Gaza Baby Killers

[MMMMMM]

Ridiculous.

First you're trying to equate Israeli collateral damage when trying to kill militants, with Palestinian suicide bombing expressly intended to kill non-combatants. Then you claim each shell or whatever fired by Israel is an attempt to kill, so the Israelis are actually trying to kill far more Palestinians. Look, when the SWAT team surrounds some real bad guys in the USA--say some hostage-takers--and a shootout ensues, the police probably fire more rounds and they probably kill more bad guys, than the bad guys fire rounds or kill good guys. That's just the way these things work. The police aren't more immoral because they fire more rounds or have a higher kill ratio.

The principle of condemning the worst evil is far better than equating all evil, because no side is perfect. And when the two sides are opposed, choosing the lesser of two evils gains much additional merit. In other words, to use your example, if Manson was going to pistol-duel Stalin, it might be a good thing to provide him a very modern pistol. Israel however is not Manson. The Palestinian terrorists are pretty close to Manson in degree of depravity, however. Amazing that you somehow can't see that. Further, the Palestinian terrorists themselves put the Palestinian people at risk by mingling with them, using them as human shields, etc. As far as overall moral comparisons, there really is no comparison.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
First you're trying to equate Israeli collateral damage when trying to kill militants

[/ QUOTE ]
The only similarity at all that I am drawing is that they are both wrong. If I say stealing is wrong and murder is wrong, it does not follow that I beleive stealing is "equal" to murder.

You, on the other hand, need to find a distinction between random targeting of civilians and random shooting at civilians while claiming to be shooting at real "bad guys." Since I'm against both, I don't have to contend and do not contend that these things are the same. It is you that must find a distinction so huge that you can justify supporting the latter while condemning the former.

Your usual means of doing this is to assume away the premises of the first, which you do by repeating the propaganda mantras that victims of Israel fire are, by definition, merely "collateral" because Israel says it doesn't commit terrorism and Bush and the media agree.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I do doubt that Israeli soldiers are nearly the deliberate murderers of innocent civilians you make them out to be, although I don't doubt there are a handful of bad apples, as in any huge organization. I'm not counting rock-throwers, because rocks can maim or kill; not counting civilians used by terrorists as human shields, not counting collateral damage via misile strikes on terror leaders, etc...just counting cold-blooded premeditated murder of non-threatening civilians. Yes, I do doubt that goes on to a large extent in the Israeli military, and I doubt the Israeli military targets anywhere near the number of civilians for murder which do the Palestinian terror orgs. If you can show me differently, that more than a few Israeli soldiers are regularly and deliberately shooting non-threatening Palestinian civilians, maybe I'll change my mind (I'm not saying even a few is OK, but in any large org there are probably going to be a few bad apples--which is much different than an organized policy or tactic. The Palestinian terror orgs however do have such very organized policies and tactics).

[Gamblor]

That's pretty weak.

If it weren't for anti-Jew and anti-Jew behaviour/propaganda, there wouldn't need to BE an Israel.

Israel is a refuge, not a colony or imperialist entity. Even the Jabotinsky camp, hailed by the uneducated here as a fascist racist faction, wrote that his opinion was based entirely on the fact that no government has ever successfully protected its Jewish population in perpetuity.

When Jewish children's schools in cities like Montreal stop getting firebombed, when Jewish gravestones stop getting toppled in France, when rabbis stop getting attacked simply for walking on the street, I'll have no problem dissolving the state as a Jewish entity.

Call me paranoid if you want, this shit is real life.

As far as the Palestinians go, this should quench your thirst for knowledge. Or perhaps this

[elwoodblues]

No response to the substance of my position?

Why would you put the onus on Palestinians to require that all there be no anti-semitism in all arab nations forever?

[nicky g]

"One of the many differences between you and I is that I can see the difference between (a) intentionally, specifically murdering a woman and her children, and (b) killing a terrorist leader (who is responible for the killing of many innocents), and in the process harming innocent people (including children)"

This is where your argument falls down. The vast, vast majority of Palestinian civilians who have died at the hands of Israel were not killed as bystanders to the assassination of a terrorist leader.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
This is where your argument falls down. The vast, vast majority of Palestinian civilians who have died at the hands of Israel were not killed as bystanders to the assassination of a terrorist leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor did they die because they were intentionally murdered.

Israel does not target civilians for death. It bulldozes the houses of terrorists, assasinates terrorists, and most certainly defends itself from aggression and seeks to prevent future acts of terrorism.

Have civilians died as a result of Israel's actions? Yes. Is that unfortunate? Yes. But nothing Israel has done is in any way comparable to intentionally slaughtering a pregnant woman and 4 children. There was no terrorist, or even a soldier, in the woman's car. It was cold-blooded murder for the sole purpose of removing 5 Jews from the Earth.

[nicky g]

"Nor did they die because they were intentionally murdered."

Many did.

"Israel does not target civilians for death. "

Officially, openly, no? But even a cursory browsing of the circumstances in which hundreds of Palestinian civilians have died makes it clear that they were intentionally murdered by Israeli soldiers who have then been allowed to return to duty, never mind punished. To my mind that is no better than an open policy of occasionally deliberately targetting civilians. Soliders have carte blanch to kill whomsoever they choose, and they frequently choose civilians and children.

"It bulldozes the houses of terrorists, assasinates terrorists, and most certainly defends itself from aggression and seeks to prevent future acts of terrorism."

It also shoots children through the eyes with high-powered highly accurate sniper rifles.

"But nothing Israel has done is in any way comparable to intentionally slaughtering a pregnant woman and 4 children"

Ever? Are you serious?

" It was cold-blooded murder"

Absolutely. Noone here is defending it.

[Gamblor]

Why would you put the onus on Palestinians to require that all there be no anti-semitism in all arab nations forever?

Because there are 50x as many Arabs in the Middle East, and 22x as many Arab states that serve as refuge from racist behaviour.

But more importantly, because Israelis don't hate Arabs.

They're scared of them, because they know what Arab kids learn in school.

Why can't you get it?

The Arab world is 1984. When you grow up in a totalitarian regime, where the government controls all of the media and information, and there is widespread poverty, the easiest thing to blame it on is the same thing governments have been blaming all their problems on for millenia.

Outsiders. Jews.

Israel, on the other hand, is democratic (at least for its citizens). For all the lying and conniving that politicians do, it's still relatively transparent, and the same freedom of information as exists in the United States exists in Israel.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
To my mind that is no better than an open policy of occasionally deliberately targetting civilians.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are describing the Palestinians, the word "occasionally" has no basis in reality. Even you must admit that; change occassionally to "frequently" or "constantly" and your description would be a lot more accurate.

Nicky, you have to consider intent. While there may be isolated instances of individual soldiers committing depraved acts, Israel does not have a policy of intentionally killing civilians.

The Palestinian terror groups make it their purpose to slaughter civilians, including babies.

There is no moral equivalence.

P.S. If the Palestinians were the greater military power, they would have murdered all the Jews in the region long ago.