Hafrada is worse than Apartheid

[WildCat]

Armed soldiers arresting armed militants. No helicopters. No jet fighters. No missiles.

Well, I'm sure you'll be quite relieved when and if the ground troops move in. I'm sure they'll be able to walk right up to the long-beards and arrest them.

 

[volatile]

I don't think you know which way "north" is, actually.

For the purposes of this analogy, North is: Don't kill innocent people.

It's quite a simple moral precept - though one that often seems to escape some otherwise decent people.

You seem to be OK with certain innocent people dying because of the what you perceive for some reason to be the uniquely heinous actions of their neighbours. You pick and choose who you care dies based on geography or some other equally arbitrary characteristic. And yet you have the gall to accuse me of lacking a moral compass? Astonishing!

 

[volatile]

NI wasn't disputed territory. It had been part of the UK for nearly 400 years.

You don't think the IRA disputed that?

 

[Texas]

Israel is no better than Hamas. In fact it is worse. It's worse because it is bigger an stronger and can afford to take a more civilized approach then killing indiscriminately.

But Israel doesn't want that. It wants to eventually drive the Palestinians out of Palestine completely so there's a 1 state solution

You do know that Israel could depopulate Gaza and the WB in 48 hours should it decide to do so don't you? Hell most Arab countries would be relieved. More Palestinians have been massacred and placed in camps by fellow Muslims than Israel could ever dream of doing.

 

[volatile]

Well, I'm sure you'll be quite relieved when and if the ground troops move in. I'm sure they'll be able to walk right up to the long-beards and arrest them.

Ground troops? Not necessarily. Military police? Why ever not?

You cannot seriously be arguing that the only way to stop militants is to level their houses from jet fighters. Get a grip.

 

[Texas]

For the purposes of this analogy, North is: Don't kill innocent people.

It's quite a simple moral precept - though one that often seems to escape some otherwise decent people.

You seem to be OK with certain innocent people dying because of the what you perceive for some reason to be the uniquely heinous actions of their neighbours. You pick and choose who you care dies based on geography or some other equally arbitrary characteristic. And yet you have the gall to accuse me of lacking a moral compass? Astonishing!

When it comes "innocent" people and taking sides as to who should die I would back the ones that are only asking to be left the hell alone over the ones that that are hell bent on not letting them.

 

[volatile]

When it comes "innocent" people and taking sides as to who should die I would back the ones that are only asking to be left the hell alone over the ones that that are hell bent on not letting them.

Don't you get it? You should back them BOTH. No-one deserves to die because of the actions, decisions or beliefs of their government or their neighbours. No-one.

Why the hell did you put innocent in quote marks? This kind of "us" and "them" thinking dehumanises the Palestinians and perpetuates the conflict. These are people. Real people. With real lives.

Imagine if someone dropped a bomb from a jet fighter onto your house because of something your State Legislature had decided? Or because of your neighbour's explosives cache? Have some empathy, man. These are people.

 

[gtc]

You seem to be OK with certain innocent people dying because of the what you perceive for some reason to be the uniquely heinous actions of their neighbours.

I don't think anyone is saying that Hamas is uniquely heinous. However, their actions do justify a certain level of carefully targetted military attacks even if that does lead to civillian deaths. The same applies to any and every military conflict. The question is simply whether the current level of military attacks is justifiable.

 

[gtc]

Ground troops? Not necessarily. Military police? Why ever not?

Putting aside the question as to whether Israel is legally allowed to send in military police - what is the tangible difference between a police action and ground troops. I am interested in differences in tactics, weaponry and so on.

More importantly, why would military police doubtlessly lead to more Israeli deaths but why would it lead to fewer Palestinian deaths? And why would it be as successful or more successful at stopping Hamas from shooting rockets at Israel?

 

[Texas]

Don't you get it? You should back them BOTH. No-one deserves to die because of the actions, decisions or beliefs of their government or their neighbours. No-one.

Why the hell did you put innocent in quote marks? This kind of "us" and "them" thinking dehumanises the Palestinians and perpetuates the conflict. These are people. Real people. With real lives.

Imagine if someone dropped a bomb from a jet fighter onto your house because of something your State Legislature had decided? Or because of your neighbour's explosives cache? Have some empathy, man. These are people.

Geeze. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in history with more "innocents" killed than all other centuries combined. You want the Human race to evolve from the absolute brutes we humans still are. The ONLY thing we have evolved to is better ways to kill our enemies, "innocents" or otherwise. We now have a new century and yet we have a region of the world that is still mired in the 7th century and is lashing out with every weapon at its disposal. That is the problem Hamas must come to grips with, if they wish to make war with suicide bombers and rockets then I feel no twinges of "compassion" when they are turned into pink mist and I hold them responsible for any "innocents" on their side that are caught in the crossfire. There are over a million Palestinians in Gaza, if they do not like and agree with those they elected then they can overthrow Hamas and begin to join the modern world.

 

[volatile]

Geeze. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in history with more "innocents" killed than all other centuries combined. You want the Human race to evolve from the absolute brutes we humans still are. The ONLY thing we have evolved to is better ways to kill our enemies, "innocents" or otherwise. We now have a new century and yet we have a region of the world that is still mired in the 7th century and is lashing out with every weapon at its disposal. That is the problem Hamas must come to grips with, if they wish to make war with suicide bombers and rockets then I feel no twinges of "compassion" when they are turned into pink mist and I hold them responsible for any "innocents" on their side that are caught in the crossfire. There are over a million Palestinians in Gaza, if they do not like and agree with those they elected then they can overthrow Hamas and begin to join the modern world.

So the 9/11 dead are justly dead, because the residents of New York elected governments to which the terrorists were hostile? Of course not. Innocent people are just that - innocent.

Your philosophy is disgusting -- it renders the lives of Others worthless. Would that someone bombed your house because your neighbour was a terrorist. Maybe you'd change your tune.

 

[Texas]

So the 9/11 dead are justly dead, because the residents of New York elected governments to which the terrorists were hostile? Of course not. Innocent people are just that - innocent.

Your philosophy is disgusting -- it renders the lives of Others worthless. Would that someone bombed your house because your neighbour was a terrorist. Maybe you'd change your tune.

In the eyes of Bin Laden and much of the Islamic world the deaths were justified. In the eyes of the Nazi the Holocaust and the London Blitz was justified. In the eyes of the allies firebombing Dresden was justified and in the eyes of the US nukes on Japan were Justified. In all cases "innocents" died for the "sins" of their governments. As always the winner will decide which actions were justified.

 

[gtc]

Would that someone bombed your house because your neighbour was a terrorist.

Saying that isn't going to convince anyone.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's the evidence. So let's stop the black and white moralising. Is the military force exerted justifiable? Not to my mind.

But it is justified, and more, to some of the leadership in Tel Aviv. (Doubtless there are members of the Knesset who are horrified at this, and are as we interact here pushing as they can to get the government to stop this.)

You don't like it. I see it as a nearly ineviable chapter in the forever war that won't end until someone shows up with a better idea, either from within or without.

What besides arguing on this forum about moralizing on this can you do? If you've got the better idea, you'd be better off advising the decision makers in Tel Aviv and in Gaza.

It's wasted on us, though I'd love to see it, since we can't act on it.

DR

 

[lionking]

It is a war. Highly unbalanced...but still a war.

Like when the Americans fought the Indians....guns vs. bows and arrows. It was still a war.

and btw..when buses start blowing up in Tel Aviv (and they will soon)..will this war seem a little more balanced?

yes it will.

"meow"

I can't believe that this post was let go without comment. Perhaps because so many have you on ignore.

So you are looking forward to suicide bombings to balance things up a bit? Disgusting.

 

[gtc]

Give him a chance. I'm not sure that he suggested that a more balanced war would be a good thing.

More Israeli civillian deaths would mean that the war was more balanced but that doesn't mean that it would be anything other than a tragedy. Just as WWII would have been more balanced, but not better, if Japan had the ability to nuke US cities.

 

[XenonII]

Let's not.

Apartheid was based on a biological factor: melanin content in skin.

What Israel is doing is based on a sociological factor: political and cultural differences.

If you'd like to call it bigotry, it's hard to argue against that. It is obvious discrimination. If you try to import an emotionally charged term from somewhere else, due to an inherent dishonesty, it won't work as well. While both policies were and are political, their basis is not. Apartheid is a subset of general discrimination. Not all discrimination is apartheid.


Let's call it what it really is, FireGarden: Semite on semite bigotry, which in that part of the world is a well established habit for millenia.

DR

Race is much more than a person's skin color. In fact it is one of the least significant factors when it comes to race. Some Mongoloids for example, have very light colored skin but they are still not White. Jews and Arabs may both be Caucasoids, but they are still different races. An Arab is as distinct from a Jew as a White is to an Arab.

Apartheid was based on God's Holy Word in the Bible which demands the segregation of the races. It is not "discrimination" when done right, and besides not all discrimination is bad. Desegregation is far worse than Apartheid. Negroes for example, have made South Africa a Hell on Earth since black majority rule was permitted. The South African crime rate has gone through the roof and now Whites are actively discriminated against by South Africa's socialist "government".

 

[The Fool]

Race is much more than a person's skin color. In fact it is one of the least significant factors when it comes to race. Some Mongoloids for example, have very light colored skin but they are still not White. Jews and Arabs may both be Caucasoids, but they are still different races. An Arab is as distinct from a Jew as a White is to an Arab.

Apartheid was based on God's Holy Word in the Bible which demands the segregation of the races. It is not "discrimination" when done right, and besides not all discrimination is bad. Desegregation is far worse than Apartheid. Negroes for example, have made South Africa a Hell on Earth since black majority rule was permitted. The South African crime rate has gone through the roof and now Whites are actively discriminated against by South Africa's socialist "government".

Got some bad news for you dude. There is only one race of Humans on this planet. The rest is just rubbish made up by people like yourself.

 

[XenonII]

Got some bad news for you dude. There is only one race of Humans on this planet. The rest is just rubbish made up by people like yourself.

Don't confuse RACE with species! Race is a genetic FACT! Liberals protesting to the contrary does not make their propaganda true. Look at how the Liberal media savaged Nobel Prize winning biologist James Watson just for having the courage to tell the truth about Africa. Not only did they rob the man of his basic human rights to freedom of speech, they robbed him of his livelyhood as well. Those that scream for tolerance are amongst the most intollerant on Earth! Race denial causes far more problems than it solves. Race denial is a crime against nature! It promotes genocide. There's ONE human SPECIES divided into 3 subspecies - Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, and each of those are further divided into the various races and subraces of man.

 

[The Fool]

Don't confuse RACE with species! Liberals protesting to the contrary does not make their propaganda true. Race denial causes far more problems than it solves. Race denial is a crime against nature! It promotes genocide. There's ONE human SPECIES divided into 3 subspecies - Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, and each of those are further divided into the various races and subraces of man.

congratulations you have arbitrarily divided Homo Sapiens Sapiens into 3 groups based on some superficial visual differences. I hope it suits whatever you want to use it for.

Unless Australian is a subgroup I don't want to play...