Hundreds form human shield in Gaza to protect militant's house

[bemildred]

Hundreds of Palestinians formed a human shield around the home of a militant in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Lahia late Saturday to prevent an Israel Air Force air strike on the building, residents said.

---

People flocked to the home of Mohammed al-Baroud after he received a warning from the army late Saturday giving him 30 minutes to leave the house. Barhoud is a commander in the Popular Resistance Committees in the town who is in charge of firing homemade rockets at Israel. Crowds of people stood on the rooftop and in the yard of the home.

Israel routinely orders occupants out of homes ahead of airstrikes on suspected weapons-storage facilities, saying it wants to avoid casualties. The incident in Beit Lahiya was the first time Palestinians have tried to prevent such an airstrike.

The crowd chanted anti-Israel and anti-American slogans, and people said they were prepared to give their lives to protect the home. "Yes to martyrdom. No to surrender," the crowd chanted.

Haaretz

[UndertheOcean]

1. How desperate your live must be for you to willingly put yourself

in a missles path.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

4. They deserve to die?

[msmcghee]

5. Deserve to die?

That's a pretty philosophical question. Since philosophy is never based on anything concrete I doubt I could come up with an answer to that without a lot of thought.

Perhaps you are asking if I think Israel is justified in killing them in their attempt to kill or arrest the terrorist.

I'd say that's for Israel to decide. It's Israel's citizens who this person has killed and is dedicated to continue killing.

Generally, I'd say if Israel believes this person's continued freedom will likely result in more Israeli deaths - and the only practical way to end this person's freedom is to drop a bomb that would probably kill those civilians - and since those people are there of their own free will and have been duly warned - then I would not fault Israel for making that decision if there was no practical alternative.

I would note that the Israeli citizens who have died or been maimed from his rocket attacks were not given the choice or any warning by him before the rockets were fired in the past. Indeed, his purpose was to catch them off-guard and kill as many as possible.

Your usual underlying implication of some moral equivalency between the two actions is, as usual, disgusting.

[IntiRaymi]

7. You denial of moral equivalency is what is disgusting here.

Humans are created equal, both under the UN Charter, and under God.
Already the catholic church has fingered 'State Security' the be one of the biggest evils in this world.

[msmcghee]

8. Nice diversionary side jump.

We are not discussing the equal status of humans when they are born. We are discussing their status after having commited varous acts in life and being held morally responsible for those acts.

I recognize an important difference in life between those who attack others to get what they want - and those who defend themselves from those attacks.

That's a little more serious and defensible than your daft proposition that since everyone's born equal we can't actually assign fault to someone who chooses to kill others to get their way.

See, I take your posts seriously and what do I get. Do you have anything in your head except Palestinian talking points?

[IntiRaymi]

10. So Palestinians are inherently criminal?

Please explain yourself. I am getting confused here, because you only care about one class of persons.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. That's pretty mild compared to what they were saying about Palestinians yesterday...

n/t

[IntiRaymi]

16. Illuminate me.

I missed a few days of this enjoyable circus.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Here's a link to it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x154720#154910

[IntiRaymi]

21. Thanks for the link.

Nothing enables killing like racism. Psychological distance is everything.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

27. You misunderstand me . .

. . despite my repeated and detailed explanations. I think you're just flailing now.

I have no idea where you get that I am saying that Palestinians are inherently criminal.

What I said was that there is a vast moral difference between those who kill others to get their way - and those who kill in defense of those attacks.

I happen to think the former are cowards and bullies, the scum of the earth, who are responsible for most of the unnecessary death and destruction in the world. Dead babies and grandmothers, husbands and wives. I think much the same about those who support them from the side-lines and hold their jacket.

In this case, I believe that Israel is in the latter group. They are acting honorably in a situation that they'd rather avoid - but have no choice except to use violence to defend their lives.

In that first group I would place the Arab militants who are Israel's enemies.

[IntiRaymi]

28. I don't understand your reticence at qualifying Israel as a bully.

Perhaps my worldview is hopelessly skewed against those that are in possession of the means to abuse.
...
As an aside: I have stated a number of times that the IDF must protect its honor, if it is to remain a viable fighting force. This quality, that of being honorable, is not something it can award itself - it is bestowed upon it by the morality of its actions. This is a concept that cannot be quantified in a material way.
Overreacting is dishonorable. Making a semi-careless mistake, and killing 18 sleeping, defenseless palestinians is dishonorable in the extreme. This facet of the conflict between the Jewish state and its non-jewish subjects is what is capturing the imagination of the world, since people are very, very good at detecting BS when they see it.

[msmcghee]

29. Thanks for the rhetorically reasonable post.

I have to get away from the computer for a while. But look for my reply later.

[msmcghee]

43. Back at ya.

You: "I don't understand your reticence at qualifying Israel as a bully."

Yes, and I don't understand your's for seeing them as oppressors. It seems we have symmetrically opposite views with respect to Israel and her Arab Palestinian enemies.

The facts seem overwhelming to me - but I'm sure they do to you too.

For example, in your post you say, "Perhaps my worldview is hopelessly skewed against those that are in possession of the means to abuse."

I will admit, that pov seems totally amazing to me. I have known many good people in my life who had the means to abuse others - but who did not. In many cases I have seen these people stand up for weaker people who actually were being oppressed by bullies.

Yet, somehow your worldview is skewed against such people - not because they abuse others in fact - but because they "possess the means to abuse" others.

I must say that's probably one of the most unfair, bizzarre and morally repugnant statements I have ever seen. It's also the exact opposite of everything that I understand about a liberal philosophy. I have always associated bullies with the RW young Republican thugs who steal elections and intimidate black and elderly voters, who proposition congressional pages, who gerrymander congressional districts beyond all recognition and who call Democrats traitors for not sharing their lust for Iraqi blood.

But, back to your first statement. I know this won't make any difference to you but based on all the books I have read, and all the documentaries I have watched, and all the residents of the area I have spoken to personally - for the totality of the history of this conflict,

a) Israel has never attacked her enemies except in defensive operations and battles that the other side initiated

b) Israel's enemies have done nothing but attack Israel and force Israel to defend the lives of its citizens. It's in their fucking mission statement.

It's not even like there's any grey area. I can find no examples that would show Israel to be oppressors - zero in sixty years of armed conflict and thousands of confrontations. Not once did some Israeli leader say, "Let's go kill some Palestinians so we can have all the land."

OTOH Israel's enemies started in 1948 saying that their missiion and goal in life is to kill Jews until the last Jew was gone from Palestine - and are they still saying it to this day. They teach their five year-old kids that Jews have big noses and deserve to die like pigs.

But, even after all this is in the open and common knowledge - because Israel has the means to abuse - you choose to see them as the oppressors in the conflict.

When challenged, you say that when Israel goes into the territories to try to prevent Kassams or suicide bombers, that civilians get killed - and therefore Israel is the oppressor.

It seems to make no difference to you that Palestinian hatred if Jews is so great that there are many Palestinians who hide the militias and protect them and make it as difficult and as dangerous as possible for Israel to do that. And the civilians attack the IDF with small weapons and with rocks.

And because of all that some civilians do die - even though the number is very small compared to what it would be if Israel actually used their superior firepower to take out the militias. But like today, they often hold their fire and let them escape rather than kill more civilians.

And when civilins do die they apologize, they do investigations and they try to modify their operations so fewer civilians will die the next time.

Their enemies however, launch their rockets and their suicide attacks with the stated express purpose of killing innocent civilians and they celebrate when those attacks are successful.

And those are the people you choose to support in this conflict.

This violates all logic and reason to me. My only possible conclusion is that logic and reason has no effect on your opinion - that you must share the Palestinians' blind hatred of the Jews and also will not be happy until they are gone from Greater Palestine.

Why else would you justify their criminal actions against Israel?

Can you see why that's the only conclusion that makes sense to me?

If you can help me see any other reason why you choose to side with and support the criminals over the defenders from criminal attacks, please do so. What am I possibly missing?

Note that I have asked this before and I never get an answer that is even close to something that makes sense. If you choose to answer this please ask yourself if the answer you are providing would seem reasonable or even compelling to an impartial third party.

[IntiRaymi]

45. I will point out one falsehood in your overlong post:

a) Israel has never attacked her enemies except in defensive operations and battles that the other side initiated

What about Lebanon? Never forget Lebanon.
What about the never ending 'targeted killings'?

The 'GOI' is in possession of the sources of abuse, and it is definitely doing the abusing. With catastrophic consequences.

...

Stop repeating propaganda, and face the reality of those that surround Israel.

[msmcghee]

48. I don't think you are trying very hard to make a case.

What about Lebanon? Hisb'allah attacked Israel. You can claim that Israel's tactics were heavy handed - but that doesn't make them the oppressor. That makes them inept generals who made some bad decisions perhaps - while they were defending Israel from an ongoing attack of thousands of rockets lasting several weeks.

No matter what Israel did - it was done to stop an ongoing attack and it was therefore defensive by definition. Israeli operations started the moment they were attacked and ended the moment the rockets stopped flying.

What about the never ending 'targeted killings'? Just the name "targeted killings" means that Israel was trying to kill specific targets - targets that were responsible for the ongoing attacks against Israel. That makes "targetted killings" defensive in nature. That's why the Kassams are not considered "targetted" except in the sense of loose aiming to kill as many Jews as possible.

Your examples in no way show how either Lebanon or "targetted killings were not defensive - in fact they are very good examples that prove the opposite.

You certainly did not make a case that would impress an unintersted third party IMO. Can you provide better justification than that?

BTW - I express anger in my posts sometimes. It is not caused because of your beliefs. It is caused when you say excessive personally sarcastic things in your posts. Like your mention of my "overlong post".

Was that necessary? I spent 45 minutes writing that post and making sure that I expressed my thoughts as competely as possible for you. That was to give you the best opportunity to refute my statements and explain your position in opposition to mine. I did it because I hoped that we could come to a better understanding of each others' position.

[IntiRaymi]

49. If I wanted to make a strong case, it wouldn't be difficult.

But, I am busy doing things. Like things that pay my bills.
What about Lebanon, indeed. A militia kidnaps a couple of soldiers, and an entire nation - which was barely recovering from a past Israeli occupation, goes up in flames. Include, to that, the long litany of war crimes that could be listed here, ad nauseam, committed by your politically motivated Olmert adventurism.
....

This is another reason I prefer to not engage all the time: I am too busy to get lost in silly arguments over semantics that, in the end, miss the point entirely. But some of you are coming around.

[msmcghee]

53. Your moment of truth just came and left my friend.

From the several hours a week you have spent in I/P over the last few months you'd think by now you'd be able to lay out a simple coherent justification for your views in a couple of short paragraphs.

But, when your moment of truth arrived, I guess it was just easier to keep yelling "war-criminals" and hope some more simple-minded fools join you.

[IntiRaymi]

55. Your assertions have me rolling on the floor, full of mirth!

[sabbat hunter]

86. hizbollah

was sending rockets into israel and went across israeli lines to capture soldiers. soldiers that we dont know if are alive or dead and are still illegally held by an illegal force.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

12. Completely agreed. They DO NOT deserve to die.

That was my point.

[Rage for Order]

35. That's a ludicrous statement

"Nobody derservs to die."

Hitler? Pol Pot? Stalin? Ted Bundy? Jeffrey Dahmer? Nobody deserves to die?

[IntiRaymi]

37. Absurdist appeal to the extreme. nt

[Rage for Order]

39. Yes, but so was the other post

To say that nobody deserves to die is just as absurd. Had the poster said "Those people don't deserve to die" then it would've been more accurate.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Who's supporting and glorifying suicide?

Those who are trying to protect a militants house from being destroyed? You do realise that the destruction of homes like this is illegal?

[eyl]

61. If the house

is being used as a weapons storage facility, how is its destruction illegal?

[Englander]

62. Hilarious. n/t

[eyl]

65. Care to answer the question? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

72. Where's the proof it's being used as a weapons storage facility?

If it were legal to demolish homes solely on the basis of Israel 'suspecting' there were weapons in it, that'd be a convenient justification for any home demolitions. Apart from the moral and legal problems associated with the destruction of peoples homes, what would be the purpose of destroying a home that did contain weapons? Assuming that the purpose is to destroy the weapons, those weapons would have been moved the second news got out that the house was to be destroyed....

[eyl]

82. My repsonse is in several points (in no particular order)

1) first of all, I was assuming that in my question. It seems to me that the general gist of the comments are saying that even if the building was used for weapons storage, it would be illegal to destroy it. Why?

2) Regarding moving the weapons, it depends on the type. If it's just a few AK47s, you're right. If it's more or heavier stuff (likely, since there wouldn't be much point bombing it otherwise), you wouldn't be able to move much in 30 minutes (nor would you be able to move it unobtrusively, and presumably the strike would then go in immediately).

3) As far as proof goes, you're correct. You're stuck taking the IDF's word for it. The problem is, that will almost always be the case. Weapons caches don't have convenient signs on them, and military intelligence (in any war, much less a conflict such as this one) rarely meet the standards of evidence which would be acceptable in court (nor, should I point out, is Israel under any obligation, by any law I know, to make such proof public).

[bemildred]

6. "Non-violent resistance" is a better description.

The "human shield" usage implies some sort of coercion or involuntariness about it.

[Englander]

64. Or an 'act of defiance'.

Or 'solidarity'.

[William769]

2. If Israel has proof

Bomb the house. If a person willingly wants to be a human shield, then so be it.

[IntiRaymi]

15. This is the problem

Callousness.

[bj40761]

20. If israel say so than i guess it's ok to kill civilians.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bj40761]

23. maybe you should go out and get a play station.

[William769]

24. Don't like play stations.

Maybe you shouldn't take my words out of context either. I didn't say "If israel say so" I said " If Israel has proof". There is a difference.

[bj40761]

25. let's see the proof before they bomb.

[IntiRaymi]

26. "Israel has proof" is indistinguishable from arbitrary.

He did not take your words out of context. You just failed to understand the subtleties of your own sentences.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

36. About Reagan's quote:

In 1966, he was elected the 33rd Governor of California, defeating two-term Pat Brown; he was re-elected in 1970, defeating Jesse Unruh, but chose not to seek a third term. Ronald Reagan was sworn in as governor of California on January 3, 1967. In his first term, he froze government hiring but also approved tax hikes to balance the budget. Reagan quickly controlled protest movements of the era. During the People's Park protests in 1969, he sent 2,200 state National Guard troops onto the Berkeley campus of the University of California. In a speech in April 1970, he stated, "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer."

....


This is UC-Berkeley students he is talking about - the best, the brightest, and some of the most vociferous. And no wonder we hate that Repuke here.

[On the Road]

41. Anyone Who Would Separate Those Who Should be

slaughtered from those who should be spared on the basis of personal value (being "the best and the brightest" versus being terrorists) is not fit to make policy. The Berkeley students had infinitely less reason to protest.

[IntiRaymi]

44. The left's protests of the war in Viet Nam led to the end of that war.

[Igel]

14. They know human shields like this are effective.

It worked last time, allowing the brave Palestinian warriors to shield those under their protection, obviously the weaker sex, from the nasty Israelis.

Since it worked, it's a proven technology.

As Jean-Luc Picard would say, "Raise shields!"

Last time the men--once protected--demonstrated their ability to use cloaking devices, too. More proven technology.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. So you think it's okay for Israel to destroy houses?

I don't. I fail to see how it achieves anything at all...

[IntiRaymi]

18. This is obviously a joke to you.

How about another weapons malfunction, killing sleeping and women children, from safe distances?

You realize that to do this, is to perform an act of bravery that few IDF could muster, especially against Hezbollah?

[pelsar]

57. I forgot..you back hizballas attacking israeli children....

since hizballa targeted israeli civilians, outside of providing a richer target environment for Hizballa, how would lsraeli "human shields" do anything?

[IntiRaymi]

66. No I don't.

I was attacking your lack of perspective.

[bemildred]

30. You called it last time, IIRC, when the women were shot.

And you are right, it is effective. Perhaps more as propaganda or public relations than as protection, but maybe as protection too. In any case it gums up the works of the machine and creates a considerable dilemma. Now that the cat is out of the bag, we may well see more of it.

[IntiRaymi]

31. It is effective BECAUSE it is good PR.

And ask yourself why it is good p.r., and you will have an insight into this situation.
In related news, British politician accuses the internet of creating a rift between the public, and the leaders.

[bemildred]

32. True. Disrupts the message, doesn't it? nt

[bemildred]

33. Haaretz scroll is saying the strike has been cancelled. nt

[UndertheOcean]

38. Great!

n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Protecting terrorists.

This is disgusting.

[IntiRaymi]

46. Right.

We should haul Sharon & Bush and the rest of the gang to The Hague.

[Behind the Aegis]

50. So one sided.

Only one group of terrorists in your mind, huh?

[IntiRaymi]

51. Well, feel free to add some well deserving lunatic to that short list.

[Behind the Aegis]

52. There are plenty, some hold office in the PA.

You willing to see them hauled off as well?

[IntiRaymi]

54. Of course!

Why wouldn't they?

I could really care less about the putrid leadership, on both sides.

[pelsar]

42. so whats the next step?.....

two things come to mine: the irony if israelis would gather in sederot to protest the kassams......wouldnt the jihadnikim love it as they shoot off their vollys at a "rich taget"

but far more interesting:

if the rocket shooters now surround themselves with women and kids while they shoot in their attempts to kill israelis......any suggestions for the israelis other than let themselves be terrorized and killed?

is this a hypothetical situation or a peek at the future?

[IntiRaymi]

47. Give me a break.

How many israelis have died as a consequence of your famous Qassams?
....?
Ok, next:
How many palestinians have died as a consequence of israeli mistakes / retaliatory strikes?

If the idea is in fact to stop terrorism, then why do the terrorized palestinians have no recourse?

[pelsar]

56. Guilty as charged.....

because we now protect ourselves....keept the kassam killers from aiming properly, from correcting their aim.....were now guilty of not getting enough israelis killed.

just for the record, we killed more arabs in 48 as well

we killed more syrians, egyptians and jordanians in 67

and we killed more egyptians and syrians in 73

and in lebanon, more PLO members/Hizballa

and i believe the US killed more germans and japanese then US soldiers and civilians were killed.
____________

the terrorized Palestinians have the best recourse possible....just stop trying to kill israelis, there present course of action hasnt proved to successful, has it?
remind me...why are they shooting kassams again?


why have the egyptians, jordanians and syrians learned that not trying to kill israelis makes for quiet and secure borders?.....can you answer that one?


actually i do understand: many prefer the jew of past, who put his head down and hoped that they wouldnt cut off his head, the change is hard for some.....they'll get used to it, eventually

[IntiRaymi]

58. There is a difference there.

All palestinians are not soldiers, yet you are comparing this current situation with that one.
Collective punishment is not cool.

[pelsar]

59. i cant tell the difference..

i realize that some palestenains are doing the shooting, manufacturing the rockets, importing the materials, driving the trucks and others are not involved......except it pretty difficult to descern between the two.

perhaps you could help us out here and tell us how to figure out who is who?

and do you have any kind of muntions that "dont hit bystanders" that work perfect everytime......cause we dont

and i guess you didnt see the question near the bottom of my post....try to go back and see if you can answer it?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

67. No, he is not making that comparison

He is stating the fact that the combined losses of US & UK civilians and soldiers was much, much less than that either the Japanese or the Germans that they inflicted. Germany and her allies suffered much fewer losses than the Soviet Union with the disparity only closed when the Soviet Union finally moved the war from Eastern Europe onto the Axis proper.

In this case Israel has done something similar in leveraging its military strength to keep the conflict essentially outside of the 1967 border. There is no sin for doing so and Israel would be faulted for not doing so as war when properly executed is a coward's art where the goal is one of self-preservation.

"Soldiering, my dear madam, is the coward's art of attacking mercilessly when you are strong, and keeping out of harm's way when you are weak. That is the whole secret of successful fighting. Get your enemy at a disadvantage; and never, on any account, fight him on equal terms."

George Bernard Shaw - Arms and the Man


However, Sun Tzu's adage that the use of violence, represents a failure of politics is correct and is true in the actions of all sides. The real question is what failures have happened on both sides to cause this situation.

L-

[IntiRaymi]

68. You are painting a manichean view of things.

There is no 'Good' and there is no 'Evil' in these things.
The allies committed atrocities that went unpunished for no reason other than the fact that they were victorious. Consider the firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo, as well as the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are both monuments to the evils of modern warfare - as well as to the effectiveness of State propaganda.
...
You seem so proud that Israel is able to bully its way through a Gaza slum - how can you possibly compare that to General MacArthur's Island hopping strategy? Or General Chuikov's march to Berlin? Or Patton's sweep through France?
...
Or how about the the IDF's glorious push towards the Litani?

[pelsar]

69. you have confused "glory" with necessity....

there is no glory in war....thats stuff is made up to sucker the young and innocent...and to make those who lost something feel better. War is full of atrocities, thats its definition.....and where the line is between "permissable atrocties and those that are not permissable.....can get pretty fuzzy at times.

[IntiRaymi]

70. Aha! You caught the sarcasm in my post!

But, you failed to go the next step:

"There is no sin for doing so and Israel would be faulted for not doing so as war when properly executed is a coward's art where the goal is one of self-preservation."

Delete what is in bold, and replace "response to societal paranoia." Because, you see, Hezbollah had nothing to do with northern Lebanon - yet Northern Lebanon saw quite a bit of ordnance.

P.S. There is glory in war. History decides this. Israel's wars have been progressively less and less glorious, as time has marched.

[pelsar]

71. guess my own eyes were lying to me....

"Hezbollah had nothing to do with northern Lebanon"......some of us have been in Lebanon (not this last war)....have watched Hizballa, have been briefed on what might happen ( and happened....)

historical facts are just that...facts. Some are even agreed to by both sides of the conflict...as in hizballas crossing the border killing some soldiers and taking two back across in to lebanon...as well as their declared intention and actions to send missles into israeli cities to kill anybody they can.

true some people back Hizballas actions here at the DU, but they've never been able to explain why they back targeting children and other innocents.


P.S. There is glory in war.....try asking someone whos been, they might explain some interesting facts to you.....

[IntiRaymi]

73. Let's not get into the particulars of what you have seen in Lebanon.

Whatever it was, you were the agressor, and they were the victims. You were there, part of an invasion force, and they were defending their homeland.
Do not lose sight of that.
Hizbollah, as vilified as it may be, is a result of this. In certain circles it is called 'blowback.'
And, once again - if you accuse me of backing the supposed targeting of children and innocents by Hizbollah, you would also have to ask yourself:

Are israeli innocents the only ones that matter to you?

I am going to assume you will answer YES to that question. And if you do, the preemptive thought I have is this: You have stepped outside the bounds of decency in doing so.

[msmcghee]

74. Did you forget your "moment of truth" so quickly . .

. . in post #57 above?

We had a nice discussion yesterday where you were going to show us logically, once and for all, why Israel is the aggressor in this 60 year dispute and the Palestinians are the defenders of their homes from that aggression.

Reading back over that subthread it looks like you completely failed to prove that point just a few hours ago when you were given every opportunity by me to do so. I virtually begged you for even one piece of convincing evidence to support your claims.

If you recall, in that humiliating but revealing series of posts - you finally retreated in defeat - with the lame excuse that you just didn't have the time to actually prove your point. You had "better things to do".

But, here you are, a few hours later, making the same bogus claims.

I will limit myself to simply pointing out your blatant disregard for honesty in debate - and the obvious fact that you have no interest in the truth or provability of your assertions - even when they slander others.

This seems so eerily similar to the tactics used by the criminals and thugs you continue you defend in your posts. Just keep spreading lies - and eventually some simple-minded fools will believe you.

[IntiRaymi]

75. Oh, but I was addressing a very specific situation.

Try and stay on topic.

[msmcghee]

76. No weasel room for you here, I'm afraid.

Your words in #67 were, "You seem so proud that Israel is able to bully its way through a Gaza slum - how can you possibly compare that to General MacArthur's Island hopping strategy? Or General Chuikov's march to Berlin? Or Patton's sweep through France? ... Or how about the the IDF's glorious push towards the Litani?"

Another comment in #70: "P.S. There is glory in war. History decides this. Israel's wars have been progressively less and less glorious, as time has marched."

You see, the subthread topic you are pursuing is the general nature of the conflict - and your favorite assertion - that Israel are the bullies, in this case mentioning both Lebanon and Gaza.

Want to dig a little deeper?

[IntiRaymi]

78. You are interested in obfuscating obvious facts.

And, I am not debating.
And you want to know why?
Because of the 1 way street in these matters. If not callousness and arrogance, it is insinuations of this or that. Not interested in reasoning with that kind of stonewalling.

We can go around in circles if you want to.

[msmcghee]

80. Words have consequences. If you are going use words . .

. . that hurt and slander others publicly expect to be challenged.

If you can't reasonably defend your words expect to be seen as a fraud.

You accepted my challenge to logically show that Israel was the aggressor in this conflict and that her Arab enemies were the defenders of their homes against Israeli aggression. I gave you every opportunity and you failed.

The way I see it is this, you can stop saying or implying that Israel is the oppressor of her Arab enemies as almost all your posts claim . .

Or, everytime you do, get used to me answering your post with a reminder that you were given the opportunity to prove that premise but failed miserably and that therefore you are not interested in an honest debate - just slandering Israel.

I don't have any desire to change your opinions. It's just the public flaunting of fraudulent claims that bothers me.

It's your choice.

Added on edit: Then again, you could always come up with some actual evidence to support you words. I'm always open to discussion. And it doesn't have to be a slam-dunk total proof kind of thing - I'm willing to accept any reasonable doubt - grey areas, etc. But you were not even able to show those.

[IntiRaymi]

92. Words do, in fact have consequences.

I choose to focus on racism.

[msmcghee]

93. Racism is a value packed word . .

. . worthy of everyone's focus IMO.

Words that are used to unjustly slander others are the particular kinds of words that I am interested in holding people accountable for.

[IntiRaymi]

94. Yes it is.

But, before we can advance, we need to name things by their proper name. No sense in pretending.

[msmcghee]

95. Explain yourself. Are you saying that I am pretending?

You know that I will make you stand behind your statements so you might as well say what you're thinking in your posts and not make me pry it out. If you have the courage of your convictions that should be no problem.

I see almost no attempt in your posts to engage ideas - but plenty of effort to score some points for ideas you'd rather not defend.

If you want to engage me on this - be prepared to think and state things clearly. Otherwise, don't waste my time.

[IntiRaymi]

96. It is a simple thing, my friend.

If you are callous in your disregard for palestinian quality of life, or their life, period, then we can apply that label. If you analyze my posts, I am certain that you will find that this is what has triggered the labelling.
The forum's rules prevent me from laying into some of you to the degree that I sometimes feel. And you want to debate silly legalisms in the face of the present day situation in Gaza?
I don't think so. The problem is not in Gaza.

[msmcghee]

97. If I understand you, you are saying that . .

. . I am callous in my disregard for Palestinian quality of life and life, period - and that therefore I am a racist.

Aside from the fact that it is against the rules to label someone as a racist - and I have had posts deleted that were far less blatant than this one, you have made another post that has no basis in fact.

You don't like the conclusions I have drawn about the I/P conflict and therefore you call me a racist. This is typical of your tactics here. You offer no evidence - just another toxic loaded opinion designed to score points for your side. And now I am defending myself against your charge of racism when instead we could be discussing something important.

I'll just note that I have stated before that while I recognize characteristics of Arab culture that I believe are significant causes of the ongoing conflict in the region - I am certain that any child born of Arab parents but raised in a different environment would take on all the characteristics of their non-Arab culture. I don't believe there are any Arab genes for violence or hatred of Jews or ideological fervor or things like that.

You are welcome to produce any statement of mine to the contrary.

[Violet_Crumble]

113. There's a difference between racism and bigotry...

For example, a statement labelling the vast majority of Palestinians as monsters is a bigoted comment, not a racist comment....

[msmcghee]

98. So, I'm still waiting for those quotes . .

. . where I show my racism. Or is this just another lie and slander from a pathetic keyboard warrior who has absolutely no ability to defend their shameless accusations.

[IntiRaymi]

100. Do you want me to keep records?

I am only telling you what I think: If you state these things, then it is automatic - I don't define it, since these things are well understood, in the community at large. For instance, when the assumption here is that palestinians are purposefully playing the victims, for the simple reason that they want Israel to look bad, that is racism. Or when you ignore blatant human rights abuses perpetrated by Israel, that is racism - since some here have announced that there is a 'pecking order' in how they regard human suffering.
Or, to look at it a different way: You cannot support a lopsided conflict, such as the one that happens between Israel and Palestine, without a kernel of this in people's minds. Otherwise you would become a pacifist - easy target for the other side (And notice that I never said that Palestinians were incapable of being racist). I am just surprised that some in here have assumed that because this is america, it is a given that we are to hate islam, or to give blind support for Israel.
Like I said: Cannot arrive at a conclusion if you cannot name a thing what it really is. The rules of the message board are there to keep things civil, which is a good thing. However, that should not keep me, nor you, from being able to phrase things appropriately.
...
And I refuse to keep records.

[msmcghee]

102. No-one has asked you to keep records.

That's just another weasel move to avoid backing up your assertions.

This forum holds a record of every word I have ever written here. All you have to do is search through it and find some evidence for your absurd accusations.

[IntiRaymi]

103. Can't search the site:

"Error: You must be a donor to use the search function."

You must donate to be able to access the search engine. Since I have not donated, I cannot search. Have you donated?
If you have, do me the courtesy of doing my search for me. Otherwise, I suppose, I'll remain a weasel - in your mind.

[msmcghee]

104. Cripes. For the amount of time you spend on this forum . .

. . you'd hink you could spare 10 bucks? I mean, you're getting a tremendous meme spreading service for free here.

But if that's a problem for you . . then, I suggest you don't claim that I am racist based on what I have said here - if you are not prepared to back it up with some evidence. People who do that are just abject cowards and liars.

[IntiRaymi]

105. We all spend plenty of time here.

I work on computers. This is a distraction.
Have you donated?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

107. deleted.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

83. personal experience is "now discounted?"

Let's not get into the particulars of what you have seen in Lebanon....why not?....ones experience is usually considered a positive thing in understanding an environment.

and to answer your question: no, israeli civilians and military personal are not the only ones that matter. I admit to a "pecking order of caring" the same one that one will find within the palestenains, in reverse, the same most citizens at war have and the ones all combatents have.

but perhaps you would like to make it clear in simple english: why is it that hizballa crossed the international border, killed israeli soldiers and took two back to lebanon with them?

lets start with the simplist of questions, not difficult to answer, nor difficult to avoid....which shall you chose?

[IntiRaymi]

90. Or you could clarify this first:

Why is that wall in the West Bank crossing an internationally agreed upon border?

Don't let that pecking order interfere with your answer!

[pelsar]

99. course i can....

to begin with, the 67 border is nothing more than cease fire lines, between jordan and israel........secondly much of the wall is designed to protect israeli citizens....many of whom live in the westbank.

and finally gaza and lebanon made it very clear, that borders (intl or not) are not the problem.

_____________________________
btw you never did explain why hizballa crossed the intl border killed some israelis and took two back across the border....still waiting patiently

[IntiRaymi]

101. So that is it then.

With that mindset, it is no wonder that the region is so...screwed up.

[pelsar]

110. its called inability to communicate....

thats the source of much of todays trouble....its usually begins when one asks for more information or clariifcation and the other cant/wont/doesnt know how.......

and consequently shows lack of tolerence for the other......thats why the region is screwed up.

[IntiRaymi]

116. Sometimes it is beyond inability to communicate.

The deepest one is purely aesthetic:
White vs. Brown
Black vs. Brown
White vs. Black
etc.
Tribalism are our roots, and it will take either a small evolutionary leap to transcend it.
I think I'll do my part, and marry a hot black girl. Or a chinese one. Or whatever.

[pelsar]

117. on that note....

for me to "transcend tribalism" it would mean going for the blond, blue eyed "babe"...which in the interest of intl culture and relations i am willing to do....

[Lithos]

77. ???

The Manichaen viewpoint is one of a complicated battle between good and bad. I'm afraid I subscribe to no such belief, particularly when it comes to war. And no such viewpoint is apparent in my post.

Are you perhaps confused the post came from someone else?

L-

[IntiRaymi]

79. Alright.

I made some word associations that were not necessarily there. What I sensed was that you were interested in justifying the goodness of Israeli military response by analogizing it to the allied actions during WW2.
As for it being a 'coward's art,' I don't think George Bernard Shaw was a military strategist. But I understand the point he is trying to make, since the understanding is that units do not fight for duty/honor/country, but that they fight literally for their lives, which is a tremendously motivating bottom line. The whole idea behind command is in maneuvering YOUR unit into a situation where it has no choice but to fight.
On the other hand, and I have mentioned this in the past, war is waged at many levels, and a simple shooting incident is probably the lowest of those levels. You quoted Sun Tzu, but I could quote Jomini, as well as von Clausewitz on these matters: War is diplomacy by other means.
Israel is probably effective at the lower levels, but it has fixed its star to the vagaries of american politics, which is a weakness it has - and I sense that to change this state of things, it would have to start winning the diplomatic situation with its immediate neighbors. And this is why Gaza is so important: It is a huge blistering sore on the face of Israel's image to the world.

[Lithos]

81. There is no goodness or evil in war itself

It is just a state of pure destruction. The people who lead and participate may be evil or they may be good. That is a discussion that is case by case.

Both Jomini and Clausewitz spent most of their time talking about the strategic (I think Jomini used the term "Grand Tactical") application of war, with little discussion about war from the individual soldier's perspective. Even so, while Clausewitz is extremely wordy, the gist of his thinking from the actual mechanics of war are the preservation of one's strength (fluid defense) and the maximization of damage to the enemy through concentration of power (friction) are in line with Shaw's remark. But I would argue that Patton's line about "not dying for your country, but rather making the other bastard die for his country" is the equivalent.

Personally, I do not understand what appears to be a singular use of Israel's military in Gaza without a parallel diplomatic and social effort as a pure military effort cannot be won. Tactically I think the IDF is doing as good as they can; but going back to the golden hammer idea they are often being completely misapplied; the complex situations the recruits are facing are well beyond the skills taught to most service men and resemble those given to Delta units and SWAT teams.

[IntiRaymi]

87. Precisely, re. misapplication of force in Gaza.

Although I am not familiar with the content of the training that infantry soldiers get in the IDF, I am going to *guess* and say that it is not about SWAT or Delta tactics.

On the idea of Friction: I thought that 'friction' was Clausewitz's word for the series of factors that prevent a battle plan of some sort from being implemented. Murphy's Law, if you will.

[msmcghee]

91. I have been thinking about your . .

. . statement that "There is no goodness or evil in war itself. It is just a state of pure destruction. The people who lead and participate may be evil or they may be good. That is a discussion that is case by case."

You have made similar statements that seem to separate the idea of morality from war-making - as if it happens for obscure reasons and no one side or party is ever to blame for all the death and destruction that results. Even in this statement you seem to separate any good or evil in the actors - from their acts.

As you know, I hold a different view. I accept that in some special cases, like perhaps when two groups are expanding into a new unoccupied territory, a violent conflict between them could be seen as more of a situational war where neither is actually at fault in any moral sense. But in this modern age when most national boundaries in the world are well established and international bodies are available for airing grievances, I believe war is almost always caused by bad people attempting to take with force what they can't get get through negotiation. I think that war is almost always just a mugging with a lot of weapons.

I'd be interested to know why you hold the opposite position (if I interpreted it correctly) or I'd appreciate a clarification if I did not - as I'd like to better understand this view.

[Lithos]

109. I think we are fairly close, but using different language

I think too much effort has been made to create a positive spin on War. War in its basic definition (1), which is what I'm going to talk about, is a disease much like other diseases such as Famine, Pestilence and Death. And like them it is an antithesis of morality.

Morality attempts to define rules of conduct; there are no rules in war. Morality distinguishes between good and bad, war like an out of control forest fire equally consumes the good and the bad. Morality attempts to create a meaningful order, war is chaos. Morality is an expression of humanity; war is an expression of inhumanity. Morality has a conscious, War has no conscious. Morality has changed throughout time, war has not. War like any destructive force has no morality and thus is amoral.

Unlike forest fires or bacterial contagium, war is a pure function of man in that it represents man's ability to destroy himself by harnassing the destructive powers of the universe upon himself. It is only when you judge the man, their motivation for bringing about and going to war and the actions (and inactions) they take while at war can any determination of morality be made.

This is why I say the actors and their actions are more important.

The vast majority of men who fought in WWII were good men who felt they were defending their own homes. For the most part a man going to war to defend home and hearth is generally viewed as being morally superior to the man who fights for conquest, an act which is viewed with general contempt here in the US. This is why much of the question w/r to Iraq falls back to Bush's motivations for lying to the US public to further his administration's personal agenda (PNAC, Halliburton, oil, vendetta, etc.) and in allowing this naked ambition to serve as a foil for Bin Laden's own ambitions to take out Sada'am.




(1) As opposed to the corrupted definitions now used in such expressions as "War on Poverty", "War on Drugs", etc.

On Edit: Flipped paragraphs.

[msmcghee]

111. Thanks for your post. I've read it twice.

My first impression was that it is too full of metaphors and terms that have expansive meanings to allow much meaningful discussion.

One sentence of some substance did stick out however, that seems relevant to the topic we seem to be flogging.

"For the most part a man going to war to defend home and hearth is generally viewed as being morally superior to the man who fights for conquest, an act which is viewed with general contempt here in the US."

Hmmm. I would have simply said, "A man going to war to defend his family and nation from attack is acting morally. A man who goes to war to attack another and not in defense is acting immorally."

I notice that you placed the concept into the passive context of " . . is viewed as morally superior . . " - instead of in the active voice. Are you hesitant to take a personal stand on this for some reason? From your statement I don't know where you stand.

But, back to my version of your statement, I could even go further and state that,

. . a man who fails to defend his family and nation when they are attacked is acting immorally.

. . a man who refuses to attack another nation not in defense of his own is acting morally.

So, I agree with you that morality is derived from a person's actions in a particular context. Morality is a human invention. We create it to increase happiness and peaceful order among people.

I'm human and I greatly value happiness over unhappiness. A also value the happines of others in the world. That's why I tend to be on the liberal side of most questions. And that's why these things are important to me.

The morality of war, as we are discussing it here, seems to be one of the most important instances of morality to consider - since so much benign happiness is created when it is avoided - and so much vast and terrible unhappiness is created when it is not.

For that reason, I have come to the conclusion that the single most important moral rule to observe, the one rule that if followed would create the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number of people in the world, is that one should never attack another to get what you want. All transactions between people (or nations) should be carried out according to the rule of just law and on the basis of mutual agreement - and not force, intimidation or deceit.

Agreeing with your assertion that war itself is amoral and that morality is an attribute of human behavior in context, I arrive at the conclusion that those who start wars to get what they want are extremely immoral. Those who defend against such wars of opportunity are extremely moral.

It's late and I've had a long day. I'll give you a chance to think about this. Let me know when you get a chance if I'm out into an area that you think is not relevant - or if you think I'm wrong about my views on morality if you think it is relevant.

And we'll go from there - assuming you're game.

[Lithos]

112. LOL

My first impression was that it is too full of metaphors and terms that have expansive meanings to allow much meaningful discussion.

The request was vague as well. Books could have been written, etc. Insert favorite metaphor. I opted for a general statement as I was not sure where you were intending to go.

I notice that you placed the concept into the passive context of " . . is viewed as morally superior . . " - instead of in the active voice. Are you hesitant to take a personal stand on this for some reason? From your statement I don't know where you stand.

I wouldn't read too much into it. There was a certain distaste in how some have sold this line to people when no actual threat existed. Herman Goering's quote about why a farmer would go to war, the class oriented of patriotism in WWI, etc.

Agreeing with your assertion that war itself is amoral and that morality is an attribute of human behavior in context, I arrive at the conclusion that those who start wars to get what they want are extremely immoral. Those who defend against such wars of opportunity are extremely moral.

I disagree here. Context is important. It would be easy to claim the US was founded by immoral people though one might consider that an unintended truism. I purposefully used the word disease as there are times War might be used when there is no other alternative to fix a greater wrong. The Declaration of Independence was careful to lay this case out.

For that reason, I have come to the conclusion that the single most important moral rule to observe, the one rule that if followed would create the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number of people in the world, is that one should never attack another to get what you want. All transactions between people (or nations) should be carried out according to the rule of just law and on the basis of mutual agreement - and not force, intimidation or deceit.

There are many ways to happiness. I'm not going to be the judge of any of them as they all tend to link such a notion to compassion all of which work for me. One example:

How to achieve happiness

For a start, it is possible to divide every kind of happiness and suffering into two main categories: mental and physical. Of the two, it is the mind that exerts the greatest influence on most of us. Unless we are either gravely ill or deprived of basic necessities, our physical condition plays a secondary role in life. If the body is content, we virtually ignore it. The mind, however, registers every event, no matter how small. Hence, we should devote our most serious efforts to bringing about mental peace.

From my own limited experience, I have found that the greatest degree of inner tranquility comes from the development of love and compassion.

The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater our own sense of well-being becomes. Cultivating a close, warm-hearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. This helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the ultimate source of success in life.

As long as we live in this world, we are bound to encounter problems. If, at such times, we lose hope and become discouraged, we diminish our ability to face difficulties. If, on the other hand, we remember that it is not just ourselves, but everyone who has to undergo suffering, this more realistic perspective will increase our determination and capacity to overcome troubles. Indeed, with this attitude, each new obstacle can be seen as yet another valuable opportunity to improve our mind!

Thus, we can strive gradually to become more compassionate, that is, we can develop both genuine sympathy for others' suffering, and the will to help remove their pain. As a result, our own serenity and inner strength will increase.

-- More --

This is echoed in many places in many world religions. One comment, the word and thought I've seen paired most often associated or paired with compassion is empathy which is part of why I used the word empathy in my previous comments.

At this point, I do think this has wandered way off target now. This forum is not really appropriate to talk about your morality or for wild guesses at my own morality. It's been fun, but I think now off-topic. Ich and Du dialogues really belong in a metaphysical forum, not here.

[msmcghee]

115. Yes, it has wandered off topic, despite my attempts . .

. . to bring it back to the topic of the morality of war. That's what I said interested me in your first post in this sub-thread when I asked for your thoughts on that. The title of your post was "There is no goodness or evil in war itself".

I wasn't interested in disease metaphors like "Famine, Pestilence and Death" which you brought in. I wasn't interested in the discussion of how compassion and empathy relate to happiness.

That's why I kept trying to direct the discussion back to the morality of war by taking the one truly on-topic sentence in your post and following it and commenting on it.

Also, by starting your reply with LOL it seems you think I was trying to trap you in some logical fallacy and you replied antagonistically. This format is terribly weak in conveying such state-of-mind information - but I assure you I was just discussing ideas and you had not even said anything that I actually disagreed with. I was just trying to get specific about the topic.

Is the morality of war off-topic for I/P in your opinion? I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of posts have been submitted to this forum - but I do know that every one of them is an opinion that rests squarely on that person's underlying beliefs - whether they acknowledge them or not - regarding the questions of morality posed by this violent conflict. This is probably the single most on-topic discussion that has ever been started in this forum. And it is probably the only topic that could ever possibly cause someone here to change their mind about the conflict.

Yet, only one side in this forum wants to discuss those moral questions. When we try to pin one of you down there's always some excuse to avoid answering them. You've got better things to, or you don't have time right now, or you don't like our "attitude" - or in this case, you're the moderator and have decided that the morality of war, the underlying beliefs that result in the opinions expressed in every singly post ever made to this forum - are off-topic.

Well, OK. But I do think that's a cop out. I think you saw where this was headed and because you know what your own beliefs are - you realized that when we got there you might not be able to logically justify them - and you took the easy way out.

[eyl]

84. Command

"is maneuvering YOUR unit into a situation where it has no choice but to fight"?

Where did you get THAT from?

The point behind Shaw's quote isn't that soldiers should be forced to fight by placing them in a situation where they must fight or die, but rather that there's no place in warfare to giving the OTHER side a chance. That means , if you have the tech advantage, using weapons to which they can't response, it means using ambush rather than lining up and facing each other "honorably" across the field, and so on.

[pelsar]

85. some have no idea....

i can be rather difficult to discuss certain aspects of war/military for those who have no experience with it....sometimes the ignorance is so blatant that its hard to respond:

but that they fight literally for their lives,.....most of us actually fight for the lives of our buddies, they're lives become more important that our own......but this is basic knowledge of any infantry unit.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IntiRaymi]

88. Where did I get that from?

Start from the basics:

-If you are a soldier, is it your duty to obey a lawful command, or not?
-Analyze any Napoleonic charge, and the reasoning behind its design.
-Sometimes your worst enemy are desertions.
and so on, and so forth.

About GBS, I was not necessarily disagreeing with him, as much as I was of the mind that he was expressing a concept that is rather incidental to the whole picture. Sure, you want to fight a battle you are certain to win, but that is a luxury you may not always have...

[eyl]

114. So you started with 2+2

and reached 15.

I don't know enough about Napoleon to say if your premise is correct regarding that era. But I can say that any commander trying to apply such a mindset these days is guaranteed to increase desertions (or to get a first-person explanation of the origin of the term "fragging"). Relying on threats - whether yours or the enemy's* - to motivate your people is considered a failure in leadership in most militaries I'm familiar with (Western militaries, at any rate)

*I'm talking about threats directly against your soldiers, not the larger threat of the enemy toward your populace in general