Cops Are not Bad People and the System is not Corrupt

[Damselbinder]

Please find me the part of the deal which said "by the way Iran, you may do terrorism and we won't do anything about it." Please find that for me.

By "according to our allies in the area", you mean Netanyahu, I suppose? Well a) he's a corrupt criminal and b) even if he weren't (I suppose just being a criminal doesn't mean you can't be right about a particular aspect of international relations), there were plenty of Jewish people in favour of the deal. J-Street, a pro-Israel lobby, spent something like $5 million in support of the deal. There was broad international agreement. It was ratified by the U.N.. It was the best deal anyone was going to get.

The Iran deal did nothing about putting pressure on the Iran terror regime to stop their actvities against non Shites as well as Jews. Israel should have been at the table and Iran should have been forced to dismantle Hamas and Hezbollah.

J Street is a joke, it is like saying Haeertz is the Israel paper of record. AIPAC represent the American Jewish community. I've been to Israel have you.?

Dismantle Hamas and Hezbollah? Hamas is Palestinian. Hezbollah is Lebanese. I don't doubt that Iran has relationships with these groups, but the fact that you think Iran can just "dismantle" them shows a pretty staggering ignorance of reality.

I am also, frankly, insulted by your suggestion that AIPAC "represents the Jewish community." For one thing, there is no one Jewish community in America. It has a Jewish population almost as large as Israel's, and is obviously composed of many communities. No-one policy group - especially one as bullishly neoconservative as AIPAC - can claim to "represent the Jewish community." Dismissing J Street and Hareetz - the oldest and most venerable news organisation in the country - as "jokes" seems just your way of saying that they're left wing.

Thirdly, your reasoning is baffling. "AIPAC represent the American Jewish community. I've been to Israel, have you?" For one thing, I don't like the tone of that. It strikes me altogether too much as "I'm a real Jew, you're not." Secondly, the American Jewish community and the Israeli Jewish community are not the same. Not at all. For one thing, American Jewish culture is much more left wing: somewhere around 70% of Jews voted Democrat in the last election.

We've talked before in this about people appointing themselves as "moral arbiters" of what is or is not offensive. Well you've appointed yourself as the arbiter of the political will of all the Jews in America and Israel, apparently. This is a position for which I suspect you are unqualified.

[Dazzle1]

Please find me the part of the deal which said "by the way Iran, you may do terrorism and we won't do anything about it." Please find that for me.

By "according to our allies in the area", you mean Netanyahu, I suppose? Well a) he's a corrupt criminal and b) even if he weren't (I suppose just being a criminal doesn't mean you can't be right about a particular aspect of international relations), there were plenty of Jewish people in favour of the deal. J-Street, a pro-Israel lobby, spent something like $5 million in support of the deal. There was broad international agreement. It was ratified by the U.N.. It was the best deal anyone was going to get.

The Iran deal did nothing about putting pressure on the Iran terror regime to stop their actvities against non Shites as well as Jews. Israel should have been at the table and Iran should have been forced to dismantle Hamas and Hezbollah.

J Street is a joke, it is like saying Haeertz is the Israel paper of record. AIPAC represent the American Jewish community. I've been to Israel have you.?

Dismantle Hamas and Hezbollah? Hamas is Palestinian. Hezbollah is Lebanese. I don't doubt that Iran has relationships with these groups, but the fact that you think Iran can just "dismantle" them shows a pretty staggering ignorance of reality.

I am also, frankly, insulted by your suggestion that AIPAC "represents the Jewish community." For one thing, there is no one Jewish community in America. It has a Jewish population almost as large as Israel's, and is obviously composed of many communities. No-one policy group - especially one as bullishly neoconservative as AIPAC - can claim to "represent the Jewish community." Dismissing J Street and Hareetz - the oldest and most venerable news organisation in the country - as "jokes" seems just your way of saying that they're left wing.

Thirdly, your reasoning is baffling. "AIPAC represent the American Jewish community. I've been to Israel, have you?" For one thing, I don't like the tone of that. It strikes me altogether too much as "I'm a real Jew, you're not." Secondly, the American Jewish community and the Israeli Jewish community are not the same. Not at all. For one thing, American Jewish culture is much more left wing: somewhere around 70% of Jews voted Democrat in the last election.

We've talked before in this about people appointing themselves as "moral arbiters" of what is or is not offensive. Well you've appointed yourself as the arbiter of the political will of all the Jews in America and Israel, apparently. This is a position for which I suspect you are unqualified.

You may not like he tone. But the facts are that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist proxies for Iran.

It was a bad deal, the fact is that Netanyahu should have been at the table forcing the Iranians to sit with Jews.

Israel security more important than a bogus deal that Iran is breaking.

J Street supports going back to the 67 borders which is wrong and supports terrorism

[Damselbinder]

It is not wrong. And even if it were, the suggestion that it "supports terrorism" is absurd. Why should a belief that Israel should return to its '67 borders mean that terrorism is good?

If I happen to agree with something that a terrorist agrees with, that doesn't make me a terrorist. That's very much the "well HITLER was a vegetarian" type logic.

Also, those are not "the facts." Hamas and Hezbollah are distinct entities, That they have a relationship with Iran doesn't mean they're "proxies". Saying they're proxies of Iran is a way of meaning you can simplify the situation to baddies and goodies, and mean that there's always going to be a demand you can make of Iran that they have no way of making:
"Dismantle Hezbollah and Hamas!"
"I mean, we can break off our relationship with them, but we can't just... dismantle them."
"You're a terrorist state then!"
"Er..."

[Femina]

It is not wrong. And even if it were, the suggestion that it "supports terrorism" is absurd. Why should a belief that Israel should return to its '67 borders mean that terrorism is good?

If I happen to agree with something that a terrorist agrees with, that doesn't make me a terrorist. That's very much the "well HITLER was a vegetarian" type logic.

Also, those are not "the facts." Hamas and Hezbollah are distinct entities, That they have a relationship with Iran doesn't mean they're "proxies". Saying they're proxies of Iran is a way of meaning you can simplify the situation to baddies and goodies, and mean that there's always going to be a demand you can make of Iran that they have no way of making:
"Dismantle Hezbollah and Hamas!"
"I mean, we can break off our relationship with them, but we can't just... dismantle them."
"You're a terrorist state then!"
"Er..."

We do kind of have this thing in American politics where, if you are even seen discussing one of America's 'enemies' AT ALL and aren't using it immediately as a platform to crap on them, it means you're a conspirator and a traitor. I mean, Trumps dealings with the Russians for instance. Say nothing of the fact he's a moron whose easily mislead by a much stronger, much smarter Russian government man... say nothing of the fact an infantile buffoon like our current president is utterly utterly politically outclassed in every way by the horse master Putin himself... ignore even his alleged scheming and voter fraud, quite often the only argument lobbied at him in the media over the Russian stuff was 'he TALKED to Russia! He's a traitor!"

It goes a lot deeper than that of course, but when you have a tendency to report the media in an "A therefore B" methodology as we do here in the states, it cultivates this VERY sort of prejudice.

American Politics as delivered to its people are simultaneously (purposefully) to complex to make sense of... and (accidentally)too simplistic to cover complex philosophical concepts... like how negotiating with your enemies CAN be a good thing... you know, if you're leader isn't stupid and easily controlled.

Oh America :( what hath become of ye?

[Damselbinder]

It is not wrong. And even if it were, the suggestion that it "supports terrorism" is absurd. Why should a belief that Israel should return to its '67 borders mean that terrorism is good?

If I happen to agree with something that a terrorist agrees with, that doesn't make me a terrorist. That's very much the "well HITLER was a vegetarian" type logic.

Also, those are not "the facts." Hamas and Hezbollah are distinct entities, That they have a relationship with Iran doesn't mean they're "proxies". Saying they're proxies of Iran is a way of meaning you can simplify the situation to baddies and goodies, and mean that there's always going to be a demand you can make of Iran that they have no way of making:
"Dismantle Hezbollah and Hamas!"
"I mean, we can break off our relationship with them, but we can't just... dismantle them."
"You're a terrorist state then!"
"Er..."

We do kind of have this thing in American politics where, if you are even seen discussing one of America's 'enemies' AT ALL and aren't using it immediately as a platform to crap on them, it means you're a conspirator and a traitor. I mean, Trumps dealings with the Russians for instance. Say nothing of the fact he's a moron whose easily mislead by a much stronger, much smarter Russian government man... say nothing of the fact an infantile buffoon like our current president is utterly utterly politically outclassed in every way by the horse master Putin himself... ignore even his alleged scheming and voter fraud, quite often the only argument lobbied at him in the media over the Russian stuff was 'he TALKED to Russia! He's a traitor!"

It goes a lot deeper than that of course, but when you have a tendency to report the media in an "A therefore B" methodology as we do here in the states, it cultivates this VERY sort of prejudice.

American Politics as delivered to its people are simultaneously (purposefully) to complex to make sense of... and (accidentally)too simplistic to cover complex philosophical concepts... like how negotiating with your enemies CAN be a good thing... you know, if you're leader isn't stupid and easily controlled.

Oh America :( what hath become of ye?

The Good Friday agreements - far from perfect tho they be - represent just how productive negotiating with your enemies can be.

[Bert]

There's the old adage that if you argue with an idiot in the street all anyone passing sees is two idiots having an argument, SO.
NO ONE IS AN IDIOT*
NO ONE IS ARGUING

I accept your adage. It's the conclusion that seems increasingly suspect to me!

[Dazzle1]

To all those praising the deal with Iran?

One question , why not have Israel at the table?

[Damselbinder]

They're not on the UN security council.

They're not part of the European union.

The Netanyahu government would have tried to torpedo the whole thing. When Israel's government has behaved the way it has behaved for the last fifteen years, prepare for people not to expect you to be diplomatic.

[tallyho]

In 2014 Israel bombed and shelled UN controlled hospitals and safe zones 38 TIMES. Because they claimed there was a sniper operating out of each of those areas attacked. So you indiscriminately attack 4-500 sick and injured and the care workers trying to treat them. Because ONE person is sniping at you, a claim that incidentally was denied by all who were there from UN observers to doctors to patients to the press Corps. No evidence for the claim was ever provided.
So there's 38 reasons why they weren't at the table. They aren't a team player, and these were team negotiations.

[tallyho]

But that's getting us waaaay off the beaten track

My apologies to Bushwackerbob most of this is down to me. Sorry I didn't mean to derail the thread so spectacularly just point out that there are genuine and very real reasons why people believe the system is corrupt and a lack of trust in your leaders inevitably adds fuel to the flames.

Alright so Dazzle1 and I have different views on issues. Some members will share one point of view and others share the other.

There's no winners or losers and neither side will convince the other so let's draw a line under the global geopolitical arguments, interesting though they may be.

I will shut up and cede the floor to anyone who wishes to post on topic

Again my apologies to BwB

[bushwackerbob]

But that's getting us waaaay off the beaten track

My apologies to Bushwackerbob most of this is down to me. Sorry I didn't mean to derail the thread so spectacularly just point out that there are genuine and very real reasons why people believe the system is corrupt and a lack of trust in your leaders inevitably adds fuel to the flames.

Alright so Dazzle1 and I have different views on issues. Some members will share one point of view and others share the other.

There's no winners or losers and neither side will convince the other so let's draw a line under the global geopolitical arguments, interesting though they may be.

I will shut up and cede the floor to anyone who wishes to post on topic

Again my apologies to BwB

Sometimes the best stuff on here is stuff where a topic that starts somewhere and altogether ends up some place else. Don't mind me, carry on folks. A lot of smart people on here making some really good points on both sides.

[tallyho]

OK well if BwBob's happy, let's rub out the line we drew underneath the geopolitical discussion and have at it gents.
As always keep it polite!

[Dazzle1]

They're not on the UN security council.

They're not part of the European union.

The Netanyahu government would have tried to torpedo the whole thing. When Israel's government has behaved the way it has behaved for the last fifteen years, prepare for people not to expect you to be diplomatic.

They were the country and still were by the Iranian terror regime.

Their future was being decided on.

And to bad if it offended the Mullahs

[Dazzle1]

In 2014 Israel bombed and shelled UN controlled hospitals and safe zones 38 TIMES. Because they claimed there was a sniper operating out of each of those areas attacked. So you indiscriminately attack 4-500 sick and injured and the care workers trying to treat them. Because ONE person is sniping at you, a claim that incidentally was denied by all who were there from UN observers to doctors to patients to the press Corps. No evidence for the claim was ever provided.
So there's 38 reasons why they weren't at the table. They aren't a team player, and these were team negotiations.

The U.N was has been harboring terrorists for decades in the Middle East at their hospitals, there was plenty of proof

[Dazzle1]

Tallyo

Israel is a great teammates, as long as you nbot an ignorant islamist who can't accept Jews or an anti-Semite like Barack Obama, the first President who sided with the islamic terrorist movement over Israel and the gulf states.

[Damselbinder]

In 2014 Israel bombed and shelled UN controlled hospitals and safe zones 38 TIMES. Because they claimed there was a sniper operating out of each of those areas attacked. So you indiscriminately attack 4-500 sick and injured and the care workers trying to treat them. Because ONE person is sniping at you, a claim that incidentally was denied by all who were there from UN observers to doctors to patients to the press Corps. No evidence for the claim was ever provided.
So there's 38 reasons why they weren't at the table. They aren't a team player, and these were team negotiations.

The U.N was has been harboring terrorists for decades in the Middle East at their hospitals, there was plenty of proof

The U.N. has been harbouring terrorists. Okay, people I think that wraps this one up.

[tallyho]

The U.N was has been harboring terrorists for decades in the Middle East at their hospitals, there was plenty of proof

In the same way the US was harbouring IRA terrorists for 30 years and allowing Noraid to collect money that went directly to buying arms for the IRA, a practice that was only stopped after September 11th 2001? After 30 years of death on all sides and over 3000 victims.
Do you mean like that?

[Bert]

No need for an apology. I think it's implied.

[tallyho]

Just figured I'd lighten the mood

[Femina]

The U.N was has been harboring terrorists for decades in the Middle East at their hospitals, there was plenty of proof

Aha. So, the logic is 'There's proof that the U.N. is harboring a sniper in one of their hospitals' therefore, 'the lives of every innocent person in that hospital don't matter as long as we kill that oooooooone sniper.'

I don't think I'd invite Dazzle to my negotiations either.

[Dazzle1]

The U.N was has been harboring terrorists for decades in the Middle East at their hospitals, there was plenty of proof

Aha. So, the logic is 'There's proof that the U.N. is harboring a sniper in one of their hospitals' therefore, 'the lives of every innocent person in that hospital don't matter as long as we kill that oooooooone sniper.'

I don't think I'd invite Dazzle to my negotiations either.

You are right not to

Unlike Obama I have integrity and honor my friendships.

It was not just the Statesman Netanyahu but the Gulf States and Egypt opposed this deal. Obama should have listen to wiser people than him

With all his faults Trump is doing the right thing in his Mid East policy.

Do your really trust Iran, they want you in a Burkah

[Damselbinder]

"The Statesman Netanyahu"? He's been charged with corruption!

Also, that last point of yours was really violently illogical. The fact that someone holds a sexist view doesn't mean they can't keep promises, especially promises which are in their own interest to keep.

[Dazzle1]

"The Statesman Netanyahu"? He's been charged with corruption!

Also, that last point of yours was really violently illogical. The fact that someone holds a sexist view doesn't mean they can't keep promises, especially promises which are in their own interest to keep.

But they haven't kept the promise and even if they had, their terrorism should have been part of the deal.
Why is that so far to understand?

And yes Bibi is a Statesman and Obama should have shown him the same respect he did to other leaders.

But Obama hates uppity Jews.

[tallyho]

I dont think the faith is important, I think he just doesn't like corrupt liars.

Being critical of Isreali state policy isnt antisemitic, it's being critical of Israeli state policy.

If you think it's fine to randomly shell a place with hundreds perhaps thousands of innocents there , because you believe (although there is no evidence) that one person is a sniper though you cant point him out and nobody else saw him , not the patients, not the doctors, not the nurses, not the UN personnel and not the press corps, where does that totally warped logic end ? It's ok to attack a thousand innocent people because one is your enemy? What about 1001? What is the number where that becomes unacceptable to civilised society?
What if we scale it up, what if it's not a sniper it's a tank and what if it's not a hospital under UN protection, it's a city. There's a tank in a city lobbing shells out at you. You dont know where it is, you cant be bothered to find it, just take the whole city out. Doesn't matter how many die at least we will have stopped that one tank . Maybe, unless it drove away of course or wasnt in that city but another one. But hey ho, there it is.

That sort of logic is madness in a civilised society.

[Femina]

The U.N was has been harboring terrorists for decades in the Middle East at their hospitals, there was plenty of proof

Aha. So, the logic is 'There's proof that the U.N. is harboring a sniper in one of their hospitals' therefore, 'the lives of every innocent person in that hospital don't matter as long as we kill that oooooooone sniper.'

I don't think I'd invite Dazzle to my negotiations either.

You are right not to

Unlike Obama I have integrity and honor my friendships.

It was not just the Statesman Netanyahu but the Gulf States and Egypt opposed this deal. Obama should have listen to wiser people than him

With all his faults Trump is doing the right thing in his Mid East policy.

Do your really trust Iran, they want you in a Burkah

The problem with arguing with you Dazzle, is that you flip flop from one thing to another without actually addressing anything VALID that's been said.

See, my reply to you're post was to query the morality of bombing a hospital to possibly kill ONE sniper... then drop an (admittedly in somewhat poor taste) jab at bringing you to the negotiating table. That was a JOKE, and the ONLY thing I said that you responded to (and credit where its due, it's appropriately sarcastically write off of my own)

HOWEVER, once we approach the actual MEAT of my comment In your response, you suddenly dove tailed into complaints, Netanyahua, Obama, Trump, and Mid East policy. Now It's totally fair to further a conversation or argument by adding more avenues for discussion... but it usually arrives after ADDRESSING something else. See... I my comment had nothing AT ALL to do with the states of Egypt or Obama's wisdom, or Trumps Mid East policy... so I'm suddenly left pondering why you bothered to quote me AT ALL.

My comment queried the morality of of bombing a building full of innocent people to kill a solitary human being. My math may be off here... but if you decide it's okay to kill 400+ innocent people to get at 1 we very quickly run out of human beings PERIOD.

[Dazzle1]

The U.N was has been harboring terrorists for decades in the Middle East at their hospitals, there was plenty of proof

Aha. So, the logic is 'There's proof that the U.N. is harboring a sniper in one of their hospitals' therefore, 'the lives of every innocent person in that hospital don't matter as long as we kill that oooooooone sniper.'

I don't think I'd invite Dazzle to my negotiations either.

You are right not to

Unlike Obama I have integrity and honor my friendships.

It was not just the Statesman Netanyahu but the Gulf States and Egypt opposed this deal. Obama should have listen to wiser people than him

With all his faults Trump is doing the right thing in his Mid East policy.

Do your really trust Iran, they want you in a Burkah

Yes because Israeli lives are bluntly more important than a Muslim counry that habors terrorists
The problem with arguing with you Dazzle, is that you flip flop from one thing to another without actually addressing anything VALID that's been said.

See, my reply to you're post was to query the morality of bombing a hospital to possibly kill ONE sniper... then drop an (admittedly in somewhat poor taste) jab at bringing you to the negotiating table. That was a JOKE, and the ONLY thing I said that you responded to (and credit where its due, it's appropriately sarcastically write off of my own)

HOWEVER, once we approach the actual MEAT of my comment In your response, you suddenly dove tailed into complaints, Netanyahua, Obama, Trump, and Mid East policy. Now It's totally fair to further a conversation or argument by adding more avenues for discussion... but it usually arrives after ADDRESSING something else. See... I my comment had nothing AT ALL to do with the states of Egypt or Obama's wisdom, or Trumps Mid East policy... so I'm suddenly left pondering why you bothered to quote me AT ALL.

My comment queried the morality of of bombing a building full of innocent people to kill a solitary human being. My math may be off here... but if you decide it's okay to kill 400+ innocent people to get at 1 we very quickly run out of human beings PERIOD.

Yes because Israelis defending itself against a country that welcome the terrorist. So sorry 1 Israeli is more important than 100 Lebanese lives .

[Damselbinder]

So sorry 1 Israeli is more important than 100 Lebanese lives .

I don't particularly have any comment to make on this. I just wanted to draw emphasis to it.

Wow.

[Femina]

The U.N was has been harboring terrorists for decades in the Middle East at their hospitals, there was plenty of proof

Aha. So, the logic is 'There's proof that the U.N. is harboring a sniper in one of their hospitals' therefore, 'the lives of every innocent person in that hospital don't matter as long as we kill that oooooooone sniper.'

I don't think I'd invite Dazzle to my negotiations either.

You are right not to

Unlike Obama I have integrity and honor my friendships.

It was not just the Statesman Netanyahu but the Gulf States and Egypt opposed this deal. Obama should have listen to wiser people than him

With all his faults Trump is doing the right thing in his Mid East policy.

Do your really trust Iran, they want you in a Burkah

Yes because Israeli lives are bluntly more important than a Muslim counry that habors terrorists
The problem with arguing with you Dazzle, is that you flip flop from one thing to another without actually addressing anything VALID that's been said.

See, my reply to you're post was to query the morality of bombing a hospital to possibly kill ONE sniper... then drop an (admittedly in somewhat poor taste) jab at bringing you to the negotiating table. That was a JOKE, and the ONLY thing I said that you responded to (and credit where its due, it's appropriately sarcastically write off of my own)

HOWEVER, once we approach the actual MEAT of my comment In your response, you suddenly dove tailed into complaints, Netanyahua, Obama, Trump, and Mid East policy. Now It's totally fair to further a conversation or argument by adding more avenues for discussion... but it usually arrives after ADDRESSING something else. See... I my comment had nothing AT ALL to do with the states of Egypt or Obama's wisdom, or Trumps Mid East policy... so I'm suddenly left pondering why you bothered to quote me AT ALL.

My comment queried the morality of of bombing a building full of innocent people to kill a solitary human being. My math may be off here... but if you decide it's okay to kill 400+ innocent people to get at 1 we very quickly run out of human beings PERIOD.

Yes because Israelis defending itself against a country that welcome the terrorist. So sorry 1 Israeli is more important than 100 Lebanese lives .

Well, let's hope a terrorist doesn't hide in your basement then mr. 'nough said

[tallyho]

So sorry 1 Israeli is more important than 100 Lebanese lives .

Dear god.
So being innocent yourself doesn't matter, if a terrorist stands next to you, then you deserve to die?

A person's life in your eyes doesn't depend on their nature and character or the contribution to humanity or society... but is valued by accidents of geography.

There could be Rembrandts and Einsteins and Hawkings and Curies and Franklins and Nightingales and Bells and Da Vincis in those hundred people but let's kill them all because one might be among them with a gun, and hey, they are only Lebanese.

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, or in this case perhaps one man's 84 year old hospital patient with advanced dementia is another's acceptable collateral damage. Oh, I forgot the ' times by a hundred part.'

I think your post is possibly the saddest reflection on humanity I have ever read in real time, rather than some historical incident.
I hope one day you will learn to understand why.

[Dazzle1]

(Many people in Germany had to die when the Nazis were in control this is no different. But when it is little Israel you have a problem)

You all seem to not care about Jewish lives or Israel's right to defend themselves or the evil of islamists

I am fully comfortable with saying that Israeli lives have greater value,

[tallyho]

I am fully comfortable with saying that Israeli lives have greater value,

That's what makes it so sad, that you are comfortable with such a position

If there is no choice and a greater number of lives are at risk then there are curcumstances when such actions are unavoidable. But the key word there IS UNAVOIDABLE. Killing women, children, old, sick, doctors, nurses, neutrals UN officials and reporters should NEVER be your go - to position.
You mentioned World War 2, the thing that distinguished the allied cause was that we tried to avoid civilian casualties and unnecessary deaths where possible . The Nazis didn't give a damn about any life except their own and that is precisely what you are advocating.
If you don't find such a position sickening to your core you are devoid of humanity. Every time you look in the mirror you are looking at the face of a very, very lost soul.

[Damselbinder]

I think it's reasonable to say that the Allies didn't always do that, such as in the bombing of Dresden. But it's also perfectly reasonable to say that where they didn't avoid civilian casualties, they should have. That your enemy is evil doesn't give you carte blanche to conduct warfare however you choose - and that's even when your enemy is as wholly evil as the NAZIS.

[tallyho]

But where they (the allies) didnt always do that, they tried to, dropping leaflets in Caen before the town was bombed etc. Equally you accept in war there will be mistakes made. It's when you repeatedly do such atrocities as policy then there is no defence.
(It's worth noting in 2014 the Isrealis first said they were attacked by snipers, then when there was universal outcry, changed it to rockets to make the action seem more acceptable. Neither were actually present at the locations attacked.
Hesbullah HAD violated UN safe zones in the past and fired rockets and where that neutrality was breached the UN had abandoned the positions and notified the Isrealis. These incidents were markedly different as despite broadcast proof there was no Hesbullah presence there, they continued multiple attacks on the same 4 or 5 sites from June 21st-24th.)

[Bert]

We are now well past the point where continuing this "discussion" is simply providing further opportunity for this idiot to spray his appalling racist bullshit. You guys should have stopped a long time ago. Nothing good has come of this, unless you are finally willing to concede that Dazzle1 does not deserve to be engaged.

[Femina]

(Many people in Germany had to die when the Nazis were in control this is no different. But when it is little Israel you have a problem)

There is an enormous difference between fighting soldiers and killing civilians. At no juncture was there some sort of official stance that murdering GERMAN civilians to get at the Nazi's was a good and proper thing. GERMANY wasn't the problem, the NAZI'S were... and the socioeconomic complexity of what CREATED the Nazi party themselves are rooted in deep suffering and depression within Germany at the time which very likely could have been headed off with a showing of mercy, empathy, and assistance. Hitler's rise to power was only aided by a populace who felt trapped and helpless, willing to grab for any lifeline out of the societal hole they were left to rot in after WW1. To be VERY clear, the Nazi party and what they forwarded=BAD, the German people and their suffering which lead to the ease by which Nazis rose=worthy of empathy.

You all seem to not care about Jewish lives or Israel's right to defend themselves or the evil of islamists

I am fully comfortable with saying that Israeli lives have greater value,

The primary difference here is that what we're talking about are lives... period. Be they Jewish, Islamic, German or otherwise. A life is a LIFE. If one uses that life to take up extremist and hateful action so be it, you've earned your punishments... but that's not carte blanche to then label every single human being in their ethnicity, religion, social paradigm, etc. the SAME. Are there Islamic terrorists, yes. Is EVERY ISLAMIST a terrorist? No! And murdering hundreds of INNOCENT Islamist lives to get at ONE guilty life is JUST as wrong as collecting innocent people and dragging them to death camps. Murder of innocents is murder of innocents, regardless of their race, age, gender, social click or culture... It'd be like me blaming ALL American's for Charles Manson. I'm not responsible for the actions of an extremist psychopath anymore than the average Islamist is responsible for the odd Bin Laden.

'One of mine is more valuable than 100 of theirs' is the sort of thinking that dumped nukes on Japan. It's the sort of thinking that allowed American's to maintain a platform of slavery for hundreds of years... It's the sort of thinking that caused the Jewish death camps. It's the sort of thinking that can only destroy. It should never ever happen, and if you can't see that, if you're willing to accept the murder of innocent people to get at just ONE enemy... then you're perspective is as skewed as the sort of thinking that would collect human beings up for mass execution. Not the same, but just as extremist, just as harmful to the well being and continuation of the species, and just as damaging to the optics of your own cause.

[Damselbinder]

You know what's really Jewish? Respect for life. The principle of pikuach nefesh has it that even the commandments can be broken to save life. The Talmud says: "He who saves one soul, it is as if he has saved a whole world." I've always taken that to mean that life is infinitely valuable: so taking one is as bad as taking a hundred, or a thousand. I'm not saying this to convince Dazzle: that's obviously impossible. I'd just be remiss to allow the views that have been expressed here so far to be taken as somehow representative of Judaism, for any other readers.

[Mr. X]

We are now well past the point where continuing this "discussion" is simply providing further opportunity for this idiot to spray his appalling racist bullshit. You guys should have stopped a long time ago. Nothing good has come of this, unless you are finally willing to concede that Dazzle1 does not deserve to be engaged.

When you play the "racist" card you cheapen the word. Its dishonest to label people who disagree as "racist". No one calls you a pedophile or rapist do they? islam is not a race, its a religious ideology and just like one can disagree with christianity, they can disagree with Islam.

I agree with Rand's view on Israel. I side with the most progressive group in the region - Israel. By every measure of progressivism from women's rights to LGBT awareness to democracy Israel gets pretty much all green check marks down the score card. Women can vote. A woman ran the country. LGBT can walk the streets, have pride parades, openly serve in the military. The country turns a desert into an oasis. Safest place in that region if you're LGBT is Israel.

Run the same checks on Palestine. How many pride parades are in Palestine.

Sorry but there are some ideologies, be they Islam or christianity, that should fade away into the shadows of history where they belong. No self respecting progressive should ever side with an ultra ultra conservative religious theocracy that believes women are second class and LGBT should be thrown off roofs or beaten to death. You don't have to like Israel but you have to practice what you preach and not bully easy targets that won't fight back.

[Damselbinder]

We are now well past the point where continuing this "discussion" is simply providing further opportunity for this idiot to spray his appalling racist bullshit. You guys should have stopped a long time ago. Nothing good has come of this, unless you are finally willing to concede that Dazzle1 does not deserve to be engaged.

When you play the "racist" card you cheapen the word. Its dishonest to label people who disagree as "racist". No one calls you a pedophile or rapist do they? islam is not a race, its a religious ideology and just like one can disagree with christianity, they can disagree with Islam.

I agree with Rand's view on Israel. I side with the most progressive group in the region - Israel. By every measure of progressivism from women's rights to LGBT awareness to democracy Israel gets pretty much all green check marks down the score card. Women can vote. A woman ran the country. LGBT can walk the streets, have pride parades, openly serve in the military. The country turns a desert into an oasis. Safest place in that region if you're LGBT is Israel.

Run the same checks on Palestine. How many pride parades are in Palestine.

Sorry but there are some ideologies, be they Islam or christianity, that should fade away into the shadows of history where they belong. No self respecting progressive should ever side with an ultra ultra conservative religious theocracy that believes women are second class and LGBT should be thrown off roofs or beaten to death. You don't have to like Israel but you have to practice what you preach and not bully easy targets that won't fight back.

Let's imagine the following situation. Imagine I'm a progressive, right-thinking, socially liberal, pro-choice, pro-everything left wing sort of fellow. Let's also imagine that I'm a 250lb musclebound giant.

Past me goes another man. This man is a horrible racist, a sexist, a homophobe, just an intolerant bastard of every description. His views are foul, and unacceptable by the standards of the 19th Century, let alone the 21st. Let's imagine also that he's a scrawny, 4'11", wispy flake of a man.

Let's imagine that I walk up to him, and beat the absolute shit out of him. I knock his teeth out. I break his nose. I give him internal bleeding. I blind him in his right eye. I'm arrested for grievous bodily harm. As the police take me away, I protest: "But he's a horrible racist (etc)! You should be on my side!"

Does the fact that my views are vastly more moral and progressive than his mean that I can do whatever I want to him, even if it's immoral and illegal?

By the way, it is hardly "playing the race card" to say that someone who has directly expressed the view that one Lebanese life is worth 1/100th of an Israeli life has expressed a racist view. That's like if you shot me, and I said: "You shot me!" and you replied: "Stop playing the 'you shot me' card."

[Mr. X]

Does the fact that my views are vastly more moral and progressive than his mean that I can do whatever I want to him, even if it's immoral and illegal?

By the way, it is hardly "playing the race card" to say that someone who has directly expressed the view that one Lebanese life is worth 1/100th of an Israeli life has expressed a racist view. That's like if you shot me, and I said: "You shot me!" and you replied: "Stop playing the 'you shot me' card."

False argument. A strawman. BTW you JUST justified why Antifa is bad cause "beating up the racist" is EXACTLY what they are doing and promoting. Can antifa justify its violence cause they claim to be morally superior and support a morally superior righteous cause of anti-fascism?

Supporting Israel or any other group moving forward is not promoting the initiation of force anymore than if I promote US progressivism I am not promoting the execution of someone. I support the more progressive group and through competition and supplying superior choices I am all for the other group fading into history.

Does the fact that my views are vastly more moral and progressive than his mean that I can do whatever I want to him, even if it's immoral and illegal?

Yup ask that about antifa and BLM violence. Does being on some moral high ground (real or fake) justify the violence these groups have committed?

Lebanese life is worth 1/100th of an Israeli life has expressed a racist view.

That's nationalism not racism. Israeli is not a race, neither is Lebanese.

[Damselbinder]

Does the fact that my views are vastly more moral and progressive than his mean that I can do whatever I want to him, even if it's immoral and illegal?

By the way, it is hardly "playing the race card" to say that someone who has directly expressed the view that one Lebanese life is worth 1/100th of an Israeli life has expressed a racist view. That's like if you shot me, and I said: "You shot me!" and you replied: "Stop playing the 'you shot me' card."

False argument. A strawman. BTW you JUST justified why Antifa is bad cause "beating up the racist" is EXACTLY what they are doing and promoting. Can antifa justify its violence cause they claim to be morally superior and support a morally superior righteous cause of anti-fascism?

Supporting Israel or any other group moving forward is not promoting the initiation of force anymore than if I promote US progressivism I am not promoting the execution of someone. I support the more progressive group and through competition and supplying superior choices I am all for the other group fading into history.

Does the fact that my views are vastly more moral and progressive than his mean that I can do whatever I want to him, even if it's immoral and illegal?

Yup ask that about antifa and BLM violence. Does being on some moral high ground (real or fake) justify the violence these groups have committed?

Lebanese life is worth 1/100th of an Israeli life has expressed a racist view.

That's nationalism not racism. Israeli is not a race, neither is Lebanese.

Yeah, Mr X, and technically a tomato is a fruit. You knew what I meant, and it doesn't make it any better.

"False argument. A strawman" is not an argument. I think perhaps you have an issue with thought experiments, though I can't see why

My position has never been that Antifa are great. My position has been that they're a bunch of dweebs who are no real threat to anyone.

"Supporting Israel or any other group moving forward..." is so vague I really don't know what point you were trying to make. We were talking about something very, very specific: the shelling of UN controlled hospitals under the spurious justification that a sniper might be hiding in one of them.

I would also, if you have a minute, look up the concept of "what-about-ism". It's a frequent refrain in your arguments.
"Hmm, maybe Israel shouldn't bomb civilian targets when there's vanishingly little military necessity behind it"
"Well what about BLM? People have been hurt in protests!"
"I uh... don't really know what those two things have to do with each other, also one of them is a country violating international law and the other is a loose association of millions of different people who can't really be reasonably held responsible for the actions of some of them"
"But Antifa is also bad! Checkmate."

[Femina]

When you play the "racist" card you cheapen the word. Its dishonest to label people who disagree as "racist". No one calls you a pedophile or rapist do they? islam is not a race, its a religious ideology and just like one can disagree with christianity, they can disagree with Islam.

Look, I get what you're saying here... but I think it's a little flippant to brush off '1 Israeli is worth 100 Lebanese' as being a dishonest racism tag. It's NOT dishonest to label a racist as racist if that's what they ARE... nor is it dishonest to label a racist sentiment racist even if the sentiment was misunderstood or presented improperly and thus textually indicative of something you didn't actually mean (Look I'm REALLY trying here to present Tallyho's statements in as polite a light as I POSSIBLY can) If it's not what they MEANT to say they can always come back later to express 'no wait, I didn't express my thought properly, THIS is what I meant.' and clear up such things in that case.

I agree with Rand's view on Israel. I side with the most progressive group in the region - Israel. By every measure of progressivism from women's rights to LGBT awareness to democracy Israel gets pretty much all green check marks down the score card. Women can vote. A woman ran the country. LGBT can walk the streets, have pride parades, openly serve in the military. The country turns a desert into an oasis. Safest place in that region if you're LGBT is Israel.

Yeah but like.... Ayn Rand also totally had the hots for a psychopathic serial killer so forgive me if I'm just a little bit suspicious of basically ANYTHING that she propagates... Nobody here is saying a Lebanese life is MORE IMPORTANT than an Isreali life afterall, and I basically agree that If it's a choice of living in Isreal or Palestine I know where I'd move too... but that wasn't the idea that was presented by which we've been responding too here (and I mean within the last half a page or so... not like... the totality of this topic thread which we've all acknowledged has bounced around a bit) Not saying 'hey the Palestinian or Lebanese way of living it up is just FANTASTIC!!!!' we're just saying that the attitude that butchering a bunch of innocent people of a race (or Religion) you don't like to kill 1 terrorist of that race (or Religion!) is like..... you know... a bad thing.

Sorry but there are some ideologies, be they Islam or christianity, that should fade away into the shadows of history where they belong. No self respecting progressive should ever side with an ultra ultra conservative religious theocracy that believes women are second class and LGBT should be thrown off roofs or beaten to death. You don't have to like Israel but you have to practice what you preach and not bully easy targets that won't fight back.

Right... Practice what we preach and not bully easy targets... so we're in agreement then? Nobody should be bombing hospitals full of innocent people for ANY REASON short of that hospital housing a world ending anti-mater explosive primed to be set off that might rip a hole in the time space continuum.

[Bert]

Well gee, the guy who said:

"The US flat out is not racially unjust unless you want to consider drowning blacks in welfare, encouraging single moms and treating blacks like special needs kids and promoting affirmative action."

Is defending the guy who said:

"So sorry 1 Israeli is more important than 100 Lebanese lives ."

Isn't that special.

I have repeatedly tried to dismiss these hateful, revolting posts as not worthy of response. Still, or perhaps because of, some well-meaning members have persisted in engaging these people with well thought out, reasoned posts. To those posters I ask a simple question: To what end? Anyone with a sound moral compass just reading along and not participating would have abandoned this thread long ago. That leaves only the two people posting this vile racist/xenophobic shit as an audience for the painstakingly crafted responses you are laboring over. You might as well be trying to explain selflessness to Donald Trump. Nothing you say is going to change the views of these hateful people. By engaging with them, you only offer further excuse for them to up the ante and spew more of their awfulness. Your kind and patient natures are being exploited to generate more hateful screeds. I'm asking you, in the spirit of friendship, to honestly and without ego examine your motivations for continuing this thread.

[Femina]

Well gee, the guy who said:

"The US flat out is not racially unjust unless you want to consider drowning blacks in welfare, encouraging single moms and treating blacks like special needs kids and promoting affirmative action."

Is defending the guy who said:

"So sorry 1 Israeli is more important than 100 Lebanese lives ."

Isn't that special.

I have repeatedly tried to dismiss these hateful, revolting posts as not worthy of response. Still, or perhaps because of, some well-meaning members have persisted in engaging these people with well thought out, reasoned posts. To those posters I ask a simple question: To what end? Anyone with a sound moral compass just reading along and not participating would have abandoned this thread long ago. That leaves only the two people posting this vile racist/xenophobic shit as an audience for the painstakingly crafted responses you are laboring over. You might as well be trying to explain selflessness to Donald Trump. Nothing you say is going to change the views of these hateful people. By engaging with them, you only offer further excuse for them to up the ante and spew more of their awfulness. Your kind and patient natures are being exploited to generate more hateful screeds. I'm asking you, in the spirit of friendship, to honestly and without ego examine your motivations for continuing this thread.

Whose Kind and patient and without ego? I got a person to express their hatred about as hair raisingly blunt as its possible to drudge up and it wasn't out of kindness, patience (nor sadly probably without ego) and here it will stay for all eternity where it can be pointed at, referenced and remembered for future debate...

Okay really it was just out of frustration that points weren't being responded to properly and then his comment must have spilled out... but still... There it is, for all the world to see, and better off for it than not to know?

[Dazzle1]

Well gee, the guy who said:

"The US flat out is not racially unjust unless you want to consider drowning blacks in welfare, encouraging single moms and treating blacks like special needs kids and promoting affirmative action."

Is defending the guy who said:

"So sorry 1 Israeli is more important than 100 Lebanese lives ."

Isn't that special.

I have repeatedly tried to dismiss these hateful, revolting posts as not worthy of response. Still, or perhaps because of, some well-meaning members have persisted in engaging these people with well thought out, reasoned posts. To those posters I ask a simple question: To what end? Anyone with a sound moral compass just reading along and not participating would have abandoned this thread long ago. That leaves only the two people posting this vile racist/xenophobic shit as an audience for the painstakingly crafted responses you are laboring over. You might as well be trying to explain selflessness to Donald Trump. Nothing you say is going to change the views of these hateful people. By engaging with them, you only offer further excuse for them to up the ante and spew more of their awfulness. Your kind and patient natures are being exploited to generate more hateful screeds. I'm asking you, in the spirit of friendship, to honestly and without ego examine your motivations for continuing this thread.

I am not posting xenophobic shit. The hate is coming from those spouting lies of systemic racism.

As far as my comment about an Israeli life being more important than 100 Lebanese, Israel is a peaceful nation, Lebanon knowingly harbors terrorist groups Maybe with the recent explosion they will become more civilized.
So yes an Israeli life is more important than an Islamist

[Damselbinder]

See how you just elided there from "Lebanese" to "Islamist" with absolutely no distinction?

That's what we're talking about.

[Dogfish]

Tried to read this thread and Fucking Hell. There are some messed up folks here.

I don't think I've ever read anything on a public forum as racist as that shit about the value of Israeli lives relative to Lebanese lives. That's some repulsive bullshit right there. Sort yourselves out.