Real World Event Discussions
Get real. If someone was shooting rockets into your house trying to kill you...
POSTED BY: DukKati
UPDATED: Monday, August 14, 2006 05:43
VIEWED: 13192
PAGE 12 of 15
Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:59 AM
Quote:You misunderstood me. That wasn't a typo. I said, I am betting you'll go the "rationale" route, not rational route. That means, you'll accept Israel's "rationale" for killing civilians as legitimate (as opposed to seeing it as an excuse). I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:As a general rule, I will always seek to go the rational route.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm betting you'll go the rationale route. But I hoping I'll lose money.
Then you asked why. You want a motive for murder to distinguish it from manslaughter. (Personally, I think the pattern of repeated homicides, despite the many "rationales" given, indicates premeditated intention to kill and is sufficient for murder charges...but ok, I'll go along.) How about money? And power? And hate? And survival?
Israel gets paid billions of dollars by the USA in support of their "defense" against common enemies. That doesn't count defense contracts. That doesn't count loans and economic aid. What would happen if the war were to end tomorrow and geez, their civilians are now walking on safe streets? What would happen if they were no longer fighting for their lives and at the verge of being cornered into the Mediterranean Sea? I'm guessing they'll still get some money, but not billions. So yeah, they want to add fuel to the fire same as the Hezbollah--it's a very lucrative fire.
Being able to strike at civilians, and get away with it without so much a slap on the wrist because you're best friends with THE Superpower, is a lot of power. It sends a message to all their enemies--yeah, we can kick your ass however we want, wherever we want, and there is nothing you can do about it. Nah nah nah. It's old-fashioned mafia bullying to show who is the alpha male in the Mideast.
Then there is old-fashioned hate. Yeah, they HATE their enemies. They have dehumanized their enemies every bit as much as they have been dehumanized themselves. When they look at a house full of Arab civilians, they only see the "Arab" and not the "civilians." They don't see people anymore--just enemies. This is supported by the pattern of abuse and humiliation the IDF dishes out to Palestinian civilians going about their lives in the occupied territories. There is no more distinction between military and civilian target than there is in a RISK game. In addition, you throw in the long history of murder and mayhem between the Hatfields and the McCoys, and you got yourself a very deep-seated hatred.
I believe this dehumanization started right after WWII. After the details of the holocaust came out, many Jewish leaders decided they would never willingly walk into a gas chamber again--and rightfully so. They were determined to extirpate their enemies before they themselves were exterminated. And I think, there is some displaced vengeance at play as well. They are going to unleash all their stored up fury at the next group of people who questions Israel's right to exist. For them, everything is about survival now. EVERYthing can turn into another Auschwitz. Ironically, their hypervigilance and paranoia are self-fulfilling--they aggravate an already tense situation into a disastrous one that requires hypervigilance and paranoia.
Obviously this doesn't apply to all Jews or even all Israelis. I am taking an educated guess at the possible motives of their leaders throughout Israel's history. In absence of a confession, educated guesses are all we got.
You can dismiss all this as speculation, and in truth, that is what you asked me to do: speculate on the motives. But if you really want to know if there is even a motive, you can look at the pattern of their targets, military or civilian, throughout their history. The info is out there, from many sources besides Arab propaganda machines. You'll see, they don't distinguish between legitimate or illegitimate targets--all are fair game if the target stands in their way.
-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 2:39 AM
Quote:Right, spies.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The logic of supporting someone who treats US as an enemy escapes me.
I don't believe Israel can see anyone but as an enemy. (See my previous post to Finn about hypervigilance and paranoia.) I think Israel, as a nation, was badly damaged psychologically and cannot trust anyone. She has no friends, seeing only assets to be used and threats to be disposed of.
And I think we feel sorry for her. I believe America, at heart, is an extremely generous nation. So we stand by her, hoping one day she'll heal.
But when she starts torturing and killing people, I also believe it is time for us to say, "OK, too dysfunctional. No more enabling from us."
We need to cut the bitch loose. She's bringing her enemies to our front door and our kids are dying.
-------
"You may be the universe's butt-puppet, but I'm fate's bitch" -- Mahahdra in Wonderfalls
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:00 AM
Quote:I understood what you meant. What you want me to do is ignore Israel’s rationale and condemn them for your accusations. But I’m not going to condemn Israel (or Hezbollah) because you accuse them of something. I want to know what their reasons were. I want to know what their rationale is, and so should you. It’s wrong to condemn someone (or a political entity) without first knowing their side of the story, but that’s what you want me to do with Israel.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
You misunderstood me. That wasn't a typo. I said, I am betting you'll go the "rationale" route, not rational route. That means, you'll accept Israel's "rationale" for killing civilians as legitimate (as opposed to seeing it as an excuse). I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
Quote:No, I want you to explain to me what Israel gains for following a policy of intentionally targeting civilians. I didn’t ask you to speculate. I asked you to justify your accusation. What you’ve provided is just more accusations. So I assume you can’t provide an answer, which doesn’t surprise me. Being seen as intentionally targeting civilians doesn’t do anything but hurt Israel and helps Hezbollah. So I really can’t provide an answer to that either, which is why I’ve considered other explanations instead of lingering on the same hackneyed anti-Israeli accusations.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Then you asked why. You want a motive for murder to distinguish it from manslaughter.
The US is not more likely to give Israel aide for killing civilians. Collateral damage as a result of Israeli attacks has done far more to strain US-Israeli relations then help. Furthermore, the accusation flies in the face of some accepted events, namely that Hezbollah started this conflict, not Israel. Israel’s not perpetuating the violence, Hezbollah is.
Accusing Israel of following a policy of targeting civilians because it makes them feel powerful or to satiate their hatred is an accusation that would seem to invoking broad generalizations and personal judgment calls. Essentially you’re telling me that Israelis kill civilians because that’s what Israelis do. That’s an accusation that can easily be construed as an ethnic slur.
Israel uses reduced warhead guided missiles to target Hezbollah missile batteries. If they wanted to kill civilians why not fill their warheads with ball bearings as Hezbollah does?
Israel demanded that all Lebanese civilians leave cities that Israel was prepared to target. Why provide such warnings if they just want to kill civilians, especially when doing so tips off the enemy?
Israel withdrew from Lebanon. Couldn’t they kill Lebanese civilians easier and with less fanfare if they were in control on the ground? They could have set up death camps and silently marched Lebanese to their death cheaply. So why withdraw from Lebanon.
And if “educated guesses” instead of solid reasoning is all we’ve got to explain why Israel has a policy of targeting civilians, it might be a likely indication that Israel doesn’t have a policy of targeting civilians. Maybe you’re trying to fit a square peg into the circle. In any event, I hope you can understand my reluctance to accept your guesses as your rationale for your accusations against Israel. It simply doesn’t hold water. There are better, more rational reasons, to explain the civilian deaths, then trying to perpetuate some stereotype of an evil Israeli.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:07 AM
Quote:Uh... no. That isn't what I said or want.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
What you want me to do is ignore Israel’s rationale and condemn them for your accusations. ... It’s wrong to condemn someone (or a political entity) without first knowing their side of the story, but that’s what you want me to do with Israel.
When detectives don't have a confession from a suspected murderer, they have to speculate about the suspect's motives. There is no other word for guessing what was inside the mind of another human being than "speculation"--esp when that human being denies the motives. It is all inference from a few facts and educated guesses.
Let's just examine that first motive I gave.
Fact: Israel gets paid a lot of money for military defense.
Fact: Despite "strained relations" with the US and any posturing and disapproval by the US, Israel keeps getting that money.
Educated guess: If Israel weren't at war, she would not get nearly as much money for its military defense.
Possible motive: Israel wants to fuel the war in order to keep making money.
The simple fact of financial gain is admissible as motive in criminal court. You asked me "Why would..., what do they have to gain...." I answered. Like I said, short of a confession, motive is not one of those indisputable things that come in black and white.
Just out of curiousity, what would you accept as "justification" as opposed to mere "accusations"? A secret internal memo? A written policy? A confession from a former PM's memoir? What would you consider to be "solid reasoning"? What would you have to see to convince you that Israel practices terrorism?
-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:21 AM
Quote:So if a report supports Israels claims you're more likely to believe it and assume it is correct?
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I am speaking of Hezbollah not Lebanon, and I do have a lopsided view when comparing Israel to Hezbollah.
Quote:All I know is that Israel doesn't want a joint investigation with the UN, they want it all done in house so to speak.
how did the investigation of the bombing of the UN outpost by Israel turn out?
Quote:Because Israel isn't stupid, they're fighting people whose most sophisticated weapons are WWII rockets while they're fielding the latest and greatest in US military technology.
My point was out of the thousands of missiles launched by Hezbollah, Israel is reporting 50 or so civilian deaths. The Lebanese Government is reporting their civilian deaths at approx. 500. If Israel was 'doctoring' their figures, why not report them much higher to closer mirror those of Lebanon.
Quote:You do realise what you've just written right? Lebanon releases high counts, that's doctoring, Israel low counts, that's doctoring too, then you say how do you get doctoring from that? I got it because thats what you said, I mean huh?
That was not my intention. Hezbollah can report high civilian casualties to create anti-Israeli sentiment. The Lebanese Government can report high civilian casualty rates to increase pressure on the UN and increase foreign aid. Israel can report low civilian casualty rates (in Lebanon)to keep the UN off their backs and improve their world wide optics. Human Rights Watch seems to have no interest other than factual reporting. Not sure how you got doctoring out of that.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:31 AM
Quote:That's the kicker, in order to call Hezbollah terrorists all we need do is say they're targeting civilians (not arguing that they aren't BTW), but Israel we have to justify it, but then when we do it's not good enough, when you show evidence they target civilians it's dismissed out of hand, seems fairly biased to me.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just out of curiousity, what would you accept as "justification" as opposed to mere "accusations"? A secret internal memo? A written policy? A confession from a former PM's memoir? What would you consider to be "solid reasoning"? What would you have to see to convince you that Israel practices terrorism?
Maybe I'm an anti-Semite
.I think I'm with you, from Israeli’s POV they aren't targeting civilians they’re targeting the 'enemy'. Seeing popular attitudes expressed by Israeli youth (while there were cameras present making a documentary, so surely a time they'd moderate their views?) they expressed the idea that all Arabs were terrorists, all Arabs were the enemy. That if a bus load of school children were killed it wouldn't matter because they'd just become terrorists eventually anyway.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:53 AM
Quote:And this is imagination, not motive, because it does not fit the facts. Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon, and they did not instigate this current war, Hezbollah did. If you want to argue that Hezbollah wants to fuel the war then you might have something, because they started the conflict. Furthermore, this doesn’t offer any explanation at all for why Israel would have a policy of targeting civilians. If Israel wants to fuel a war, they could do so just as easily by not having a policy of targeting civilians. In fact, if money from the US is the reason why they are supposedly fuelling this war, then why would they have a policy of targeting civilians, when such actions strain that very relation? Not only does it fail to fit the facts, but it explains nothing. It’s nonsense.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Let's just examine that first motive I gave.
Fact: Israel gets paid a lot of money for military defense.
Fact: Despite "strained relations" with the US and any posturing and disapproval by the US, Israel keeps getting that money.
Educated guess: If Israel weren't at war, she would not get nearly as much money for its military defense.
Possible motive: Israel wants to fuel the war in order to keep making money.
Quote:A reason why such actions benefit them would be enough. Killing civilians, even unintentionally, has devastating effects on Israel’s image. When this conflict started, practically everyone except Iran and Syria were on Israel’s side. Even most of the Arab states, including Lebanon were outraged at Hezbollah, for intentionally started a war with Israel. Egypt and Jordan declared that Israel should destroy Hezbollah. But as the collateral damage mounted, the tide began to turn against Israel, now even the United States is demanding a cessation to the war, which is basically a victory for Hezbollah. So killing civilians, even unintentionally, has caused Israel to loose this war. I'm not asking for TS internal memos, just a reason why it benefits them, one that is not based on stereotype.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just out of curiousity, what would you accept as "justification" as opposed to mere "accusations"? A secret internal memo? A written policy? A confession from a former PM's memoir? What would you consider to be "solid reasoning"? What would you have to see to convince you that Israel practices terrorism?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:53 PM
Finn: What do they gain?
CTS: Money. Power. Acting out their hatred. Survival.
Finn: That's nonsense.
CTS: Well, what would convince you?
Finn: Show me what they have to gain.
OK...see, I still don't know what would convince you. Cause I tried showing you what they have to gain, and it wasn't good enough.
So, what is your standard? What would I have to SAY, that would not sound like nonsense? Is there anything I CAN say that wouldn't sound like nonsense? What would "fit the facts"? Could you give me an example, so I know what I should shoot for?
You know, I never said Israel has a "policy" of targeting civilians. I said she is a terrorist state with a PATTERN of targeting civilians. If you wouldn't mind reading my posts again, you'll see that I tried to explain how Israel doesn't make a distinction between military and non-military targets--there is just enemy target. Not making a distinction is what terrorists do--cause if you remember, terrorists think of themselves as freedom fighters in a just war. For them, they are also striking the enemy. The difference between terrorists and other freedom fighters? For terrorists, everyone of "them" is an enemy.
And also as I said before, if you want proof of a pattern, just research Israel's targets from 1946 on up to the present. The decision point is, after seeing the pattern or even a handful of incidents, will you believe Israel's explanations or will you decide they aren't justified?
Having clarified about that "policy" bit, I'll address this.
Quote:But civilian deaths make their enemy MORE angry. The civilian fuel burns brighter and hotter and longer than other fuels. Losing civilian family members drills that hatred deep through the next generation and ensures the war won't relax when this generation dies. (Incidentally, the "war" started way before this recent conflict in Lebanon. I'm talking about a much longer history and much bigger picture.)
If Israel wants to fuel a war, they could do so just as easily by not ...targeting civilians.
Quote:Because strained relations have never kept the money from coming before? (See Fact #2.) Targeting civilians has never resulted in financial consequences for them. Strained relations is inconsequential. If they didn't care about "strained relations" resulting from deliberately sinking a US battleship (see USS Liberty), they sure don't give a damn about any posturing resulting from a few innocent Arabs dying.
In fact, if money from the US is the reason why they are supposedly fuelling this war, then why would they ...targeting civilians, when such actions strain that very relation?
BTW, I am also curious what you make of the USS Liberty incident. Does it bother you that we kept on giving them just as much money as ever after they sank our ship unprovoked, killed 34 and wounded 173 American soldiers unprovoked, and said, "Ooops. That was a mistake?" Decision point. Do you buy Israel's explanation, or do you think the action wasn't justified?
-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 2:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So if a report supports Israels claims you're more likely to believe it and assume it is correct?
Yes. More likely to believe and assume it is correct than a report from Hezbollah. What are you going for here Citizen? You want me to say I am biased towards terrorists? Well I believe I stated earlier that I am.
Quote:Quote:All I know is that Israel doesn't want a joint investigation with the UN, they want it all done in house so to speak.
how did the investigation of the bombing of the UN outpost by Israel turn out?
So you are saying that you do not trust the Israeli's to investigate on their own? Why don't you give them a chance and see what happens.
Quote:
Because Israel isn't stupid, they're fighting people whose most sophisticated weapons are WWII rockets while they're fielding the latest and greatest in US military technology.
Many of those rockets you admited to see fall harmlessly in the desert. I guess Israel's propaganda war is not up to par yet with Hezbollah's.
Quote:Quote:You do realise what you've just written right? Lebanon releases high counts, that's doctoring, Israel low counts, that's doctoring too, then you say how do you get doctoring from that? I got it because thats what you said, I mean huh?
That was not my intention. Hezbollah can report high civilian casualties to create anti-Israeli sentiment. The Lebanese Government can report high civilian casualty rates to increase pressure on the UN and increase foreign aid. Israel can report low civilian casualty rates (in Lebanon)to keep the UN off their backs and improve their world wide optics. Human Rights Watch seems to have no interest other than factual reporting. Not sure how you got doctoring out of that.
It's amazing how you can twist one's argument by taking things out of context. I admited earlier that there were different reasons for differing civilian casualty rates. The point I was making was to try and find the most unbiased source. What finding the most unbiased source has to do with doctoring the civilian casualty rates, I have no idea.
If you want to continue this discussion could you please keep it relevant. Call into question my facts or the points of my argument based on the larger discussion. Try not to 'nitpick' the way I phrase things, unless you really cannot follow my argument and need clarification of course.
De-lurking to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 10, 2006 2:36 PM
Quote:No I'm saying you're biased with Israel, if Israel says it or it supports them it must be true, otherwise it must be false.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Yes. More likely to believe and assume it is correct than a report from Hezbollah. What are you going for here Citizen? You want me to say I am biased towards terrorists? Well I believe I stated earlier that I am.
Quote:They've had plenty of chances to investigate similar incidents and they either don't or they brush it under the carpet, why are they so determined not to allow the UN in on the investigation if they plan on doing it properly?
So you are saying that you do not trust the Israeli's to investigate on their own? Why don't you give them a chance and see what happens.
Give them a chance? They've had plenty of chances.
Quote:I have really no idea what you're going on about here since you're stating things that support my argument as if they refute it.
Many of those rockets you admited to see fall harmlessly in the desert. I guess Israel's propaganda war is not up to par yet with Hezbollah's.
Do you just not understand these things or are you deliberately twisting it around? Israel can't get away with inflating casualty reports as much as you say they would have too, because no one in their right mind would believe that Hezbollah's antiquated equipment would be capable of inflicting comparable damage on Israel as Israel’s state of the art can inflict on Lebanon, it's really quite obvious. So no, Israel not saying "Three hundred dead from Hezbollah rockets" is not proof they aren't using propaganda.
And the rockets that fall harmlessly to the desert are Hezbollah’s not Israel’s, that’s something that was stated quite clearly.
Quote:Bullshit. You are assuming that because they are unbiased they can't be wrong, all I said was that the biased reporting isn't the only way the reports can differ, and that unbiased sources are just as susceptible to these factors. You admit that there are different factors then accuse me of twisting your statements when I point out that biased reporting isn't the only possible cause?
It's amazing how you can twist one's argument by taking things out of context. I admited earlier that there were different reasons for differing civilian casualty rates.
The only way a biased source can change it's data in a way that wouldn't equally effect a biased source is by doctoring it.
Well frankly I'm getting tired of you making obvious accusations phrased just so, then saying "no I didn't!" If you want to continue this discussion please keep it relevant and cut the bitchy schoolgirl crap.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME