|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2006 : 21:47:51 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I am not saying you think what I said overtly. I'm trying to point out it's an unconscious underpinning most people are unaware of. I think if you ask most people specifically, "Are all Arabs or all Muslims terrorists?", they will say of course not. But unconsciously, our language betrays subtle differences in what we think we believe and what we act on. In other words, it's easy to forget collateral damage is not OK. One slips into the mindset, those people near the terrorists somehow are expendable. That isn't the way you'd feel if it was your child or loved one. But by this subtle dehumanizing of people who are not involved we somehow say collateral death is OK. It is unconscious, subtle, revealed by certain language.
As for Marfknox's statement about different tactics, I totally agree with her and will be putting together a post with the "evidence" that it is a better approach. Give me a little time.
Don't go away. I wasn't attacking your statements. I was using them to show everyone how dehumanizing the other side makes war possible. What did you think of Golda Meier's statements there is no such thing as a Palestinian? |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2006 : 00:00:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One slips into the mindset, those people near the terrorists somehow are expendable. That isn't the way you'd feel if it was your child or loved one. But by this subtle dehumanizing of people who are not involved we somehow say collateral death is OK. It is unconscious, subtle, revealed by certain language.
Are you so emotionally invested in this topic that you can't stop with the fallacies?
I'm asking a simple question: How do you fight against an enemy (Hizbollah, in this instance) who builds their fighting positions directly into the houses and businesses of the noncombatants that they live with, with the full support and consent of those civilians? Can you consider the noncombatants and civilians, in this specific case of Hizbollah and southern Lebanon, to be uninvolved when they actively provide tactical and logistical support to the guys shooting the rockets? How do you stop the guy with the rocket from killing your children, without killing other civillians, when the guy is shooting the rocket from inside a crowd who cheers him on?
marfknox says that Israel should just allow them to shoot rockets into their homes, and ignore them. That the death of a few jews in this manner is just the cost of them living next to fucknut crazy religious people who think you don't have the right to exist.
Is there a way to resolve the situation peacefully when your enemy(specifically, Hizbollah in this case) is so irrational that they claim you have no right to even exist? How do you even begin a dialogue with them?
I don't know what the answer is.
It makes me feel like I've been hit in the gut when I see a basement full of women and children hit by an Israeli bomb or a Hizbollah rocket killing Israeli children. The situation is immensely tragic.
I'm still pretty baffled by how you reach the conclusion that you apparently have regarding my opinions on this matter. If you can detect my opinion, based on some subtlety or nuance of language, when I have not expressed a specific opinion, then perhaps you could explain how you do it so that others could also share in your ability to detect specific opinions in this way.
quote:
Don't go away. I wasn't attacking your statements. I was using them to show everyone how dehumanizing the other side makes war possible.
See? This is what I mean. I need for you to share with me how you are able to detect that I am dehumanizing "the other side" (whatever that means, since I don't have a side in this issue).
quote:
What did you think of Golda Meier's statements there is no such thing as a Palestinian?
Well, she'd be fucking crazy if she actually said that. To bad that 5 minutes using google is now apparently to much to ask of you before you decide to perpetuate a particular lie.
http://www.mscd.edu/~golda/Norm%20Stuff/CENTER%20FAVORITES.html
quote:
34) There is no Palestine people. There are Palestinian refugees . (Meir wrote in “The New York Times” on January 14, 1976 that the often cited and controversial “There are no Palestinians” statement attributed to her is a misquotation, the “London Sunday Times” of June 15, 1969.)
Sounds alot like a commentary on the state of a Palestinian state (or lack of) to me, rather than the insane bigoted tirade tirade you are making it out to be.
But so what?
Is Golda Meier in chage of Israel now?
Is anyone in Israel, in a position of political or military authority, saying anything like this now?
Has anyone in the 28 years since her death said anything like what you are making her out to have said?
Enough with the fallacious arguments already.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2006 : 00:06:47 [Permalink]
|
The above post of mine is, perhaps, a tad more harsh than I intended it to be.
Maybe.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 14:39:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Are you so emotionally invested in this topic that you can't stop with the fallacies?
No. It isn't emotional investment in this topic at all. That's another fallacy that discounts what I am emotionally invested in, the control of information we get about the topic. I have been reading about, listening to, and following the information about the supposed war on terror, the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and the lack of democracy this nation actually has right now in great depth for a couple of years at least and perhaps in less depth but certainly keeping up on the topic for many years. The issue I am emotional (I'd call it passionate) about is corporate, government, and PR firm news filters, and Swift Boat like attack campaigns that go after every opposing view on the topic.
quote:
I'm asking a simple question: How do you fight against an enemy (Hizbollah, in this instance) who builds their fighting positions directly into the houses and businesses of the noncombatants that they live with, with the full support and consent of those civilians?
This has been over played and exaggerated in our news. Human rights watch has issued a report (and they condemn Hezbollah as well) that their in country thorough investigation of the matter they found Israel was hitting targets indiscriminately, not as collateral damage shooting at Hezbollah. They also investigated the basement full of children incident and found while the casualty numbers were less, Hezbollah had not been near the place for several days. So either Israel has crappy intelligence, (unlikely), or they want to beat the civilians down regardless of Hezbollah using human shields.
Think about it. Some of these civilians support Hezbollah. Would that be the case if their children were being used as human shields? It is well worth seeking out other sources of information about what is true and what is Israeli PR.
quote:
marfknox says that Israel should just allow them to shoot rockets into their homes, and ignore them. That the death of a few jews in this manner is just the cost of them living next to fucknut crazy religious people who think you don't have the right to exist.
I would think that the amount of money spent on bombs could build a pretty good rocket defense system.
Two questions to ask yourself: 1) Will this stop the rocket attacks? Doubt it, hasn't solved anything in 60 years. Why would it work this time?
2) Is the wholesale slaughter of Lebanese and destruction of their economy and infrastructure going to make the people support Hezbollah even more? Of course.
quote:
Is there a way to resolve the situation peacefully when your enemy(specifically, Hizbollah in this case) is so irrational that they claim you have no right to even exist? How do you even begin a dialogue with them?
I don't know what the answer is.
Yes. You start by beginning to undo the damage you've already done and stop making things worse.
You give Palestinians a fair share of the land and water. You quit destroying their economic development at every turn.
quote:
It makes me feel like I've been hit in the gut when I see a basement full of women and children hit by an Israeli bomb or a Hizbollah rocket killing Israeli children. The situation is immensely tragic.
I'm still pretty baffled by how you reach the conclusion that you apparently have regarding my opinions on this matter. If you can detect my opinion, based on some subtlety or nuance of language, when I have not expressed a specific opinion, then perhaps you could explain how you do it so that others could also share in your ability to detect specific opinions in this way.
Well, for starters, your resopnse to what I said and what I provided evidence for that Israel also claims, "there is no such thing as a Palestinian". You could ask me for more evidence rather than taking 5 minutes to find the PR campaign to cover up Meier and many other Israeli sentiments.
quote:
I need for you to share with me how you are able to detect that I am dehumanizing "the other side" (whatever that means, since I don't have a side in this issue).
Well, she'd be fucking crazy if she actually said that. To bad that 5 minutes using google is now apparently to much to ask of you before you decide to perpetuate a particular lie.
http://www.mscd.edu/~golda/Norm%20Stuff/CENTER%20FAVORITES.html
quote:
34) There is no Palestine people. There are Palestinian refugees . (Meir wrote in “The New York Times” on January 14, 1976 that the often cited and controversial “There are no Palestinians” statement attributed to her is a misquotation, the “London Sunday Times” of June 15, 1969.)
Sounds alot like a commentary on the state of a Palestinian state (or lack of) to me, rather than the insane bigoted tirade tirade you are making it out to be.
But so what?
Is Golda Meier in chage of Israel now?
Is anyone in Israel, in a position of political or military authority, saying anything like this now?
Has anyone in the 28 years since her death said anything like what you are making her out to have said?
Enough with the fallacious arguments already.
Yes the attitude is widespread that there are no Palestinians. The reason I even found out about it was forum members on JREF brought it up and I investigated it. The forum member said the Palestinians were Arabs, not Palestinian. Someone else claimed they were expelled from Syria as if Israel had moved into empty territory.
Look at a map of Palestine prior to 1945. See how heavily populated the place was. At that time Jews owned about 5% of the land. They took the rest and ethnically cleansed the land of Arabs.
I'm out of time right now. I'll have to get back to this. Meier did say what she said and later tried to take it back. I'll get you the specifics tonight.
It is incredibly difficult on my part to share the amount of information I have obtained over many years. Given I have to counter the same amount of years of media filtered information most people have gotten. It is frustrating, there are so many misconceptions out there.
Before you accuse me again of being emotional on this topic, (it misinformation I care about for the moment) I just want you to know I don't support either the Israeli or the Palestinian side. I support the, 'don't let the media perpetuate the wars' side. I think there are good and bad |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/03/2006 14:41:31 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 16:18:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal:
So either Israel has crappy intelligence, (unlikely), or they want to beat the civilians down regardless of Hezbollah using human shields.
Why would they want to do that? All they get from targeting civilians is bad press and, as you said, more civilian support for Hezbollah. Are you saying the Israelis are stupid or monsters because those seem to be the only choices possible for such an action?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 17:03:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal:
So either Israel has crappy intelligence, (unlikely), or they want to beat the civilians down regardless of Hezbollah using human shields.
False dichotomy. FFS, poor marksmanship and weapons not up to the same accuracy standards of the US military are a MUCH more likely explanation.
The rest is riddled with inconsistent and irrational thinking as well. The only thing I know of that causes an otherwise solid skeptic to start doing this kind of arguing is an emotional investment that blocks their critical thinking.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 19:05:36 [Permalink]
|
In response to Dude, in kind: quote:
What opinion would that be? Because the only opinion I have offered on the matter is that the whole thing is tragic.
I went back and read your posts again, and you are right. I was mistaken. Instead of carefully reading your posts over again, I took your challenge to my opinion to be an expression of the opposite opinion, and that was wrong of me. Of course, you don't have to be a total dickhead about it. Oh, wait, you do – you're Dude.
quote:
I think I will decline further participation if this is the kind of nonsense I can expect from you.
I just love how you take misunderstandings so incredibly personal even when you are dealing with two people who are earnestly trying to have a polite conversation, especially beskeptical. How ironic that your username-sake is the calm and layed-back character from The Big Lebowski. Maybe I'm wrong about that too, and you can jump down my throat about remembering it wrong too.
quote:
What evidence do you have that supports this? How do you know that there is a chance Hizbollah would "eventually dissolve" if you treated them with kid-gloves? Perhaps there is some historical precedent for the long-term peaceful dissolution of terrorist organizations (by ignoring them) that I am not familiar with?
I'm not going to play the history game because we could both come up with examples of similar-enough insurgencies that have succeeded (like Cuba), been viciously crushed (various insurgencies in the Philippines), or that either dissolved or simply transformed over time into something peaceful and reasonable (such as the Basque Nationalists Spain).
In order for there to be both peace in the Middle East and Israel as a secure nation, the hatred must die down. Anything that increases hatred of Jews by Muslims or vice versa goes against those goals. Hizbollah's goal is different – the destruction of Israel, and so they are taking action toward their goal. But Israel's goal is the first I mentioned; peace plus Israel as a secure nation.
Of course Israel must also appear strong. If they appear weak, they will be attacked more, and more viciously by their current enemies. You, Dude, have manipulated this conversation by first, using the term “ignore” – and I fell right into that trap by agreeing. Then I realized my mistake and wrote this clarification: quote:
To clarify - by agreeing that Israel should "ignore" Hizbollah's terrorism, I do not really mean totally ignore. More like deal in reactions which are diplomatic or, if violent, only equal forceful response. Bombing and killing hundreds was not an equal response to the kidnapping of 2 soldiers. There was historical precident for a prisoner exchange. I think they should have gone that route.
So your statement:
quote:
marfknox says that Israel should just allow them to shoot rockets into their homes, and ignore them. That the death of a few jews in this manner is just the cost of them living next to fucknut crazy religious people who think you don't have the right to exist.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/03/2006 19:11:55 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 19:58:54 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: quote:
Why would they want to do that? All they get from targeting civilians is bad press and, as you said, more civilian support for Hezbollah. Are you saying the Israelis are stupid or monsters because those seem to be the only choices possible for such an action?
The choice of "stupid or monsters" is rather loaded. I agree with beskeptical that the issues need to be examined closely, and I believe her when she says she sides with neither side. I can't say I agree with the assessment that Israel intended to kill civilians mostly because I don't know enough about it. But I think what be is saying is that there is a good deal of ethnic hatred directed at Arabs from Jewish people in Israel, and thus, the government's motivation for killing a certain high enough number of Lebanese civilians might have been political - to show they are strong enough so that they aren't replaced by candidates-in-waiting who would take an even harder approach to the situation.
My old roomate is Jewish and visited Israel in college. She came back horrified and with stories of Jewish hatred of Arabs. In particular, people who wanted only a single nation, with Arabs relagated to second-class-citizenry, if any at all. It wasn't the majority of peoples' opinion, but it was openly discussed and one of the mainstream opinions from her experience. I can't imagine what it must be like to live in a place surrounded by peoples and nations that hate you and want you dead. I can see how it could easily foster hatred in return. And unfortunately, in a democracy, public opinion counts even when it is fueled by hate. There is precident to what be is talking about - the U.N. Human Rights Commission formally accused Israel of "crimes against humanity" in 2001, and have gotten damn near accusations of "genocide". What are we to believe? Is the UN Human Rights Council (what it is now called) bias against Israel, or is there some truth to such criticism? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 21:02:15 [Permalink]
|
I think Israel over reacted. And I believe that it isn't the first time they have over reacted.
Now that we have that out of the way, I am also of the opinion that there is no way that Israel is purposely targeting civilians in this current conflict. I can't actually say that about Hezbollah since they have very close to no idea where their missiles will land. They do seem to count civilian deaths as a hit for them.
quote:
Marf:
The choice of "stupid or monsters" is rather loaded.
Perhaps. But if they really are targeting civilians, and that is still how I read beskeptigal's comment, what word's would have been a better choice?
quote:
Marf:
But I think what be is saying is that there is a good deal of ethnic hatred directed at Arabs from Jewish people in Israel, and thus, the government's motivation for killing a certain high enough number of Lebanese civilians might have been political - to show they are strong enough so that they aren't replaced by candidates-in-waiting who would take an even harder approach to the situation.
No way. I will go along with a disturbing disregard for civilian casualties, but a show of strength by purposely targeting civilians would only bring world opinion down on them including the American peoples opinion along with the American Jewish community. Please believe me when I say that no matter how hard nosed the Israelis can be, and they can be pretty freaking stubborn and stupid at times, they do not want to alienate their allies. It does not compute.
quote:
Marf:
My old roomate is Jewish and visited Israel in college. She came back horrified and with stories of Jewish hatred of Arabs. In particular, people who wanted only a single nation, with Arabs relagated to second-class-citizenry, if any at all. It wasn't the majority of peoples' opinion, but it was openly discussed and one of the mainstream opinions from her experience.
I have been to Israel too, and I spent a good long time there. I know of what your roommate speaks. She is correct in that it isn't the majority view…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 21:09:08 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
I'm not going to play the history game because we could both come up with examples of similar-enough insurgencies that have succeeded (like Cuba), been viciously crushed (various insurgencies in the Philippines), or that either dissolved or simply transformed over time into something peaceful and reasonable (such as the Basque Nationalists Spain).
The Basque became reasonable because they were countered harshly at every turn. They were not ignored or reacted to "in kind" when they commited terroist acts. They also never were anything on the scale of Hizbollah.
You cannot cite a single historical reference where something like Hizbollah was defeated by a minimalist approach.
quote:
I went back and read your posts again, and you are right. I was mistaken. Instead of carefully reading your posts over again, I took your challenge to my opinion to be an expression of the opposite opinion, and that was wrong of me. Of course, you don't have to be a total dickhead about it. Oh, wait, you do – you're Dude.
*POP* goes the irony gland!
quote:
I just love how you take misunderstandings so incredibly personal even when you are dealing with two people who are earnestly trying to have a polite conversation, especially beskeptical. How ironic that your username-sake is the calm and layed-back character from The Big Lebowski. Maybe I'm wrong about that too, and you can jump down my throat about remembering it wrong too.
No person who uses logical fallacies is trying to have a polite conversation. This type of dishonesty is an agressive behavior. If you can't present a rational argument and instead use fallacies you are being as rude as it is possible to be.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 21:34:12 [Permalink]
|
Israel has a long history of brutality against civilians with the purpose of discouraging those civilians from assisting terrorists, or with the idea terrorists will stop for fear their families will be targeted. Regardless of which of those two motives, or a combination of the two, and despite the fact this policy has failed miserably, it remains the policy of Israel. Just look at their history.
Why did Israel allow and assist the mass slaughter of almost 1,000 people, mostly women and children at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps? Surely that publicity was some of Israel's worst. Why have they maintained the policy of bulldozing the homes of the families of any suicide bomber? Why have they oppressed the civilian population of Palestinians during the decades of occupation? How does it help the Israeli cause prevent a pregnant woman in labor from reaching a hospital when borders are sealed? Can soldiers at the checkpoints not verify the validity of such a case?
Google search, "israel blocks access to hospitals in border closure", take your pick of articles to read about it. Then try the same thing searching news sources.
In looking for the Israeli response to suicide bombers, there is a mysterious absence of easily found information. Do we really believe there was no Israeli response? The news at the time noted retaliatory responses.
I found this at answers.com with a link to collective punishment within this brief statement under overview, "to punish the families of bombers[/url]. The link merely mentions, "In recent history, the term has been used to describe the demolition of houses that allegedly sheltered terrorists in the Gaza Strip ".
It isn't that the information is hidden. When I search Google for israeli collective punishment, I get a wealth of information including many articles that have the answers to the disbelief expressed here. Why the information isn't easily found under a search for retaliation to suicide bombers is that Israel has article after article and blogs all describing the horrible suicide bombers but conveniently lacking the information about the Israeli response. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/03/2006 21:39:57 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 21:47:10 [Permalink]
|
| Hey Marf, do you still think that beskeptigal is unbiased? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 21:57:37 [Permalink]
|
The Human Rights Watch website has all of the following articles:
Gaza: Israeli Offensive Must Limit Harm to Civilians [AND] War Crime for Palestinians to Hold Soldier Hostage
Some Israeli Attacks Amount to War Crimes
The Israel Defense Forces, (IDF), Fails to Explain Qana Bombing - Independent International Inquiry Required
White flags, not a legitimate target - Israel must take responsibility for the dreadful human toll in Lebanon
Lebanon: Hezbollah Rocket Attacks on Haifa Designed to Kill Civilians - Anti-personnel Ball Bearings Meant to Harm “Soft” Targets
Don't make the assumption that while I am pointing out the brutality of Israel, I think Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaeda are justified. My point is the brutality is making the Islamic extremist groups stronger, not weaker, by a long shot. The Israeli leaders, the extremist Zionists supporting them, Bush, the Neocons and the American idiots supporting them, are all too invested in their revenge and "don't mess with Texas" mentality they cannot see and cannot admit to themselves their tactics have totally failed!
So there are two problems I am pointing out here. One, the policies have failed. There are alternatives. And two, the media filters have totally distorted the picture to eliminate easy view of the mistakes including the brutality, that have made those policies fail.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/03/2006 21:58:58 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 22:03:29 [Permalink]
|
I am biased against war, Kil, at least these wars in particular. I think the administration with the influence of the military industrial complex that keeps them in power, combined with the corporate media filters has made a failed policy seem like the only option. It isn't.
After I walk the dogs I'll give you a list of things that have been done wrong for no reason other than someone profits from it or some leader is stupid.
Added: I don't need to list the Islamic extremist brutality. We get all that on the news. So you think I'm only noticing Israel. You are wrong. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/03/2006 22:05:36 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2006 : 22:13:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
...
No person who uses logical fallacies is trying to have a polite conversation. This type of dishonesty is an agressive behavior. If you can't present a rational argument and instead use fallacies you are being as rude as it is possible to be....
Unless you misinterpret the logic and incorrectly assume a fallacy where there isn't one.
I don't know who your remark was aimed at but don't confuse facts with logic. You think you found exculpatory evidence Israel recognizes the Palestinians on the whole. I haven't replied yet. So if that was your reference, you are mixing up contradictory facts from two sources with a fallacious argument which is different. We can still resolve the contradiction in facts. If you're referring to something else then never mind. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
