(August 9, 2014 at 6:18 am)little_monkey Wrote: Of course ignore the part where I said the bombings is a tactical measure to bring about permanent peace.

No, I didn't. I don't think killing a million or more Palestinians will bring about any sort of peace. Furthermore, I think anyone who honestly thinks that is deluded, and ignorant of cultural influences which would use those massive casualties as fodder to raise more, and not less, terrorists. For all your claimed expertise in Middle Eastern affairs, you seem surprisingly uninformed of the cultural values of feud and revenge, and how those might react to your proposed carpet-bombing

(August 9, 2014 at 6:18 am)little_monkey Wrote: Whether you attribute to cultural or ethnic matters, the bottom line is you think that Palestinians aren't smart enough. The real person who is biased and racist is YOU.

Nonsense. I'm going to go dig up the exact quote again, so everyone here can see your dishonesty. BRB

Here we go:

(August 6, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'd argue that the cultural psychology of both the Japanese and the Germans had as much, if not more, to do with the turnaround those countries saw after World War II.

Now, clearly I made no reference to intelligence, and I made no reference to ethnicity.

I'll let the readers in this thread judge the earnestness of each our points. I know that for myself I'll never read anything you say with any credibility, because you're dishonest.

(August 10, 2014 at 7:17 am)Zack Wrote: No. That is false. It is a widely believed myth and justification for employing terrorist tactics. Using violence to free oneself from from an unjust authority has been seen as socially, politically, and morally acceptable. Using terrorism to achieve these ends is not. Blowing up pizza parlors full of children is not the primary tactic of insurgents fighting guerrilla wars against a national military/police force, for terrorists it is. Here is one of the MANY articles, books, scholarly works that explains it better than I can.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...er/257245/

If you still are not satisfied then Google it. The point being that statement is not true and does more harm than good.

Hummus is good. I really like the roasted red pepper and garlic varieties.

Good point.

On a side note: noboby makes a big fuss about Russia. They get away with Chechnya where they directly killed some one quarter of a million civilians. The media couldn't care less. No pictures of chechen hospitals, schools, babies or anything...

---

(August 10, 2014 at 8:37 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 9, 2014 at 6:18 am)little_monkey Wrote: Of course ignore the part where I said the bombings is a tactical measure to bring about permanent peace.

No, I didn't. I don't think killing a million or more Palestinians will bring about any sort of peace.

The policy I've advocated is to bomb until the enemy surrenders unconditionally. Get it straight before spewing your objections.

Quote: Furthermore, I think anyone who honestly thinks that is deluded, and ignorant of cultural influences which would use those massive casualties as fodder to raise more, and not less, terrorists.

Are you implying that Hamas is made up of terrorists? You're not saying that, but it is a definite implication: more Israeli bombs, more terrorists on the Palestinian side, of which Hamas is one faction.

Quote:For all your claimed expertise in Middle Eastern affairs, you seem surprisingly uninformed of the cultural values of feud and revenge, and how those might react to your proposed carpet-bombing.

I's not that I'm misinformed, it's just that I don't think it's relevant. You think it is relevant but you haven't proved your case.

Quote:

(August 9, 2014 at 6:18 am)little_monkey Wrote: Whether you attribute to cultural or ethnic matters, the bottom line is you think that Palestinians aren't smart enough. The real person who is biased and racist is YOU.

Nonsense. I'm going to go dig up the exact quote again, so everyone here can see your dishonesty. BRB

Here we go:

(August 6, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'd argue that the cultural psychology of both the Japanese and the Germans had as much, if not more, to do with the turnaround those countries saw after World War II.

Now, clearly I made no reference to intelligence, and I made no reference to ethnicity.

By using Germany and Japan as examples, which have had more advanced society than the Arabs, you were implying the inferiority of the latter whether you intended that or not. Subconciously, you believe that the Palestinians are inferior, incapable of understanding that more hostilities brings on more punishment, and they will continue to fight to the last one, regardless of a policy "to bomb them until they surrender". That is the gist of your position. It's basically the position of many left-wing Palestinian apologists, which is exactly what you are.

I support putting the individual first. I support non violence. I support secular laws, not states based on race or religion, no matter who is wanting what.

(August 10, 2014 at 8:37 am)little_monkey Wrote:

(August 10, 2014 at 8:37 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: No, I didn't. I don't think killing a million or more Palestinians will bring about any sort of peace.

The policy I've advocated is to bomb until the enemy surrenders unconditionally. Get it straight before spewing your objections.

And additionally, you said that you find a million deaths acceptable.

Would you like me to dig that up too?

(August 10, 2014 at 8:37 am)little_monkey Wrote: Are you implying that Hamas is made up of terrorists? You're not saying that, but it is a definite implication: more Israeli bombs, more terrorists on the Palestinian side, of which Hamas is one faction.

Of course I am. As I've said earlier, I'm not biased to one side or the other, and as I've said in another thread, I think Hamas' practice of stationing launchers in dense civilian population centers is an "atrocity" -- that is my choice of word. Additionally, launching rockets indiscriminately is terrorism, and an atrocity.

Of course, I come to that conclusion by thinking that all indiscriminate attacks are immoral ... not just those committed by Hamas.

(August 10, 2014 at 8:37 am)little_monkey Wrote: I's not that I'm misinformed, it's just that I don't think it's relevant. You think it is relevant but you haven't proved your case.

You don't see the difference? Socially, the Germans and the Japanese each had strong governments right up to the end of the war which were able to project power into their populations through the medium of military police states, and cow any skeptical citizens into obedience through the implied threat of criminal punishment, amongst other things. Each of those countries had also the "benefit" of a populace given to obeying the government with little or no questioning.

Comparing the Palestinian Authority to such governments ignores the very real and very stark differences -- the polity in Gaza is deeply fractured, meaning that the government cannot control the extremists who would likely continue to act against Israel even after a million civilian deaths. The ability of the Palestinians to marshal organized resistance is very limited; however, the decentralized nature of their armed groups means that they cannot be controlled by Imperial Edict, or Unconditional Surrender documents -- unlike the Germans or Japanese. The former were very successful in commanding an end to fighting in their troops; the latter had more holdouts, but given the bushido code, it was a surprisingly orderly surrender.

(August 10, 2014 at 8:37 am)little_monkey Wrote: By using Germany and Japan as examples, which have had more advanced society than the Arabs, you were implying the inferiority of the latter whether you intended that or not.

I didn't say that they were more advanced. I said that they were culturally different. Indeed, you here are for the first time introducing the concept of "more advanced". If that is how you read it, yourself, then own your own stereotypes. As explained above, that is not how I meant it.

If you read my point above, you will understand why what I said about "socio-cultural difference" says nothing about the Palestinians as a people. Assuming I am a bigot from a point that you clearly did not understand is uncharitable. Saying that you think the Japanese and Germans had more advanced societies is a fair point insofar as they had tighter governmental controls -- and in no other sense.

(August 10, 2014 at 8:37 am)little_monkey Wrote: Subconciously, you believe that the Palestinians are inferior, incapable of understanding that more hostilities brings on more punishment, and they will continue to fight to the last one, regardless of a policy "to bomb them until they surrender". That is the gist of your position. It's basically the position of many left-wing Palestinian apologists, which is exactly what you are.

No, I'm no apologist for their violence, nor do I have these "subconscious" thoughts regarding them that you, our esteemed Internet Psychologist®, seem to think. Nor do I think that they will all fight to the last man, but as I've pointed out above, there will be enough extremists to keep the coals stoked so that the hot spot will not, cannot, die down, so long as escalation is the only answer frfom both sides.

Now, let's see your capability for nuanced thought ... over to you.

Quote:The policy I've advocated is to bomb until the enemy surrenders unconditionally. Get it straight before spewing your objections

And this denotes the dark side of our species evolution. No different than the alpha male primate in a troope reacting to a subordinate. Very primitive thinking and is merely a reflection of male testosterone.

Once a group of people set up a social pecking order any threat to that order is going to create an enemy of the minority and or outsider.

Tribalism is local, human suffering is universal. So the issue becomes, what do we want our species to appeal to? Our ability go be violent, or our ability to have civil conflict resolution?

Yes a quick and blunt victory makes you the winner. But that is hardly impressive in our species history. Everyone wants to be on top.

(August 9, 2014 at 6:18 am)little_monkey Wrote: Benny, if Hamas wants to continue this war, which has been going on since 1948, it's their prerogative, but then accept the misery that war brings along. Don't come home to mama and complain. The other problem is that by stationing their "freedom fighters" among the civilians, there will be large collateral damage, and Hamas is counting on that to win the propaganda war. And that makes Hamas responsible for those casualities, not Israel which has no option but to defend itself. Hamas has a choice: continue their armed struggle or lay down their arms. The second option is the only option for the possibility of a permanent peace.

By "stationing" you mean living at home in their houses instead of standing in open fields waving to drone cameras? I've yet to see journalistic videos of women and children chained to missile factories. How sure are you that this isn't pro-Israel propaganda? It sounds suspiciously like an attempt to demonize-- a more reasonable belief, I think, than that Hamas are deliberately putting their loved ones or community members at risk to save themselves.

As for putting down weapons, do you really feel that this is a reasonable expectation? Do they not have a legitimate case causing them hard feelings since 1948, and should they compound that indignity by surrendering to the ones who demonize them?

(August 10, 2014 at 8:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 10, 2014 at 8:37 am)little_monkey Wrote: The policy is to bomb until the enemy surrenders unconditionally. Get it straight before spewing your objections.

And additionally, you said that you find a million deaths acceptable.

Would you like me to dig that up too?

The policy is: bomb until the enemy surrenders. Under that policy, there is a possibility that a million could die. There's a difference between what is a policy and what is a possibility.

Quote:Of course, I come to that conclusion by thinking that all indiscriminate attacks are immoral ... not just those committed by Hamas.

You're implying that Hamas attacks and Israeli attacks are on par, and there are not: Hamas attacks are part of a declaration of war, Israeli attacks are a response to those attacks and constitute as acts of defense.

Quote:

(August 10, 2014 at 8:37 am)little_monkey Wrote: I's not that I'm misinformed, it's just that I don't think it's relevant. You think it is relevant but you haven't proved your case.

You don't see the difference? Socially, the Germans and the Japanese each had strong governments right up to the end of the war which were able to project power into their populations through the medium of military police states, and cow any skeptical citizens into obedience through the implied threat of criminal punishment, amongst other things. Each of those countries had also the "benefit" of a populace given to obeying the government with little or no questioning.

For your information, when Israel launches attacks, they warn the Palestinians to give them enough time to evacuate. Hamas response to that is to tell those Palestinians to stay in their houses, and most Palestinians obey, resulting into greater civilian casualties that feeds into Hamas propaganda. So Hamas can very well project its authority.

Quote:Comparing the Palestinian Authority to such governments ignores the very real and very stark differences -- the polity in Gaza is deeply fractured, meaning that the government cannot control the extremists who would likely continue to act against Israel even after a million civilian deaths. The ability of the Palestinians to marshal organized resistance is very limited;...

That's a lame excuse. During the 72-hr truce, no rockets were fired by Hamas, which again disprove your claim. When that 72-hr truce was over, Hamas pulled out of the talks that Cairo had organized, and declared that since their demands were not met, the rocket attacks would continue, and immediately rockets were launched. Hamas is definitely in control of its terrorists.

Quote: Nor do I think that they will all fight to the last man, but as I've pointed out above, there will be enough extremists to keep the coals stoked so that the hot spot will not, cannot, die down, so long as escalation is the only answer frfom both sides.

You never going to have a world without terrorists, just like you're never going to have a world without crime. But the situation in the ME goes beyond that simplification. It's a war between two people, and to understand that, you need to know your history - what happened in 1948, what happened prior to 1948, etc. If you have a superficial knowledge, especially if you just know what's in the headlines of present day events, you will get it wrong.

---

(August 11, 2014 at 6:00 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 9, 2014 at 6:18 am)little_monkey Wrote: Benny, if Hamas wants to continue this war, which has been going on since 1948, it's their prerogative, but then accept the misery that war brings along. Don't come home to mama and complain. The other problem is that by stationing their "freedom fighters" among the civilians, there will be large collateral damage, and Hamas is counting on that to win the propaganda war. And that makes Hamas responsible for those casualities, not Israel which has no option but to defend itself. Hamas has a choice: continue their armed struggle or lay down their arms. The second option is the only option for the possibility of a permanent peace.

By "stationing" you mean living at home in their houses instead of standing in open fields waving to drone cameras? I've yet to see journalistic videos of women and children chained to missile factories. How sure are you that this isn't pro-Israel propaganda? It sounds suspiciously like an attempt to demonize-- a more reasonable belief, I think, than that Hamas are deliberately putting their loved ones or community members at risk to save themselves.

Fact: when Israel launches attacks, they warn the Palestinians to give them enough time to evacuate. Hamas response to that is to tell those Palestinians to stay in their houses, and most Palestinians obey, resulting into greater civilian casualties that feeds into Hamas propaganda.

Fact: the blockade allows cement to go through so that the Palestinians could construct their houses, schools, hospitals, etc. Instead Hamas used that cement (an estimate of 600,000 tons) to contruct tunnels so they could smuggle weapons. Not only that, a good part of those tunnels run right underneath houses, in particular schools run by the UN.

Quote:As for putting down weapons, do you really feel that this is a reasonable expectation? Do they not have a legitimate case causing them hard feelings since 1948, and should they compound that indignity by surrendering to the ones who demonize them?

The partition of 1948 was reasonable given the circumstances. Palestine was under the Ottoman Empire until the end of WW1. After the treaty of Versailles, it became a British mandate. And at the end of WW2, the UK being bankrupted could no longer afford to administer that part of the world and asked the UN to make a ruling on it before the Brits would depart. You have to realize that between the two wars, there were massacres committed by both groups. And without the British presence, that region would have been in total chaos. So the UN decision was a compromise. Nevertherless when the Jews officialy declared their state, the Arabs - Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the leadership of the Palestinians - all declared war on Israel, and this war is still on. (Only Egypt signed a peace treaty). So you need to take the present events in that context. It's a war that the Palestinians are still waging, and Israel has no other option but to defend.

(August 11, 2014 at 6:27 am)little_monkey Wrote: The policy is: bomb until the enemy surrenders. Under that policy, there is a possibility that a million could die. There's a difference between what is a policy and what is a possibility.

Advocating for policy divorced from outcomes is very unlikely to result in a useful policy (cf 2003 Iraqi invasion).

Also, here's what you wrote:

(August 6, 2014 at 3:31 pm)little_monkey Wrote: I will not shred a tear for the Palestinians as they are getting a lot less than what they really deserve. Perhaps when a million of them are killed, those who are left behind will come to their sense and drop their weapons and wave the white flag. In that case only will talk of peace actually happen.

You clearly think that to be acceptable as an outcome.

(August 11, 2014 at 6:27 am)little_monkey Wrote: You're implying that Hamas attacks and Israeli attacks are on par, and there are not: Hamas attacks are part of a declaration of war, Israeli attacks are a response to those attacks and constitute as acts of defense.

Nonsense, whether or not one is the aggressor has no bearing on whether one's actions are moral. By your logic, the Dresden firebombing was moral even though the vast majority of of its victims were civilians. By your logic, Hiroshima was moral, even though its only real purpose was to demonstrate to not only the Japanese but also the Russians our possession of a game-changing weapon.

Was the Russian rape of Eastern Germany in 1944-1945 moral?

(August 11, 2014 at 6:27 am)little_monkey Wrote: For your information, when Israel launches attacks, they warn the Palestinians to give them enough time to evacuate. Hamas response to that is to tell those Palestinians to stay in their houses, and most Palestinians obey, resulting into greater civilian casualties that feeds into Hamas propaganda. So Hamas can very well project its authority.

I know that, thanks. That is why I call Hamas' policy an "atrocity" -- have you not noticed that yet?

(August 11, 2014 at 6:27 am)little_monkey Wrote: That's a lame excuse. During the 72-hr truce, no rockets were fired by Hamas, which again disprove your claim. When that 72-hr truce was over, Hamas pulled out of the talks that Cairo had organized, and declared that since their demands were not met, the rocket attacks would continue, and immediately rockets were launched. Hamas is definitely in control of its terrorists.

Actually, those rocket-firings demonstrate my point here, that the Palestinian Authority cannot control the extremists. What makes you think that in a situation where command and control have broken down, the PA could do a better job?

(August 11, 2014 at 6:27 am)little_monkey Wrote: You never going to have a world without terrorists, just like you're never going to have a world without crime. But the situation in the ME goes beyond that simplification. It's a war between two people, and to understand that, you need to know your history - what happened in 1948, what happened prior to 1948, etc. If you have a superficial knowledge, especially if you just know what's in the headlines of present day events, you will get it wrong.

---

Which is why I have taken the time to look into the larger historical picture.

(August 11, 2014 at 8:20 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 11, 2014 at 6:27 am)little_monkey Wrote: The policy is: bomb until the enemy surrenders. Under that policy, there is a possibility that a million could die. There's a difference between what is a policy and what is a possibility.

Advocating for policy divorced from outcomes is very unlikely to result in a useful policy (cf 2003 Iraqi invasion).

Sure you have to look at all outcomes, not just one which is exactly what you're doing. For instance, it's very possible that only a few thousands might get killed.

Quote:Also, here's what you wrote:

(August 6, 2014 at 3:31 pm)little_monkey Wrote: I will not shred a tear for the Palestinians as they are getting a lot less than what they really deserve. Perhaps when a million of them are killed, those who are left behind will come to their sense and drop their weapons and wave the white flag. In that case only will talk of peace actually happen.

You clearly think that to be acceptable as an outcome.

Sure, again one possible outcome that I have admitted to, which you are clearly focussed on because you are looking at this through your emotions rather than logic.

Quote:

(August 11, 2014 at 6:27 am)little_monkey Wrote: You're implying that Hamas attacks and Israeli attacks are on par, and there are not: Hamas attacks are part of a declaration of war, Israeli attacks are a response to those attacks and constitute as acts of defense.

Nonsense, whether or not one is the aggressor has no bearing on whether one's actions are moral.

You can ask ten people on what constitute morality, and you'll get hundred opinions on what morality is. Are you proposing that you have an absolute monopoly on what constitutes morality?

Quote:By your logic, the Dresden firebombing was moral even though the vast majority of of its victims were civilians.

It isn't a moral question. Secondly, at the times, the reason behind that bombing was to send a clear message to the German population that they were losing the war, and only an unconditional surrender would be acceptable for two reasons: 1) the Nazis had vowed to fight to the last man - they were even enlisted young boys as young as 10 year old to fight; 2) in WW1, many Germans, including the Nazis, firmly believed that Germany had not lost the war as little destruction had taken place on German soil. So this time in WW2, the Allies were making sure that their message was clear. Debating whether that was moral or not is an exercise in futility.

Quote:By your logic, Hiroshima was moral, even though its only real purpose was to demonstrate to not only the Japanese but also the Russians our possession of a game-changing weapon.

The alternative - invading Japan - could have produced more fatalities both on the US and Japanese sides. Thinking that this altenative is more moral is a futile debate.

Quote:

(August 11, 2014 at 6:27 am)little_monkey Wrote: For your information, when Israel launches attacks, they warn the Palestinians to give them enough time to evacuate. Hamas response to that is to tell those Palestinians to stay in their houses, and most Palestinians obey, resulting into greater civilian casualties that feeds into Hamas propaganda. So Hamas can very well project its authority.

I know that, thanks. That is why I call Hamas' policy an "atrocity" -- have you not noticed that yet?

Get your fact straightened out, I wasn't informing you that hamas' policy is an atrocity, but that Hamas can easly project its authority, which you claimed they couldn't.

Quote:

(August 11, 2014 at 6:27 am)little_monkey Wrote: That's a lame excuse. During the 72-hr truce, no rockets were fired by Hamas, which again disprove your claim. When that 72-hr truce was over, Hamas pulled out of the talks that Cairo had organized, and declared that since their demands were not met, the rocket attacks would continue, and immediately rockets were launched. Hamas is definitely in control of its terrorists.

Actually, those rocket-firings demonstrate my point here, that the Palestinian Authority cannot control the extremists.

Get your facts straightened: the PA rules over the West Bank; Hamas rules over Gaza. And Hamas has clearly demonstrated it has complete control over its "extremists" in Gaza.

Quote:

(August 11, 2014 at 6:27 am)little_monkey Wrote: You never going to have a world without terrorists, just like you're never going to have a world without crime. But the situation in the ME goes beyond that simplification. It's a war between two people, and to understand that, you need to know your history - what happened in 1948, what happened prior to 1948, etc. If you have a superficial knowledge, especially if you just know what's in the headlines of present day events, you will get it wrong.

---

Which is why I have taken the time to look into the larger historical picture.

That you can't get many of the facts straight proves otherwise.

(August 11, 2014 at 9:45 am)little_monkey Wrote: Sure, again one possible outcome that I have admitted to, which you are clearly focussed on because you are looking at this through your emotions rather than logic.

Noi. I've addressed your suggested policy on the logical level as well, when I pointed out that such a policy is unlikely to be effective given the absence of a strong central government which can compel obedience to surrender/cease-fire agreements. Recent events have supporteed my points.

(August 11, 2014 at 9:45 am)little_monkey Wrote: You can ask ten people on what constitute morality, and you'll get hundred opinions on what morality is. Are you proposing that you have an absolute monopoly on what constitutes morality?

No, but I certainly have my opinion. My opinion is that killing unarmed civilians in wartime is immoral. Not surprisingly, it's a pretty widely-shared view.

And to answer the question you're about to ask, yes, parking your rocket batteries in civilian areas so that civilians get killed is immoral, as well.

(August 11, 2014 at 9:45 am)little_monkey Wrote: It isn't a moral question.

Certainly it is. You're arguing that the Israelis are right in their actions.

(August 11, 2014 at 9:45 am)little_monkey Wrote: Secondly, at the times, the reason behind that bombing was to send a clear message to the German population that they were losing the war, and only an unconditional surrender would be acceptable for two reasons: 1) the Nazis had vowed to fight to the last man - they were even enlisted young boys as young as 10 year old to fight; 2) in WW1, many Germans, including the Nazis, firmly believed that Germany had not lost the war as little destruction had taken place on German soil. So this time in WW2, the Allies were making sure that their message was clear. Debating whether that was moral or not is an exercise in futility.

I disagree, in part, and I agree, in part. Forgive me while I go into it a bit:

The German population had already by that time a clear knowledge that they were losing the war. They knew this in 1944, when the Russians marched into Prussia and the Western Allies came up upon the Rhine. They knew it when they viewed the bombed-out centers of Cologne, Hamburg, Lubeck, Schweinfurt, and Berlin itself. Indeed, the very fact that the Germans were indeed impressing young boys from the HJ into battle told the civilians exactly how desperate matters had become. So firebombing Dresden was not necessary to "send a message".

(August 11, 2014 at 9:45 am)little_monkey Wrote: The alternative - invading Japan - could have produced more fatalities both on the US and Japanese sides. Thinking that this altenative is more moral is a futile debate.

That wasn't the only alternative. The submarine/mining blockade was dragging the Japanese economy to a halt very quickly by August of 1945.

(August 11, 2014 at 9:45 am)little_monkey Wrote: Get your fact straightened out, I wasn't informing you that hamas' policy is an atrocity, but that Hamas can easly project its authority, which you claimed they couldn't.

I was giving you []imy[/i] opinion of Hamas' policy. As for being able to project its power into the Palestinians so that they will act in concert, I disagree. They may be able to crash into some homes and set up rocket batteries, but if a truce/peace is brought about, will they be able to control individual suicide bombers or other terrorists? Will they be able to command allegiance and respect for their authority?

(August 11, 2014 at 9:45 am)little_monkey Wrote: Get your facts straightened: the PA rules over the West Bank; Hamas rules over Gaza. And Hamas has clearly demonstrated it has complete control over its "extremists" in Gaza.

So what makes you think that Hamas can compel those extremists to abandon their position after the bombing of civilians?

(August 11, 2014 at 9:45 am)little_monkey Wrote: That you can't get many of the facts straight proves otherwise.

That I've made one mistake here doesn't undermine my point. That you cannot view the problem from any lens other than your own does, however, make your views irreparably biased, and unworthy of further consideration.