The fantasyland of proportionality

[Phx_Dem]

The Israeli strike at Qana village resulted in a humanitarian disaster. The sight of the bodies of dead children is truly unbearable. Does this dreadful tragedy indicate "disproportionate" military response and exaggerated use of power by Israeli forces? Not necessarily.

The International Humanitarian Law is becoming consistently irrelevant for the purpose of global combating terrorism. It deals with the laws of war between nations, not with terror organizations or individual terrorists who hide among civil population.

It is impossible, therefore, to implement the old "proportionate" requirement, shaped for a war between states fighting in a defined area, to the modern needs of combating terrorism. How can countries "proportionately" strike individual terrorists who hide amid civil population and use them as human shelters? How is it possible to thwart rocket launchers which are activated from private homes?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3285667,00.html

[electropop]

1. At what point does the government become the terror organization?

How many dead civilians? Perhaps a certain ratio? If my defense against a terrorist attack results in my killing ten times as many civilians as the terror attack, is there some kind of magic that makes me a righteous defender and not just another terrorist? Same question applies in Lebanon or Iraq (except of course, in Iraq, we are attacking an unrelated third-party nation entirely).

[Solly Mack]

65. and there it is

That's exactly why there are international laws governing the actions of countries.

That's exactly why those laws are important...and important to follow.

Thank you!!!

[jrd200x]

111. Never. By definition they're a military organization

you can only employ terrorist tactics - which are different.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

3. blah blah blah

round and round go the rationalizations for killing.

[Phx_Dem]

6. If your a pacifist I get your position

but wars are not pretty, maybe Hisbullah should not have started one with Israel.

[Lerkfish]

17. correct. I AM a pacifist.

blame is irrelevant to me.

[Clarkie1]

28. That makes things very easy. nt

[Lerkfish]

31. true, then I don't have to jump through twisted hoops trying to

justify needless civilian deaths.
that's the hard part of not being a pacifist. You have to find some way to overcome your natural inclination to preserve life.

If you distill it down to peace is where we need to be, if you can crystallize your intent to that singularity, then all the arguments and rationalizations evaporate away and it comes down to are you willing to end the life of another human being, or not? everything else is posturing.
IMHO

[Clarkie1]

34. I respect your postition, even if I'm not in complete agreement.

Would have held the same postion in WWII?

[Lerkfish]

35. yes, though it would not have made me popular at the time

[Clarkie1]

38. If the allied forces followed your philosophy fully...

how do you think the war would have ended?

[Lerkfish]

42. what do you want me to say?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Lerkfish/15

hope the link works.


I will not, through force of argument, come to the way of thinking that war is ever good.

war, in and of itself, is the problem, and how we've honed ourselves throughout the centuries to think of no other solutions but war

If you don't like my philosophy, fine, but I'm not going to get into this sort of argument.

[msmcghee]

80. If blame is so irrelevant to you . .

. . why do 95% of your posts blame Israel?

[Critters2]

36. "He started it!" is no excuse on the playground

nor in geo-politics. :eyes:

[Phx_Dem]

41. I could have stated it differently

Israel has a right to defend herself.

[Critters2]

51. So I keep hearing nt

[Phx_Dem]

54. self-delete

[Zhade]

92. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is not defense.

NT!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

4. Standard argument used by every tyranical war criminal

Hitler, Napoleon, Bush, Reagan, the ancient Romans as they expelled the original Jews from the original Israel.

When you are killing more innocent people than the other side and are invading a land that hasn't invaded you, you have lost all right to claim self-defense. You have become the aggressor. Terrorists firing from amongst civilians aren't a military target, they are a law enforcement issue. And the labels you adapt or the flags you fly make no difference in that argument.

[sweetheart]

9. Yep, innocents need to die, gimme the power nt

[malaise]

74. Bingo n/t

[Zhade]

94. I've said it before, I'll say it again:

If you support Israel attacking innocent Lebanese to get at Hezbollah, you support Iraqis attacking innocent Americans to get at the b*s* administration. If you can't admit that, you're a hypocrite.

I believe that.

[Jim__]

5. "How is it possible to thwart rocket launchers ...

... which are activated from private homes?"

So, speaking of the building that they bombed in Qana, were any rockets launched from there? And, how many rockets had Hizbollah launched into Israel in the year preceding Israel's latest invasion of Lebanon? Or, is the rule that if anyone commits a terror attack against your country, you can just start bombing and killing anyone, anywhere, with "fighting terrorism" as the justification?

[Phx_Dem]

8. It was not the Israelis that embraced "asymmetrical warfare"

The IDF are fighting an enemy that does not care about civilian casualties.

[Jim__]

11. How many Israeli civilians did Hizbollah kill in the year before Israel

began the wholesale slaughter of Lebanese civilians?

[Phx_Dem]

40. As far as I know zero....

[Zhade]

96. How many civilians did Hezbollah kill when they kidnapped two soldiers?

Also zero.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

49. Yes, but so are Hezbollah.

Israel is, at best, completely indifferent to arab civilian suffering, and the evidence that it is actively trying to cause it is fairly compelling.

What Israel *should* do is end the invasion, negotiate a prisoner exchange, and set about reaching a just solution to the Palestinian problem.

That would have the advantage that it would also massively reduce the amount of violence against Israel, whereas this invasion is actively making things worse for the Israelis.

The question "does Israel have the right to inflict this much suffering to defend itself" would only be relevant if Israel's actions are actually making it safer.

[kiki]

63. Does it really seem to you...

...that the IDF cares about civilian casualties?

Honestly?

[Phx_Dem]

66. Yes.

[kiki]

68. Then they must really, really suck at their job. n/t

[Zhade]

98. So when the Israeli government says they will attack Lebanese Christians..

...to cause them to turn on Hezbollah - remember, the same Christians who don't support Hezbollah - is that an example of the IDF caring about innocent civilians?

[sendero]

77. And Israel..

.. by it's actions, has made it abundantly clear that they don't care about civilian casualties either.

The only difference between "terrorists" who commit suicide bombings and nations who lob rockets into purely civilian areas is that the terrorists are willing to die for their beliefs and the rocket launchers are willing to push a fucking button.

[Phx_Dem]

79. like I said in another post

it is not reasonable to expect Israel to place it's soldiers in high risk situations when there are other options available, Israel did not start this war.

[Zhade]

99. Um, actually, they did, unless you think kidnapping is war.

Israel's the one that invaded another nation and has killed hundreds of innocent civilians.

THAT'S an act of war. Perhaps the kidnapping was also an act of war, but Israel didn't have to jump at the chance to kill innocent people.

Do you likewise support killing innocent Iraqis to get at the insurgency?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. "the 'sight' of the bodes of dead children is truly unbearable."

Hmm.

[ComerPerro]

10. Oh, bullshit. According to the US and Israel, a terrorist

is anyone who doesn't practice their version of warfare.

[burythehatchet]

12. I hope I NEVER reach a place

where I'm scraping the barrel for reasons to justify murder, terror and war crimes. I pray for that.

[Clarkie1]

27. 7 Israelis died from Hezbollah rocket attacks today.

Was that murder?

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. Chirp*chirp*chirp* n/t

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. Feel better now? n/t

[burythehatchet]

45. Without a doubt.

and as I said many times before, when one party does exactly what it accuses the enemy of doing, it has no claim to any moral high ground. In this case, Hezbollah is an armed militia committing crimes against humanity and Israel is a state that controls people through terror. No difference in my mind.

[Zhade]

101. Civilians or IDF? Yes if the first, no if the second.

NT!

[MadHound]

13. Well that just boggles the mind

Rationalizing not just the overwhelming number of civilian deaths in Lebanon, but saying that because Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, killing of civilians is OK. Wow, talk about not having a conscience, or even a soul.

[Phx_Dem]

14. That is not what he said

"Of course, not everything is allowed; combating terrorism should be proportionate as much as possible...."

"Civilians who harbor terrorism by serving as human shields cannot claim immunity from counter measures intended to prevent terrorism. Otherwise, it would be a one-sided warfare in which the aggressive terrorist has full automatic immunity. Closeness to population centers doesn't abolish the necessity to legitimately pre-empt immediate threats."

[MadHound]

15. So what he is saying is that a 10-1 civilian death count

Is proportional? Yeah, OK, sure. But to most of the civilized world, it is really starting to border on a war crime.

And what rocket launchers were being hid in the Qana apartment building? Or the UN shelter, which is looking more and more like it was a deliberate target. Or the dozens of other homes, apartments, villages and towns across southern Lebanon?

There are only 40,000 members of Hezbollah in Lebanon, tops. And frankly only half that number who are actual fighters, the rest of them are in supply, logistics, etc. And I would imagine that there are only a few hundred rocket launchers at most, which are, according to unbiased reports, mostly located up in the mountains away from towns, villages and cities. So quite frankly the rationalization that Hezbollah is hiding amongst civilians is starting to wear thin. Granted, there are those that do. And what happens, they fire their rockets, pack up and move on. Meanwhile the Israeli airforce comes through and bombs that position minutes or hours later, failing to hit anything of military value, but instead punish the innocent civilians. And that truly criminal thing about these actions is that the IDF commanders know this, they absolutely know that by the time they deliver the bombs or artillery shells to the launch site, Hezbollah is long gone and the only people they are punishing is the civilians left in the area.

And the mantra that the civilians should deny Hezbollah a place to launch their rockets, or stop providing cover for them is horseshit of the highest order. Let's say that you're in your apartment, and all of a sudden you see a truck rolling down the street with a rocket launcher on it, primed and ready to go. It is accompanied by several heavily armed men(and all you have are your steak knives). What, are you supposed to go out and confront them? With what? Besides, within minutes they've fired their rockets and are tearing out of there at high speed. And yet, in fifteen, or thirty, or sixty minutes you hear the drone of the bombers, coming ever closer. Hmmm.

Sorry, but this sort of rationalization of a war crime is becoming criminally transparent. Especially in light of the fact that up until this latest incident Israel has willingly negotiated a prisoner swap with Hezbollah. So why did they unleash the dogs of war now? Why go on a massive killing spree when all they are really doing is recruiting even more people to side against them and with Hezbollah and the rest of the Arab world? Sorry, but fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity, it is a contradiction that only adds to the problem. The only peace that Israel can achieve with the current path their on is the peace of the dead. And yet sadly, it seems that is exactly what Israel wants, to lay waste to the land and call it peace. Despicable!:puke:

[Phx_Dem]

18. Beg to differ

"And the mantra that the civilians should deny Hezbollah a place to launch their rockets, or stop providing cover for them is horseshit of the highest order...."

One could call the local authorities or the IDF.

"Sorry, but this sort of rationalization of a war crime is becoming criminally transparent. Especially in light of the fact that up until this latest incident Israel has willingly negotiated a prisoner swap with Hezbollah."

Yes they have done swaps in the past but that does not oblige them to it every time Israel is provoked.

"Sorry, but fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity...."

Funny but simplistic.

[MadHound]

21. Let's see here

In southern Lebanon, the local authorities are generally sympathetic to Hezbollah, not going to do you a hell of a lot of good there. Besides, even if somebody does come out to investigate, by the time they get there, Hezbollah is long gone, and said authority is going to get the shit bombed out of them, along with the person who phoned it in. Whoops, another dead civilian.

And how can one call the IDF? Most if not all of the phone service is gone in Lebanon, both land lines and cells. Israel made sure of that within their first few days of bombing. And frankly what will the IDF do? Oh, yeah, that's right, send a bomber right on over to kill you.

So why doesn't Israel negotiate now? Why do they insist on the way of the sword? Don't they realize that all their actions are doing is uniting the Arab world, and much of the non-Arab world against them? Do you really think that such a move is the wisest decision to make?

And while you may think my statement is funny, it doesn't make it any less true. One merely has to look at other wars that were supposedly for peace to see that. Vietnam, Korea, the current war in Iraq. One can never attain a just, peaceful solution through the use of the sword, because war breeds resentments and anger that continues to fester for generations to come.

I'm sorry, but your premise, and the entire premise of your original article is flat out wrong on many, many levels. As is the war crimes that Israel is currently committing. Sadly however, with Bushco in charge, Israel is allowed to get away with mass murder. And Israel is supposed to be God's country:eyes: The mind does indeed boggle.

[Phx_Dem]

22. Leaflets were dropped in S. Leb.

that provided a phone number to call to turn in terrorists, finding a phone could be a problem though not an unsurmountable one.


"So why doesn't Israel negotiate now? Why do they insist on the way of the sword? Don't they realize that all their actions are doing is uniting the Arab world, and much of the non-Arab world against them? Do you really think that such a move is the wisest decision to make?"

I think making decisions based on what other people think is stupid.


"And while you may think my statement is funny, it doesn't make it any less true."

World peace was mostly achieved in WWII through war.

"I'm sorry, but your premise, and the entire premise of your original article is flat out wrong on many, many levels. As is the war crimes that Israel is currently committing. Sadly however, with Bushco in charge, Israel is allowed to get away with mass murder."

I don't think it makes any difference which party is in power, the Dems support Israel as well as the neo-cons.

[MadHound]

29. Yes, leaflets were dropped

But it is hard to use a phone with the phone service bombed to oblivion, much like it is hard to leave an area about to be bombed when there are no more roads. And again, if you called the IDF about Hezbollah in your neighborhood, what are they going to do? Oh, yeah, right, send a bomber on over:eyes:

As far as the rest of world opinion, well they can ignore that for a while(though sooner or later it will come back to bite them in the ass). However continously pissing off your armed neighbors is just simply asking for trouble. Now instead of having to deal with a democratically elected Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel is going to have to deal with an entire ME population that is against them. And while they currently have the military muscle to do so, if a guerilla war continues, they won't win. Especially if they piss off enough Americans that US/Israel policy changes and cools down. The IDF may have crack troops, but a hell of a lot of good they will do Israel if there is no ammunition.

And while WWII achieved a certain level of world peace, it led directly to the Cold War. Also, let's look at WWI too, the war to end all wars, that sadly just led to another world war.

And while the Democrats have always supported Israel, at least under a Democratic administration the US would have called for a cease fire within a week of the first shots being fired. And if Israel continues to kill innocent men, women and children, there will be a point where the American left says enough is enough and will start taking action to reign in Israel's aggression at some point. Again, it is hard to fight a war without ammo.

[Zhade]

102. "Civilians who harbor terrorism by serving as human shields" - lies.

The Lebanese people don't have a choice in the matter - Hezbollah is there and armed far more than they are.

The piece, and the argument, is based on the false premise that the Lebanese people want to die for Hezbollah. Thus, the whole argument is a lie, and a racist one at that.

[Clarkie1]

25. You are missing the point of the entire article.

7 Iraaelis were killed by Hezbollah "bottle rockets" (as some here on DU have dismissively referred to them) today.

If ten times as many Germans as allied forces were killed in WWII, does that make the Germans morally superior?

While acknowledging Israel's responsiblity not to bomb recklessly, how do you propose Israel eliminate the ones firing the rockets if civilians are nearby?

[MadHound]

30. Like I've said earlier,

One does not achieve peace through war, especially through the killing of innocent civilians. Israel has negotiated prisoner exchanges in the past with Hezbollah, why did they all the sudden feel the need to unleash the dogs of war now? All they are achieving with their current actions is to unite the Arab world behind Hezbollah and against Israel.

But yes, I do get the point of the article. It is another lame attempt to rationalize the killing of innocent men, women and children by the Israeli forces. Israel knows that Hezbollah uses shoot and scoot tactics, so why go in with the bombers and kill civilians when Israel already knows that their target has left the region? Is it to punish the civilians for not standing up to an armed force with nothing but their bare hands? Sorry, but that is morally reprehensible and a war crime.

[DistressedAmerican]

48. Special fucking forces from a helicopter.

Also known as eyes on target.

[Zhade]

105. But that's too risky. Better to drop a bomb and lie about why later.

:sarcasm:

[eridani]

60. There were no rockets until the bombing began

There were plenty when Israel occupied the place from 1982 to 2000, but those don't count.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clarkie1]

23. How do you propose Israel defend herself instead?

I'm sure you have ideas worthy of serious consideration and discussion. I think that would be more effective than a rant in defending your position.

[leftofthedial]

32. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the best solution

is for the US to provide lots of short-range nukes to both sides

nothing else has worked for even 10 years in the last 4000.

[Clarkie1]

37. In an country like Lebanon that does not have control of it's own

territory, which has militias running rampant within it's borders, how would you keep these weapons from falling into the hands of someone who would not be deterred in using them, a madman, in other words?

At least Israel is a functioning, stable democracy, which makes a first strike by them very unlikely.

I don't know if your post was serious or mostly in jest....but I'm just following it to it's logical conclusion. Even outrageous proposals deserve a fair hearing...to be shot down.

[leftofthedial]

50. you mean as opposed to the madmen who are now bleeding

the world with their perpetual, cynical violence?

I do not follow your logic regarding Israel and a first strike.

If they thought it was to their advantage, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Phx_Dem]

52. "If they thought it was to their advantage, they'd do it in a heartbeat"

To say what you said demonstrates an enormous amount of bias against Israel.

[leftofthedial]

58. so would Hezbollah or Hamas

[eridani]

61. Agree to the 1967 borders n/t

[Zhade]

107. Let's look at this logically.

Israel wants to defend herself, right? Okay. Defense usually entails fighting back (unless one is of the b*s*ian mindset that preventative strikes are defense, instead of the reality that such strikes are a violation of international law).

So what is Israel defending against here? Kidnapping, apparently, because there were no attacks on Israeli civilians prior to the kidnapping (and reports conflict on just where the abduction took place).

So Israel launches massive indiscriminate bombing runs against... kidnappers?

Is that really defense? And does the unjustified killing of innocent civilians lead to a safer (better-defended) Israel? No, of course it doesn't, because the families of those innocents killed will come to support those who want to hurt Israel.

So can we please put to rest the myth that wantonly destroying a country, the majority of whose citizens don't support the militant wing of Hezbollah, is self-defense?

[AliceWonderland]

24. Nuke Baghdad! Make the desert glow!

Turn it into a sheet of glass! It's their own fault if they die! They're not like us!

Whatever.

(If I have to put a sarcasm emoticon here...)

[Clarkie1]

26. That would be reckless bombing.

Not precision bombing against terrorists using human shields that results in the tragic loss of civilian life.

Which does not excuse Israel from a responsibility not to bomb recklessly, or prove that they were not reckless in Qana.

[eridani]

62. The rockets are coming mainly from mountainous areas n/t

[Zhade]

108. Let's see, your opinion or HRW's informed one?

Hmmm.

I think I'll go with HRW's track record, which is at least proven, and point out that indiscriminate bombing of civilians areas remains a war crime, regardless of your desire to dispute that fact.

They weren't "reckless" in Qana. There were no rockets being fired from Qana before the IAF bombed.

What about the 20+ farmers killed yesterday? Were THEY firing rockets?

[Clarkie1]

19. Excellent points for discussion. K & R. nt

[kentuck]

20. First of all...

They were killed with the new satelite-guided missiles we just gave them. It appears it was the first or second time they had "practiced" with the new bombs. They hit exactly what they were aiming at...

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. Rummified

Do lots of dead civilians mean we've gone overboard?

Not necessarily.

Is the only law we have out-dated?

Probably.

Do the old rules of treating civilians apply?

Doubtful.



:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

39. Another Metternich/Clausewitz addict unable to go cold turkey.

Shall we revive the old Council of Europe? :shrug:

[DistressedAmerican]

43. THERE WERE NO ROCKETS FIRED FROM QANA THE DAY OF THE ATTACK.

Seems like that still needs to be repeated.

They were not attacking terrorists hiding among the civilian population. There were no "rocket launchers activated from private homes" in this case. Maybe other cases. Not this one.

That was a lie from day one and it still is (that fact is now admitted by the IDF and IAF).

This was a war crime plain and simple. Rules against "collective punishment" DO deal with these circumstances and it is expressly banned under the Geneva Conventions.

This whole argument is based on a fallacy. Events that never took place despite early IDF claims that they did.

[Little Star]

72. Thank You! Now I'd like to hear someone explain...

why they did bomb Qana? I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer.

[Zhade]

109. Thank you for separating truth from lies.

NT!

[treestar]

53. Question

Is it assumed that because terrorists "use civilians as shields" that the civilians must be sacrificed?

I have to die if a terrorist uses me as a shield? Even if it was not my choice?

Impossible that there is no other way. If the Israelis really wanted to root the terrorists out, they could do it.

[Phx_Dem]

57. your first question is just faulty logic...

and so is your second. I assume in your last statement you mean that the IDF could disarm, degrade etc. Hizbullah without harming civilians, I agree, I imagine it could. However when a nation is under attack it is not reasonable to expect that nation to place it's soldiers in extremely high-risk situations when other options are available, even when civilian casualties are the "trade-off".

[treestar]

67. I don't see what is logically wrong with the question

If Hezbollah in fact does use the civilians as shields, does it follow that Israel gets to kill the civilians.

They they aren't very good "shields" either, are they?

[Phx_Dem]

69. In your first post you said:

"Is it assumed that because terrorists "use civilians as shields" that the civilians must be sacrificed?"

If a terrorist uses civilians as shields then the civilian MAY be at risk.

Then you said:

"If Hezbollah in fact does use the civilians as shields, does it follow that Israel gets to kill the civilians"


Gets to? how about tries not to?

[treestar]

70. Oh I think it's pretty clear that the civilians get killed and then the

Isrealis right wing propaganda machines says "we try not to kill them, but we can't help ourselves when terrorists use them as shields." Not in so many words, but it is clear that the "excuse" is that civilians use them as shields or "hide among them." How can they be "trying not to?" Just bombing the city isn't making the slightest effort to weed out Hezbollah from the civilians.

And I already know your answer to that, which is "how can Israel do that? It is impossible. Israel has no choice."

But I beg to differ when I know what kind of crap the CIA and its fellow agencies can do if they choose to. Which they could do against Al Qaeda as well. It's all just propaganda points for the masses. Surely there is a way, especially if they wanted to.

I'm starting to go with the cynics saying Israel just wants that river valley area.

[Zhade]

110. It's not really cynical. It's historical.

One of Israel's main goals the last time it invaded Lebanon was to secure the Latani River.

[breakaleg]

55. proportionality may not have enough support in terms of

dealing with the effects of war. But let's get real.

Since when is this a valid excuse?:

He threw a rock at me, so I shot him. That's how proportionate this war has been.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

104. proportionality is a ludicrous concept on its face because of

its mathmatic limitations. Actually, it' just a weird concept. It would be likening war to multi-level marketing

You kill 1, I kill 2, you kill 4, I kill 8, you kill 16, I kill 32, you kill 64, I kill 128, you kill 456, I kill 912, . . .

No death is "proportional". Tell that to the family. "Oh, okay, I just wanted to make sure that Elmer's death was proportional.
I would be really angry if he was #73 when they were only up to #64. If he was #59, then I understand."

[breakaleg]

112. no, it's more like this....

if you throw a rock at me, and I pull out my gun and shoot you in the head, that's NOT called self defence.

[theanarch]

115. except in certain Red States with...

..."it's okay to shoot first" laws...

[msmcghee]

56. Glad to see there are still reasonable views here. n/t

[Ms. Clio]

59. fuck this noise n/t

[kiki]

64. Idiotic and vile. n/t

[mmonk]

71. Nice and amoral.

I seek better.

[scarletwoman]

73. "...the modern needs of combating terrorism." That is grotesque.

Terrorism is a TACTIC. Terrorism is the tactic of killing civilians in order to achieve political ends.

Flying airplanes into buildings causing massive death and destruction is terrorism.

Bombing houses, ambulances, hospitals, power plants, infrastructure, etc. causing massive death and destruction is terrorism.

Terrorism is an ACT, it is not a group of people. If you want to combat terrorism you do police work, you do intelligence work, you make political changes on the ground toward justice.

You DON'T go bombing hundreds of people -- that's terrorism.

I never realized that so many people don't understand that "The beatings will continue until morale improves" is a JOKE, not a policy recommendation.

sw

[Phx_Dem]

75. Terrorism is an act, but a terrorist is a person

"You DON'T go bombing hundreds of people -- that's terrorism"

So were the allies in WWII terrorists?

[scarletwoman]

76. Yes, the firebombing of Dresden & Tokyo, nuking Hiroshima & Nagasaki,

these WERE acts of terrorism by the very definition of terrorism as inflicting civilian death for the purpose of political change. As they were committed by state-controlled military forces we call it "warfare" and refer to those who physically drop the bombs as "soldiers". The acts themselves were still terrorism -- just state-sponsored terrorism. To those on the receiving end, it is no doubt an inconsequential distinction.

Since we glory in militarism we only label people "terrorists" if they are causing civilian deaths outside of organized state-sponsorship. It is ever the mode of those who fancy themselves "civilized" while engaging in the same sorts of barbarous acts as their "enemies" to reserve the language of outrage strictly for the other.

sw

[Phx_Dem]

78. Don't agree

the fire bombings were probably excessive, but I don't consider them terrorist acts. The dropping of nukes on the mainland of japan is more complicated and I don't think we will ever really know whether it was justified or not.

On a side note, I read a lot of posts here about how Israels' current actions are doing nothing more than creating more terrorists, the implication being that there is a pretty simple cause and effect. I wonder why the Japanese did not turn to terrorism after the war, after all, we killed tens of thousands of innocent civilian, according to your stmts these were terrorist acts. Why do you suppose the Japanese didn't turn to terrorism but the enemies of Israel will?

[scarletwoman]

82. Because the Japanese were still in their homeland.

Their land wasn't being annexed by a foreign power, their resources weren't being controlled by mega global corporations, and they were actually given sufficient assistance to rebuild. Not to mention that they had never been colonized by foreign powers as is the case in the Middle East.

The Japanese situation post WWII, as well as Japan's history as a nation, do not in any way compare to the ME.

sw

[Phx_Dem]

87. yes but the japanese culture had a lot to do with their reaction

to the occupation. Think "Shikata Ga Nai".

[scarletwoman]

89. Of course it did. My point was to emphasize the external differences in

their circumstances.

sw

[Karenina]

90. The RW Israeli regimes

have for decades attempted to convince the Arab population in their midst, whose land was appropriated, that they are inferior and have NO CHOICE but to submit. The primary Fehler in this tack is that the Arabs DO NOT believe that they are inferior and have consistently rejected the "package deal."

[Euphen]

83. I'd be interested to know what your definition of terrorism is. nt

[malaise]

97. Touche

Murder of the innocent remains murder.

[Euphen]

84. Terrorists are made, not born. You can't get rid of terrorism by killing

all the terrorists.

[Phx_Dem]

85. I agree

but the causes of terrorism are complex.

[Euphen]

86. So how does bombing civilians address those causes? nt

[Phx_Dem]

93. Your question is kind of loaded

but in the short term Israel needs to deal with threats as they present themselves. In the long term countries need to do a better job meeting the needs of it's citizens so the environment that fosters terrorist affiliation is minimized.

[Euphen]

100. Israel's actions accomplish nothing in the short term,

since Hezbollah's ability to launch rockets has not been affected, and does considerable harm in the long term by strengthening Hezbollah politically and radicalizing Muslims in Lebanon and around the world.

[scarletwoman]

95. "but the causes of terrorism are complex." Not really.

You fuck with people long enough they get pissed off and try to fuck with you back. It ain't rocket science.

sw

[Phx_Dem]

103. well the "Olson hypothesis" is pretty weak

I think Dr. Eric Shaw's Personal Pathway Model is much better. His hypothesis is based on the observation that terrorists come from a selected, at risk population who have suffered from early damage to their self-esteem. Family political philosophies also play a role, as well as frustration from lack of success.

[scarletwoman]

106. Oh for gawdsake! First you post a filthy amoral rationalization for mass

slaughter, and now you're referencing behavoral theory?

Yeah, it's pretty clear to me that oppressed people with little hope might be at risk for "low self-esteem". How astute.

:eyes:
sw

[Phx_Dem]

113. It's just not as simple as you propose

regardless of what you think of social science theory. Obviously people make decisions based on a lot of factors, affiliation with terrorists is a choice, based only partly on perceived "wrongs".

[scarletwoman]

114. I don't care how many ways you try to reframe your argument.

"Terrorism" is in the eye of the victim. Terrorism is a tactic, someone who employs the tactic of terrorism is a terrorist. "Terrorist" is NOT an ideological classification, it is a classification of a species of activity.

How many dead Lebanese children made the choice to "affiliate" with "terrorists"? If there are mafiosos living in my neighborhood, because I am Italian and therefore live in an Italian neighborhood, do I deserve to be killed by the police if they can't find the Don?

When IRA terrorists were setting off bombs in London, did England call in air strikes on Dublin because some Irish people might be "affiliated" with the IRA?

In the name of all that is decent and right and human, I utterly reject the filthy degenerate and monstrous arguments presented in your OP.

sw

[mogster]

81. Cheap rethoric

Say, where was that paragraph about 40 years of illegal occupation again?

"In July, the Israeli military killed 163 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, 78 of whom (48 percent) were not taking part in the hostilities when they were killed. Thirty-six of the fatalities were minors, and 20 were women. In the West Bank , 15 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces in July. The number of Palestinian fatalities in July was the highest in any month since April 2002."
http://www.btselem.org/english/firearms/20060803_Civilians_killed_in_Gaza.asp

The Israeli government has a lot to answer for, and this talk about terror and assymetrical warfare sounds just like it's picked out of Rumsfelds cookbook.

[Zhade]

88. So, the USG would have been justified in bombing Oklahoma...

...to get at McViegh?

Or, just look at my sigline - it applies to all mad enough to buy into the bullshit argument you've linked to.