kelpdiver 2 #126 March 24, 2009 QuoteQuote So long as Iran, Hamas, and others call for the destruction of Israel, and work towards that end, yeah, I give the IDF a pretty free rein. Using a similarly broad sweeping logic then so long as there are Islamic extremists we should be allowed to invade and kill in as many Muslim countries as we can. It's not quite the same thing, as Muslim countries can't credibly threaten our complete destruction. QuoteQuote I think if they want to claim the land they won in wars in the 60s, they can. When you invade a country and lose, you often lose land. Tough shit for you. Except that it violates the Geneva conventions. You can't take the land and you can't transfer your people on to it. Them's the rules. I'd suggest changing them or if we're going to ignore them (any more than we have) then we should withdraw from them. That of course means that we would be acting completely against the best interests of the US. Which clause are you referring to? Right of return? Please be explicit. And of course, address the fact that Israel faces those that intend to destroy them. I'm looking for an example where this has actually been applied, other than by the force of a greater power. Iraq gave up Kuwait only after the US/UN forced it to. The USSR seized all of Eastern Europe and kept it for nearly 5 decades. It claimed this buffer zone for protection after losing 10s of millions to the Germans. This sort of pacifist BS also says war is illegal, but in the real world....not nearly so kind. And hard to justify - if Syria attacks Israel and loses, why should it not have to suffer consequences? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #127 March 24, 2009 QuoteExcept that it violates the Geneva conventions. You can't take the land and you can't transfer your people on to it. this is not the topic here, but if you want to quote the Geneva conventions, you should remember that both Egypt and Jordan have signed a peace treaty and waived their claims for the west bank and Gaza so for that matter israel has a "right" to do what it wants with this land (there was no "Palestine" there). naturally, you can't ignore the existance of the Palestinians there and we need a solution but the Geneva convention you rely on doesn't really hold once the "previous owner" doesnt want the land back. QuoteThis is simply an example of "turning a blind eye" to the reality of the situation I actually think he got it nailed. I promise you that most other countries would have used much more force showing no regard whatsoever to civilian lives, and there are more than enough examples in history... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #128 March 24, 2009 QuoteI actually think he got it nailed. I promise you that most other countries would have used much more force showing no regard whatsoever to civilian lives, and there are more than enough examples in history... like the way the british kept bombing the irish nationalist women and children in their homes?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #129 March 24, 2009 QuoteThis sort of pacifist BS also says war is illegal, but in the real world....not nearly so kind. And hard to justify - if Syria attacks Israel and loses, why should it not have to suffer consequences? there are rules of war - and the idf seem to be breaking them (this is from the idf troops own words).stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #130 March 24, 2009 Quote It's not quite the same thing, as Muslim countries can't credibly threaten our complete destruction. They've already partially destroyed our way of life and strained our economy and relations with our allies. And using your definition, they've called for our destruction, therefore, by your logic, we should be able to do as we please. Quote Which clause are you referring to? Right of return? Please be explicit. And of course, address the fact that Israel faces those that intend to destroy them. Fourth, article 49, the part that says "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.". The earlier part of article 49 that deals with the right of return issue is a real sticking point. Both sides agree that's going to be difficult to deal with but Hamas and others have said that they could live side by side with an Israel within it's 1967 borders. Right of return inside of those lines is not likely and both sides know it, except for possibly Jerusalem. That's going to take some really serious negotiation. Quote This sort of pacifist BS also says war is illegal, but in the real world....not nearly so kind. And hard to justify - if Syria attacks Israel and loses, why should it not have to suffer consequences? It's not "pacifist BS". It's called "playing by the rules" and "not using a double standard". Israel has been expanding it's borders for decades. It won't admit it, we won't enforce the rules and we won't allow the UN to enforce the rules. Which is one of the main reasons given for groups like al qaeda to attack us and for countries like Iran and Syria to take a hard line against us. And the lack of any demand for accountability for the violations admitted publicly by IDF soldiers will continue this policy of double standard and ultimately be problematic for our country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #131 March 25, 2009 QuoteQuote It's not quite the same thing, as Muslim countries can't credibly threaten our complete destruction. They've already partially destroyed our way of life and strained our economy and relations with our allies. And using your definition, they've called for our destruction, therefore, by your logic, we should be able to do as we please. No, they haven't remotely destroyed our way of life. The rights intrusions are ones we permitted. But we don't have to separate our roads, or put border checks between states, or walk around with guns. We are in a position completely dissimilar to Israel. Stop referring to any of this as "logic." It's simple law of the jungle. The big cat does what it feels like. If one of these groups successfully used chemical weapons to attack, we might nuke them back. Barring that, we placate the French and other nancies to the degree possible. Long term thinking versus short term. But in 2003, when they didn't play along, Bush went ahead and started his war anyhow. It appears that Faloxi addressed your Geneva concerns. It isn't occupied territory, though article 49 does give allowances for military requirements. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #132 March 25, 2009 Quote No, they haven't remotely destroyed our way of life. The rights intrusions are ones we permitted. Oh, so we wanted the Patriot Act and all of the security precautions put in place after 9/11? I didn't realize that. Quote But we don't have to separate our roads, or put border checks between states, or walk around with guns. We are in a position completely dissimilar to Israel. I didn't say were were living in a militarized zone. Although if we had been given another few years with #43 I'm pretty sure that at least our souther border might. Quote Stop referring to any of this as "logic." It's simple law of the jungle. The big cat does what it feels like. If one of these groups successfully used chemical weapons to attack, we might nuke them back. Barring that, we placate the French and other nancies to the degree possible. Long term thinking versus short term. But in 2003, when they didn't play along, Bush went ahead and started his war anyhow. It appears that Faloxi addressed your Geneva concerns. It isn't occupied territory, though article 49 does give allowances for military requirements. They're not simply my Geneva convention concerns. Mine are in line with nearly the rest of the planet, including our own government (officially). The problem that you and Ori seem to have is the notion that might makes right and that rules are to be bent or broken at will by the more powerful. Contrary to your assertion, you're not thinking long term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #133 March 25, 2009 QuoteI find the actions of the IDF, The Israeli government, and the people who blindly support them more disgusting then any suicide bomb Hamas has ever done. OF COURSE... you would. They are good muslims just fighting for the peaceful world Caliphate. Anything justifies the end result. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #134 March 25, 2009 Quote Stop referring to any of this as "logic." It's simple law of the jungle. The big cat does what it feels like. I didn't reply earlier to this directly because my initial response would have been pretty nasty. So I waited until this morning. And yea, it's still pretty disgusting. I don't know what it is about this conflict that does this to people. The Sudanese government and the Janjaweed, the Serbs, Hitler, Stalin, the Tutsi "patriots", were all "big cats". I hate to throw any logic at you but your philosophy asserts that "hey, sucks to be them but that's life in the jungle". And now the argument regarding the recent atrocities in Gaza gets reduced to "hey, at least it's not as bad as some historical examples of genocide". I don't get it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #135 March 25, 2009 I think it boils down to one's perception... Perception of the oppressor and perception of the oppressed. In your examples, the oppressed were never perceived to be anything but an underdog... But in this case, the Palestinian's - especially those in the Gaza Strip are not viewed by many as underdogs or even oppressed. They view them as 'extremists' having brought this upon themselves. Many view the Israelies as having acted in self defence. For some, it's not as clearly comparable to Hitler, or Karadzic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #136 March 25, 2009 QuoteStop referring to any of this as "logic." It's simple law of the jungle. The big cat does what it feels like. I don’t know man that is a horrible world to live in. I mean with that logic if at any time people who are weaker suffer at the hands of people who are stronger (that’s the way it works) you see no problem with that? I don’t know about that, I think that’s how we have let atrocities get committed before. I also hope that we show more compassion and are more evolved then the big cats. I do appreciate your honesty.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #137 March 25, 2009 QuoteI think it boils down to one's perception... Perception of the oppressor and perception of the oppressed. In your examples, the oppressed were never perceived to be anything but an underdog... But in this case, the Palestinian's - especially those in the Gaza Strip are not viewed by many as underdogs or even oppressed. They view them as 'extremists' having brought this upon themselves. Many view the Israelies as having acted in self defence. For some, it's not as clearly comparable to Hitler, or Karadzic. Many don't realize what life is like for the 1.5 million people in Gaza. Few understand that Israel considers lentils and pasta a "luxury", and therefore, banned for shipment into Gaza. But regarding the genocide references, I agree that it's not directly comparable. And that's great, but that doesn't make it even remotely acceptable. What I was/am annoyed at is the previously given "law of the jungle" attitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #138 March 25, 2009 Most people won't see it as Palestinian's lashing out after years of oppression, but see it as Israel defending itself - and if civilians are killed in Israel exercising that right - although regrettable and unfortunate, it is viewed not as an atrocity, but as a consequence of what the Palestinian's brought upon themselves. I know that sounds fucked up, but I think that is how most people view this... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #139 March 25, 2009 QuoteI know that sounds fucked up, but I think that is how most people view this I think your right. The media in the US has been one sided for the most part, and now even the BBC has become tainted. They always talk about people blowing themselves up, however they never go back to see what pain, injustice, and desperation causes a young man or woman to kill themselves. It is much easier for most to just assume there is absolutes a guy in a white hat who is all good and a the bad guy in the black.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #140 March 25, 2009 Quote Most people won't see it as Palestinian's lashing out after years of oppression, but see it as Israel defending itself - and if civilians are killed in Israel exercising that right - although regrettable and unfortunate, it is viewed not as an atrocity, but as a consequence of what the Palestinian's brought upon themselves. I know that sounds fucked up, but I think that is how most people view this... That IS fucked up . If you (or your family) were on the receiving end, how would you feel then? Might is not right. Never has been, never will be. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #141 March 25, 2009 And everyday I'm grateful that I'm not one of those families... Neither a family who lives in Gaza nor a family living in constant fear in one of the Israeli border towns... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #142 March 25, 2009 I couldn't agree more. maybe it's up to us more fortunate (or at the very least, our elected officials) to assist in settling disputes before they escalate to violence (such a pity then that ours have been guilty of prosecuting violence on others far weaker than us) (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krip 2 #143 March 25, 2009 QuoteMost people won't see it as Palestinian's lashing out after years of oppression, but see it as Israel defending itself - and if civilians are killed in Israel exercising that right - although regrettable and unfortunate, it is viewed not as an atrocity, but as a consequence of what the Palestinian's brought upon themselves. Only because most people believe the propagandaOne Jump Wonder Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #144 March 25, 2009 Quote I know that sounds fucked up, but I think that is how most people view this... I agree. I'm hoping that things will change as the news media continues to evolve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #145 March 25, 2009 It's funny that your reply was just under Krip's QuoteOnly because most people believe the propaganda I hold as much contempt for politicians who initiate the propaganda as I do for the media who report it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #146 March 25, 2009 Quote I hold as much contempt for politicians who initiate the propaganda as I do for the media who report it. I'll certainly agree with you there. As as side note, Maybe if we figure out some way to erase all of those squiggly lines on the globe people will start concentrating on the important things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pbwing 0 #147 March 25, 2009 Somehow this seems appropriate... "Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #148 March 25, 2009 The lines are in our minds, not the geography - "Tone's wise words of the day" (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #149 March 25, 2009 Quote Quote I know that sounds fucked up, but I think that is how most people view this I think your right. The media in the US has been one sided for the most part, and now even the BBC has become tainted. They always talk about people blowing themselves up, however they never go back to see what pain, injustice, and desperation causes a young man or woman to kill themselves. It is much easier for most to just assume there is absolutes a guy in a white hat who is all good and a the bad guy in the black. Gee you mean like their leaders and mullahs telling them about how great life is with the 72 virgins in "paradise"... if they just go do this thing for the leaders????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #150 March 25, 2009 QuoteQuote No, they haven't remotely destroyed our way of life. The rights intrusions are ones we permitted. Oh, so we wanted the Patriot Act and all of the security precautions put in place after 9/11? I didn't realize that. Many people always want this. Clinton/Reno/Feinstein certainly would have pushed much of this through in the 90s if they could have. After 9/11, Americans were more than willing to give up their freedom for perceived safety. Hopefully this won't be a one way route, and in the future we can have a period where we start stripping away these laws. Quote The problem that you and Ori seem to have is the notion that might makes right and that rules are to be bent or broken at will by the more powerful. Contrary to your assertion, you're not thinking long term. Actually, the problem that you, and a couple others show in the overnight postings is you can't divorce 'right' from 'what happens.' Just as we know that history is written by the winners, we also know that 'rules and international law' are what the weak cling to. The powerful entities do what they want. Doesn't mean it's "right." Yet as I wrote, Israel is hardly doing whatever it wants to do, even though it's obvious that nothing it does will placate the more violent factions of its enemies. But if it took the recent examples of Rwanda, Serbia, Cambodia, Iraq, it could eliminate the conflict in a couple weeks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
