The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: biffstallion: mrexcess: biffstallion
Another day, another 10 Hamas Kassam rockets in bedrooms of Israeli children.

Cite? Those unguided rockets, as I understand it, have almost no accuracy at all and usually hit fields. I would be pretty astonished if 10 managed to hit children's bedrooms in a single day.

So you are supporting the killing of Israeli children, or at a minimum don't think it's such a big deal if it's only one at a time.... when people stop supporting Hamas, they will whither but the Western media and Democrats think Hamas, al-Quaida, etc don't really exist.

Pointing out your hyperbole doesn't mean he thinks children dying is 'not a big deal', and you are an asshat for suggesting it.

How many truces have there been between Israel and Palestine?? How many times does Palestine start hurling rockets again, unprovoked? That's all you need to know, you terrorist supporters.

FarkingUpTheWrongTree: Why, then, does Hamas have the support that they have?

That is a really good question. Instead of just looking at the data from the polls, take it a step further and try to figure out *why* the people who oppose Hamas aren't more effective in getting their opinions turned into policy. Fear of being labeled a collaborator probably *is* a part of it. But how big a part? What other reasons are there? We should be trying to figure out *what* can be done to by outsiders to help those people's voices be heard.

But there are far too many people whose primary concern is spouting bullshiat, arguing about *who started it*, arguing about why the Geneva conventions and the UN are on *our* side, arguing about why today's body count makes *us* the victims, blah blah blah.

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: That is a really good question. Instead of just looking at the data from the polls, take it a step further and try to figure out *why* the people who oppose Hamas aren't more effective in getting their opinions turned into policy. Fear of being labeled a collaborator probably *is* a part of it. But how big a part? What other reasons are there? We should be trying to figure out *what* can be done to by outsiders to help those people's voices be heard.

But there are far too many people whose primary concern is spouting bullshiat, arguing about *who started it*, arguing about why the Geneva conventions and the UN are on *our* side, arguing about why today's body count makes *us* the victims, blah blah blah.

This^^

/really gone now

biffstallion: Pointing out your hyperbole doesn't mean he thinks children dying is 'not a big deal', and you are an asshat for suggesting it.

How many truces have there been between Israel and Palestine?? How many times does Palestine start hurling rockets again, unprovoked? That's all you need to know, you terrorist supporters.

Ok, I'll bite. There have been a lot of truces. The Palestinians have broken a lot of them. What's your point? That their actions are reprehensible? Because I agree with you that they are.

That doesn't change the fact that you're still an asshat for suggesting that someone doesn't care about dead children, just because they pointed out your hyperbole. Asshat.

Massa Damnata

not as unlikely as finding a passport in this rubble



/nevar forget.

Tatsuma, you are a disgusting piece of shiat. I hope you burn in hell.

klymen: logruszed: TW: You're in Canada, right? But you're Persian I presume; not aboriginal American. Why don't you get the fark back in Iran or you could eat a big bowl of dicks. Either way.

When logic is not on your side resort to ad hominem.

classy.

Logic? You're clearly stating that the people if Israel should "get of of their (they being Palestinians apparently) country". Yet you're a person originally from Iran, currently residing in Canada a place originally inhabited by the people collectively referred to as the First Nations People aka aboriginal Americans or "Indians" as they have been mislabeled for centuries. People who have been actually deprived of life and land and up until the mid 1960's often had their children taken away and forced into trade schools and work houses. In the eyes of many First Nation people you are part of a foreign occupation. Yet you state that Israel should "get out" of someone's country.

Nevermind that "Palestine" prior to 1947 it didn't farking exist as a country but was simply a geographical region under the management of whatever European country felt like it.

Meanwhile the people who have their origins in the region who are not Jews have been so beloved of recognized Islamic nations, both Persian and Arabic, that they have been unilaterally denied citizenship when they have tried to relocate.

Just because I tell you to go eat dick does not mean I don't have logic it just means that not only do I have an argument but that I also feel you should go eat a bowl of dicks.

log_jammin: Party Boy: Ok then.

you disagree?

its a children's show. "martyrdom" in any context is not a topic for children.

Who died and made you moral police of the airwaves?

Sammy Jenkins: Tatsuma, you are a disgusting piece of shiat. I hope you burn in hell.

As much as I disagree with Tatsuma, personal attacks do nothing to benefit anyone... grow up.

Sammy Jenkins: Tatsuma, you are a disgusting piece of shiat. I hope you burn in hell.


yeah, and when he gets there, all the "martyrs" will once again start complaining about "Jewish settlements"...

kindpaster
By this definition, war in General is collective punishment, is it not?

By what definition?

jakomo002: 1.The Israelis have agreed to split up territory, to give land, etc.
2.Hamas wants it all, no compromises.
3.Therefore, Hamas is in the wrong.

Common perception amongst whom? Do you have a link for this hilarious propaganda?

Israel has not agreed to split up anything, nor does Hamas want all of Israel.

I could be mistaken, but here is where I received my information:

I understood that Israel was willing to split up territory and give land to the Arabs from the Washington Post (new window). One could argue that this land was stolen and thus technically did belong to the Israelis. But one could also argue that the Israelis (legitimately or illegitimately) controlled the land and then agreed to give it up in exchange for peace.

I got the impression that Hamas wants to control all of Israel from The Hamas Charter (new window):

Specifically:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.

The charter then describes how a Waqf has functioned in the past and how it should function again:

they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection.

Sort of like our system in America eh? The Israelis would have the land but "all generations of Muslims" would have eminent-domain power like "all generations of Kennedys" have in the USA? This gave me the impression that Hamas wants to control (or, at least, wants Muslims in general) to control Israel. Incorrect?

In addition there was this:

Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims

This gives me the Impression that Hamas wants the Jews out.

Confession time, I actually got my first impressions about Hamas from a New York Times article I read that paraphrased the Hamas charter. I took a look at the Charter myself and found the following passages gave me the same impression that the New York Time's paraphrase did. Of course this could be confirmation bias on my part, but that's why I'm asking questions.

To be completely fair, the website where I got the Hamas Charter's English translation has an agenda: "The Palestine Center for Research and Information is a joint institution of Israelis and Palestinians dedicated to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of 'two-states for two peoples' solution,":

I could not find an English translation to the Charter on Hamas' English Website (new window) but maybe I'm not looking hard enough or confirmation bias is subconsciously keeping me from looking as hard as I would. That's where you guys come in, I hope. If you could objectively explain where I've gone wrong in any of these assumptions.

logruszed: Logic? You're clearly stating that the people if Israel should "get of of their (they being Palestinians apparently) country". Yet you're a person originally from Iran, currently residing in Canada a place originally inhabited by the people collectively referred to as the First Nations People aka aboriginal Americans or "Indians" as they have been mislabeled for centuries. People who have been actually deprived of life and land and up until the mid 1960's often had their children taken away and forced into trade schools and work houses. In the eyes of many First Nation people you are part of a foreign occupation. Yet you state that Israel should "get out" of someone's country.

What you seem to misunderstand is the fact that whatever Canada or the US did or did not do to the native is not relevant to the moral obligation of the Israelis toward the Palestinians. First off, I'm a fist generation immigrant in Canada so my ancestry doesn't even trace back to the time when the Canadian or the Americans took the natives lands. But for your sake, we'll assume it does. In fact for the sake of argument we'll assume I, myself am responsible for whatever misery or hardship the natives went through. If this assumption was true, then you would be correct in calling me a hypocrite. However a hypocrite is not necessarily wrong. You're trying to use what Canada or the US did to justify what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. That's where you're lacking in logic. To say the Canadians and the Americans did it, so we get to do it to does not make it morally permissible.

What the Israelis are doing to Palestinians (both the occupation and their treatment) is morally impermissible regardless of what Canada, US or any other country might have done in the past.

jakomo002: Sigh. You really do believe that, don't you? That, my friend, is the WORST kind of propaganda, where you are intentionally spewing lies and HATRED about a race of people.

You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating such simple but dangerous LIES.

Palestinians want the same fricking thing as you and me, to allow their children to grow up, to hold down jobs, to be productive and TO HAVE A FARKING FUTURE. Israel squashes ALL those wishes and you wonder how it makes some Palestinians RESIST?

What, should they just roll over and take it in the ayse whenever the kindly Israelis want to fark them?

Are you serious? Where have you been? Did you see in the news where it was said that Israel will lose, the rest of the world will lose, because we value life while they value DEATH? The same way where you want to live, they want to die! Have some evidence:

The Palestian government issues tons of propagandatargeted at youth convincing them to desire death in order to eradicate Israel. Check out all of the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism, of which the Palestinians are proud. using sickeningly inaccurate terms like "resistance" and "militants".

It's all quite ironic given the fact that the Palestinians are ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, which has, written into its charter, an acceptance of proven anti-Semitic lies and a desire to kill all Jews. Leaders long for a map without Israel, replaced by an Islamic republic, because the fundamental struggle can end only when all Jews are destroyed. Sometimes, Hamas tries to say it does not want all Jews dead but merely wants Israel to disappear. They're lying.
A site keeping track of the daily attacks on Israel from the palestinians.

Sammy Jenkins: Tatsuma, you are a disgusting piece of shiat. I hope you burn in hell.

And Tatsuma wins by default!
Sorry Sammy, better luck next time.

joshik72: yeah, and when he gets there, all the "martyrs" will once again start complaining about "Jewish settlements"...

Win

Jon Snow: If you wonder why so many civilians end up killed, here's a hint:

More than half of the Palestinian casualties were civilians, and almost half of those, children.

Attacks on legitimate military targets are prohibited if they are likely to cause disproportionate harm to civilians, or to breach the duty to take caution not to harm civilians.

The problem with this is that "disproportionate" is not defined. Thus the Israelis are simultaneously in violation of, and in accordance with, the Geneva conventions. It just depends who you ask for the definition of "disproportionate".

mrexcess: kindpaster
By this definition, war in General is collective punishment, is it not?

By what definition?

I guess in the sense that you're doing things that affect an entire population (cutting off trade, destroying infrastructure, etc - and that's assuming there's no collateral damage) in response to the actions (or inaction) of a government. The people suffer in the leaders' stead.

/not sayin' I agree or disagree, but it's an interesting point

Apik0r0s: Sammy Jenkins:
Tatsuma

Please, clarify and stop ignoring my question. How is killing innocent women and children intentionally not murder? Dropping bombs on cities, the Israelis KNOW civilians are going to suffer the most. How, in the name of that piece of shiat you call GOD, is that not murder?

If a man is shooting at me while holding a baby (similar to the "Bob the Angry Flower" cartoon posted above) and I returned fire, killing the baby, knowing full well that I was going to kill the baby to save (or attempt to save) my own life; am I a murderer? And if so, I think I would rather be a murderer than murdered, no?

Deleriumb32: A site keeping track of the daily attacks on Israel from the palestinians.

That's all well and good, but you're going to need to post a few links to back up your arguments :)


/For Fark's sake, how long has Hamas' charter been unchanged and public record? Jebus.

kindpastor: The problem with this is that "disproportionate" is not defined. Thus the Israelis are simultaneously in violation of, and in accordance with, the Geneva conventions. It just depends who you ask for the definition of "disproportionate".

What it depends on, is, is that what the definition of "is" is?

mrexcess: kindpaster
By this definition, war in General is collective punishment, is it not?

By what definition?

Collective Punishment: Engaging in actions that harm the innocent as well as the guilty.

Simple, but is this what you meant?

kindpastor: If a man is shooting at me while holding a baby (similar to the "Bob the Angry Flower" cartoon posted above) and I returned fire, killing the baby, knowing full well that I was going to kill the baby to save (or attempt to save) my own life; am I a murderer? And if so, I think I would rather be a murderer than murdered, no?

Weak analogy. It's more like a man holding a baby keeps throwing rocks at you, and while you have a gun and know full well using your gun will kill an innocent baby, you decide to use that to stop the man from throwing rocks at you.

To make it fair, you should also discuss why that man's throwing rocks at you. Is it cause he's crazy? or that he has too many rocks or that he just doesn't like the shape of your face? or maybe it's cause earlier that day you went up to his house and told him and his baby to get the fark out, it's my house now.

Don't you think that's more fair and balanced analogy?

Poop-n-Slop: Sammy Jenkins: Tatsuma, you are a disgusting piece of shiat. I hope you burn in hell.

As much as I disagree with Tatsuma, personal attacks do nothing to benefit anyone... grow up.

I agree.

Wow, this is still rolling?

Looking above 1 post

klymen: Weak analogy.

Analogs are always going to be weak - every time. Moreover, its funny to see certain people complain about them, and use them all at the same time.

Wow this thread is still going strong...

/jello shots for everyone!

kindpastor
Collective Punishment: Engaging in actions that harm the innocent as well as the guilty.

Well, to be honest, I don't think that's a very good definition of collective punishment.

But yes, there's certainly a line that has to be drawn between reasonable counter-attacks and things that unreasonably impact civilians. However, I don't think either of those is necessarily collective punishment.

This, to my mind, is an example of collective punishment.

FarkingUpTheWrongTree: kindpastor: The problem with this is that "disproportionate" is not defined. Thus the Israelis are simultaneously in violation of, and in accordance with, the Geneva conventions. It just depends who you ask for the definition of "disproportionate".

What it depends on, is, is that what the definition of "is" is?

Are you claiming that "disproportionate" is an objective term? That it means the same thing to all people?

What I mean is:

"A Cube has six sides"--Objective
"A cube is a nice conversation piece"--Subjective.

Or to be specific:

"You are not to use disproportionate force when disciplining your children"--subjective, (disproportionate is essentially decided by whatever cop arrests the abuser, whatever DA presses charges, and whatever the Jury sees as "disproportionate").

"You are not to strike your child with a force at or equal to one half of a Newton"--objective, (by forensically examining the child's face after a slap, the force of the slap can be measured. In addition, visual clues tell law enforcement officer whether a slap has significantly exceed one half a newton.)

You see what I mean? We need to define "disproportionate".

Party Boy: Moreover, its funny to see certain people complain about them, and use them all at the same time.

Wha? Did someone mention me?

Party Boy
Analogs are always going to be weak - every time.

I dunno... some analogies are definitely better than others. Phoebe Cates' boobs, for instance.

mrexcess: Party Boy
Analogs are always going to be weak - every time.

I dunno... some analogies are definitely better than others. Phoebe Cates' boobs, for instance.

I loled

FarkingUpTheWrongTree: Party Boy: Moreover, its funny to see certain people complain about them, and use them all at the same time.

Wha? Did someone mention me?
Did you use an analogy? are you guilty of examining a social phenomena outside of its own context?
Im in the hillary thread

Party Boy: Analogs are always going to be weak - every time. Moreover, its funny to see certain people complain about them, and use them all at the same time.

You could argue that but there will always be some that are weaker than others. I think it's pretty safe to assume when one argues that an analogy is weak and presents another, he means to show that even though his might be weak it's not weaker than the original one presented.

But if you find complaining about analogies being weak and responding with other analogies funny, I don't want to be the one killing your buzz.

/enjoy it

FarkingUpTheWrongTree: mrexcess: kindpaster
By this definition, war in General is collective punishment, is it not?

By what definition?

I guess in the sense that you're doing things that affect an entire population (cutting off trade, destroying infrastructure, etc - and that's assuming there's no collateral damage) in response to the actions (or inaction) of a government. The people suffer in the leaders' stead.

/not sayin' I agree or disagree, but it's an interesting point

It seems to me that the difference is between direct and indirect effects. Indirectly, yes, all war is collective punishment, since the general populace will likely suffer undue hardship, even in a so-called 'civilized' war. Directly, only certain acts would constitute collective punishment.

In the same way, everyone in a society that is at war is an indirect combatant, insofar as they contribute to the economy that allows their war machine to function. But most people don't think that is enough justification to treat civilians as military targets.

mrexcess: kindpastor
Collective Punishment: Engaging in actions that harm the innocent as well as the guilty.

Well, to be honest, I don't think that's a very good definition of collective punishment.

But yes, there's certainly a line that has to be drawn between reasonable counter-attacks and things that unreasonably impact civilians. However, I don't think either of those is necessarily collective punishment.

This, to my mind, is an example of collective punishment.

Argh. But who decides what is reasonable and what is not? And why? This raised more questions than it answers! Are you saying that some counterattacks are reasonable? What makes a reasonable counterattack? Tatsuma would say "of course these counterattacks are reasonable" you would disagree. From my point of view it looks like both of you base what you see as reasonable or unreasonable on your gut. Your gut acts up when Palestinian children suffer and die and thus you return the verdict: "Unreasonable". Tatsuma's gut acts up when he thinks of his homeland being rocketed and he returns the verdict: "reasonable". If "reasonable" is a set adjective, something like "No more than X amount of civilians may be killed in the process of bombing a rocket attack" that would be something.

Otherwise, I don't know what you mean. And coming from a biased point of view I won't ever know what you mean unless you define it objectively.

kindpastor: Are you claiming that "disproportionate" is an objective term? That it means the same thing to all people?

Heh, no, I was (in a sorta silly way) opining that when you write law and policy in a way as to leave things open to interpretation, you're invariably going to have confusion and arguments.

I agree, 'nother words.

Party Boy: Did you use an analogy? are you guilty of examining a social phenomena outside of its own context?
Im in the hillary thread

No, but I am a sucker for metaphors and similes.
There's a Hillary thread? This should be good...

klymen: You could argue that

I can.

The other problem is "what yardstick do you whip out to measure relative weakness?"

Then you have the different types of analog - Synecdoche, Metonym, Metonomy, etc.

The problem here is, always, going to be lost context. This is where someone is going to attack the analog. Its better to just pull lines of evidence from the specific time and place. Theres enough misconceptions available to tire you out in this effort.

FarkingUpTheWrongTree: There's a Hillary thread?

theres probably 10 on Fark on any given day. I'm butthurt about Tina Fey

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason:
In the same way, everyone in a society that is at war is an indirect combatant, insofar as they contribute to the economy that allows their war machine to function. But most people don't think that is enough justification to treat civilians as military targets.

So civilians specifically targeted and attacked = collective punishment.

What about a blockade? Civilians are starving, is this also collective punishment? In addition, is this also wrong?

log_jammin: Poop-n-Slop: Who died and made you moral police of the airwaves?

what sort of stupid farking question is that?

YOU may think it's stupid, but it is a valid question. Please answer it.

Murders, rape, drug use, violence are all bad for children to view, therefore we must ban all said types of programming from our precious little snowflake's eyes, because according to YOUR logic, a child who grows up watching CSI or Dexter will obviously become a serial killer.

Counterpoint?

klymen: kindpastor: If a man is shooting at me while holding a baby (similar to the "Bob the Angry Flower" cartoon posted above) and I returned fire, killing the baby, knowing full well that I was going to kill the baby to save (or attempt to save) my own life; am I a murderer? And if so, I think I would rather be a murderer than murdered, no?

Weak analogy. It's more like a man holding a baby keeps throwing rocks at you, and while you have a gun and know full well using your gun will kill an innocent baby, you decide to use that to stop the man from throwing rocks at you.

To make it fair, you should also discuss why that man's throwing rocks at you. Is it cause he's crazy? or that he has too many rocks or that he just doesn't like the shape of your face? or maybe it's cause earlier that day you went up to his house and told him and his baby to get the fark out, it's my house now.

Don't you think that's more fair and balanced analogy?

I'll use any analogy you wish for the Israeli Palestinian conflict. But right now I'm interested in the answer to that specific question.

Are you saying that:

Given that the Man holding the baby and shooting at me is doing so for an unjustified (by your definition) reason.
Given that he has the means to kill me (rocks, guns, whatever) and is actively trying to do so.
Given that if you do not defend yourself you will die.

Is it right to shoot through the baby and into the man's chest? Given all those conditions. NOT SAYING this is an analogy to the mid-east conflict. Just asking.

I assume you would shoot through the baby.

If not please let me know, but if yes, I have some questions about the rock-thrower (your analogy).

EsteeFlwrPot: /jello shots for everyone!

Where I come from, it's not quite jello shot time until the girls break out the boobies.

/not really, just hopeful

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: It seems to me that the difference is between direct and indirect effects. Indirectly, yes, all war is collective punishment, since the general populace will likely suffer undue hardship, even in a so-called 'civilized' war. Directly, only certain acts would constitute collective punishment.

But yes, indirectly, it doesn't matter how civilized you try to be, it's darned near impossible to avoid harming some of the people, in some form.
US policy in pre-invasion Iraq is a good example, I think. The economic sanctions were supposed to be a way to sway Saddam without harming the population, but, at least in the opinion of some, it caused many innocent deaths and a lot of suffering, anyway (how much of that was Saddam's funneling of aid is up for debate).


In the same way, everyone in a society that is at war is an indirect combatant, insofar as they contribute to the economy that allows their war machine to function. But most people don't think that is enough justification to treat civilians as military targets.


Icky to contemplate, but yeah, that justification has been made in quite a few different cases.

Party Boy: I'm butthurt about Tina Fey

Haha, what??
I'm so out of the loop.

kindpastor: Is it right to shoot through the baby and into the man's chest? Given all those conditions. NOT SAYING this is an analogy to the mid-east conflict. Just asking.

Yes I would shoot through the baby if that was the case.

I'm not a scientist, but I'd guess that babies have extremely poor ballistic deflection characteristics.
You'd be better off using cute baby tigers. They're denser.

FarkingUpTheWrongTree: Party Boy: I'm butthurt about Tina Fey

Haha, what??
I'm so out of the loop.

Control (F) "party boy" in this thread

that should do it.