Last edited Fri Apr 27, 2012, 01:57 AM - Edit history (2)
I will support any action that I think will minimize death and suffering.
what does that mean?....will you or will you not go and help the syrian rebels?.....and if not why not?
you've already claimed your against such 'vigilante actions, so can we assume your against anybody going to help them out of your moral principles?
how about Lybia, were you also against individuals going to help the rebels?
your moral code is very vague about actual actions..and since one can never know what will cause less or greater deaths, one has to depend upon other values as well, do you have any other values in terms of governing right or wrong that would actually cause you to get up and go and participate physically?
-----
Why are you trying to defend the indefensible?
again with the religious beliefs?....declaring facts where facts do not exist is the classic sign of the intolerant bigot/believer....i can't answer to such declarations.
You may be right but why has Israel not introduced “western education” into the West Bank?
the Palestinians, even under the occupation were given some rights as to their their education and judicial systems,of which they took from jordan and egypt. The influence of israeli democracy that came though via their Palestinians working in israel, and learning of the culture was expressed in Intifada I and the local councils that were established. Mr Arafat, upon his return, removed all of that and replaced the local with his own corrupt cronies, there by creating the foundations for the dictatorships we see today in gaza and in the west bank......
Did you post something to that effect at the time of NATO’s involvement?.......Perhaps you could see the future more clearly than NATO?.......Stating that a post-Gaddafi government would be tribal would have been nothing but a guess at that time, but you didn’t need a crystal ball to see what the future for Benghazi residents would have been had Gaddafi been allowed to fulfill his promise of "no mercy"........If you did object to the removal of Gaddafi, were you also content to standby and watch a massacre take place?
"posting" is not a priority with me, i find it amusing that you put such "weight" on it, as if its some kind of statement of ones personality or character...you really should get out and see the world, start with the conflict zones, and leave your credit card at home.... (oh yea, it will change your view of morals real fast)
NATO went in for oil, that was rather obvious and given the various tribes and their own internal wars, it was pretty obvious what the future had in store. Only the most naive or the believers saw differently. I didn't see a good solution either way, though i would guess that had NATO stayed out of it , there would have probably been less deaths in a shorter time as Gaddaffi had the greater fire power (see syrian, and hama 1982 for an example)..so i guess that you would be on Gaddaffis side as well...that is your principle is it not?
Why would stopping West Bank settler expansion place Israel or its citizens in a more dangerous position?
This is rather obvious to most israelis, but i shall explain later, as it requires an understanding how the various Palestinians groups prepare for their attacks upon israel and how they are thwarted, which is why there a few attacks from the west bank and almost daily attacks from gaza. It will be difficult for you, since it involves indirect actions as well as making educated quesses on future events, things you refuse to admit are relevant in life
so, back to Syria....go and join up or not, they are asking for help, and if not why not?...you claim you "support them", whatever that means in your world (writing comments on blogs?..)
...whats your decision, you seem to have avoided the question. and btw, a "non decision" is also considered a decision in my world as like any other decision it has an affect.
= new reply since forum marked as read