Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Pechtel · 06-28-2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Jat
The Israeli use of such cowardly weapons more often then not kills more innocent civilians than their target. If American police tried the same thing everyone would speak up loudly against it.

Here's part of the problem!

Weapons aren't cowardly. War isn't a sporting match. The ideal outcome of war is the enemies ability to act is neutralized and none of your soldiers are hurt.

As others have said, freedom fighters attack the opposing force. Terrorists attack the opposing civilians.

Like the carpet bombing of German cities and the vaporization of two Japanese cities as well? I suppose that there were nothing but soldiers in each of these targets?

We do not have the technology even now to hit only combatants. You judge terrorist vs freedom fighter by what they were aiming at.

You redefined them as freedom fighters instead of terrorists--but in doing so you accepted the initial claim.

You're the one who is doing the redefining here, not I.

By even arguing about the definition you conceded the point.

Loren Pechtel · 06-28-2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by slept2long
Because terrorists don't sign peace treaties. Nations do. Create one and let it sign a treaty. They haven't in the past you say? Well then we'll have to pay extra attention this time. Send in UN troops to make sure nobody gets funny. Hell we should have done that in '48 considering the checkerboard nature of the proposed state.

The peacekeepers generally stand by and watch the terrorists but do not act against them. No way would Israel accept something so harmful to them.

Note that when the threat was normal combat instead of terrorism that peacekeepers were there--until they were ordered out by the *ARABS*.

[Re: Israel/Arab negotiations]
Yes they did.

You must make a reasonable offer to negotiate. Take it or leave it isn't negotiating. Neither is suicide attacks or empty rhetoric. Arafat is a ass like Sharon is. It's why they get along so well.

The Arabs flunked this one. They've always insisted on things like the right of return--which is suicide for Israel.

Loren Pechtel · 06-28-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slept2long
Pawn I can agree on. 90% is just silly. The blame percentage is incalculable so why try?

Of course the percentage is incalcuable, I was just giving an approximation.

Since you agree they are pawns, look at the actions that lead to them being in the situation they are: *ARAB* invasions. *ARAB* terrorism.

The ones that didn't listen to the Arabs are doing fine.

Loren Pechtel · 06-28-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slept2long
Why do they start shooting again? Either of them. The terrorists want to destroy Israel which ain't gonna happen. And Israel wants to kill all the terrorists and solve the problem on it's own terms. Again not gonna happen. For a deal to be reached both sides are gonna have to make REAL sacrifices.

Remember--they are pawns. They start shooting again because the sponsors want them to.

Furthermore, as pawns they aren't going to make sacrifices.

Loren Pechtel · 06-28-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slept2long

Oh puuhhhleeeez, Loren. Talking peace with them isn't productive IMO because they see no sacrifice on the part of the Israelis nor any gain in there lives. Aside from the sacrifice of innocent civilians which they can justify by recalling that 3 will be killed in return for every one Israeli killed. This whole thing is just a cycle of violence and it's gotta end somewhere. Someone has got to say no more, and mean it.

You agree that they are pawns then ignore the implications! Pawns don't make their own decisions. The pawn goes where the king wants it to go, not where it wants to go.

slept2long · 06-29-2003, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

I consider the aggressor to be the one who initiates hostilities, not neccessarily the one who fires the first shot.

Fair definition.

Quote:

Consider the same situation at a personal level.

OK. But I in no way equate personal with national when it comes to the cause and effect. Nations are different than people(DUH) so different rules and conseqences apply.

Quote:

Someone hostile points a gun at you. You shoot them. Result: You fired, they didn't. Yet the court is going to say your actions are justified--no crime.

Not exactly. Deadly force isn't always justified. You must prove you were in fear for your life in Florida at least, I believe. So if the gun was a revolver with a bent barrel or a water pistol....
A war between nations has DIFFERENT rules.

Quote:

In some states his partner might be up on felony murder charges, though. (For you foreigners who might not know this law: Some states say that *ANY* death that results from the commission of a felony is automatically murder by the people committing the felony.)

Didn't know that.

Quote:

They aren't going to learn because they are pawns.

Of whom? Israel? The arab natins surrounding them? The US? Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Pawns must have masters and multiple ones at that.

Jat · 06-29-2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

Here's part of the problem!

Weapons aren't cowardly. War isn't a sporting match. The ideal outcome of war is the enemies ability to act is neutralized and none of your soldiers are hurt.

How they are used is. What war? Is there an official state of war declared here?

We do not have the technology even now to hit only combatants. You judge terrorist vs freedom fighter by what they were aiming at.

No, I judge by who gets to write the official version. That is the only real difference.

By even arguing about the definition you conceded the point.

More and more you are starting to sound just like the Iraqi Information Minister.

Jat · 06-29-2003, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

The peacekeepers generally stand by and watch the terrorists but do not act against them. No way would Israel accept something so harmful to them.

False.

The Arabs flunked this one. They've always insisted on things like the right of return--which is suicide for Israel.

The Israelis have passed the course either. The right of return isn't all that big a deal. Palestinians and Jews lived side by side long before the state of Israel was declared.

slept2long · 06-29-2003, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

The peacekeepers generally stand by and watch the terrorists but do not act against them. No way would Israel accept something so harmful to them.

Some peacekeepers huh?

Quote:

Note that when the threat was normal combat instead of terrorism that peacekeepers were there--until they were ordered out by the *ARABS*.

When was this? And why does what the arabs say matter? Tell them to fuck off. WHOOPS! They have all the oil we need.

What a nice bad of shite we are laying in.

Quote:

The Arabs flunked this one. They've always insisted on things like the right of return--which is suicide for Israel.

I still don't believe that it's suicide for them to allow the right of return. I think if Israeli's are so dead set against it they should offer just compensation instead. Like paying for new housing in Palestine and assuring freedom of the airwaves for the Pals. Not simply "go fly a kite". Israel has a lot to make up for right along with the Pals. Maybe they should make one big country instead? Makes dealing with water rights easier.

slept2long · 06-29-2003, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

Since you agree they are pawns, look at the actions that lead to them being in the situation they are: *ARAB* invasions. *ARAB* terrorism.

The ones that didn't listen to the Arabs are doing fine.

Israeli confiscation of the land they use to live on and grow crops. Israeli bulldozing of there housing. Israeli fencing off of wells used by communities in order to force them out of the area. Arabs certainly contribute to the problem but damn it Israel sure takes advantage of the Pals as well. This is not a one sided problem.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2003, 08:49 PM	#241
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Jat The Israeli use of such cowardly weapons more often then not kills more innocent civilians than their target. If American police tried the same thing everyone would speak up loudly against it. Here's part of the problem! Weapons aren't cowardly. War isn't a sporting match. The ideal outcome of war is the enemies ability to act is neutralized and none of your soldiers are hurt. As others have said, freedom fighters attack the opposing force. Terrorists attack the opposing civilians. Like the carpet bombing of German cities and the vaporization of two Japanese cities as well? I suppose that there were nothing but soldiers in each of these targets? We do not have the technology even now to hit only combatants. You judge terrorist vs freedom fighter by what they were aiming at. You redefined them as freedom fighters instead of terrorists--but in doing so you accepted the initial claim. You're the one who is doing the redefining here, not I. By even arguing about the definition you conceded the point.

06-28-2003, 08:53 PM	#242
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by slept2long Because terrorists don't sign peace treaties. Nations do. Create one and let it sign a treaty. They haven't in the past you say? Well then we'll have to pay extra attention this time. Send in UN troops to make sure nobody gets funny. Hell we should have done that in '48 considering the checkerboard nature of the proposed state. The peacekeepers generally stand by and watch the terrorists but do not act against them. No way would Israel accept something so harmful to them. Note that when the threat was normal combat instead of terrorism that peacekeepers were there--until they were ordered out by the ARABS. [Re: Israel/Arab negotiations] Yes they did. You must make a reasonable offer to negotiate. Take it or leave it isn't negotiating. Neither is suicide attacks or empty rhetoric. Arafat is a ass like Sharon is. It's why they get along so well. The Arabs flunked this one. They've always insisted on things like the right of return--which is suicide for Israel.

06-29-2003, 02:40 AM	#247
Jat Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 1,311	Originally posted by Loren Pechtel Here's part of the problem! Weapons aren't cowardly. War isn't a sporting match. The ideal outcome of war is the enemies ability to act is neutralized and none of your soldiers are hurt. How they are used is. What war? Is there an official state of war declared here? We do not have the technology even now to hit only combatants. You judge terrorist vs freedom fighter by what they were aiming at. No, I judge by who gets to write the official version. That is the only real difference. By even arguing about the definition you conceded the point. More and more you are starting to sound just like the Iraqi Information Minister.

06-29-2003, 02:44 AM	#248
Jat Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 1,311	Originally posted by Loren Pechtel The peacekeepers generally stand by and watch the terrorists but do not act against them. No way would Israel accept something so harmful to them. False. The Arabs flunked this one. They've always insisted on things like the right of return--which is suicide for Israel. The Israelis have passed the course either. The right of return isn't all that big a deal. Palestinians and Jews lived side by side long before the state of Israel was declared.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.