serious question on terrorism for u guys

[brad]

ok

a) israelis shoot a missile to kill one bad guy and kill him and like 5 families in the apartment building.

b) suicide bomber explodes a bomb on a bus or in a nightclub or whatever where soldiers (off duty probably meaning maybe out of uniform but whatever) congregate and do kill a soldier but also kill like 20 civilians.


so whats the difference? do any of the family members of the (innocent) dead feel any better?

[Terry]

The guy who flew the million dollar helicopter that fired the missile was just following orders, and he is a hero. The guy who strapped the bomb to his chest and blew himself up for a cause he believed in is a coward. Don’t you watch TV?

[Stu Pidasso]

The five families that "died in the apartment building" are collateral damage, unintended casualties in the war. The Isrealis do take some steps to reduce the collateral damage inflicted while attempting to kill their legitimate targets. The more innocents that are killed, the more poorly it reflects on the planning and execution of the attack.

To the suicide bomber, there are no unintended casualties. For suicide bombings practiced as you described(and how they are typically carried out), there are no legitimate targets. Suicide bombers and thier supporters take some steps to maximize the amount of innocents that are butchered. The more they sluaghter, the better it reflects on the planning and execution of the attack.

I'm sure the grief the surviving families endure is immense.

This isn't rocket science Brad. Its quite easy to see there is huge moral difference between the two sides in how they conduct thier attacks.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
blew himself up for a cause he believed in

[/ QUOTE ]

The thought of 72 virgins is tempting isn't it.

Stu

[MMMMMM]

Actually the Israelis take immense pains to avoid or minimize civilian casualties during targeted missile attacks, sometimes aborting the missile in the last few seconds. They used a much smaller than ideal missile on the house recently where Yassin was for fear of civilian casualties--instead of a larger bomb that would have been sure to do the job. They did this deliberately to try to spare the civilians--and they also ended up sparing Sheikh Yassin in the process.

And obviously there is a huge moral difference in how the two sides select their targets andconduct their attacks.

I know all this issn't rocket science Stu--but to some people it is;-)

[MMMMMM]

How about all the times when Israel nails more terrorists than civilians? How about all the times the Israelis strive to avoid civilian casualties in their targeted assassinations? (which is often; they deliberately used an underpowered explosive on the house where Yassin was, for fear of civilian casualties; and they sometimes abort missiles even in the last seconds if they cannot re-confirm the target via video screen).

How about all the times the Palestinians are deliberately targeting JUST ANYONE who happens to be there?

Do you think motive and targeting means nothing? You can't use only the yardstick of the relatives of the deceased as your measure for equality...what about the German relatives of the deceased in WWWII? Their pain, if equal, doesn't make all the rest of the situation equal too.

And how about first-degree murder: is it a more heinous crime than manslaughter?

Can you really see no moral difference in such things?

brad, please tell me it isn't true, you can't really be this dense, or you just gave the most equal-sounding contrived example you could.

Well...I think I now know at least ONE reason terrorism is becoming so popular around the world today: too many people can't combine reasoning with moral issues. Must be something in the water, flouride maybe.

[Terry]

OK, so if the UN “gave” the Palestinians part of Jordan, and the US gave them lots of sophisticated military equipment, then if the Palestinians fired missiles at the Jordanian terrorists who wanted their country back that would be “moral”, right?

[brad]

no of course not theyre muslims. /images/graemlins/smile.gif heh

btw, of course my post was a thinking experiment, personally i think there is some difference, but not as much as most people think (ie, israel blameless, palest. 100% guilty)

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so if the UN gavethe Palestinians part of Jordan, and the US gave them lots of sophisticated military equipment, then if the Palestinians fired missiles at the Jordanian terrorists who wanted their country back that would be moral, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is the UN can't give away anything. They are a toothless organization with no way to enforce their decisions without the participation of the countries comprising the organization. Try an example that is possible and one that is similar.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying that would necessarily be moral, or that Israel is necessarily entirely moral or fair either.

Resistance fighters however have an obligation to attempt legitimate selection of targets.

If they target soldiers, political leaders or military personnel/installations: they might be right or they might be wrong, but at least they are not subhuman scum who deliberately target children then dance for joy when entire busloads of families are killed.

That's the primary objection I have with the whole terrorism thing, whether Palestinian or worldwide. The bastards should be selecting legitimate targets if indeed they are convinced they must fight for their cause. They instead love to select the most helpless, innocent members of society, then cheer with glee when they kill them. This is why I believe that, spiritually speaking, terrorists are not only sub-human, they are sub-animal. Even an animal would not do such a thing.

[brad]

not sure but i think UN was involved in forming israel in first place.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
if the Palestinians fired missiles at the Jordanian terrorists who wanted their country back that would be "moral", right?


[/ QUOTE ]

If these hypothetical Jordanian Militants were conducting suicide bombings targeting innocent Palistinian civilians, the theoretical Palistinian state would have a moral obligation to defend its citizens. This would be the case even if the theoretical Palistinian state was in fact, illegitimate. States have moral responsibilities to defend thier citizens. This is a primary responsibility of any state; legitimate or not.

In the real world, there are those who question the legitamcy of the Isreali state, including many of these suicide murderers. These suicide murderers are either too stupid, or just do not care that their actions legitimize most of the actions of the Isreali government that they claim issue against.


Stu

[Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is the UN can't give away anything... Try an example that is possible and one that is similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (http://www.mideastweb.org/181.htm)

Looks pretty close to me.

[nicky g]

"Actually the Israelis take immense pains to avoid or minimize civilian casualties during targeted missile attacks, sometimes aborting the missile in the last few seconds. They used a much smaller than ideal missile on the house recently where Yassin was for fear of civilian casualties--instead of a larger bomb that would have been sure to do the job. They did this deliberately to try to spare the civilians--and they also ended up sparing Sheikh Yassin in the process."

I think most people on both sides have come to the conclusion that they did not want to kill Yassin - rather warn/scare him - he's generally seen as off limits, as to kill him would escalate the situation drastically. There are dozens of other instances when the Israelis have gone spared no thought for "collateral damage" - the worst instance of which was when they killed 14 civilians incuding 6 children by blowing up an appartment block a target lived in.

[nicky g]

"How about all the times when Israel nails more terrorists than civilians?

Of course there are instances of this. In the course of the whole intifadah, however, they have killed many, many more civilians than militants.


"How about all the times the Palestinians are deliberately targeting JUST ANYONE who happens to be there? "

You're confusing two arguments here. One is that the IDF kills lots of Palestinian civilians, and whether this is deliberate, due to culpable neglect, or a sad side-effect of legitimate defensive actions that they take as much effort as possible to avoid. The other is that Hamas et al target and kill Israeli citizens. That the second is true (Hamas targets civilians) does not justify deliberate targetting or culpable negelct to avoid harming Palestinian civilians - it's not even relevant. Similarly, if it turned out that the IDF was targetting Palestinian civilians, that would not justify the Hamas bombings. Noone here does not condemn the targetting of civilians by the bombers - that does not make the IDF's multiple abuses legitimate. The average Palestinian is not responsible for the suicide bombings. We can argue over the IDF's treatment of civilians but the outcome of that discussion shouldn't be affected by the fact that the suicide bombers target civilians. A long-winded way of saying two wrongs don't make a right.

[nicky g]

"These suicide murderers are either too stupid, or just do not care that their actions legitimize most of the actions of the Isreali government that they claim issue against."

Which came first, the Occupation or the suicide bombings? Was the Occupation necessary to pre-empt suicide bombings? The West Bank and Gaza strip were taken in 1967. The first intfadah didn't start until 1987. The first suicide bombing came in 1994. There had been conflict with Arab countries and PLO (based outside of Israel and the territories) attacks on Israeli institutions, but the history of attackers from the West Bank and Gaza is relatively recent and comes directly from the experience of endless, brutal occupation, and the realisation that the residents of the territories were never going to be accorded any sort of recognition or rights.

[MMMMMM]

nicky the terrorists deliberately hide in populated areas, and they shoot at times from behind human shields...I'm not confusing two arguments. Israel makes a serious effort to avoid civilian casualties while Hamas strives for civilian casualties. Therefore one is more wrong than the other.

[MMMMMM]

nickt you can't go back that far and claim the occupation causes suicide bombings. It might cause resistance but it doesn't cause suicide bombings.

[MMMMMM]

nicky the only answer is either to move the Palestinians out of the entire area, or to kill/imprison all the terrorists leaders, disarm the population entirely then give them a state. Nothing less will stop the bloodshed. Oh yes one other thing might work and that's a Fence, which as the Fence in Gaza has showed, works remarkably well. But that may simply be an effective band-aid rather than a real solution.

The Palestinians have chosen unconscionable attacks over a more legitimate war.

Usually, nicky, wars only truly end when one side has been utterly defeated.

Look at the Korean crisis now: if the war had ended with defeat for the North Koreans 50 years ago it wouldn't be a crisis now. And Germany lost WWI but wasn't utterly defeated; it wasn't even really hurt much inside Germany. The Germans felt they were forced to stop fighting but they weren't truly defeated and thus they ended up rearming and it took WWII to truly defeat them after which they caused no more problems.

With the fanatical mindset throughout much of the Palestinian population, and their widespread support of Hamas, I doubt this matter will ever be closed until they are truly defeated. Most of them don't want peace, they want all of Israel. Well they aren't likely to stop attacking until they have been utterly defeated and rendered helpless.

[nicky g]

"you can't go back that far and claim the occupation causes suicide bombings. It might cause resistance but it doesn't cause suicide bombings."

the suicide bombings are a form of resistance. an illegitimate form, as they frequently target civilians - nevertheless: no occupation, no resistance, no suicide bombings.

[MMMMMM]

nicky too many things, even many irrelevant, can be described in such a manner, which is why it is nearly meaningless to do so. Heck one Middle Eastern man said if there was no Israel, no problems either. You could also say if there were no Palestinians, no problems either.

[nicky g]

"Israel makes a serious effort to avoid civilian casualties while Hamas strives for civilian casualties. Therefore one is more wrong than the other. "

Mmm. This is still confusing two arguments. Firstly, I do not believe that Israel makes anywhere near enough effort to avoid civilian casualties, and I believe the IDF routinely allows IDF soldiers to get away with human rights abuses, and occasionally murder. Regardless, I don't care who's "more wrong", Hamas or the IDF. If you want to say it's Hamas, that's fine. My point is 3 million Palestinians shouldn't have to suffer constant abuse and humiliation, and frequent physical attacks and even killings, because Hamas murders innocents. Hamas and the occupiers are both wrong; neither wrong justifies the other.

[nicky g]

"Heck one Middle Eastern man said if there was no Israel, no problems either. You could also say if there were no Palestinians, no problems either. "

Plenty of people have said both (you make the second sound hypothetical; it's been advocated by many). The point is both would require ethnic cleansing and/or genocide, which I assume everyone here agrees is repugnant. The end of the occupation on the other hand would require Israeli forces to withdraw and hand over sovereignty to the residents of the territories. Even if you don't agree with that as a solution, you can't deem it comparable to mass deportation/slaughter.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not even trying to compare the two; I'm just pointing out that there are many rather empty statements that can be made in the form of "if there were no..."

Saying if there were no occupation there would be no suicide bombing is one empty statement. It's also probably untrue, since Hamas has vowed to take all of Israel, period.

[nicky g]

It's not an empty statement; it's a proposed solution, the one most frequently advocated in various forms by people on all sides.

Hamas's ultimate objective as an organisation is an Islamic state on in the territories of Israel and the Occupied Territories. However, its leaders have repeatedly stated that the bombings are in response to the occupation and that military activities would cease following a two-state solution. It has repeatedly offered a unilateral ceasefire in return for a ceasefire from the Israelis. We're told not to listen to them because they're terrorists; if that's the case I don't see why we should listen to their charter either.

Furthermore, as I've argued before, Hamas would have no popular support or mandate to continue the bombings if the occupation ended. The stated goal of the IRA was a united Ireland. Following serious peace talks and a solution that both sides could accept, their violence more or less stopped. There is a difference between resisting occupation/repression, and campaigning for political objectives.

Many wars between states end with one side defeating the other. I can't think of any "terrorist" problem that has been ended by the military defeat of the terrorists. If there is a legitimate popular grievance that the other side refuses to address, they are undefeatable; there will always be people willing to resist, whether by legitimate or illegitimate means.

[samjjones]

Humanity will never evolve until it rids itself of its reliance on archaic beliefs.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
the history of attackers from the West Bank and Gaza is relatively recent and comes directly from the experience of endless, brutal occupation....


[/ QUOTE ]

Now the Isrealis have an obligation to thier citizens to do these things courtesy of Hamas et al.

Stu

[nicky g]

No. They have an obligation to end the occupation and get rid of thee source of the conflict.

[MMMMMM]

nicky, if giving up the "occupied territories" would truly end the conflict, then you might be right. But it won't. The fanatical loons will keep attacking until they have either taken all of Israel or until they have totally ruined the Palestinian people in the process. I'll let you guess which outcome is most likely.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
No. They have an obligation to end the occupation and get rid of thee source of the conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might be right if the Isreali government were confident that they could pull out of the occupied territories without putting thier citizens at additional risk. Unfortunately, Hamas et al have created a situation(i.e. the targeting of civilians) where Isreal cannot pull out becuase the Isreali government has a fundamental moral obligation to protect its citizens. The tactics employed by Hamas et al have made an end to the occupation and peace in that region impossible.

Stu

[nicky g]

How do you know this? Isn't it worth trying, given that there is no other possible solution to the conflict?

You people talk as if there has been one long intifadah since time immemorial, as if the Palestinians had always sent suicide bombers and therefore always will. There have been two intifadahs, one in the late 80s, the other the ongoing one. The first intifadah was originally confined to within the territories. The suicide bombings and regular attacks inside Israel didn't start until 1994. All are clearly the results of the occupation and the lack of progress from negotiations and the crushing of legitimate forms of resistance. The inhabitants of the Occupied Territories have not demonstrated themselves to be willing to send an endless stream of bombers to Israel- they've demonstrated their lack of infinite patience while Israel represses them, steals their lands and resoures, bulldozes their houses and shoots their children.

Even if ending the occupation didn't end the bombings, which I believe it would, and which is the only possible solution to the conflict, Israel does not have the right to keep 3 million people stateless and under military occupation indefinitely, even for its own "security". If security is the issue, it should withdraw and protect its borders. Israel no more has the right to keep the Palestinians under permanent occupation to protect its security than Britain would have had the right to invade the Republic of Ireland and keep it under permanent occupation because of the threat from the IRA.

[MMMMMM]

All you have to do is read the Hamas Charter to see that what Stu says is true, nicky. I posted parts of it before with a link to the whole. There is NO WAY IN HELL Hamas will ever relent until they take ALL of Israel, just as their Charter so loudly proclaims. Additionally their goal is to kill all Jews as they prominently quote a passage from the Hadiths to that effect. They believe they have a religious mandate for both of the above.

So there can be no peace as long as Hamas exists. And Hamas is widely supported by the Palestinian people. So the Israelis would be fools to unilaterally withdraw only to be attacked later from a closer vantage point.

Just as Hitler made his aims clear in print before the Holocaust, so too has Hamas made their aims clear in the Hamas Charter. Maybe YOU might think they don't mean it but given their suicide bombings I would say they mean it wholeheartedly. And maybe YOU would ignore the plain plan Hamas holds for Israel and the Jews, but the Israelis are not fools. Hitler followed through on his plans and Hamas will too, if allowed to do so.

[andyfox]

Until someone in power with courage says there is no difference, both things will continue to happen.

Look at the arguments in this thread. The Palestinians are the bad guys, no, says the other side, the Israelis are the bad guys.

They're both the bad guys.

[MMMMMM]

But there is also a difference andy....can you really not see it?

[nicky g]

"So the Israelis would be fools to unilaterally withdraw only to be attacked later from a closer vantage point."


What d'you mean from a closer vantage point? How would withdrawing make Hams any closer? They're already letting off bombs inside Israel.

Whether Hamas wanted to continue that attacks or not, it would have no support to do so following a settlement, from the Palestinians or the Palestinian governement. It is absurd to suggest it could ever have anything like the power Hitler had. How could it ever possibly take on Israel?

[nicky g]

"Look at the arguments in this thread. The Palestinians are the bad guys, no, says the other side, the Israelis are the bad guys. They're both the bad guys."

Neither Israelis or Palestinians are bad guys. Rather, there are bad guys on both sides. I don't think your characterisation is fair: Chris, Cyrus and I accept that their are bad guys on teh Palestinian side; we condemn the targetting of civilians, human rights abuses by the PA etc. M, Gambloor et al on the other hand refuse to accept the endless evidence that the IDF behave as bad guys in the territories.

[MMMMMM]

Any land Israel relinquishes makes it easier for Israel to be attacked. This applies more so to armies and artillery of course, but it also applies somewhat to suicide bombers. Why also to suicide bombers? Because the more land terror groups have to operate from, the more ubiquitous they can become, as well as the harder to pinpoint.

Until the Palestinians/Arabs give up their dream of destroying Israel, there can be no peace.

[ACPlayer]

Yes, there is a difference.

The head of Hamas can see it, The head of Israel can see it, The pope can see it, MMM can see it, Nicky can see it, The average Israeli can see it, The average Palestinian can see it, The average Iraqi can see it, The average Indian can see it.

And as I come back once again to one of my favorite all time lines: "... and all the children are above average" Can you see why that is relevant.

[MMMMMM]

Too many do not realize that equivalence in some ways does not imply equivalence in all ways. Also, the fact that some things are mirror-image or viewpoint dependent does not mean that all things are.

I hereby observe that some debaters in these recent threads are conceptually incapable of making accurate advanced comparisons within a complex framework.

[nicky g]

"I hereby observe that some debaters in these recent threads are conceptually incapable of making accurate advanced comparisons within a complex framework. "

Hey, don't be hard on yourself, Bruce and Gambloor /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[brad]

'I hereby observe that some debaters in these recent threads are conceptually incapable of making accurate advanced comparisons within a complex framework.'

well spoken by someone who believes cashiers today seem stupider than 20/30 years ago because of evolution, etc.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

The constant tit-for-tat (the other side "on the other hand refuse to accept . . .") on this forum mirrors the tit-for-tat lunacy of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Until there is someone on both sides that refuses to indulge in this, the killing will go on and on and on. Arafat and Sharon are big parts of the problem.

[MMMMMM]

not evolution brad, perhaps devolution though.

Also don't forget that drug and alcohol use by pregnant mothers harms their unborn babies' brains. Cigarette smoking harms unborns also. So maybe increasing drug use by pregnant mothers is partially to blame.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Too many do not realize that equivalence in some ways does not imply equivalence in all ways. Also, the fact that some things are mirror-image or viewpoint dependent does not mean that all things are.

I hereby observe that some debaters in these recent threads are conceptually incapable of making accurate advanced comparisons within a complex framework.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good statement, full of sound and fury and signifying absolutely nothing!

[MMMMMM]

The only thing it signifies is that I have too much class to post the names of the deficient parties but not enough class to refrain from mentioning it at all.

[ACPlayer]

Self criticism is a good thing and very very classy!

[trillig]

That whole thing in Israel is hopeless...
Hate is taught over there like a class in school.

Unless one side just completely vanishes from the area, it won't end until the next ice age or so...

What the terror networks should worry about is when other people get fed up with them and go after them, not just the war machines of a few countries.

I understand why they are mad mind you... but this is not the way to improve it.

-t