Hamas wins Palestinian election

[Carl.]

I'll agree that there is a difference between intending to maximize collateral damage and simply ignoring or grossly neglecting it, but in many cases it's so small that I don't see how that alone allows to clearly draw the line between who you support and who you don't support. Israel also has acted to directly put pressure on Palestinian civilians in many ways, ranging from intimidation to the complete destruction of densely populated areas, and I do believe that collateral damage has also been used as a (very ineffective, but still) dissuasive method by Israel, especially in retaliatory missions.

Dropping a nuke on a city to kill civilians isn't much worse than dropping a nuke on a city to destroy some miltitary target located in it.

 

[Danoff]

I'll agree that there is a difference between intending to maximize collateral damage and simply ignoring or grossly neglecting it, but in many cases it's so small that I don't see how that alone allows to clearly draw the line between who you support and who you don't support. Israel also has acted to directly put pressure on Palestinian civilians in many ways, ranging from intimidation to the complete destruction of densely populated areas, and I do believe that collateral damage has also been used as a (very ineffective, but still) dissuasive method by Israel, especially in retaliatory missions.

Indeed, and it appears that you have provided an example of Israeli terrorism from 50 years ago. I do see a difference between ignoring collateral damage and maximizing it - but I don't think terrorism is the only line drawn between the Israelis and the Palestinians, just the loudest.

Dropping a nuke on a city to kill civilians isn't much worse than dropping a nuke on a city to destroy some miltitary target located in it.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

Howdy, Y'all... Sorry I've been a bit absent from here in the last weeks... Real life took precedence for a bit (and I've been busy disposessing innocent villagers from thier homelands on the Travian server 4)

I think I have argued effectively that little difference exists between the terror - inspiring mass killing supported by the US and Israel and the Terror - inspiring mass killing supported by Islamist extremists and thier political bedfellows (ie. the Syrians).

Yes, Danoff, I know you don't agree... and think I have offered no support for my arguments at all...

Danoff challenged me to find examples of US and Israeli complicity with terrorism as a matter of policy... The US examples I gave were indisputable, but my ignorance of Israeli politics hindered my response in that area.

So here's a little tidbit that I stumbled upon while researching Natan Sharansky (who is speaking in my town next week and will be confronted by REAL human rights activists... but that's another story)

Following is text cut and pasted form the Remembering Deir Yassin website...Run by a REAL human rights activist who also happens to be an Israeli Jew who is fighting against his government's use of terrorism to achieve political goals

Early in the morning of April 9, 1948, commandos of the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin, a village with about 750 Palestinian residents. The village lay outside of the area to be assigned by the United Nations to the Jewish State; it had a peaceful reputation. But it was located on high ground in the corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Deir Yassin was slated for occupation under Plan Dalet and the mainstream Jewish defense force, the Haganah, authorized the irregular terrorist forces of the Irgun and the Stern Gang to perform the takeover.

In all over 100 men, women, and children were systematically murdered. Fifty-three orphaned children were literally dumped along the wall of the Old City

The terrorist activities of Irgun and the Stern Gang are well documented and frequently included violent attacks on unarmed civillians. The success of these attacks was essential to the formation of the State of Israel as they terrorized the non-Jewish population and lead many Arab civillians to flee for their lives or face murder at the hands of these irregular forces. Had these acts fo ethnic cleansing not been committed, Israel would not have been able to achieve a Jewish majority and therefore would have to abandon it's facade of democracy or face real democracy and an Arab majority in the Knesset.

EDIT:
In response to the "what can we do about it now" posts above, what about creating one secular democratic state including Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank with a constitutional committment to equal rights, civil rights, and human rights for all inhabitants, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion, and then let the democratic process take it's course? Or is that just crazy talk? Faith in democracy? I'm SUCH a radical...

 

[Danoff]

I think I have argued effectively that little difference exists between the terror - inspiring mass killing supported by the US and Israel and the Terror - inspiring mass killing supported by Islamist extremists and thier political bedfellows (ie. the Syrians).

You have been wholly ineffective on that front.

Danoff challenged me to find examples of US and Israeli complicity with terrorism as a matter of policy... The US examples I gave were indisputable, but my ignorance of Israeli politics hindered my response in that area.

I disputed your "US" examples quite easily - since they were not examples of the US performing terrorist acts.

The terrorist activities of Irgun and the Stern Gang are well documented and frequently included violent attacks on unarmed civillians.

That's not the definition of terrorist.

The success of these attacks was essential to the formation of the State of Israel as they terrorized the non-Jewish population and lead many Arab civillians to flee for their lives or face murder at the hands of these irregular forces.

It was an invasion - totally different from terrorist activity.

Had these acts fo ethnic cleansing not been committed, Israel would not have been able to achieve a Jewish majority and therefore would have to abandon it's facade of democracy or face real democracy and an Arab majority in the Knesset.

How does invading non-Israeli land acheive a jewish majority in Israeli land? How is it ethnic cleansing when you've admitted in the above paragraph that Israel was mixed to begin with?

Here's what happened in your example - it's really quite simple.

Israel ruthlessly invaded and aquired new territory.

That's it. It was a military strategic move (remember that it was the "high ground"). It wasn't ethnic cleansing - it was territorial. It wasn't terrorist, it was strategic. So, in conclusion

a) this wasn't terrorist
b) it happened over 50 years ago, get some recent dirt on Israel if you expect to call the current state terrorist.

Edit: See what I wrote about "intent" above to understand the distinction between your Israeli example and terrorism.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

Yeah, Sure... Irregular non-governmental forces invading a peaceful village and slaughering civilians with the complicity of the nacent Israeli government as part of a systematic campaign of terror against civillians of one ethnicity for the acknowledged purpose of opening the area to occupation by another ethnicity...

and the best you can do is argue that TECHNICALLY it's not terrorism? Or 50 years ago was to long ago? OK, Danoff... You win. I'll pretend I agree with you. It's not terrorism. It's just deeply evil, racist, and anti-democratic.

Big Victory for You!

EDIT... I want to respond to ledhed's posts above but I'd rather not double post so I'm editing here:

@ledhed... while we disagree ideologically, I am in total agreement with you regarding the current global political dynamic and your example (Viet Namese resistance to Japanese imperialism in WW2) of terrorism being in the eye of the beholder.

I believe the international political scene follows a wave cycle of hegemonic control... at the wave crest, one power is dominant and the world is stable... because everybody lines up in a pecking order behind the dominant power, who is to powerful to risk conflict with. In the past some of these crests have been associated with British, Dutch, Spanish, and, most recently, American world domination.

The troughs of the wave cycles occur when the dominant power is in decline, and those below on the pecking order start to think about grabbing the top spot... this period is characterized by extreme violence and conflict... as those below turn on the top dog, then on each other in the struggle to be the new top dog.

The last trough began in the 1890s, got really hot in WWI and WW2, and then dragged on for a while with the cold war. It finally ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only nation left that could pose a real threat to US world domination. So now we're on a crest... but our oil dependence and bungled attempt to remake Iraq in our image are big cracks in our foundation...The Europeans, Russians and Chinese are licking thier chops... make no mistake... we are entering a life or death struggle to maintain our position on top, and it's a struggle that no historically dominant power has ever won. It's certain to get very ugly before it gets any better.

 

[FoolKiller]

Hey BuzzOrHowl, I have a question for you.

Do you see any kind of difference between terrorism and a military action or do you think that they are all one and the same?

I ask because everytime I see someone trying to make the argument you are making they tend to not see a difference.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

Yeah, there's clearly a difference. We can disagree on how large it is, but there is definitely a difference. I agree with Danoff that intent is part of the equation.

Part of my argument against military actions, however, is that no matter how "civilized" or "principled" they start out, Wars always degenerate into either outright terrorism or military actions so repugnant that the moral difference is paper thin. You just can't win a shooting war without terrorizing the civillian population of your opponent, and you do that by slaughtering women and children. That's the reality on the ground.

Which is why any leader who gets a nation into a war of choice (as opposed to necessity) is, either intentionally or inadvertantly, making a choice to engage in actions either terrorist or morally equivalent to terrorism, and should be held accountable for that choice or at least the incompetence of making that choice without realizing it.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, Sure... Irregular non-governmental forces invading a peaceful village and slaughering civilians with the complicity of the nacent Israeli government as part of a systematic campaign of terror against civillians of one ethnicity for the acknowledged purpose of opening the area to occupation by another ethnicity...

and the best you can do is argue that TECHNICALLY it's not terrorism? Or 50 years ago was to long ago? OK, Danoff... You win. I'll pretend I agree with you. It's not terrorism. It's just deeply evil, racist, and anti-democratic.

Big Victory for You!

I didn't say it wasn't evil. But it wasn't racist (you must have missed that in my previous post), and it wasn't a campaign of terror. It was a brutal strategic military move. I think it isn't fair, however, to claim that the Israelis of today should be labeled for the actions of the Israelis 50 years ago.

Part of my argument against military actions, however, is that no matter how "civilized" or "principled" they start out, Wars always degenerate into either outright terrorism or military actions so repugnant that the moral difference is paper thin. You just can't win a shooting war without terrorizing the civillian population of your opponent, and you do that by slaughtering women and children. That's the reality on the ground.

Which is why any leader who gets a nation into a war of choice (as opposed to necessity) is, either intentionally or inadvertantly, making a choice to engage in actions either terrorist or morally equivalent to terrorism, and should be held accountable for that choice or at least the incompetence of making that choice without realizing it.

I like this reasoning. It's hilarious.

Buzz: Wars inevitably lead to the wholesale slaughter of women and children. Therefore president Bush should be responsible for the mass murder of innocents.

Gotcha. Ironclad reasoning there.

It's all about intent Buzz, that is the difference.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

One is responsible for the reasonably forseeable effects of ones actions, as well as the intended effects.

If I am driving a car and my intention is to get to work on time, and I accidentally hit a pedestrian, I am less culpable than a person who chose to hit a pedestrian intentionally because he or she hated them... So I agree, intent matters.

However, if two people are both driving to work with no intention of hitting anyone, and each accidentally run over a pedestrian... One while driving the speed limit, the other while going 100 miles per hour on the sidewalk through a school zone while drunk and talking on a cell phone, the second is more culpable than the first...even though intent, to get to work on time, was the same in each case. (both are less culpable than the intentional killer, however.)

This difference is reflected in our laws and our cultural ideas about responsibility. It is reasonable that a person should be able to forsee that reckless drunk driving is likely to result in the death of a pedestrian, so even if they never "wanted" to kill the pedestrian, we still hold them responsible for vehicular homicide (in contrast to first or second degree murder, as we would an intentional killer of a pedestrian).

on a still finer scale of grey, we might think differently if the drunk driver was trying to rush his gravely injured child to the hospital, rather than just trying to get to work on time... but we would still hold him accountable within that context.


So yeah, even if GW Bush's only intention was to "fight terror" or "spread democracy" or "promote US hegemony in an oil rich region" (pick option ideologically appropriate for you) and not to murder innocents, he should have known that war in the region would inevitably lead to the slaughter of inocents on a massive scale. He's either ignorant and incompetent or just dosen't care. In either case, the blood of those innocents is on his hands.

Edit;
Further more, the relative amount of power held by each actor modifies the amount of responsibility each party has...The more powerful are more responsible for the outcome of the interaction than the less powerful

For instance, if a toddler has a fit of temper and punches a parent, it's not exactly good, but if a parent has a fit of temper and punches a toddler it is much, much worse. The same is true to a variable degree(typically lesser) between other less dramatic imbalances of power... Doctor/patient, teacher/student, employer/employee, rich/poor, armed/unarmed, educated/not educated, men/women (in patriarchy, anyhow) State/Nonstate, powerful state/less powerful state. In all cases, the responsiblility for the outcome of a given conflictual interaction rests on the more powerful actor in proportion to the power differential between the actors.

 

[Danoff]

One is responsible for the reasonably forseeable effects of ones actions, as well as the intended effects.

If I am driving a car and my intention is to get to work on time, and I accidentally hit a pedestrian, I am less culpable than a person who chose to hit a pedestrian intentionally because he or she hated them... So I agree, intent matters.

However, if two people are both driving to work with no intention of hitting anyone, and each accidentally run over a pedestrian... One while driving the speed limit, the other while going 100 miles per hour on the sidewalk through a school zone while drunk and talking on a cell phone, the second is more culpable than the first...even though intent, to get to work on time, was the same in each case. (both are less culpable than the intentional killer, however.)

This difference is reflected in our laws and our cultural ideas about responsibility. It is reasonable that a person should be able to forsee that reckless drunk driving is likely to result in the death of a pedestrian, so even if they never "wanted" to kill the pedestrian, we still hold them responsible for vehicular homicide (in contrast to first or second degree murder, as we would an intentional killer of a pedestrian).

on a still finer scale of grey, we might think differently if the drunk driver was trying to rush his gravely injured child to the hospital, rather than just trying to get to work on time... but we would still hold him accountable within that context.


So yeah, even if GW Bush's only intention was to "fight terror" or "spread democracy" or "promote US hegemony in an oil rich region" (pick option ideologically appropriate for you) and not to murder innocents, he should have known that war in the region would inevitably lead to the slaughter of inocents on a massive scale. He's either ignorant and incompetent or just dosen't care. In either case, the blood of those innocents is on his hands.

You got that mostly right. The car example is a particularly good one, because you're aware that you might kill someone accidently on the way to work. You intend to get to work safely every morning when you get into your car - but you know you might run over some pedestrian on your way. You try to mitigate that possibility as much as possible, but the potential for death or injury exists. This is very much like the US with our current invovlement in Iraq. We're aware that we might cause collateral damage, but we try to mitigate that as much as possible. The possibility doens't keep us out of the car.

Once, again, there are three categories.

1) Those who try to minimize collateral damage
2) Those who ignore collateral damage completely
3) Those who maximize collateral damage.

Each one is less moral than the previous, and they apply in order to the US, Israel, and Terrorists.


This next part is where you lose your mind.

Edit;
Further more, the relative amount of power held by each actor modifies the amount of responsibility each party has...The more powerful are more responsible for the outcome of the interaction than the less powerful

For instance, if a toddler has a fit of temper and punches a parent, it's not exactly good, but if a parent has a fit of temper and punches a toddler it is much, much worse. The same is true to a variable degree(typically lesser) between other less dramatic imbalances of power... Doctor/patient, teacher/student, employer/employee, rich/poor, armed/unarmed, educated/not educated, men/women (in patriarchy, anyhow) State/Nonstate, powerful state/less powerful state. In all cases, the responsiblility for the outcome of a given conflictual interaction rests on the more powerful actor in proportion to the power differential between the actors.

That's unbelievably rediculous. "With great power comes great responsibility" I suppose would be the addage here. But it's complete nonsense. Those with power have no inherent responsibility due to their power. The rich are not responsible to the poor, the strong are not responsible to the weak. Parents ARE responsible for their children but the reason for that responsibility is not simply because they are strong and the children are weak - otherwise all parents would be responsible for all children. The reason is because they made the child. If you make someone weak, perhaps you have a responsibility to them. But the difference in power does not imply any kind of responsibility.

Anyway, the above there warrants its own thread. But you're way way way off the mark on that one.

 

[BuzzOrHowl]

You got that mostly right. The car example is a particularly good one, because you're aware that you might kill someone accidently on the way to work. You intend to get to work safely every morning when you get into your car - but you know you might run over some pedestrian on your way. You try to mitigate that possibility as much as possible, but the potential for death or injury exists. This is very much like the US with our current invovlement in Iraq. We're aware that we might cause collateral damage, but we try to mitigate that as much as possible. The possibility doens't keep us out of the car.

I think your analogy equating the US invasion of Iraq with the guy just trying to get to work without hurting anyone is a false one... because the administration's response to Saddam and his cronies was only one of many options, virtually all of which would have lead to less killing of innocents (yeah... Like anyone is innocent.. but that's a different story). GW's choice of a shooting war in this situation is more analgous to an alcoholic's choice to pound a pint of Vodka and go speeding around the neighborhood... Negligent and irresponsible as it is foreseeably disasterous for innocent bystanders. Trying to "mitigate" the suffering after the fact is better than nothing, but remains too little too late. I'm not saying we need to "keep out of the car" entirely... just that we need to keep irresponsible alcoholic speeders out of the car... and hold them accountable when their behavior harms others, intentionally or not.

BTW, to move from metaphor to literal reality, I do avoid using my car because of the harm it does... to the environment, to our national security, and to any pedestrians I might not see in time...

Good Ol' GT... I can race all day without burning any oil... Then ride my bike to work!

 

[Danoff]

I think your analogy equating the US invasion of Iraq with the guy just trying to get to work without hurting anyone is a false one... because the administration's response to Saddam and his cronies was only one of many options, virtually all of which would have lead to less killing of innocents (yeah... Like anyone is innocent.. but that's a different story). GW's choice of a shooting war in this situation is more analgous to an alcoholic's choice to pound a pint of Vodka and go speeding around the neighborhood... Negligent and irresponsible as it is foreseeably disasterous for innocent bystanders. Trying to "mitigate" the suffering after the fact is better than nothing, but remains too little too late. I'm not saying we need to "keep out of the car" entirely... just that we need to keep irresponsible alcoholic speeders out of the car... and hold them accountable when their behavior harms others, intentionally or not.

BTW, to move from metaphor to literal reality, I do avoid using my car because of the harm it does... to the environment, to our national security, and to any pedestrians I might not see in time...

Good Ol' GT... I can race all day without burning any oil... Then ride my bike to work!

Your car does little-to-no harm to the environment, very little harm to national security, and if you're alert, you won't hit any pedestrians.

But back to the car analogy. I don't know how you can call Bush irresponsible of negligent by going to war in Iraq. It's pretty far off of the Hamas topic - seing as how Iraq has almost nothing to do with that situation. I've made a strong case for why going into Iraq was the right thing to do in different threads, and I suggest that if we're going to discuss the Iraq war further, we take it there.

 

[Zardoz]

U.S. and Israelis Are Said to Talk of Hamas Ouster

"When Good Elections Go Bad"

We don't like the people's choice, so let's see if we can screw 'em up. Gosh, I wonder why Muslims worldwide have come to hate us so much?

 

[FoolKiller]

U.S. and Israelis Are Said to Talk of Hamas Ouster

"When Good Elections Go Bad"

We don't like the people's choice, so let's see if we can screw 'em up. Gosh, I wonder why Muslims worldwide have come to hate us so much?

While I always doubt anonymous sources, especially ones discussing things that were only discussed in the highest levels of the government (so how do they know?), it sounds like it is more along the lines of giving them a choice.

They say Hamas will be given a choice: recognize Israel's right to exist, forswear violence and accept previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements — as called for by the United Nations and the West — or face isolation and collapse.

That sounds more like they are saying, "don't make trouble and there won't be trouble."

Of course, you need to read past the title and keep going to the fifth paragraph before you get that part. I love how the title only says Israel and the US, but when you get down to the 10th paragraph you find out that the European Union is part of this as well.

To sum up, the NY Times and wants us to believe that the US and Israel are throwing a tantrum because they didn't get their way so they are going to starve a country when in reality this is Israel, the US, and the EU asking Hamas to behave so that they won't have to resort to this kind of action.

 

[Appie]

i don't get it.
why is everybody afaraid of Hamas
America bomb whole Middle East and they said that we bring democracy
and now Hamas won and now is bad. Sorry to say this but i THINK they won
fair and square:tup:

 

[niky]

Because Hamas has openly declared a desire to see Israel destroyed.

The US does chuck bombs at military targets, and sometimes arguably oversteps its bounds, which leads to civilian casualties, but Hamas has performed terrorist acts in the past (actively targeting civilians).

 

[FoolKiller]

i don't get it.
why is everybody afaraid of Hamas
America bomb whole Middle East and they said that we bring democracy
and now Hamas won and now is bad. Sorry to say this but i THINK they won
fair and square:tup:

We aren't saying that they cheated, but with Hamas in power we could see a large problem in the region. Hamas wants Israel destroyed and has yet to say that they will even attempt talks with Israel.

You know, Hitler was elected fair and square too, that didn't make him a good guy that we should look up to and/or respect.

 

[Danoff]

We aren't saying that they cheated, but with Hamas in power we could see a large problem in the region. Hamas wants Israel destroyed and has yet to say that they will even attempt talks with Israel.

You know, Hitler was elected fair and square too, that didn't make him a good guy that we should look up to and/or respect.

That's a good point. Just because the people are elected doesn't mean we can't hate them or even go to war if necessary (and legitimized). It's actually worse than a dictatorship because it means a majority of the people agree with these terrorists.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's actually worse than a dictatorship because it means a majority of the people agree with these terrorists.

It kind of makes you not feel as bad about collateral damage.

 

[Danoff]

 

[Appie]

We aren't saying that they cheated, but with Hamas in power we could see a large problem in the region. Hamas wants Israel destroyed and has yet to say that they will even attempt talks with Israel.

You know, Hitler was elected fair and square too, that didn't make him a good guy that we should look up to and/or respect.

i know thats true, but don't think that Israel are like the good guys because they kill Palestinians too and it only be a action reaction. But you have to think that not every muslim is a terrorist👍

we want peace too:tup:

 

[Solid Fro]

we want peace too

Why can I not hear you?

 

[Keef]

That's a battle we wouldn't even have to join. The palestinians have the latest in stone and stick technology, in fact, I heard they're working on a new slingshot called the XM-23 Rocktosser. The Isreali army has everything we have, except the important stuff (I can't tell you, it's classified), but the regular stuff (M16, M4, M1A2, Humvee, Apache, stinger, etc.) will work just fine. Remember what Isreal did when they had Yasser Yasser cornered in that building? They killed killed him.
I know peace is a Muslim ideal, I am friends with a few (and they hate Jews, BTW), so maybe you guys should stop saying that these radical guys are Muslims. You need not associate yourselves with crazy folk; exile them from the religion, or kill them.💡
I really don't understand what is going through the Palestinians' heads.

 

[FoolKiller]

i know thats true, but don't think that Israel are like the good guys because they kill Palestinians too and it only be a action reaction. But you have to think that not every muslim is a terrorist👍

I don't think that every Muslim is a terrorist. I have known some very friendly Muslims over the years. I know one who thinks that Hamas winning was a bad thing too. Granted, he's all Americanized and everything, but you get the point.

The difference between Israel and Hamas is that Hamas says they want Israel destroyed and every Jew killed. Israel has done some poor decision making in the past but have recently been trying to negotiate peace. Every cease fire agreement was broken by Palestinian suicide bombers, most claimed by Hamas.

Look at it this way; Israel has been recently talking about peace while Hamas has recently been talking about the genocide of all Israeli Jews. Now, who do you side with in that?