizbballa as examples since they are usually excused for their actions.)
as far as israel unilaterally attacking..yes this was born out of the consequences of past actions. Though israel many times is attacked and does not retailaite, everybody in the region knows that eventually it will happen. Hence Jordan stopped attacking, Syria stopped attacking, Egypt stopped attacking (though things are now changing....)
Hizballa and hamas have yet to grasp that simple lesson of consequences, well actually they know it, they just gamble on the outcome. So when Hizballa brings in missiles or radars or broomsticks, they know very well they are being watched and eventually they will get bombed and they also know, it wont stop them from bringing in more and when they are ready or feel its appropriate they will launch the rockets and missiles that they have at israeli cities.
Israel has the right to defend itself and its citizens, but once it goes beyond that it risks a wider conflict that could endanger the very thing it says it wants to protect.
funny how "israel has the right to defend itself" is some kind of "mantra"..yet somehow everything israel does, is illegal, a war crime, disproportional etc. One day i would like to get a real definition of what that actually means, using todays technology and not something out of 'star wars."
thats a challenge to anyone who wants to take it up.....
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)What you address in your latest post was pretty much answered in my previous one.
You now cite that "consequences count....for both sides." Yes. I just wrote that since you hadn't addressed it.
You say that Syria has stopped attacking, but just prior to this mention that Israel has to attack Syria and that their unilateral attacks on Syria are justifies.
No, my friend, they are not. Unilateral action is never the answer. Just because we had a blowhard in the US do it (Dubya) does not make it right or legal. How I wish the USA was brought before the Hague for attacking Iraq.
As I wrote it might have been better to let whatever cargo cross the border into Lebanon to be attacked there, but we really only have Israel's word as to what may have been in the cargo so I don't take their word for gospel.
Again, I addressed my feelings about Hizbollah and the rest here.
That goes for Hizbollah, the IDF and all organizations that use brute force tactics to get their way.
I'm not sure if you understand the right of self-defense versus the non-right of attacking another nation under the guise of sel-defense. That is unilateralism, and it is IMHO illegal when any country does it.
I, again, already covered that.
I do get tired of the often brought out cliches and hand wringing that comes with these discussions about how everything Israel does is illegal somehow.
What Syria does to it's people is illegal, same with Egypt, Iran, etc., etc...and yes, Israel.
Hide as some may from that fact, use excuses for bombing others, use excuses for colonialism/expansionism or use excuses for a system of apartheid the fact remains the same. If Israel wants to act like the other countries around it, unilaterally, then it is standing on shaky ground when it attacks one day while claiming victim status the following one.
The challenge is not for me, the West or anybody else to address why Israel thinks it can get away with unilateral attacks while some ask why everything Israel does is illegal. The challenge is for Israel to ACT within the norms of international law.
I'd be happy to give you plenty of examples if you want to come back and talk about this later, but it is snowing outside and I am going to enjoy it while it lasts.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 06:27 PM - Edit history (2)
does not mean waiting to get shot at, get killed and only then you can shoot back. Thats fine if your an arm chair warrior, that not acceptable if your a govt.
If group A is preparing to launch a rocket at your family, or aiming an anti tank missile at the nursery from across the border...thats reason enough to destroy them before they shoot....you would call that unilateralism, however, when it happens enough and enough missles and rockets and mortars are actually shot across the border, its no longer unilateralism, but actual defense.
The challenge is for Israel to ACT within the norms of international law.
apparently it is, acting within the norm.
what we are seeing across the globe are unilateral attacks by the US by its predators blowing up women and children and maybe few terrorists as if it was a video game. We saw france and England blowing up Libya in a unilateral fashion because some narrow poltical interests. Russia in its own unilateral fashon actually carpet bombed chechnia. Desert storm one, had a large coalition of armies attacking iraq, a country that only attacked kuwait, and had already won..so why they were unilaterally attacking iraq is beyond me.
Apparently this "unilateral action" is the norm for the world
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)by Russia, the USA and others.
Desert Storm One was UN authorized. It wasn't unilateral.
Try getting it strait. Bush II's war was bullshit based on lies. That was unilateral.
Russia is a ham-handed bully trying to relive its glory years by beating up a small countrys and still getting its ass kicked for a while by Chenchnya.
And you want to base your argument on half truths and might makes right?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)I've been looking for articles that are calling for Obamas head for his unilateral strikes across the globe but can't seem to find any. Are you going to argue that his orders for murder are within international law?
the UN authorized the strikes (Desert Storm)...so that makes it legal? that changes the definition of unilateral The war was over, iraq won. Was there a hearing in the international court for the Iraq invasion? was there a judicial ruling? did i miss it?, please send me the transcripts.
The whole concept of laws is that they are supposed to be independent from politics, your argument that the UN voted for it, therefore its legal is precisely why judicial systems are independent and why International law is not infact any kind of law.
in short your "international law" is nothing more than politics as usual...when they start talking about indicting obama, bush(s), clinton as well as the heads of France, Italy, England, Argentina, Russia, China you might have an argument, until then, Israel sticking to the international norm seems to be reasonable.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)The justification that somebody else does so we can too is fairly immature, and the UN doesn't like it either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/world/03drones.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
But that example, he said, could quickly lead to a situation in which dozens of countries carry out “competing drone attacks” outside their borders against people “labeled as terrorists by one group or another.”
pelsar
(12,283 posts)so tell me what is different about these unilateral attacks vs Israels?
the US, Italy, France, England attacking Libya
Argentina attacking the Falklands
France attacking targets in Mali
Saudi Arabia attacking Brahaim
US with its world wide targeting campaign.
clearly i could go on and on and on...
Your challenge: were any of them declared "illegal" .....well? note the world Illegal, that is the key word, your UN example wasn't even close.
_____
btw you keep using the word "immature' i guess its suppose to either bother me or bolster your argument, perhaps you have fans that use it, but in my world its usually used by teenagers who are trying to be adults.
____
and if "killing is dead wrong" which is a simplistic argument are you ready to back it up with a couple of real life scenarios where you simplistic morality wont stand up?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)no morality at all.
Enjoy that unilateralism while it lasts, but sooner or later Israel may be on the other side of the attack, and then what? Cry to the UN?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:40 AM - Edit history (1)
and if you have that luxury of not ever having to make decisions that actually involves that gray area of actual morality..but it doesn't really give you much credit when preaching to someone who lives in that very real world of moral relativity, where "what is more moral" is real question with real decisions that affect real people with very real consequences, of whos long term outcome is unknown.
as far as unilateralism goes..i guess i asked too much of you didnt I?........feel free to find that "internet courage" and answer the challenge, if you like.
I'll make it simple for you:
if obamas world wide attacks are considered legal
if france, italy, england can bomb and attack countries that have not attacked them and its legal
if Saudi Arabia can invade its neighbor who has not attacked them and that is legal
if Russia can lay waste to its neighbor and that too is legal
I'm assuming their legal since i haven't read of any calls for their 'illegality"...
how is it that israel attacking its neighbors (weapons) who has actually attacked israel in the past and continues to threaten to do so in the future is illegal?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)but i admit i'm not surprised...when the foundation for ones "religion/belief" is questioned, it can be impossible to even understand the question, hence the classic response of "i've already answered that"
its an easier response to attempting to understand the question or worse attempting to defend what is clearly a belief that at best is hypocritical.....
Solindsey
(115 posts)But here is a thought:
When will true Consequence be visited upon Israel? And when it does, will you still be winging on despite its inevitability? Will you feel so smug and proud then?
You do realize that most of the stupid arguments you made in this thread, justifying pre-emptive warfare, can just as easily be used to defend such a strike FROM Iran against Israel?
It's sad that so many morons are running these 2 regimes.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:59 AM - Edit history (4)
will u please have the courage to explain them to me? who "decides" is there some deity that will rain upon israel this "true consequence" or is there some kind of progressive inevitability?
and btw this "true consequence" which culture is defining it? yours? or is it some kind of "universal truth" that everyone agrees to (except for those that don't....)
____________________________
as far as the arguments go about "pre-emptive warfare"....i'm very aware that is precisely the argument that obama is now using, with a written policy/justification/ paper as well as actions....does he fit in to your "moron" category?
(care to attempt to justify obamas pre-emptive strikes?- and will these "true consequences" affect the US as well?)
its a simple argument for this "international law' is it applied equally across the board or is it not?
Solindsey
(115 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)
You smuggly explained why certain countries around Israel understand the concept of "consequence". The retaliation they will feel if they threaten Israel and the disproportionate attacks they PURPOSELY inflict on their victims. You really think, the way Israel is isolating itself and acting more and more like a rogue state, that retribution will not be brought to them?
Pre-emptive warfare is wrong 99% of the time. Whether its Bush or Obama, I do not agree with it.
International law can be flouted by anyone who is in America's good books. If you're a dictator (Saddam) or a state that is oppressing a people (Israel)... who cares about International Law if you can keep America on your side?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)i always hear that, sometimes i ask for a definition....and i never get one, so since you've mentioned, will you please explain to me what exactly is this formula that defines disproportionate? (or is it simply an emotional reaction to something ....
but thats just for fun, i dont expect an answer
..so we have some movement....so do i understand that your saying america, france, italy, england, argentina, russia, turkey, syria, saudi arabia to name a few, are all breaking international law according to you? Can you guess why they are not being called before the international court? why there are no calls for their breaking intl law? ...is american protecting them all?
so give me an example when "pre-emptive" war is right? bear in mind nothing, especially not military intelligence is 100% correct, that 1%
___
i did note that you skipped over the "true consequences"....i dying to know what it is...please explain.
Solindsey
(115 posts)An emotional reaction to dead bodies and destroyed homes. Yes. Does that offend you? Are you incapable of emotions?
I mentioned this point in my last post, and you completely ignored it. What a surprise!
Would you support, or at the very least, not give a shit, if Iran preemptively attacked Israel based on the MULTITUDE of direct threats that Israel poses a real and present danger to Iran and its citizenry?
The only case where pre-emptive strikes are needed imo is if that military intelligence is damn near close to 100% and the threat is very real. Using this war tactic should be one of the very very last options left before it is used. The cost is too high to be loose-handed and drigger happy. But in Israel's case, you have to understand, that the higher the cost in lives and destruction, the more real that lesson in Consequence is received by the Palestinians and all those other Arabs. Which is pretty exactly what you said earlier:
Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens and that includes making less than ideal decisions that may prevent even worse choices in the future.
---
consequences count....for both sides, i never said it didnt. (though i was using the Palestenians/hizbballa as examples since they are usually excused for their actions.)
as far as israel unilaterally attacking..yes this was born out of the consequences of past actions. Though israel many times is attacked and does not retailaite, everybody in the region knows that eventually it will happen. Hence Jordan stopped attacking, Syria stopped attacking, Egypt stopped attacking (though things are now changing....)
Hizballa and hamas have yet to grasp that simple lesson of consequences, well actually they know it, they just gamble on the outcome.
Israel's attacks always leave a dead body count that is truly despicable. Sadly, you are under the absurd idea that Palestinians don't deserve the same kind of security Israel sees worthy of killing for.
Consequence for Israel is that they get a taste of their own medicine. Every terroristic regime eventually does.
delrem
(9,688 posts)It wasn't an I/P topic, but there was a gestalt similarity. Don't ask me to explain the similarity - if you don't get it, just let this post pass by.
edited to add this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-zero-dark-thirty-and-the-torture-debate-we-need/2013/01/28/79c0a54a-697e-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html
The OP in the Washington Post was by Richard Cohen, who opined about the moral/ethical case for torture in light of the movie Zero Dark Thirty. Mr. Cohen explains how this movie inspired an epiphany. He wrote:
"The Rorschachian qualities of “Zero Dark Thirty” have proved beneficial. We are getting a robust debate over torture that we should have had years ago, and we are finding out a bit more about it — whether it works and whether it can ever be justified."
Mr. Cohen is apparently uneducated in the "liberal arts", which cover history and philosophy and logic (but that isn't all), and give an introduction to topics that include, for example, St. Augustine's and St. Aquinas' apologetics re. the efficacy and justification for torture, or whether the dictum "the end justifies the means" should/should-not have an over-riding and regulatory credo. these arguments go back to the very beginning of human history - and no, the arguments haven't "gone round and round", they've been *progressive* and the results have in fact grounded the modern democratic state.
But back to Mr. Cohen who praises 0dark30 for initiating "the debate" -- although in fact the movie didn't assert any debating points at all. Nor does Mr. Cohen take any debating points from it - he just uses the movie as a backboard to lob his sentences at. His sentences are duplicitous.
He says: "a better title ... would have been “Rorschach.”... some people look at the film and conclude that torture works, others conclude that it doesn’t, still others think the movie advocates torture, while some — and now we have gotten to me — don’t know what to think. I am implacably opposed to torture .?.?. unless it can save lives." And so he uses the movie to explain what he thinks while claiming that he doesn't know what that is. (OK - an aside here: what a FUCKHEAD)
Excuse me if I pass over the crap and move right to Mr. Cohen's conclusion:
"it would be all right with me if the government were silent on torture so that no detainee could be confident of civilized treatment or if, in a crisis, an understandable looking away was permitted. Life ain’t neat."
So Mr. Cohen is too squeamish to examine the consequences of his own philosophy. He has to "look away", and thinks that all citizens should look away -- I suppose because although according as his philosophy the means justify the ends, only the most uplifting of those ends should be acknowledged. He doesn't explain why. Clearly he can't imagine that once he and the gov't that he supports "looks away", that much more can happen unawares than was at first foretold.
So much for Mr. Cohen's OP. Now for the discussion threads.
Of course most of the responses reflect a civilized mind, and I won't focus on that. I'll focus on a pro-Cohen "hammerer", someone who takes on everyone in the entire discussion thread and who, unlike Mr. Cohen, doesn't "look away" from what he and Cohen are willing to do. His nym is "ThoughtfulTed" and he hammers everyone with the same mantra. His mantra is, in a few words, that torture is efficient and something "most americans support" and that "morality" (he always uses the quote-marks) is simplistic, leftish, childish, sanctimonious, kindergarten, "waterboarding is about as bad as it gets. The idea of a "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy." and so on.
It doesn't matter what argument is put forth, out of the entire history of debate, this guy is totally oblivious. His only purpose is to hammer his view that he's a superior being who knows, apparently because he was born that way, that any notions or principles of superseding ethics and morality are childish, are contemptible affronts to the brave new world that he envisages.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)its a real debate on ethics and morality....
is a actually a very gray area, and the only definite thing about it is how ones moral compass changes when its your family and friends involved....(funny how that works, we humans can be very flexible, once it gets personal)
delrem
(9,688 posts)And it truly is BS, being 100% based on imagination.
Please come up with a real argument.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)it winter, people are wearing jackets which easily hide their bombs....the bombs and bombers are brought in separately:
first the bomb is hidden in the country
second the sucide bomber, already trained is brought in by his trainer
third, by himself he goes to the bomb vest, will put it on, board a bus and kill 20-30 people during the morning rush
____
his handler has been caught..you've now got a few hours to get the information out of him, which bus, what time...or let 20-30 people die, even if you stop all the busses, he'll just walk into a crowd of people....
well, what are you going to do? thats the "ticking bomb scenario"
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)pelsar
(12,283 posts)you give me the answer...if u have the courage too (real life one)
2:30pm school is letting out in sederot, hasnimikim are now setting up their kassams/grads to launch, there are 5 spread out across an 100m area, Palestinian children are playing over the fence near by
you are now the helicopter pilot with missiles, the kassams ready to launch are in your sights and you cannot be 100% sure your missiles plus the kassams may injure/kill the children nearby.
well, which children gets gambled on, whos lives will you ensure are safe, israelis or Palestenians....you says its simple, so answering shouldn't be a problem....
_____
unlike u i will always answer, i repeat always and if my answer is not clear, you can feel free to repeat and rephrase any way you like. If i didnt answer something, it because i was concentrating on something else..just mention it again.
your question:
Would you support, or at the very least, not give a shit, if Iran preemptively attacked Israel based on the MULTITUDE of direct threats that Israel poses a real and present danger to Iran and its citizenry?
no, first, no dictatorship, nor theocracy has any right to exist, hence they have no right to defend anything, especially not their own facist regime. Second israel in fact is not threatening to destroy Iran, which is precisely what iran's president has been saying for so many years, hence the threats are not "morally on the same plane. Israel is threatening to destroy their means, to make good on their threat to destroy an entire country.
there is a moral difference between the two threats, in both material damage and human lives as well as regional stability
___
as far as your remarks about "incapable of emotion"...again, those are arguments used by teenagers who are having a hard time with logical arguments to describe environments, save them for your fan club when u need some support, i personally find them a waste of bandwidth with theses kind of discussions, now see if you can be that helicopter pilot and make the "simple" decision, and u can even use your emotion to help u. and when you dont answer, at least mention why you wont.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:36 AM - Edit history (1)
didn't think you would answer it, .....anything that takes a simplistic moral approach can't really deal with the real life that many of us actually have to live , hence your non answer.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Right down to asserting that others have a "simplistic moral approach" you are the "ThoughtfulTed" of my illustration - an illustration that you flatly ignore while repeating your stale mantra, just as you ignore all other responses.
In fact your mantra has been refuted many times as being nothing more than a fantasy scenario and therefore *a justification for NOTHING* - and like "ThoughtfulTed" you've simply bulled ahead, repeating your mantra again and again.
Ethics and morality isn't about ever malleable and unfalsifiable fantasy futures. It's about what human rights ought to be respected as being applicable to ALL, equally in the here and now, and it's about events that actually have occured, not what some swindler out of Minority_Report (movie) says *might* occur in future. A so-called "preemptive war" is nothing more than any other war of aggression, but masquerading under a name that falsely declares it is self-justified.
"I shot him in the back because I was preempting his planned attack on me - that I heard something of in a bar."
"I tortured them all to death because someone said they knew something about someone who might have been plotting an attack on me. How was I to know that one was an innocent cabdriver, another was an innocent teacher, another was ....? I had no time to dally with niceties, the threat was immanent."
OK, you can repeat your sophomoric mantra once again. Go to it, why the hell not?
pelsar
(12,283 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:23 AM - Edit history (3)
In fact your mantra has been refuted many times as being nothing more than a fantasy scenarioreally, perhaps you would like to tell me where exactly?
i have no idea with your "refuting" whether you believe it to have happened in the past, present or future is irrelevant, its a question of of your morality.....hence the ticking bomb scenario still stands as a question, what would you do? (beside avoid the question)
in the other real world, the helicopter pilot and his decision was a daily scenario above gaza, so i have no idea whats being refuted other than that fact that you really really really don't want to go there.
in fact its such an obvious scenario: hamasnikim are blown up with nearby kids whlle a kassam is being prepared to launch in the future (like 2 minutes) and israel is condemned...was that not in the news?...so, as i understand from your point of view, the pilot should not shoot (preemptive), and the kassam is launched and its up to the israeli kids to take their chances of getting killed.(what happened to their human rights?)
what part is fantasy? would you like some links, if that will help?
anybody who writes and or believes this:
Ethics and morality isn't about ever malleable
has had little experience in life tougher areas and decisions involving many lives, but i think your experiences as an "armchair" moralist are becoming more and more clearer.
your illustration, like your "i shot him in the back" are self serving scenarios, that serve your point of view, and have little to do with reality (using a movie?). Back in the real world, its a lot murkier. Would you like some additional real scenarios that actually happen? Yes you can deny them, since given your limited experiences they may seem strange to you, but its always worth a try.
and for general knowledge, you really didn't know how the Palestinian suicide bombers worked and how in fact some were really caught before blowing up innocents?....its called human intel, and whereas torture is not considered reliable, pressure that refutes someones "civil rights" does in fact work.
____
look i've been around these forums enough to know your not going to answer the above scenarios. Either you"ll make us some additional excuses or you'll simply not answer. Many years ago a single poster had the guts to say "I dont know" and i give that poster a lot of respect, since its an honest answer to an impossible situation, since any answer would negate their values.
just a thought, rather then avoiding the questions.
delrem
(9,688 posts)and who uses self-serving fantasy scenarios to justify "preemptive" wars of aggression and programs of systematic torture.
I don't give that kind of rhetoric any respect at all.
pelsar
(12,283 posts)its better just to say you dont have an answer, than to pretend the Israeli helicopter pilot over gaza did not face those exact scenarios.
in fact you can't even discuss what their choices were, since even going there would eventually put you in a position of a moral dilemma.
suicide bombers....again, you cant even discuss the "ways and means" of preventing 30 people from being blown up, since even talking about it would eventually get to the moral dilemmas
which is why you "bug out' and call them "fantasy scenarios'...as if there were no suicide bombers, no kassams, no grads..makes for easy life, you get to have a belief, criticizes and lecture others, but you really dont have to enter the real world and back up your belief with what happens in real life.
sure sound religious to me
delrem
(9,688 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and I can't count the number of times we've been told here that the Green line is not a border and now could be looking to expand the Golan areas border
