DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

 

 

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

 

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

 

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.

 

We just upgraded the board software, and now your email address is used to log in. If you're having trouble, please Contact Us.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mreyallior

The morality of human shields and dealing with hostile borders

132 posts in this topic

I wanted to share with you a discussion I had with Larken Rose. Actually, I wanted to share another discussion I had with a libertarian friend, on the same topic.

 

The short version is:

Larken: I rather die than kill innocent people
Me: If you take a human-shield, YOU are responsible for his death, not I

 

...and it goes to:

"Eyal, one fine test of how stupid someone's philosophy is, is to ask, if the whole world shared that philosophy, what would things be like? Well, if the whole world believed as YOU do, as soon as ONE act of aggression occurs, there will be perpetual mass murder, as the victim slaughters innocents in the name of "self defense," and then some of HIS victims do the same, and so on, forever."

"Larken, what you're doing here is a Red Herring, as the issue is not the universality, but whether we recognize Israel's bombing of Gaza as self-defense or not."

 

If you find the topic interesting, I invite you to read from the attached screenshot(s)

 

(I'll upload the other discussions/debates later)

 

Screenshot: (debate with Larken)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D7790656_95600811_928427

 

Screenshot 2: (debate with a friend and his friends)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D7790656_95600811_929516

 

Screenshot 3: (debate with random anarchists on Jeff Berwick's wall)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D7790656_95600811_937136

 

Screenshot 4: (debate with the same guy from screenshot#2, again)

https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D7790656_95600811_938601

 

I also recommend watching this video by Pat Condell, which I posted in those debates:

 

And this short video too

 

 

And just for laughs:

The entire situation in less than 1 minute video

http://tinypic.com/r/2mmir9s/8

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am certainly no history or foreign policy expert, but isn't Israel now occupying what used to be Palestinian territory? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am certainly no history or foreign policy expert, but isn't Israel now occupying what used to be Palestinian territory? 

Isnt just about every country in one shape or form is occupying that which used to be another territory?  And what is the point of the question?  By that I mean this, fact-Israelis are living on a territory that used to be in large held by some other arbitrary entity which claimed it before.  Do you have a conclusion to this fact?  What is your proposition from stating this fact ?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't look to this situation now and judge whether or not Israel is defending itself. In order to make a proper moral judgment you have to go back to the beginning.

 

To get back to the beginning is a very tangled string to unwind and it's a very difficult situation to really unravel.

 

So maybe instead we just look at the current situation. Palestine is a cage, and not in the figurative sense that western nations are cages. It literally is a cage surrounded by walls built by neighbors.

 

They are also under constant economic sanctions.

 

So the people who are supposedly the aggressors live in a giant prison they can't cross physically and they can't trade across.

 

So imagine yourself being born into a prison full of other people who were also born there. Exactly why the generations that came before you were put in said prison is unclear. The only thing we know for sure is that you are there because you were born there, and this applies to everyone else who is also in this prison.

 

Do you think you may try and get out of this prison?

 

And if you did when you were inevitably met by the guards throwing you back inside would you consider violent action to escape?

 

When you committed said violent actions to escape would you describe the prison guards as acting in self defense when they kill you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...is a cage surrounded by walls built by neighbors"

 

LanceD, tell me something, before these walls were built, do you remember how many Israelis drove down to Gaza and blown themselves upstabbed a whole famliy in their sleep?

 

Why do you equate such acts of barbaric terror to the act of escape from prison?

 

I think you should watch that Pat Condell video I posted up here and stop making excuses for barbaric cultures. Giving moral-discounts to barbaric people  does not make them more civilized, just more barbaric.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen the debate you have had with Larkin, he advocates assassinations in your scenarios, but then I remember Israelis assassinating the heads of  terror groups, and the whole world was up in arms about the very fact.  What I am confused about, is why it all seems so one sided?  Am I completely against Israel launching attacks and in the process killing innocent, no shit I am.  But here is a kicker, Iam also against Palestinians killing innocent Israelis and launching endless mortar and rocket attacks. Why is it when it comes to the conflict, people always choose a side?  There are no excuses for the death of the innocent on either side, people stop being so thick skulled will you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slavik,

 

1) Assassinations are many times difficult or impossible to do without causing the death of human shields. If you are completely against the killing of all human shields (the innocent ones and the willing ones), you are basically against assassinations as self defense too. Are you suggesting that Israelis should be sitting ducks to random attacks by Muslims?

 

2) You too commit the sin of patronizing the Palestinians, as you only condemn their attacks on Israel, and do not blame them for using human shields.

 

3) So basically, by not picking sides, you condemn Israel's right and duty to defense. You say you're against Israel launching attacks, but what do you mean by this generalization? Are Israel's attacks just a provocation / initiation of aggression?

 

I would appreciate if you'll be less vague and say what kind of realistic, effective self defense actions do you consider legitimate, and explain when and where they have worked before, or why you think they would work.

 

Experience shows that striking back hard makes terror groups stop their attacks, they lose the support of the people, they lose their lives, weapons, it's ugly but it's working. Have you got another effective way to defend Israel? Or are you against Israel's right to self defend and expect us to die just because the terrorists are keeping their children next to their rocket launchers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I was not talking about assassinations against those on the ground, I was talking about leaders of the terrorist groups (they do not use human shields, since they themselves do not go to fight)

 

2) Ok let me state that using human shields is despicable and morally reprehensible, and the person who uses a human shield is responsible for the death of the person he used as a shield.  This fact still doesnt take away from innocent dying when Israel launches rockets or goes in to the territory.  It is simply impossible to claim that all innocent who died as the result, were all used as human shields.  

 

3) By not picking sides, I am asking for all people to stop picking sides, there is sadly no 1 absolutely innocent side here.  By this I mean, on all sides absolutely innocent people as well have died though this conflict not just guilty, and I am not going to blindly defend one side.  

 

No, I do not have a clue, I dont think I was proposing one either. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) How do you know that the leaders don't have human shields, and that it's easy and possible to assassinate them in short time?

 

2) Aside from errors and accidents (which still lay the guilt on Hamas), how do you know that Israel is targeting innocent people on purpose, just like Hamas?

 

If you have no other way, and you know shelling Hamas targets is effective, how can you criticize Israelis actions while at the same time say they have the right to defend themselves?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I should stay out of this... but what the hell.

 

You do know that this "human shield" thing is just propaganda, right?

 

What's the difference between "human shields" and the Israeli state is recklessly bombing a civilian population? How would you tell the difference between the two?

 

Also, you're getting deep into the weeds with trying to call what the Israeli state does "self defense". first off it's not a person and so cannot practice "self defense"... and anyway if any of this was about "self defense" then they would have located Israel in Arizona, not the middle east where they continually get into wars with everyone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J-William,"just propaganda" - There is solid evidence to the human shield practice, in form of countless videos and testimonies of Palestinians proud of the practice. I guess you want me to believe what you say and not my lying eyes and ears. Ok, sure."Israeli state is recklessly bombing a civilian population" - How do you know?"it's not a person and so cannot practice self defense" - people can act as agents for other people under threat. Private security firms can do that. The state has not just a right to do so, but an obligation, deriving from the fact that they prohibit the people from getting armed and starting their own private security forces. It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the state, and everything to do with the fact that people, because of the coercion, depend of the state provided security.This argument was raised in the facebook discussions which I posted in the beginning of this thread.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt just about every country in one shape or form is occupying that which used to be another territory?  And what is the point of the question?  By that I mean this, fact-Israelis are living on a territory that used to be in large held by some other arbitrary entity which claimed it before.  Do you have a conclusion to this fact?  What is your proposition from stating this fact ?

I ask the question because self defense argument requires we have full understanding of how the situation escalated to its current state. Maybe Israel is acting in self defense, or maybe they initiated and all these is just fallout of that initial initiation of violence. I do not know so i was hoping someone with a little more knowledge of the situation could enlighten us.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask the question because self defense argument requires we have full understanding of how the situation escalated to its current state. Maybe Israel is acting in self defense, or maybe they initiated and all these is just fallout of that initial initiation of violence. I do not know so i was hoping someone with a little more knowledge of the situation could enlighten us.

First problem, no such thing as countries, right?  Which means no one country can defend itself, its the people who do so.  Following the logic that a country is a concept just like a forest, we look at the "trees"  So the question then becomes, are Israelis engaged in self defense?  What does the establishment of the said country has to do with the fact that if there was an offense, those who are the offenders no longer alive, and are not even targeted.  And this is why I countered your question, because if you go by countries and not by people, you will end up justifying Mexicans killing Americans, you will end up justifying terrorist attacks that were carried out in Moscow metro and so on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First problem, no such thing as countries, right?  Which means no one country can defend itself, its the people who do so.  Following the logic that a country is a concept just like a forest, we look at the "trees"  So the question then becomes, are Israelis engaged in self defense?  What does the establishment of the said country has to do with the fact that if there was an offense, those who are the offenders no longer alive, and are not even targeted.  And this is why I countered your question, because if you go by countries and not by people, you will end up justifying Mexicans killing Americans, you will end up justifying terrorist attacks that were carried out in Moscow metro and so on.

Going by people does not make this situation any easier to understand, in fact it only makes it harder. How many people can we actually point to as initiators of force? I am sure if you ask members of Hamas and Israel's military they will all claim to be acting in self defense/defense of others. The second part is what constitutes defense? At what point does defense become offense?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by people does not make this situation any easier to understand, in fact it only makes it harder. How many people can we actually point to as initiators of force? I am sure if you ask members of Hamas and Israel's military they will all claim to be acting in self defense/defense of others. The second part is what constitutes defense? At what point does defense become offense?

I never claimed that going by people will make it easier, but going by an abstract concept called country, you will end nowhere, since we all know that countries do not really exist.  This is why I asked my question in the very beginning. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note, I realize this is a topic about human shields in general, and not necessarily a discussion about Palestine/Israel, but as the OP links to content dealing with that particular conflict, I illustrate my point using the same conflict as an example.

 

This issue of "human shields" is Israeli propaganda and if we dissect it factually and logically, I think it is easy to come to this conclusion. The idea of "human shields" thrives on the perception that is purported by Israel and its Western sycophants that Palestinians and Muslims in general value human life less than do Israelis. Palestinians are suicidal crazies while Israelis are first world loving peaceniks thrown into war against their will.

 

The act of taking a "human shield" would necessitate that a Palestinian militiaman, at gunpoint, force civilians to absorb the shocks of Israeli bullets and bombs. In other words, said militiaman would have to hold hostage an entire population of Palestinians at all times of the day in order to force them to the front lines whenever an Israeli strike is imminent. This, from a logistical standpoint, is impossible. Palestinian society has multiple militias (a "free market" of militias, if you will). Any one militia that decided it was to take hostage the entire Palestinian population to stand on rooftops while Israel bombs targets from the sky would quickly find itself at odds with the militias who would decide to defend the local population. Furthermore there is no great power disparity between Palestinian militias and the local population. The maximum capacity of any force Palestinians can field is restricted mostly to RPG's and Kalashnikov rifle derivatives and these are relatively easy to obtain. Large tribal factions in Gaza are, ironically, better equipped than most Islamist militias in active conflict with Israel.

 

I also want people to try and understand the ridiculous nature of the claim of "human shields" by looking at the logistics of Gaza. It is an enclave of about 1.8 million and one of the most densely populated places on the planet. You can check this link for a comparison of the details:

 

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/07/22/here-s-how-big-gaza-comparison-some-cities-around-world

 

It has a population growth rate of about 2.8% per annum, which is the 13th fastest in the world. Gaza is not a state and it has no army. It has militias whose members are recruited from the fabric of a society which has been under arbitrary Israeli authority since at least 1967 and under arbitrary Egyptian authority before that. Israel levels a siege on the territory which it has kept up since 2006. Before that, it fielded a large occupation army in order to police the population of Gaza but found the area largely uncontrollable via infantry because it is so densely packed.

 

There is very little economy to speak of. 40% of the population is officially unemployed. Of those who are employed, only half are in the private sector. This is a direct result of the Israeli siege which prevents supplies from entering the enclave. Where goods do not pass, rockets and bombs do apparently. Furthermore, UN fact finding missions have concluded that Israel does intentionally target economic hubs such as Gaza's sole airport which has been closed since 2001, factories, bridges, and roads.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict

 

So while Israel no longer fields infantry in Gaza because of its logistical impossibility, it does control what enters and leaves the enclave. It is often described as the largest open air prison on the planet. ( http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12635-noam-chomsky-my-visit-to-gaza-the-worlds-largest-open-air-prison ) Restricting the freedom of movement of people and materials into Gaza is an act of violence and so the idea that Israel is somehow minding its own business while suddenly receiving a barrage of rockets for its kindness is yet another line out of Defending Israel for Dummies ®.

 

Israel frequently bombs Gaza, sometimes with more intensity than others, and because the area is so densely packed and due to what can only be chalked up as a combination of egregious incompetence and a lack of regard for Palestinian life, it mostly kills people who are not affiliated with the militias it is claiming to attack. My position on Israeli violence is that it does not care about distinguishing between militia-affiliated and non-militia Gazans. If it cared about the lives of Gazans, it wouldn't be inflicting an economic siege for 7 years running, nor would it have fielded an occupation force, nor would it continue inflicting war after war on the people there knowing well it does not possess the capacity to prevent civilian deaths. It also would not dump chemical weapons on hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and target civilian infrastructure.

 

Hamas is still around even after more than a decade of Israel trying to destroy it. Islamic Jihad, Aqsa Brigades, and every other bottle rocket militia with 5 lb warhead tips pointed at Israel remain as strong as ever despite the IV drip of military steroids financed by US taxpayers remaining stuck up the IDF's butt at all times. Why does Israel continue the same strategy it has used for years if it cares so much about civilian life?

 

Israel has to sell the carnage it inflicts to the tax donkeys in the West by claiming they are fighting an intractable and opaque fanatic enemy who intentionally puts people in harm's way. The illogic they are selling is that Hamas holds civilian hostages in places where their weapons' caches are located so as to deter an Israeli strike because, as the story goes, it is exploiting the Israeli weakness of compassion for the innocent in order to continue its eternal war against the state of Israel and finish what Hitler started.

 

Yet, if this strategy is already known to everybody with a Time magazine subscription, and it is also understood that Israel is going to bomb weapons caches whether civilians are there or not, then why would you place weapons in an area with civilians in the first place? Wouldn't that immediately be a red flag to Israeli military intelligence that it's where you put your weapons? Furthermore, is there a place in overpopulated Gaza where there are no civilians? Also, if civilians knew that they were being used as hostages would there not be some mass civil movement in Gaza to prevent themselves from becoming pawns in a game of demonic Chinese Checkers between Hamas and Israel? 

 

There are so many obvious questions that can be asked which poke holes in this absolutely idiotic propaganda schtick put on by Israeli shills that we actually have to start looking internally at ourselves to understand why these lines even register with us. For the thinking person, and for the person who examines the evidence of past Israeli aggression, the fact is obvious that Israel does not care about civilian life, and that it even takes great pleasure in inflicting as much suffering on Gaza as it possibly can before Bush, Obama, or whatever oligarch hand puppet at the mantle of the US tax farm has to take the punch bowl away. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love what you wrote. I never thought of Gaza as an open air prison before, but you're right.

 

I've heard people basically say this:

 

"Look, I know no one should ever be killed, but Israel tried to have a cease fire and Hamas didn't care. Israel just defended itself and Palestinians purposely huddled their children in there and the Palestinians love having dead children so they can show it to the media and make Israel look bad" 

 

This is a dangerous belief many people have. I think many people see the Palestinians as "Just arabs who are immature and love killing" which is not at all true. That sounds like a more accurate description of Israel.  

 

I understand your argument about how Gaza basically has a free market militia. But people argue that the children are so young, that that's why they aren't aware enough. They aren't being kidnapped, they are just obeying adults. (I don't believe this is even happening)

 

Anyways, great post, thanks!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love what you wrote. I never thought of Gaza as an open air prison before, but you're right.

 

I've heard people basically say this:

 

"Look, I know no one should ever be killed, but Israel tried to have a cease fire and Hamas didn't care. Israel just defended itself and Palestinians purposely huddled their children in there and the Palestinians love having dead children so they can show it to the media and make Israel look bad" 

 

This is a dangerous belief many people have. I think many people see the Palestinians as "Just arabs who are immature and love killing" which is not at all true. That sounds like a more accurate description of Israel.  

 

I understand your argument about how Gaza basically has a free market militia. But people argue that the children are so young, that that's why they aren't aware enough. They aren't being kidnapped, they are just obeying adults. (I don't believe this is even happening)

 

Anyways, great post, thanks!

 

The idea that Palestinians are obsessed with trumpeting their suffering to the media is projection from Israeli shills. Palestinian deaths get comparatively little coverage in Western media.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some one starts shooting in the middle of a crowd and is attempting to kill you, is it moral on your part to fire at him knowing you are very likely to hit one of the bystanders?

I do not think anyone would say the shooter is excused for hiding in a crowd, but i think we can all agree the shooter is not a model of morality. The important part is your reaction. If you do fire into the crowd and kill 3 others in addition to the shooter, should there be consequences to you by the family members of the innocent bystanders?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

human shields don't die if you don't launch munitions at them

 

"Human shields don't die if you don't defend yourself." - Very interesting philosophy.

Waleed,

 

"perception that is purported by Israel...Palestinians are suicidal crazies"

They are. Countless of videos show that they are even happy to testify about being such. So why deny it now? Why such rank hypocrisy? Why lying Waleed? Can't you stay honest for one paragraph? damn...

 

"The act of taking a "human shield" would necessitate that a Palestinian militiaman, at gunpoint"

No it won't. They can be willing human shields or unaware human shields as well.

 

 

"the ridiculous nature of the claim of "human shields"...one of the most densely populated places on the planet."

So Palestinians shouldn't start with aggression if they care about each other. The fragility of their situation isn't a problem Israel has to face when defending itself. It is the people of Gaza that need to think twice (or ten times) whether they can allow themselves to initiate aggression or support the initiation of aggression.

 

"Restricting the freedom of movement of people and materials into Gaza is an act of violence"

No it isn't, it's free choice. What you mean is restriction or people moving into Israel. This restriction is a result of stubborn cultural choice to engage in terror. Blowing up restaurants, buses, dance clubs, stabbing children and parents in their sleep, kidnapping, stealing and what not. Barbarism. This restriction is necessary because Islam is a culture of barbarism, where sisters are murdered for the "honor of the family" and gay man are put to death too. Give me a break.

 

"Israel frequently bombs Gaza"

Israel bombs terrorists. If the terrorists had a base where they stay 6 days a week, it would be very easy to target them - they know this obviously so they prefer to stay at home, and by this, turning everybody around them, willing, knowing or not, to a human shield.

 

Look, if I start shooting people from my car, and my family is with me in the car, it is completely stupid to claim that "I'm not turning them into human shields, the car is just too small!"

 

"Israel uses chemical weapons on hospitals"

Evidence? none.

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Britains-iObserveri-issues-correction-Israel-did-not-use-chemical-weapons-In-Gaza-325529

 

"If it cared about the lives of Gazans, it wouldn't be..."

doing anything? Israel is defending itself against barbaric Muslim terrorists and all the blame for the death of innocent Palestinians should go directly to those barbaric Muslim terrorists.

 

"Hamas is still around even after more than a decade of Israel trying to destroy it."

So Israel should do less?

 

"The illogic they are selling is that Hamas holds civilian hostages in places where their weapons' caches are located"

oh yeah? look at this link: http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools

 

"is there a place in overpopulated Gaza where there are no civilians?"

Not Israel's problem.

 

"There are so many obvious questions that can be asked which poke holes"

You and many other like you, prove that for you, asking questions is only a means to distract honest conversation about the barbaric culture you support and deny at the same time.

-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experience shows that striking back hard makes terror groups stop their attacks, they lose the support of the people, they lose their lives, weapons, it's ugly but it's working.

I am pretty sure the opposite of this is true.

 

I send you to Robert Pape's work on terrorism, and especially suicide terrorism (which is 10x more deadly on average).

 

There is a massive correlation between terror attacks and suicide terror attacks and foreign occupation.

 

If the foreign occupation stops, then the terror stops.

 

He is by far the biggest scholar on the topic and has done a lot of work and data mining in order to justify his claims.

 

If the topic is of interest to you, he has a few books published.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waleed, and everyone else who claims that the Israelis are a more barbaric culture.. I offer a challenge!

 

1) I'll walk a whole day week month in Tel Aviv with a t-shirt that says "Proud Muslim" in Arabic.

2) You'll walk a whole day in Gaza with a shirt that says "Proud Jew" in Hebrew.

 

Any day!

I am pretty sure the opposite of this is true.

 

End of 2001 / Beginning of 2002, we at Israel have experienced a crazy wave of terror, exploding buses, restaurants, at least once or twice a day a suicide bomber would blow up in Israel. For more than a month, people didn't leave their homes besides to work and back. It completely stopped the israeli society. People got very angry, and shifted very much to the the right, voting Sharon.

 

Before that wave of terror, most Israelis viewed Sharon as a fanatic right wing war loving sociopath. When faced with deadly terror on a daily basis, people understood that such a person is what's needed. They voted, he got in, and delivered. Days after getting in office, he launched Operation Defensive Shield which lasted 40 days. The terror attacks on Israel stopped completely very few days after it began, and the Israeli society returned to their normal day to day life very fast.

 

I was there, I remember very good!

 

If the foreign occupation stops, then the terror stops.

 

They want the entire country, they consider all of Israel to be occupied territory. They want us to live under Sharia law, or better, drink the water of the sea.

 

What.. you think I'm exaggerating? think I'm wrong? Take the t-shirt challenge ^ I posted here and see what it's like to live among this culture you're suggesting that I live with.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

End of 2001 / Beginning of 2002, we at Israel have experienced a crazy wave of terror, exploding buses, restaurants, at least once or twice a day a suicide bomber would blow up in Israel. For more than a month, people didn't leave their homes besides to work and back. It completely stopped the israeli society. People got very angry, and shifted very much to the the right, voting Sharon.

 

Before that wave of terror, most Israelis viewed Sharon as a fanatic right wing war loving sociopath. When faced with deadly terror on a daily basis, people understood that such a person is what's needed. They voted, he got in, and delivered. Days after getting in office, he launched Operation Defensive Shield which lasted 40 days. The terror attacks on Israel stopped completely very few days after it began, and the Israeli society returned to their normal day to day life very fast.

 

I was there, I remember very good!

 

 

They want the entire country, they consider all of Israel to be occupied territory. They want us to live under Sharia law, or better, drink the water of the sea.

 

What.. you think I'm exaggerating? think I'm wrong? Take the t-shirt challenge ^ I posted here and see what it's like to live among this culture you're suggesting that I live with.

Hmmm, maybe you misunderstood my post, so I will attempt to make it clearer.

 

I was not saying that any one society is better than the other.

 

Personally, I want to be no where near that part of the world right now.

 

 

What I was saying is that there is a man, whose name is Robert Pape, who has compiled data on every single suicide terror attack in modern history and has compiled the data for your easy consumption in the form of a presentation on YouTube, book, or several other media you may enjoy. This data only takes a simple google search and a little time to access.

 

I was showing you facts which contradict one of your claims, which the facts of every suicide terror attack in history is a much better sample size than your anecdotes, no matter how well you may remember them or how accurate they may be.

 

You are free to continue with emotional argumentation about t-shirts, but that only reveals that this thread is not about the facts of the situation.

 

However, you could choose to look into some of the information, see where the contradictions may be, come up with some sort of refutation or otherwise intergrate the new data into your theory.

 

If that were to happen, I would be happy to talk with you further about the topic.

 

 

The information was quite shocking when I read it a couple years ago, and I think it is a very valuable topic to actually understand what the causes are, such that we can be sure that the steps we are taking to solve the problem actually help rather than aggravate the situation.

 

 

I hope that I was able to make my information more clear in this post.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waleed, and everyone else who claims that the Israelis are a more barbaric culture.. I offer a challenge!

 

1) I'll walk a whole day week month in Tel Aviv with a t-shirt that says "Proud Muslim" in Arabic.

2) You'll walk a whole day in Gaza with a shirt that says "Proud Jew" in Hebrew.

 

May i ask why you think people think Israelis are more barbaric? And what do you think the challenge will accomplish? How much of the history of what happened and is currently happening are you familiar with and what is your take on the situation?

Just to clarify, i do not think anyone think Israelis are completely responsible for the situation, neither do people think Hamas is a righteous organization. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the topic is of interest to you, he has a few books published.

 

I'm pretty sure that the topic is of no interest to the OP... as he has clearly demonstrated that he's not here for the reason and evidence, but more here for some sort of emotional thing to do with his religion.

 

Edit: oh I see you noticed that too...  :turned:  silly me 

 

well anyhow, lovely weather we're having in this thread... seeing as it's not raining bombs in here  :thumbsup:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wesley,

 

You don't have to be a genius or study a 100 years research on suicide bombers to know that retaliating with great force puts an end to the support terrorist organizations get. You have dodged every argument I made so far.

 

Calling my challenge an "emotional argument" is not an argument. In fact, the challenge goes to test the theory proposed by others, so it's very much in place.

 

 

Labmath2,

 

"May i ask why you think people think Israelis are more barbaric?"

Because I read what people post. I even included screenshots as evidence.

 

"what do you think the challenge will accomplish?"

It will prove that the Israeli society is WAY MORE tolerant and civilized, and respectful of human life.

 

"How much of the history of what happened and is currently happening are you familiar with and what is your take on the situation?"

I don't care much about the history. Most times applying common sense to the present is more useful than taking history in consideration. History books are not that useful for those not using common sense anyway.

 

My take on the situation is this: I would really want to see each society living it's own life, in a total separation. Much unlike the many leftist memes that run on the internet that suggest Love not War, I don't think those are the only two options. If Israelis and Palestinians can't get along, they should simply separate.

 

My take on how to defend against repeated rocket attacks from a neighboring state is stated in the first post already. Retaliate with deadly force. Warn before, but strike hard with no tolerance if the attacks don't stop. Don't send troops in to risk their lives just to limit the collateral damage, but rather bomb from above. I truly believe that if Palestinians would understand that this would be the Israeli response, they wouldn't provoke such a response in the first place, and many more lives would be spared.

 

"i do not think anyone think Israelis are completely responsible for the situation, neither do people think Hamas is a righteous organization"

You leave a pretty HUGE spectrum of uncertainty with this foggy statement.

 

I don't think Israel is a righteous organization, but I do think Hamas is completely responsible for the situation. They always provoke and initiate barbaric aggression. Such barbaric acts can never be counted as defense ops. So with Hamas it's always initiation. As initiators they are responsible for everything that proceeds.

 

 

J-William,

 

"he has clearly demonstrated that he's not here for the reason and evidence"

Said the man who posted baseless accusations and outright lies.

 

This is the Palestinian tactic - lie lie lie in hopes that the other side's position will not be heard and understood.

Lie lie lie in hopes that something will stick. Very barbaric even for a conversation.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us reduce the human shield argument to three men in a room.  Tom has a grudge against Jerry.  Tom pulls out a gun and points it at Jerry. Jerry grabs Bill and holds him between himself and Tom, begging Tom to reason with him, and believing Tom will not kill an innocent person.  Tom shoots and kills Bill, then shoots and kills Tom.  Who is responsible for Bill's death?  Was it immoral for Jerry to involve Bill in an attempt to save himself?

 

If the point of this thread is to deduce the moral content of taking a human shield, this scenario should do the trick.  If you prove it is immoral/moral/amoral to take a human shield, we can extend that principle to the Israel/Palestine situation, and introduce other variables; but let's not get ahead of ourselves.  First, arguments and proofs to define the underlying principle.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to be a genius or study a 100 years research on suicide bombers to know that retaliating with great force puts an end to the support terrorist organizations get. You have dodged every argument I made so far.

 

Calling my challenge an "emotional argument" is not an argument. In fact, the challenge goes to test the theory proposed by others, so it's very much in place.

Apparently you do, because as I said earlier, your claim is the exact opposite of the available evidence, which is why I offered up the evidence from said expert and told you how to easily find it.

 

I have not dodged any arguments. I have pointed out a single piece of innaccurate information and told you where to find evidence to the contrary.

 

That may have been a good argument for others in this thread, I do not know. I only know that it had nothing to do with the statement to which I provided evidence to its falsehood, therefore using the argument against my argument when they were not related at all is rather silly to say the least.

 

I think I am getting a clearer picture of the point of this thread, so I will dismiss myself from further discussion and move on to other things.

 

For anyone who is actually curious as to the topic of the causes of suicide terrorism now has the resources to be able to find the facts on the issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AustinJames,

 

Congratulations for being the first responder to try a philosophical approach rather then a rhetoric full of logical fallacies and lies. Welcome!

 

If Tom shoots Bill and Jerry, Tom is responsible for both deaths and Jerry is an asshole who also shares some responsibility for Bill's death.

Tom could simply avoid the shooting and no one would die. Jerry forced Bill into high risk that got him killed.

 

However.... What if the question goes like this: Tom has a grudge against Jerry. Since Tom knows Jerry got a gun too, he grabs Bill and uses him as human shield while firing shots at Jerry. Jerry has two options: (1) To die and not shoot Bill, or (2) To kill Bill and Tom.

 If Jerry kills Tom and Bill, he is not evil, because Tom was the initiator of aggression, and Tom forced Bill into the high risk situation that got him killed.

 

The latter analogy is the appropriate one to describe the situation. Surely not the first.

 

But, if you prefer, we can take a third analogy and test it too: Tom and Jerry have a grudge against each other. Tom grabs Bill, Jerry shoots and kills both. Since both Tom and Jerry intended to kill each other, Jerry had to shoot, and the guilt for Bills death is on Tom, as Tom grabbed Bill into the line of fire.

Wesley,

 

"your claim is the exact opposite of the available evidence"

My claim is backed by evidence. Operation Defensive Shield was a hard retaliation to many weeks of daily terror. It worked. The terror stopped.

 

Maybe it's not the way it was with other suicide bombers around the world, but it did work as expected. We had a suicide bomber blowing a bus, restaurant, mall, club... every day. Sometimes twice a day. Then, in less then a week it stopped. As expected.

 

It's not so complicated as you try to make it.

Everybody understands force.

That's why we recommend owning guns against burglars,

and not using "redistribution of wealth" to prevent burglary.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Human shields don't die if you don't defend yourself." - Very interesting philosophy.

nice strawman. one needn't drop bombs on populated areas to defend oneself...bombs for self defense, that's rich.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SamuelS,

 

That's not a strawman. You suggested the victim shouldn't fire if the aggressor takes a human shield.

 

Why are you so keen to excuse the Palestinian use of human shields? You ignore it, skip any moral judgement on this use of human shields and jump to criticize Israel for firing at the terrorist and his human shield.

 

You clearly don't appreciate the use of principles when making moral judgements:

Principle #1 - The aggressor is responsible for the results that derive from his initiation of force

Principle #2 - Whoever takes a human shield is responsible for the human shield's life

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

J-William,

 

"he has clearly demonstrated that he's not here for the reason and evidence"

Said the man who posted baseless accusations and outright lies.

 

This is the Palestinian tactic - lie lie lie in hopes that the other side's position will not be heard and understood.

Lie lie lie in hopes that something will stick. Very barbaric even for a conversation.

 

Yes... lies and I'm a Palestinian and... what?

 

I'm sorry that you are wasting the valuable time of myself and people on this board with your shenanigans.

 

I'm sure it must rub you the wrong way to see so many people turning against Israel. But it's awfully hard to look at the facts and continue supporting the wholesale slaughter of a caged population. I mean it was pretty bad when the Nazis did it. I seem to recall there were trials after all that. I guess Netanyahu is banking on western governments not considering Palestinians people while he's still alive.

 

If I were a young man in Gaza who saw his family torn apart by Israeli bombs I would be on my way to the nearest place I could find a gun to kill as many IDF members as I could. The fact you don't see more is a testament to how peaceful the Palestinians are. Not terribly "barbaric" of them to sift through the rubble of their houses and go to the hospital to identify their dead children without once picking up a weapon to seek revenge.

 

and if I were in Israel I would move to somewhere else because I'd rather not be around people who hate me. 

 

I'll say it again; if Israel were in Arizona they would have no problem with anybody. It's merely crazy religious BS that makes any of this possible. You are not going to solve the violence with abstract theorizing about how many human shields can dance on the head of a pin.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J-Williams,

 

The size of Gaza doesn't change anything. If the terrorists can't avoid turning innocent Palestinians into human shields, they shouldn't engage in terror - otherwise, they are responsible for their lives.

 

The current situation in Gaza is a result of crazy rocket attacks initiated by Hamas. This was totally avoidable, it's in no way shape or form "self defense" to fire rockets like they do. They are the aggressors, they initiated force, thus, they are responsible for the deaths not Israel.

 

Now I know your emotional attachment to the Palestinians is greater than your incentive to think rationally, and this is why you trow whatever can stick, lies.... everything is fair in love and war... but this is a discussion - lies are not fair in a discussion. I pointed out your lies and distortions in red text above, so it's bold and everyone can easily see it.

-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0