|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2006 : 22:59:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
That's only true if one makes an attempt to spare non-combatants, as I believe Israel is. But it does nothing to address popular support.
During World War II, the last war that resulted in a US victory, allied planes firebombed Dresden and dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of 214,000 people in those two cities alone. It makes death counts of a few dozen seem trivial by comparison.
I have been thinking about the belief that Israel is truly trying to spare civilians. I think it is hard for people to believe that they are targeting civilians because we can't imagine ourselves doing that and we identify with the Israeli culture.
I think if you look at all the history, at the current targets, at what Human Rights watch observers have reported, you cannot draw the conclusion Israel is not targeting civilians. It might be easy enough to say Hezbollah targets were among the civilians, but the evidence isn't so clear. At least read the HRW reports on their observations.
I presented evidence of retaliation against supposed homes suicide bombers had lived in. So if your child becomes a suicide bomber, expect Israeli bulldozers to level your house whether you knew anything about it or not.
The evidence is there, you have to take an objective look and you will find it. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2006 : 00:03:37 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: quote:
Hey Marf, do you still think that beskeptigal is unbiased?
Yup. I really don't get what your beef is. She's cited the Human Rights Watch and wikipedia - both perfectly credible. Nobody yet commented on my mention that the UN Human Rights Commission also declared in 2001 that Israel had committed "crimes against humanity" and talked about "genocide". Be has stated several times that she's not claiming Israel to be worse, but rather, she's trying to say that Israel's crimes have been glossed-over or buried, while we all know of the evils of Muslim terrorists. Neither I nor be have claimed that the majority of people in Israel have a burning hatred for Arabs. But there is a significant number that do, and that does influence politics.
That said, I do think that everything Israel has done has been done with the belief that they were reducing terrorism. I lean more toward the reckless disregard for civilian life than I do toward targetting civilians, but I suspect they have targeted civilians when they've suspected those civilians to be significantly connected to terrorist. There is a lot of grey area here, and I don't think be is being black and white about it. I think she's offering perfectly legit info and analysis for discussion. I also fail to see why she would be "bias", and I'm also not completely sure what you mean by that.
Hey Dude, I just love how you took one little thing vaguely mentioned in parentheses that wasn't even the main thrust of what I was saying, picked on it, and then totally ignored the rest of my response to you. Yeah, I'm about done ever having any more debates with you. All you frickin' do is personally attack people and tell them they are committing fallacies without even saying what these supposed fallacies are. I'm still trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about regarding beskeptical. Your guessing games and attitude problem are tiresome. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2006 : 00:42:11 [Permalink]
|
Thank you Martha.
Most Israelis express feelings of justification for their actions and non-justification for Arab actions. But I imagine the Arabs feel the opposite. It's time to stop blaming and justifying because it is completely unproductive. Bolling's column was just today. It was good to know I am not the only one who believes there is another course of action than the one being taken. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2006 : 07:43:07 [Permalink]
|
My question would be when does a civilian stop being a civilian? Does a civilian have to pick up a gun (or missle launcher) and start shooting to no longer be a civilian? Is aiding grounds for targeting? Or even passively allowing?
If one says that aiding or passively allowing provides grounds, then who is innocent? Was Osama "correct" in targetting civilians? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2006 : 10:07:52 [Permalink]
|
Ok, fine. You win.
Gimme a day or two. As soon as I have access to my desktop (my laptop, while a potent bit of technology, has a small screen and small keyboard, hard to type anything lengthy on) I'll oblige your request to further illustrate your fallacious arguments.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2006 : 10:30:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Marf:
I also fail to see why she would be "bias", and I'm also not completely sure what you mean by that.
I feel her comments here and in other threads are weighted against Israel. She has explained what she is doing in this thread, but as I explained in my last post I felt that her first choice as an example she cited of Israel attacking civilians was at the very least controversial, not cut and dry, and open to doubt as to the intended Israeli policy, etc. In short, it was a bad example. But it is the kind of example that gets ones attention if you stop at the 1000 civilian deaths and the word Israel after that. Let me quote her again:
quote:
beskeptigal:
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?
Bolding mine.
She has asked a rhetorical question here that oozes bias. Did Israel allow and assist the massacre? Certainly some Israelis did, but that isn't what she is asking…
And really, the link that she provided did show that the case against Israeli policy was not as obvious as was implied by her post. It remains controversial. So, to my thinking a bias was displayed by using that as an example.
Maybe she should be more careful about how she presents her proofs of Israeli war crimes. And yes, I do believe Israel has committed war crimes. Just, I guess, not the one beskeptigal seems convinced that they are currently committing. And I have said why I think that a few times now.
One other thing that needs mentioning. I have spent time in Israel, which does not make me an expert, but does give me a bit of insight into the thinking of the Israeli's. I am also Jewish. So my view is through a different prism then yours or hers. I have to do constant battle with my bias. And by doing so, and by generally defaulting to critical thinking as much as I am able, I am pretty darned sensitive to biased language on this subject.
Anyhow, the feeling I have may be wrong, and I have acknowledged that. Allow me my doubt which I am giving beskeptigal the benefit of. It is a part of my nature, after all…
|
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 - 08/05/2006 : 15:09:55 [Permalink]
|
| They are weighted against Israel, Kil, in response to the overwhelmingly pro-Israel posts here and in other forums I've been posting on. But my posts don't reflect my bias pro or con, they reflect the media bias I have been addressing with facts the media leaves out. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2006 : 16:09:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
They are weighted against Israel, Kil, in response to the overwhelmingly pro-Israel posts here and in other forums I've been posting on. But my posts don't reflect my bias pro or con, they reflect the media bias I have been addressing with facts the media leaves out.
Well, yeah. But do you actually think, as a skeptic, presumably responding to other skeptics, that you can offer a more balanced picture by using biased language? I have offered an example of that. |
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 - 08/06/2006 : 01:39:47 [Permalink]
|
Yes, because I have been educating myself on this topic for many years and I can present facts to show it isn't bias. I believe what you are referring to as biased language is really your own biased interpretation, not liking conclusions I have drawn so you call the language biased. It isn't the language here, it's the conclusions that we differ on.
But let's backtrack a bit. No one can present a completely unbiased point of view. The viewpoint I have at the moment is Israel has targeted civilians. Where we differ is in the reasoning. Where you, I assume, believe it is only as Israel aims at what they believe to be Hezbollah, I have drawn the conclusion they are targeting civilians they believe to be sympathetic to Hezbollah. And I presented evidence it is Israel's pattern to do so. As well the Human Rights Watch report has documented they believe the same. The report is a 51 page document released yesterday.
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/
Here is an excerpt from the page on methodology:
quote:
The team focused on interviewing witnesses and survivors of Israeli strikes inside Lebanon, gathering detailed testimony from these individuals, and carefully corroborating and cross-checking their accounts with international aid workers, international and local journalists, medical professionals, local officials, as well as information from the IDF....
In a small minority of cases, Human Rights Watch researchers in Lebanon could locate witnesses only in Hezbollah-controlled camps for displaced persons in Beirut. ..... In such cases, researchers sought additional witnesses outside of Hezbollah's control to investigate the location of Hezbollah militants in the area at the time of the attack. If such witnesses could not be found, Human Rights Watch dropped the case.
As noted, in the cases documented in this report, witnesses consistently told Human Rights Watch that neither Hezbollah fighters nor other legitimate military targets were in the area that the IDF attacked. However, Human Rights Watch did document cases in which the IDF hit legitimate military targets, and, with limited exceptions, witnesses were generally willing to discuss the presence and activity of Hezbollah. At the sites visited by Human Rights Watch—Qana, Srifa, Tyre, and the southern suburbs of Beirut—on-site investigations did not identify any signs of military activity in the area attacked, such as trenches, destroyed rocket launchers, other military equipment, or dead or wounded fighters. International and local journalists, rescue workers, and international observers also did not produce evidence to contradict the statements of witnesses interviewed for this report.
The researchers also monitored information from public sources about the attacks, including Israeli government statements. Although Human Rights Watch's research has been extensive, it is, as noted, not comprehensive. Further inquiry is required, particularly as access to the affected villages in South Lebanon improves, and to the extent that Israel ultimately decides to make its commanders and soldiers involved in the operation available for interviews.
Human Rights Watch is equally critical of Hezbollah, as am I. And that is where I find your question of my bias to be in error.
I have, however, drawn different conclusions from you on the matter of Israel's tactics if you believe Israel has been justified in torture, holding prisoners without trial, assassinations, bulldozing houses, and so on. On those matters I will be happy to debate facts if you have conflicting evidence.
Regardless of just actions and who started what and who is at fault, I still think it is becoming clear to more and more people that the military tactics Israel has been |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2006 : 02:24:14 [Permalink]
|
Since you revealed your being Jewish I should say the two things in my background. One is my brother had a Palestinian girlfriend years ago whose family had immigrated here when their home was taken as Israel decided to create a buffer zone of security outside of Israel's borders. I have to assume that was the Golan Heights but I really don't know. I met her father but we didn't discuss it and they lived in a different state so I only saw her a few times. My brother told me they were paid a very small amount for the confiscated house and that non-Arabs were paid the actual value. The compensation given the settlers who had to move from Gaza certainly correlates with such a policy. I don't imagine Israel will fund repairs of much collateral damage in Lebanon. (But who knows? Maybe that's a place they can start to turn things around.)
On the other side, my son's father was married to an Jewish woman and though I can't say I knew his ex, (not a congenial divorce) his son split the week with us in a joint custody arrangement for 6 years. Ian is now in Israel and is in school to become a Rabbi. I don't consider Ian my stepson since I haven't see much of him for the last 17 years but my son has and considers him his half brother. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/06/2006 02:25:21 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2006 : 10:53:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal:
Yes, because I have been educating myself on this topic for many years and I can present facts to show it isn't bias.
So you chose a “fact” that remains controversial as to Israel's guilt in the incident you cited because even though it's controversial, you have decided.
quote:
beskeptigal:
I believe what you are referring to as biased language is really your own biased interpretation, not liking conclusions I have drawn so you call the language biased. It isn't the language here, it's the conclusions that we differ on.
Wrong. While we do differ on the conclusions, my conclusion being that I doubt it, a non absolute, which is different from your conclusion that they did it, an absolute about a case that is less then clear cut. And you demonstrated that conclusion by the language you used in your presentation of that case. You used biased language to support your conclusion, and not the facts of the case where lots of uncertainty exists. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to misrepresent the facts though the use of language, which is what I believe that you did. Hyperbolic language has no place in this kind of discussion, no matter what your opinion is.
quote:
beskeptigal:
But let's backtrack a bit. No one can present a completely unbiased point of view.
Well, we can try. I struggle with that all the time as I mentioned a post or two back. At the very least, as a skeptic, you should resist as best you can the temptation of leading by using tricks of language (fallacies) to make your point. You might also be willing to admit when you have done that, especially if you didn't realize you were doing it and were just being dragged along by your opinion. It's not as though that doesn't happen to all of us at times.
quote:
beskeptigal:
The viewpoint I have at the moment is Israel has targeted civilians. Where we differ is in the reasoning. Where you, I assume, believe it is only as Israel aims at what they believe to be Hezbollah, I have drawn the conclusion they are targeting civilians they believe to be sympathetic to Hezbollah. And I presented evidence it is Israel's pattern to do so. As well the Human Rights Watch report has documented they believe the same. The report is a 51 page document released yesterday.
You can offer all the support for your opinion that you want to. Fine. But I suggest you try to avoid hyperbolic language to support your opinion, which is the conversation we are having at the moment. And I don't think that that one has been resolved.
quote:
beskeptigal:
Human Rights Watch is equally critical of Hezbollah, as am I. And that is where I find your question of my bias to be in error.
After saying “No one can present a completely unbiased point of view” you are now saying again that you are unbiased. Perhaps I am in error. But it is your language and not your stated goal that leads me to suspect a bias.
quote:
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 - 08/06/2006 : 17:03:03 [Permalink]
|
I went back through the posts to find where you think I've used biased language, Kil, and I have to repeat, the language you referred to you think implied more than I meant, was actually what I meant. You disagree with the conclusions. I'm happy to debate the conclusions with you.
beskeptigal: So either Israel has crappy intelligence, (unlikely), or they want to beat the civilians down regardless of Hezbollah using human shields.
Kil: 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?
Marf: The choice of "stupid or monsters" is rather loaded.
Kil: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?
I believe they are targeting civilians. You don't. That isn't biased language, it is a different conclusion. I believe they use the tactic of "beating down civilians". I tried to debate that with you but you dismissed it as not having bearing.
Kil: 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.
And it is bringing world opinion down on them. I think the Israeli government, (which is who I mean, the decision makers, when I say Israel), has made the poor decision that it can stop civilian support for Hezbollah by making it very painful for the citizens to do so. It is a bad policy, it has failed in the past, it is failing now.
We can discuss why you think it is "a disturbing disregard" and I think it is willful. I repeat what I said about this earlier: Start by defining civilians. Is it only fighters; fighters and people who provide logistical support; or fighters, logistical supporters and sympathizers? Does Israel really believe bombing the roads, bridges, and airport were just to cut supply lines? Was there evidence rockets were coming in via cargo planes? Really?
Once you define civilians, then we can discuss intentional vs disregard.
Beskep: 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?....
Kil: Hey Marf, do you still think that beskeptigal is unbiased?
To this post you seem to have singled out how much the Israeli government willingly participated in the refugee slaughter.
beskeptigal: 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?
Kil: She has asked a rhetorical question here that oozes bias. Did Israel allow and assist the massacre? Certainly some Israelis did, but that isn't what she is asking…
How is it that Israeli soldiers prevented women and children from leaving two different camps? That certainly implies a coordinated effort as opposed to a loose cannon patrol group. I'm interested to learn more if I have d |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2006 : 17:45:38 [Permalink]
|
This is getting into too much hair-splitting for me.
Edited to add: Not that I don't do plenty of hair-splitting myself. Just that it seems to be more and more between Kil and Beskeptical and over the meaning of words and nuance. Nothin' against either of you guys, but I'm getting bored with this one. Sorry. :-( |
"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 08/06/2006 17:47:38 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2006 : 19:39:45 [Permalink]
|
| Not to worry, Martha. I think Kil and I should resolve the issue because I don't want bad blood either on a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion. But beyond that there isn't much else to add to the thread for the moment. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2006 : 20:14:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal:
beskeptigal: 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?
Kil: She has asked a rhetorical question here that oozes bias. Did Israel allow and assist the massacre? Certainly some Israelis did, but that isn't what she is asking…
How is it that Israeli soldiers prevented women and children from leaving two different camps? That certainly implies a coordinated effort as opposed to a loose cannon patrol group. I'm interested to learn more if I have drawn the wrong conclusion. Why they did it and who planned it are not things I know about but am willing to investigate.
Arial Sharon, who was indeed fired from his job of defense minister after and because of the cited incident, could and probably did coordinate the Israeli military involvement. That he made his way back into a position of power says nothing about what the intentions of Israel were at the time. It does say a whole lot about him. If, in your view, Sharon was carrying out a plan that was part of the Israeli strategy, and you don't see how a bias is required in order to reach such a conclusion, oh well. I don't think the facts in the case support that conclusion. You could claim that it was a covert operation I suppose but there is no evidence to support such a claim. So if you are comfortable with your conclusion, even though it is speculative and unsupported, I guess that's it then.
Personally speaking, I shy away from claims that are speculative and unsupported at least in terms of offering a positive opinion about such claims.
Edited to add: And no, there will be no bad blood over this, at least on my part. At worst we may have to agree to disagree... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
