This is opinion, there is no right or wrong. I think I'm right.rysa4 wrote:You are stating clearly that there is moral equivalence between a terrorist shooting off a rocket and killing a child and the responsive defense of killing said terrorists. You are beyond wrong. You can try and squirm out of it by twisting words but thats what you are defending.
If a terrorist fires a rocket into a crowded marketplace, killing 100 innocent civilians, he is immoral.
If a nation fires a rocket into a school where a terrorist is hiding, killing 100 innocent civilians and 1 guilty terrorist, they are immoral.
You bet there's moral equivalency there. You can't see it?
You talk about "justified" war... gang members have killed far more innocent American civilians than foreign terrorists ever will. Why aren't you advocating fire-bombing the slums of America? After all, your argument is that retaliation is justified and the collateral damage of innocent lives lost is acceptable. Why aren't we bombing Los Angeles or New York?
Funny, isn't it, how much is "acceptable" when it's only affecting "others"?
That is not what you originally said, and that is not what I originally corrected you on. You were talking about PARTITION.rysa4 wrote:If you look back before 1947 you will find that Palestine included present day Jordan. Thats why most of the Jordanians are Palestinians by descent. Do ya think a huge number of Palestinians were massacred and left uninhabitable swampland and were forced in bigger territory?
Fact: Jordan became and independent state in 1946.
Fact: The UN Partition of Palestine in 1947 had NOTHING to do with Jordan.
You can rephrase your meaning all you want, your original post was wrong.
I completely disagree. The issue of morality is one of ACTION, not source, circumstance, CONTEXT, or any other intellectually flaccid excuse used in attempt to justify horrible acts.rysa4 wrote:The issue of morality is not one of state or nationhood but of circumstance.
The survivors of the fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might disagree with you.rysa4 wrote:Terrorism and terrorists are absolutely not morally equivalent to democratic nations or peoples.
A heinous act is a heinous act, regardless of the source or the motives.
Such a wonderful little setup has been created: if you disagree with the actions of the Jewish people in any way, shape or form, you're an anti-semite.rysa4 wrote:Finally, your placing of an anti-semitic quote after a post about picking sides in a middle east conflict does need to be called on the mat as such. And yes I did read the whole thing, as I did all of your posts; unfortunately a familiar refrain typical for the anti-semitic hatred that often leads down the road to some of the violence which you seem to so dearly oppose. Its drippingly obvious, sad,,,, and printed out.
A bunch of baloney. Disagreeing with a group's actions and practicing discrimination against that group are two separate things.
Spare me your nonsense questions. I stand by the same statement I've been making over and over and over: the morality is in the ACTION, the source is completely irrelevant.rysa4 wrote:By the way, you are now morally equating terrorist organizations such as Al Quaida. Is this what you mean? That our country and Al Quaida are morally equivalent. Yes or no?
But fine, I'll throw some meat to the wolves...
When al-Qaeda fires a rocket into a marketplace, killing 20 Iraqi civilians and 2 U.S. soldiers, and when the U.S. air-strikes a building in retaliation, killing 20 Iraqi civilians and 2 al Qaeda terrorists, YES, in my view they are morally equivalent (or, perhaps, "immorally equivalent") actions.
What?! You shock me, standard peon user, by informing me that conflict in the middle east predates the middle of the 20th Century! Obviously I have never heard of the Crusades, or the Bible.rysa4 wrote:For the record, the moderator has stated that he is just stating facts and not opinions. Well moderator, your facts are clearly wrong and conflict in the middle east predates 1948 by quite a bit.
This I must own up to as an error on my part. My 2% number comprised of only Gaza and East Jerusalem, not the entire West Bank. You are correct here.rysa4 wrote:2%? Gaza and the West Bank make up a much larger percentage of 1948 Israel than 2%.
I just don't see how this is possible. People fleeing persecution in other nations, often with little to their name, could somehow afford to buy up land out from under people already living there who didn't want to sell? As late as 1922, the Jewish people made up only 11% of Palestine, and most of them lived in Jerusalem.rysa4 wrote:Also, I am again telling you that Jews had bought most of the land that compromised 1948 Israel prior to the UN creating Israel.
Well, standard peon user, I think the source of the modern day conflict is that Palestinian Arabs lost the 1948 War and that the Arab world resents the presence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. I can't commit to anything further than that.rysa4 wrote:Moderator, the fundamental dictum you are preaching ( and thats what it is), typically seen in anti-semitic drivel, is that Jews were given land because of the Holocaust and Arabs were massacred and kicked out, and this is the source of the modern day conflict.
It was the UK that held the mandate over Palestine during WWII, and it was the UK that spear-headed the UN Partition plan. Why did the UN think that 32% of the population deserved 56% of the land? Philip Roth postulates in his book "Operation Shylock" that the Partition Plan itself might have been anti-Semitic: he wonders if by giving the Jews more land in Palestine, the European powers were hoping more Jews would choose to leave Europe of their own accord.
However, almost everything you're arguing with me over I think is beside the point. Why is viewing the Israeli offensive into Gaza as a heinous act an anti-semitic opinion? Why is condemnation of Israeli action viewed as an unspoken acceptance of Hamas action? It's obvious that our moral structures are setup in entirely different way, but I fail to see how condemning the actions of a democracy places me in the category of "terrorist sympathizer," which you seem so earnest in trying to equate.
PS: I have names, feel free to use them. I refuse to sacrifice my opinions and viewpoints upon the altar of title, and I resent the implication that my "position" should require me to adjust my viewpoints towards a centralized norm.
PPS: I tendered my resignation as a moderator on Sound Machine to Dave on October 10, 2008. The fact that I remain a moderator is beyond my control.