Pyrian on 29/6/2006 at 18:52
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
If everyone, always, went full bore in protecting their people, and everyone knew that everyone else would, then people wouldn't do the stupid shit to cause the problem in the first place.
Umm, nice theory, but not particularly supported by history (or logic, for that matter). When everyone goes full bore "protecting their people" through retaliation you get unstoppable escalation - and there's always
somebody who's willing to light the fuse. The more hair-trigger you make it, the more likely it is to go off...
TheGreatGodPan on 29/6/2006 at 19:51
Quote Posted by Shayde
hmmm If WWIII does happen and the global economy is sufficiently damaged the world may have to resort to an economy based on gold. And then South Africa will become a world power. And we shall rule with an iron fist!
You'd probably get along just fine with the goldbugs at mises.org and lewrockell.com
This isn't World War III. Israel has fought how many wars already against how many countries at once?
As for Israel agression begetting agression, it sounds nice but I (
http://www.haganah.org.il/harchives/005011.html) don't find it credible. If someone can show some evidence of Israel playing nice resulting in people being nice to it, I'd like to see it. You can call Israel bad and evil all you want, but it's not going to be any more convincing than trying to tell Iran it shouldn't build nukes or we'll be very upset.
aguywhoplaysthief on 29/6/2006 at 20:03
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Umm, nice theory, but not particularly supported by history (or logic, for that matter). When everyone goes full bore "protecting their people" through retaliation you get unstoppable escalation - and there's always
somebody who's willing to light the fuse. The more hair-trigger you make it, the more likely it is to go off...
Making concessions to the enemy every time they do shit to you doesn't seem all that logical to me. At least this way the provocateur gets their ass handed to them, and it sends a message.
Let me be clear, I'm not in favor of some of the things that Israel is doing in this case. I don't have any idea what the point of blowing up power plants is, but theoretically, violently going after terrorist leaders when your people are kidnapped by terrorists seems rather reasonable.
While detaining the members of the government seems rather stupid to me, the problem is that I'm not a member of the Israeli Intelligence Service, so I don't have any idea what some of the MP's may be involved in, so it seems rather possible that they may have information, or contacts, with the people who attacked the Israeli outpost - Gaza is a very small place, and Hamas is even smaller.
Treating people as untouchable just because they get a government paycheck, while they are involved in terrorist activities, just doesn't seem sensible.
Pyrian on 29/6/2006 at 23:23
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Making concessions to the enemy every time they do shit to you doesn't seem all that logical to me.
Of course
that isn't logical or practical, either; extremes rarely are. However, attacking a strawman does not constitute a defense of your stance.
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
At least this way the provocateur gets their ass handed to them, and it sends a message.
More like, the actual provocateur gets away and the message becomes "we're incompetent and hate you all". I do not think that
indiscriminate reprisals accomplish much, unless the goal is to impoverish, in which case I think they should have the balls to admit it. And I do think that Israel's reprisals have historically tended towards the indiscriminate...
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
...but theoretically, violently going after terrorist leaders when your people are kidnapped by terrorists seems rather reasonable.
Within reason, though. You don't nuke the entire Middle East over a single hostage - yes, that's an absurdly extreme example, but I'm just trying to demonstrate that you have to draw the line
somewhere.
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Treating people as untouchable just because they get a government paycheck, while they are involved in terrorist activities, just doesn't seem sensible.
I'm not convinced that that's what is going on. You insinuate that these people were taken due to some reasonable evidence of involvement, but there's been no trial, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not even a sense of probable cause. I doubt any of them would be eligible for being picked up in the U.S. on suspicion of kidnapping. (Obviously, I can't know that for sure, but can you, either?) Meanwhile, everyone in Palestine and most people in Europe are going to see this as Israel deliberately destabilizing Palestine, and you know what? I think they might very well be right.
Epos Nix on 30/6/2006 at 00:14
Quote:
Let me be clear, I'm not in favor of some of the things that Israel is doing in this case. I don't have any idea what the point of blowing up power plants is, but theoretically, violently going after terrorist leaders when your people are kidnapped by terrorists seems rather reasonable.
Fight terror with terror? Wait, are we allowed to call the Israelis 'terrorists'? Where is the line drawn? Along some financial axis I'd wager... :rolleyes:
Myoldnamebroke on 30/6/2006 at 00:23
You can't call them terrorists because they're an internationally-recognised government of a nation-state and the people doing the killing are clearly a regular army.
Killing terrorist leaders isn't terrorism anyway, no matter what your organisational status. Did you even read what you quoted?
Ockhams Razor on 30/6/2006 at 00:28
Since Israel’s inception it has made dozens of concessions in the interest of promoting peaceful coexistence. The withdrawal from the Sinai, the handing over of the Temple mount to the Waqf, and the withdrawal from the Gaza strip, as well as numerous West Bank areas.
Name one thing the Palestinians have ever done to demonstrate they want peace. They rejected Barak’s offer which would have given them everything they purportedly wanted, and continue to fund and directly promote terrorism.
I know some of you believe the average Palestinian spends his days smoking pot, listening to John Lennon while wondering why we can’t all just get along.
Well, that theory went out the window the moment they democratically elected Hamas, an organization which is regarded by the majority of the civilized world as a terrorist entity, which does not recognize Israel, and which considers suicide bombers who target innocent civilians as “heroes” and “martyrs”.
Instead of responding to Israel’s withdrawal with genuine moves towards dialog and diplomatic talks as the world expected, the PA chose to launch dozens of kassams into green-line Israel on a daily basis, and kidnap our soldiers and civilians.
Israel can and will defend itself.
Epos Nix on 30/6/2006 at 00:39
Quote:
Killing terrorist leaders isn't terrorism anyway, no matter what your organisational status. Did you even read what you quoted?
You mean this: "I don't have any idea what the point of blowing up power plants is"?
Yeah, I read that and that's what I was referring to.
And don't kid yourself by differentiating between terrorist organizations and "regular" armies. In the hands of reckless people it's all the same. There's clearly terror on both sides of the field between these two, even outside this particular engagement.
Myoldnamebroke on 30/6/2006 at 00:48
Well, calling it 'terrorism' just because it's Not Good means you're pulling the same move and Bush & Co. Armies aren't terrorists, even if they're doing horrible stuff.
And it looked as if you were disagreeing with aguy by pulling that quote, when he was saying 'there's no point in attacking power plants, why not just actually kill the terrorists?'. If you weren't then it's a misunderstanding.
Quote:
Well, that theory went out the window the moment they democratically elected Hamas, an organization which is regarded by the majority of the civilized world as a terrorist entity, which does not recognize Israel, and which considers suicide bombers who target innocent civilians as “heroes” and “martyrs”.
It's obviously not as black and white as that. A lot of people voted to oust a corrupt incumbent and so just vote for whoever the opposition is. There's also a wider problem of state failure - in the absence of state provision, religious organisations step in and provide welfare. One the one hand, Hamas are a terrorist organisation, on the other they're providing education and healthcare for their communities. People see that, endorse it and vote for them to be their government - not necessarily because they want Israelis to die. Pakistan is another good example of a similar problem - the Pakistani state has failed miserably to provide decent schooling, which means anyone that wants their kids to get an education has to send them to Islamic schools.
Epos Nix on 30/6/2006 at 01:12
Quote:
Well, calling it 'terrorism' just because it's Not Good means you're pulling the same move and Bush & Co. Armies aren't terrorists, even if they're doing horrible stuff.
Problem is you're seeing this as Israel vs. The Terrorists. I see them simply as two sides fighting a prolonged war with one side having the military advantage forcing the other to use improvised weapons. Their actions are all the same shit to me even if their tactics vary a good deal. Israel as a state would love to wipe every Arab from the face of the planet as much as those opposed to them would see them destroyed ((
http://monabaker.com/quotes.htm) some quotes for your reading pleasure).
And yes, I was being sarcastic by wanting to call Israeli troops terrorists but at the same time I see no difference between either sides' actions so I'd label both the same anyway.
