How readily can political opinions change?

[BPSCG]

Well, if you weren't so pathetically centrist - you COULD say they want to kill all Americans, the same as Al Qaeda terrorists.

Yossarian: "The Germans are trying to kill me."
Dunbar: "They're trying to kill everybody."
Yossarian: "What difference does that make?"

I know they're trying to kill all Americans. But the one that I'm most worried about is me.

Of course the big difference is; you work in a city that suffered an Al Qaeda attack

No, I work in two cities that suffered an al Qaeda attack.

and certainly the carnage was close to you. BUT, if that really, really bothers you THAT much; it seems to me you could easily pack up Mrs. BPSCG and all the little BPSCGs and move to Butte, Montana or Kiss My Sink, Idaho.

My grandparents packed up and left Moldova for France in the 1920's, because Moldova wasn't safe for Jews, but France was.Then they packed up and left France for America in 1940 because France wasn't safe for Jews, but America was.

Now you're saying I should pack up and move to Montana because Washington and New York aren't safe for Americans, but Montana is.

No.

 

[Mephisto]

Yossarian: "The Germans are trying to kill me."
Dunbar: "They're trying to kill everybody."
Yossarian: "What difference does that make?"

I know they're trying to kill all Americans. But the one that I'm most worried about is me.

Hey, far be it for me to tell someone they shouldn't base their survival philosophy on Mr. Heller's work of fiction. It just SOUNDS like the only one you care about is you.

My grandparents packed up and left Moldova for France in the 1920's, because Moldova wasn't safe for Jews, but France was.Then they packed up and left France for America in 1940 because France wasn't safe for Jews, but America was.

Now you're saying I should pack up and move to Montana because Washington and New York aren't safe for Americans, but Montana is.

No.

And that's certainly your choice as a free American! I stand behind you all the way. My ancestors were generally kept moving because of the U.S. Cavalry and the Texas Rangers - they stopped to make a stand in the mountains around my home. There aren't too many of them left.

 

[Mephisto]

CYNRIC?

I'm really interested in your viewpoint of all this political in-fighting. You're apparently an relatively even-tempered fellow with an honest question, but I'm afraid that until we can clear up this Palestinian example, it won't go any further.

You mentioned previously that you had gone from left to right, especially because of the latest development regarding Palestinian Democracy (HA!). I agree wholeheartedly that voting for Hamas was one of the stupidest things the Palestinians could have done, but I fail to see how it's much different in a war characterized by stupid actions on both sides.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Because no matter what stupid actions Israel has done, they have never declared that genocide is an official state policy. It is inevitable that some individuals will commit atrocities, and it is debatable to what extent the Israeli people are responsible for the acts that have been done in their name. But there can no longer be any reasonable debate that the Palestinians are officially in favor of murder. The entire Palestinian population is now a participant in terrorist acts.

 

[Mephisto]

Because no matter what stupid actions Israel has done, they have never declared that genocide is an official state policy. It is inevitable that some individuals will commit atrocities, and it is debatable to what extent the Israeli people are responsible for the acts that have been done in their name. But there can no longer be any reasonable debate that the Palestinians are officially in favor of murder. The entire Palestinian population is now a participant in terrorist acts.

Even the little babies? Even the puppies and kittens?

 

[Cynric]

CYNRIC?

I'm really interested in your viewpoint of all this political in-fighting. You're apparently an relatively even-tempered fellow with an honest question, but I'm afraid that until we can clear up this Palestinian example, it won't go any further.

You mentioned previously that you had gone from left to right, especially because of the latest development regarding Palestinian Democracy (HA!). I agree wholeheartedly that voting for Hamas was one of the stupidest things the Palestinians could have done, but I fail to see how it's much different in a war characterized by stupid actions on both sides.

Sorry for the delay in contributing Mephisto. Sadly, I can't post from work, and so have to grab moments at home when all the other demands on my time quieten down.

Re. all the infighting - I see it as inevitable. Without getting too personal, I think it's clear that Art Vanderlay (and others) holds such strong opinions that he's unlikely to be swayed by anything other than extraordinary concessions from the Palestinian side. He also seems to feel that the evil of suicide bombings gives Israel carte blanche to retaliate in whatever way they see fit. Until one side or the other stops retaliating, it's never going to end.
I think Israel has made some serious, commendable effort recently with withdrawal from Gaza and the desire to set permanent borders by 2010 (?). The Palestinians have basically done nothing but bitch and moan (and smash things).

To move the discussion on, I've been reflecting on the forces moving me rightwards recently, and I think I've identified the major factor: cynicism.

My inclinations are quite lefty - I think that taxing the rich to help the poor is fine, and I pay my share of tax, considering myself lucky enough to have the wits and skills to get a job that pays OK, and therefore willing to help others that are struggling. I know that the lazy and feckless will exploit that goodwill, but [rule8] them. Who cares as long as I'm comfortable and the really desperate are not abandoned?
I think that universal free healthcare is an admirable thing.
I think that the excesses of capitalism bring out the worst in human nature (greed, devaluation of human life), and I favour some regulation of business practices to moderate those excess (such as labour laws).

So far, so socialist/utilitarian utopia. The fly in the ointment, of course, is human nature.

Specifically, I've recently got to a stage where a big streak of pragmatism has started creeping into my opinions. It can be summed up best by the following, which I have been mentally screaming at various social/political commentators: "STOP MAKING EXCUSES! YOUR STRATEGY DIDN'T WORK!"
Bascially, social engineering is all very well in principle, but for the small fact that all governments are incompetent. To give an example from the UK, the Blair/Brown government has pumped an amazing amount of funds into the NHS over the last decade, and still the NHS is in a cash crisis. It seems that mismanagement, dodgy PFI deals, bureaucracy and pay rises have swallowed the lion's share. Armies of consultants and lawyers have gotten rich.
The market does at least self-correct to an extent. It can be brutal, and is uncomfortably so for me, but there is a pragmatic, darwinian simplicity to it. I am beginning to see the wisdom of preventing human ideologies from buggering around with self-correcting mechanisms, and instead putting minimal laws in place to curb the excesses at the top, and protect against exploitation at the bottom. People are free as individuals to be humanitarian - trying to force them to be never works.

Sorry for the essay. Hopefully we can all disagree with some of the above, and have a good old debate.

 

[Cynric]

Because no matter what stupid actions Israel has done, they have never declared that genocide is an official state policy. It is inevitable that some individuals will commit atrocities, and it is debatable to what extent the Israeli people are responsible for the acts that have been done in their name. But there can no longer be any reasonable debate that the Palestinians are officially in favor of murder. The entire Palestinian population is now a participant in terrorist acts.

I would also say, at the risk of undermining my own case, that the voters in Palestine didn't exactly have an embarrassment of riches in terms of moderate, brave political parties that would strive for their best interests.

But they did choose the masks and guns.

 

[BPSCG]

Specifically, I've recently got to a stage where a big streak of pragmatism has started creeping into my opinions. It can be summed up best by the following, which I have been mentally screaming at various social/political commentators: "STOP MAKING EXCUSES! YOUR STRATEGY DIDN'T WORK!"
Bascially, social engineering is all very well in principle, but for the small fact that all governments are incompetent. To give an example from the UK, the Blair/Brown government has pumped an amazing amount of funds into the NHS over the last decade, and still the NHS is in a cash crisis. It seems that mismanagement, dodgy PFI deals, bureaucracy and pay rises have swallowed the lion's share. Armies of consultants and lawyers have gotten rich.
The market does at least self-correct to an extent. It can be brutal, and is uncomfortably so for me, but there is a pragmatic, darwinian simplicity to it. I am beginning to see the wisdom of preventing human ideologies from buggering around with self-correcting mechanisms, and instead putting minimal laws in place to curb the excesses at the top, and protect against exploitation at the bottom. People are free as individuals to be humanitarian - trying to force them to be never works.

Ah, you have tasted of The Dark Side, and discovered, to your chagrin, that it gives you pleasure.

 

[.13.]

The entire Palestinian population is now a participant in terrorist acts.

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that it's 55% of the voters instead of entire Palestinian population?

Edit: Hamas got 55% of the votes didn't it? My memory might be failing me and I'm too lazy to check...

 

[Cynric]

Ah, you have tasted of The Dark Side, and discovered, to your chagrin, that it gives you pleasure.

I feel dirty.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that it's 55% of the voters instead of entire Palestinian population?

The use of the singular indicates them considered collectively. We can't exactly precisely quantify the number. After all, did all the Palestinians vote? Those that were eligible, but didn't, should, I think, be considered to be pro-terrorist by default. But what about those not eligible? Do we give them the benefit of the doubt, and put them all in the anti-terrorist camp, or pro-rate their number according to the percentages of those that were eligible? And are we really assured that those who voted for non-terrorist parties did so out of opposition to terrorism, rather than other motives? Everyone who votes for a terrorist party can be considered to be supporting terrorism, but the converse is not true.

I'm not aware of anyone stating, in 1943, that we were at war with only a third of Germany, since that's how many votes Hitler got.

Edit: Hamas got 55% of the votes didn't it? My memory might be failing me and I'm too lazy to check...

And what did the rest vote for? Fatah?

He also seems to feel that the evil of suicide bombings gives Israel carte blanche to retaliate in whatever way they see fit. Until one side or the other stops retaliating, it's never going to end.

Not carte blanche. Nor do I think "retaliation" is quite right word for it. "Retaliation" is based on past event. When Israel assassinates a terrorist, that's based on anticipation of future events.

If someone wants to criticize firing a rocket and killing "innocent" civilians, then they should back up the claim that they are, indeed, "innocent". If some "innocent civilians" are, in fact, terrorists who would attack any force attempting to arrest the terrorist leader, then aren't the rest of the civilians, simply by providing cover, giving up their claim to "innocence"? I mean, take this to an extreme. Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis. The other comprises a few hundred terrorists who carry rifles, rockets, and other weapons, and intend to kill the Israelis. Is the first group really "innocent civilians"? Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?

So, the question is, are the Palestinians really taking all reasonable steps to avoid being near a terrorist when an Israeli rocket strikes? If not, then the responsibility for the deaths lies with the Palestinians.

 

[Mycroft]

And that's certainly your choice as a free American! I stand behind you all the way. My ancestors were generally kept moving because of the U.S. Cavalry and the Texas Rangers - they stopped to make a stand in the mountains around my home. There aren't too many of them left.

I'd be amazed if there are any of them left. Wasn't that about 110 years ago?

 

[Mycroft]

Even the little babies? Even the puppies and kittens?

Especially the babies, puppies and kittens. If they were doing their job right, by being cute and making everyone go awww!, the conflict would never have reached this stage.

 

[Mephisto]

If someone wants to criticize firing a rocket and killing "innocent" civilians, then they should back up the claim that they are, indeed, "innocent".

Ah, the old "shoot first & let God sort them out later." Excellent strategy, especially in the administation of pre-emptive invasions. The trouble is; once you killed them, then proved they're innocent, you can't UN-Kill them.

If some "innocent civilians" are, in fact, terrorists who would attack any force attempting to arrest the terrorist leader, then aren't the rest of the civilians, simply by providing cover, giving up their claim to "innocence"? I mean, take this to an extreme. Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis. The other comprises a few hundred terrorists who carry rifles, rockets, and other weapons, and intend to kill the Israelis. Is the first group really "innocent civilians"? Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?

Since you like playing, "what if," let's try this; You and Mrs. Vandalay take a trip to the Holy Land. You're taking in the beautiful sights and the culture and the history when suddenly a bulky-looking middle-easterner stands up and screams something then . . . nothing happens. To your amazement, you realize it's a suicide bombing gone wrong. Several Israeli policemen and some soldiers start running your way shouldering their weapons as they run. The big, burley would-be "suicider" bitch slaps you out of the way and grabs Mrs. Vandalay, and holding a knife to her throat takes her hostage.

Are the Israeli's justified in shooting?

So, the question is, are the Palestinians really taking all reasonable steps to avoid being near a terrorist when an Israeli rocket strikes? If not, then the responsibility for the deaths lies with the Palestinians.

Maybe the question could just as easily be; "Why aren't Israelis taking more reasonable steps to avoid being near a suicide bomber? Why aren't American soldiers taking more reasonable steps to avoid being in the path of a bullet? Why aren't they simply avoiding IEDs? The responsibility of death, dismemberment and despotism lies in the hands of the idiots with the greatest weapons. The responsibility of restraint in combat lies in the hands of warriors, not soldiers. Just remember the pang you (hopefully) felt at the image of your wife being threatened in the hands of that grimy terrorist - now picture a Palestinian feeling the same way about his wife.

If done correctly, it's much harder to be a human being than it is to be an animal.

 

[Mycroft]

Wouldn't it be more fair to say that it's 55% of the voters instead of entire Palestinian population?

Edit: Hamas got 55% of the votes didn't it? My memory might be failing me and I'm too lazy to check...

I think one could make a really strong argument that the other 45% voted for Fatah, which is another terrorist organization.

Such a person, however, would be a hard-core cynic. It can be said in defense of the Palestinian people that they didn't have a moderate choice to choose.

 

[Mycroft]

Since you like playing, "what if," let's try this; You and Mrs. Vandalay take a trip to the Holy Land. You're taking in the beautiful sights and the culture and the history when suddenly a bulky-looking middle-easterner stands up and screams something then . . . nothing happens. To your amazement, you realize it's a suicide bombing gone wrong. Several Israeli policemen and some soldiers start running your way shouldering their weapons as they run. The big, burley would-be "suicider" bitch slaps you out of the way and grabs Mrs. Vandalay, and holding a knife to her throat takes her hostage.

Are the Israeli's justified in shooting?

So are you claiming the people around Sheikh Ahmed Yassin didn't know who he was?

 

[Mycroft]

Ah, the old "shoot first & let God sort them out later." Excellent strategy, especially in the administation of pre-emptive invasions. The trouble is; once you killed them, then proved they're innocent, you can't UN-Kill them.

Which administration is that?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Such a person, however, would be a hard-core cynic. It can be said in defense of the Palestinian people that they didn't have a moderate choice to choose.

That's not much of a defense. The reason there are no major non-terrorist parties is because hardly anyone votes for them. Unless the elections are not, in fact, democratic, any lack of other parties is because the Palestinians have chosen not to have any other parties. It's like those people complaining that it's unfair that we only had Bush and Kerry to choose from, because no one else was electable. Well, if you don't want to have to choose between Bush and Kerry, vote for someone else in the primary!

Ah, the old "shoot first & let God sort them out later."

Uh.. actually, I'd say it's more of the old "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

Are the Israeli's justified in shooting?

Are the Israeli's what justifiied in shooting?

If shooting a hostage is necessary to protect others, then of course it's justified.

Maybe the question could just as easily be; "Why aren't Israelis taking more reasonable steps to avoid being near a suicide bomber?

Do you believe that there are more reasonable steps that they can take? Note that I didn't ask why the Palestinians don't take more steps, but whether such steps exist.

The responsibility of death, dismemberment and despotism lies in the hands of the idiots with the greatest weapons.

No, it doesn't. Are you seriously saying that if you have a knife, and someone else has a gun, and you stab someone, the person with a gun is responsible?

The responsibility of restraint in combat lies in the hands of warriors, not soldiers.

Huh?

Just remember the pang you (hopefully) felt at the image of your wife being threatened in the hands of that grimy terrorist - now picture a Palestinian feeling the same way about his wife.

Except that I would blame the terrorist.

 

[Mephisto]

I'd be amazed if there are any of them left. Wasn't that about 110 years ago?

There are descendants. Of course none of my ancestors themselves are still alive.

 

[Mephisto]

Suppose that two groups were to simultaneously advance on an Israeli position. One groups comprises several thousand "innocent civilians" who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis. The other comprises a few hundred terrorists who carry rifles, rockets, and other weapons, and intend to kill the Israelis. Is the first group really "innocent civilians"? Would the Israelis not be justified in shooting at the second group, even if it meant killing people in the first group?

Okay, here you're having a problem deciding whether it's okay to shoot through a crowd of innocent civilians who carry no weapons and have absolutely no intention of engaging the Israelis (your words) in order to kill a group of terrorists.

Then you have the audacity to say this? A few lines above you were willing to mow down a crowd of innocents.

Uh.. actually, I'd say it's more of the old "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

I think if you're willing to mow down innocent people you've got that backwards.

Then I provided an example for you regarding the shooting of an innocent person (your wife) in a terrorist situation (of course, I was being stupid to think you could visualize yourself in duress) and you said this?

Are the Israeli's what justifiied in shooting?

If shooting a hostage is necessary to protect others, then of course it's justified.

Well, Mrs. Vandalay should be VERY suspicious if you invite her on a trip to the Holy Land. I don't think you read it very well.

No, it doesn't. Are you seriously saying that if you have a knife, and someone else has a gun, and you stab someone, the person with a gun is responsible?

Are you saying that if someone has a tank and you've got rocks that the person throwing rocks is responsible?

You know, Art - I'm having a difficult time continuing this. Let's leave it up to the forum. If people are actually enjoying this, or if either of us is actually changing anyone's mind - we can continue, but it's really not much of a challenge.

I'm frankly getting just a bit worn and it's obvious we're not going to change each other's mind so why don't you just call me an A$$hole and I'll call you a Dumba$$ and we'll leave it at that?

What do you say?