Israel strike in Gaza destroys building with AP, other media

[Belsnickel]

(05-17-2021, 03:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's a long way of saying no.  Thank you, for at least giving us a clear picture of where you stand on this issue.  Both Hamas and Hezbollah are clearly terrorist organization and frequently engage in acts of terror.  As I find terrorism highly offensive, and those who refuse to condemn it equally offensive, I will leave you to your false equivalencies and defense of the indefensible.  Thank you.

Here is where I always have a problem with the term "terrorist" in our lexicon. The term is a negative one, and I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but it needs to be said that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Israel is seen as an oppressive regime and has been accused by many of human rights violations including apartheid. I'm not going to say what they are doing is definitively so, but there is little doubt that the treatment of Palestinians, both within and without Israeli borders, is in violation of international law. Were we not so supportive of Israel, we as a nation might be inclined to consider the Palestinians freedom fighters. We may have treated them as we did the Mujahideen.

Neither side is without sin on this one, which is why I tend to be on the side of not helping either one on it.

[Dill]

(05-17-2021, 03:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's a long way of saying no.  Thank you, for at least giving us a clear picture of where you stand on this issue.  Both Hamas and Hezbollah are clearly terrorist organization and frequently engage in acts of terror.  As I find terrorism highly offensive, and those who refuse to condemn it equally offensive, I will leave you to your false equivalencies and defense of the indefensible.  Thank you.

This confirms what I said about about "manly" standards: 

they are "just a way of framing issues in black and white terms, and favoring simplistic, unsupported assertions."  

You were fine with addressing "false equivalencies" and "the indefensible" until it became clear they were neither false nor indefensible.

Still, not very "manly" to turn tail and run like that. 

[Dill]

(05-17-2021, 03:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is where I always have a problem with the term "terrorist" in our lexicon. The term is a negative one, and I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but it needs to be said that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Israel is seen as an oppressive regime and has been accused by many of human rights violations including apartheid. I'm not going to say what they are doing is definitively so, but there is little doubt that the treatment of Palestinians, both within and without Israeli borders, is in violation of international law. Were we not so supportive of Israel, we as a nation might be inclined to consider the Palestinians freedom fighters. We may have treated them as we did the Mujahideen.

Neither side is without sin on this one, which is why I tend to be on the side of not helping either one on it.

This might interest you. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime, under the auspices of the 2015 Doha Declaration, has developed university-level curriculum on terrorism which is one of the most comprehensive reflections on the subject I have seen, with excellent basic and advanced bibliographies.  https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-1/index.html

The module on defining terrorism is especially interesting--and rigorous. I refer to it when trying to think through these issues. There does need to be a practicable definition of terrorism which a majority of nations can sign on to, but as your Mujahideen analogy suggests, it is very difficult.
https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-4/key-issues/defining-terrorism.html

Regarding the bolded above. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the question (in my view) is not whether one side is "without sin," but the power imbalance and, before that, the legal claims of each side under international law. That is what people ought to be discussing, and it the only topic with some hope of resolving the "terrorist" question.

At present, simplistic definitions of terrorism are promoted in this case to maintain one the imbalance in favor of one side., as you know. 

The U.S. plays a role in maintaining that imbalance, as has already been acknowledged on this thread, as it has long had the power to bring Israel to the peace table and keep it there.  In consequence, the U.S. is a special target of influence for "both sides," though there is a considerable imbalance here too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2021, 03:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is where I always have a problem with the term "terrorist" in our lexicon. The term is a negative one, and I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but it needs to be said that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

Oh, to be sure.  However, even allowing for this there are actions that go beyond the pale.  Indiscriminate use of unguided rockets (a redundant statement I know) would certainly fall under that umbrella.  Both Hezbollah and Hamas have routinely engaged in actions that can very comfortably be labeled terrorism.  Also, one needs to be careful with this dinstinction, as there are plenty of people who saw the January 6th rioters as the latter.  At some point we have to be able to say no, this is terrorism.

Quote:Israel is seen as an oppressive regime and has been accused by many of human rights violations including apartheid. I'm not going to say what they are doing is definitively so, but there is little doubt that the treatment of Palestinians, both within and without Israeli borders, is in violation of international law. Were we not so supportive of Israel, we as a nation might be inclined to consider the Palestinians freedom fighters.

It's certainly possible, and as I stated from the beginning, I'm not a huge supporter of Israel.  While I wouldn't label them an apartheid state, they certainly treat Arab citizens as less than or secondary class.  I stated definitively from the very beginning, there are no straight up "good guys" in this scenario, but I absolutely believe that one side is demonstrably worse, the terrorist side.  Dill always ducks this, but you know about al quds day.  Only one side has an annual event in which the proposed destruction of the other is chanted and celebrated.

Quote:We may have treated them as we did the Mujahideen.

Yeah, and what did they become?

Quote:Neither side is without sin on this one, which is why I tend to be on the side of not helping either one on it.

Quite honestly, there is no fixing the situation in the Middle East as religion is heavily involved and thus rational thought is out of the picture.  The two state solution will never work for both the religious reasons and the extreme hatred on both sides.  

Lastly, I would like to add that just because Israel is better equipped and trained does not mean they have to absorb whatever crap Hamas and Hezbollah throw at them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2021, 03:53 PM)Dill Wrote: This confirms what I said about about "manly" standards: 

they are "just a way of framing issues in black and white terms, and favoring simplistic, unsupported assertions."  

You were fine with addressing "false equivalencies" and "the indefensible" until it became clear they were neither false nor indefensible.

Still, not very "manly" to turn tail and run like that. 

Incorrect on all counts.  You refuse to condemn terrorism because you support the perpetrators.  I condemn terrorism regardless of the perpetrators.  You can justify your odious position all you like, but the bare facts remain unchanged.  Yet again more proof of the Dill double standard.  It's ok if the side you prefer does it.  It's honestly amazing to me that someone who purports to be an intellectual can be so utterly blind to their own glaring inconsistencies.  Thankfully, you've demonstrated it enough that pretty much everyone else is now aware of it.

[Au165]

(05-17-2021, 03:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is where I always have a problem with the term "terrorist" in our lexicon. The term is a negative one, and I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but it needs to be said that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Israel is seen as an oppressive regime and has been accused by many of human rights violations including apartheid. I'm not going to say what they are doing is definitively so, but there is little doubt that the treatment of Palestinians, both within and without Israeli borders, is in violation of international law. Were we not so supportive of Israel, we as a nation might be inclined to consider the Palestinians freedom fighters. We may have treated them as we did the Mujahideen.

Neither side is without sin on this one, which is why I tend to be on the side of not helping either one on it.

One person's terrorists are another person's founding fathers. Like most things, history is written by the victors...at least it used to be before social media and live play by play. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2021, 04:45 PM)Au165 Wrote: One person's terrorists are another person's founding fathers. Like most things, history is written by the victors...at least it used to be before social media and live play by play. 

While I get the point you're trying to make it's a very poor comparison.  You'll have to cite some instances I'm not aware of if you're trying to equate the actions during the American Revolution with those carried out by Hamas and Hezbollah.

[CJD]

(05-17-2021, 04:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's certainly possible, and as I stated from the beginning, I'm not a huge supporter of Israel.  While I wouldn't label them an apartheid state, they certainly treat Arab citizens as less than or secondary class.  I stated definitively from the very beginning, there are no straight up "good guys" in this scenario, but I absolutely believe that one side is demonstrably worse, the terrorist side.  Dill always ducks this, but you know about al quds day.  Only one side has an annual event in which the proposed destruction of the other is chanted and celebrated.

I'm a relative newcomer to this discussion and I don't have very much knowledge or experience in the Palestine vs Israel topic. So I'm here to learn. What I've seen on the news is that something like 122 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, whereas 7 Israelis have died in attacks by Hamas.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/100-civilians-killed-1000-wounded-israel-intensifies-attacks/story?id=77685310

Are these numbers inaccurate? Or is there some greater context that I don't understand? Because, from where I've heard, both the oppressive nature and the death count are going against Israel in this one. What's your logic for condemning the Palestinian side significantly more than the Israeli side?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2021, 05:06 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm a relative newcomer to this discussion and I don't have very much knowledge or experience in the Palestine vs Israel topic. So I'm here to learn. What I've seen on the news is that something like 122 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, whereas 7 Israelis have died in attacks by Hamas.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/100-civilians-killed-1000-wounded-israel-intensifies-attacks/story?id=77685310

Are these numbers inaccurate? Or is there some greater context that I don't understand? Because, from where I've heard, both the oppressive nature and the death count are going against Israel in this one. What's your logic for condemning the Palestinian side significantly more than the Israeli side?

The interesting thing is that the answer to your question is literally in the post you quoted, but you omitted it.  Israel is responding to being attacked.  The fact that they are better trained and equipped than their attackers doesn't change that.  Let's put it this way, if Cuba was launching rockets into Miami on a regular basis and we responded who would suffer more casualties?  Would that change who was responsible for initiating the conflict?

Framing this as a pure "numbers game" is not helpful or provide an accurate picture.

[Belsnickel]

(05-17-2021, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The interesting thing is that the answer to your question is literally in the post you quoted, but you omitted it.  Israel is responding to being attacked.  The fact that they are better trained and equipped than their attackers doesn't change that.  Let's put it this way, if Cuba was launching rockets into Miami on a regular basis and we responded who would suffer more casualties?  Would that change who was responsible for initiating the conflict?

Framing this as a pure "numbers game" is not helpful or provide an accurate picture.

I think this article does a good job of explaining recent events that led up to the recent escalation of things in the region: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/world/middleeast/israel-palestinian-gaza-war.html

It isn't just as simple as "Israel is responding to being attacked." There has been a lot more bubbling under the surface, here, including actions by the Israeli state that lit this fuse.

[CJD]

(05-17-2021, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The interesting thing is that the answer to your question is literally in the post you quoted, but you omitted it.  Israel is responding to being attacked.  The fact that they are better trained and equipped than their attackers doesn't change that.  Let's put it this way, if Cuba was launching rockets into Miami on a regular basis and we responded who would suffer more casualties?  Would that change who was responsible for initiating the conflict?

Framing this as a pure "numbers game" is not helpful or provide an accurate picture.

So Israel was attacked and 7 civilians were killed, so they go and kill 122 people. Were all 122 of those people terrorists? Because I don't believe they are. I'm not sure how many were but it seems like Israel is just going hog wild on Palestinians.

We're comparing murders by terrorists to murders by a state government. Wouldn't we expect more from the government than the terrorists? Honestly, even if the numbers were reversed, where Hamas had murdered 122 people and the Israeli government killed 7 civilians, I'd still expect everyone to roundly condemn Israel.

Condemning terrorists is a given. While I understand that Hamas has justification for their actions, I think their actions are reprehensible. Murdering civilians is never the answer if you believe your side is right and just. In that same vein, I believe murders by the state should be taken just as seriously, if not more so.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2021, 05:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think this article does a good job of explaining recent events that led up to the recent escalation of things in the region: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/world/middleeast/israel-palestinian-gaza-war.html

It isn't just as simple as "Israel is responding to being attacked." There has been a lot more bubbling under the surface, here, including actions by the Israeli state that lit this fuse.

Absolutely, I read a similar breakdown on BBC world news.  The thing is, there's always something bubbling under the surface in that region.  And while I don't excuse Israeli provocations, there's a far cry between actions that cause offense and launching rockets indiscriminately into a civilian population center.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2021, 05:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So Israel was attacked and 7 civilians were killed, so they go and kill 122 people. Were all 122 of those people terrorists? Because I don't believe they are. I'm not sure how many were but it seems like Israel is just going hog wild on Palestinians.

We're comparing murders by terrorists to murders by a state government. Wouldn't we expect more from the government than the terrorists? Honestly, even if the numbers were reversed, where Hamas had murdered 122 people and the Israeli government killed 7 civilians, I'd still expect everyone to roundly condemn Israel.

That's a fair, and consistent position, even if I don't wholly agree with it.  Israel is certainly using the attack to destroy as much of Hamas' infrastructure as they can.  I would add though, that Israel's missile defense system has intercepted around 90% of the rockets fired at their population centers, so the death toll isn't skewed based on lack of trying on the part of Hamas and their kin.

Quote:Condemning terrorists is a given.

Not to Dill.

Quote:While I understand that Hamas has justification for their actions, I think their actions are reprehensible. Murdering civilians is never the answer if you believe your side is right and just. In that same vein, I believe murders by the state should be taken just as seriously, if not more so.

You do know that Hamas is part of the state, right?  They are part of the government of Gaza.  Hamas has perceived justification, do you think their response was justified?  I certainly don't

[CJD]

(05-17-2021, 05:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You do know that Hamas is part of the state, right?  They are part of the government of Gaza.  Hamas has perceived justification, do you think their response was justified?  I certainly don't

I think their status as a state is a bit more complicated. Like I said, I am a novice in the discussion, but it certainly seems like they're more like a resistance force trying to hold onto their territory more so than a legitimate government of an area. It seems Israel has been pressing in on them (sieging them?) for quite some time and I doubt Israel recognizes them as a legitimate state. I'm not sure America or the rest of the first world does either. I bet the majority of people consider them terrorists occupying land, much like they did ISIS and their caliphate.

Israel, on the other hand, is an established state with billions of dollars in funding from America and other first world nations. We are, by extension, signing off on their murders by funding them while they are sieging the Palestinians.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2021, 05:43 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think their status as a state is a bit more complicated. Like I said, I am a novice in the discussion, but it certainly seems like they're more like a resistance force trying to hold onto their territory more so than a legitimate government of an area. It seems Israel has been pressing in on them (sieging them?) for quite some time and I doubt Israel recognizes them as a legitimate state. I'm not sure America or the rest of the first world does either. I bet the majority of people consider them terrorists occupying land, much like they did ISIS and their caliphate.

Hamas is officially part of the Gaza government.  They were a minority "party" but still a legitimate part of the government.

Quote:Israel, on the other hand, is an established state with billions of dollars in funding from America and other first world nations. We are, by extension, signing off on their murders by funding them while they are sieging the Palestinians.

Killing someone in self defense is not murder.  Inadvertent civilian casualties are not murder, especially if you do everything you can to avoid them, especially when your adversary routinely sets up their military hardware and bases in the middle of civilian areas.  I don't like that term being used in this context, because essentially it labels large swathes of our own armed forces as murderers during WW2 and on.  There's an enormous difference between inadvertent civilian casualties and the My Lia Massacre.  I don't think slapping the murder label on with a large brush is either accurate or helpful.

[Wes Mantooth]

Let's be honest. They knew exactly what they were doing when they started attacking Israel. They're not idiots. They knew Israel was going to retaliate. They've made that abundantly clear over the years. And they knew Israel has superior weaponary and defense.

It's hard for me not to come to the conclusion that they're not getting the exact response they wanted. They wanted to draw attention to their cause and now they're getting it.

I'm going to use a pretty piss poor analogy, but this is how I view it as a casual observer...

Imagine a smaller guy going up to a bigger guy in a bar who he's trying to frame as an asshole. (Who knows why, it really doesn't matter. Let's say it's over a girl) The smaller guy starts running his mouth. He then throws a drink on the bigger dude. He then throws a real weak punch that he knows isn't going to win him the fight and the big guy counters it, breaks his nose and lays him out. All the while, someone else recorded video of the event and then spliced it to just show the big guy punching the little guy.

The big guy now looks like a total prick. The small guy knew exactly the reaction he was going to get, it was planned from the very beginning. He got exactly what he wanted.

That's what this feels like to me. Have I done the appropriate research on it to be an expert? No, not even close. I don't want to represent myself as such. But I think there's enough there for me to come to the conclusion that this was at all part of a plan. Remember, we're talking about a culture (Hamas) that pays out pensions to martyrs and terrorist families who support the cause. They deliberately and strategically place their citizens (women and children included) in harms way.

Like I said, I'm not at all trying to represent myself as an expert on this. Nor do I fail to understand that this is an incredibly complex issue, and that there isn't some level of merit that exists on both sides. But c'mon, I feel like all of the above is pretty damn obvious.

You can't just start indiscriminately firing 1,000 rockets at Israel and then cry foul when they return the favor.

[Belsnickel]

I think the main thing that we need to recognize in all of this is that both Hamas and Netanyahu are using this situation to their advantage. Both have really used this opportunity to show strength in order to gain more power. It really is disgusting how much Hamas leadership and Netanyahu will play with the lives of their people to gain power in the region.

[CJD]

(05-17-2021, 06:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hamas is officially part of the Gaza government.  They were a minority "party" but still a legitimate part of the government.


Killing someone in self defense is not murder.  Inadvertent civilian casualties are not murder, especially if you do everything you can to avoid them, especially when your adversary routinely sets up their military hardware and bases in the middle of civilian areas.  I don't like that term being used in this context, because essentially it labels large swathes of our own armed forces as murderers during WW2 and on.  There's an enormous difference between inadvertent civilian casualties and the My Lia Massacre.  I don't think slapping the murder label on with a large brush is either accurate or helpful.

If a criminal were being chased down by the police and he grabbed a woman as a human shield, I wouldn't call it self defense if the police opened fire, killing the woman and the criminal. I would say that was a failure by the police. I see this the same way. Civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs, even if it means letting the criminal live.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-17-2021, 06:54 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If a criminal were being chased down by the police and he grabbed a woman as a human shield, I wouldn't call it self defense if the police opened fire, killing the woman and the criminal. I would say that was a failure by the police. I see this the same way. Civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs, even if it means letting the criminal live.

At least, that's how I see it.

Sorry, I don't see that as a very apt analogy.  How about if North Korea was launching ICBM's from the middle of a population center, would it be murder to bomb the area in which the ICBM's are held knowing that civilians would likely be killed as well?  I think not.

[Dill]

(05-17-2021, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect on all counts.  You refuse to condemn terrorism because you support the perpetrators.  I condemn terrorism regardless of the perpetrators.  You can justify your odious position all you like, but the bare facts remain unchanged.  Yet again more proof of the Dill double standard.  It's ok if the side you prefer does it.  It's honestly amazing to me that someone who purports to be an intellectual can be so utterly blind to their own glaring inconsistencies.  Thankfully, you've demonstrated it enough that pretty much everyone else is now aware of it.

One doesn't "condemn terrorism regardless of the perpetrators" if one accepts only one side's definition and "bare facts--the "side you prefer."

And no one is applying a "double standard" if he insists definitions of terrorism be applicable to all sides, and withholds application to any side on that ground.

I've gave you the opportunity for in-depth engagement on these issues--history, facts, definitions of terrorism, whatever. 

But you turned tail, reduced now to sniping at me in posts to others. That is what "everyone else is now aware of."