The culture of death: Children, I hope you will become martyrs

I am not even interested in historical victims, so your conclusions in this matter are false. I am interested in the present only and like the EU, I favour a two state solution.

I reject any policy that would target civilians in any context.

I believe in rule of law and due process and would never consider releasing anyone who was found guilty under such a system, nor would I consider such person akin to someone who was never so prosecuted for individual crimes (I reject collective guilt).

Since you blame one party historically, your bias cannot be avoided.

You reject civilians deaths by Israelis but consider Palestinian killings of civilians justified, and you say this in many different ways, such as in relation to Gilad.

 

Fair enough, so whats the problem with striking these? They have soldiers dont they?

Dead soldiers are ok in a war right?

1/ Nah thats Moon. I want a two state solution, with a shared Jerusalem. Always have here and Ive never said anything different. nor have I ever said anything against Jews, can you say the same about your words re Arabs?

2/ You say you dont want war? You want peace? Then why the continual baseless charges against the palestinians? Why the stuff about palestinians and islam on your sig? Youre trying to denigrate them as fundamentalists yet you tell us you want peace?

3/ Why dont you recognise the vast difference in power and position between the two sides? How can you tell us you want peace when your positions are so bigoted?

4/ By the way, what do you think of Dutch's attitude? You obviously dont spend any time arguing against him, would you behave the same if he was always spouting on against Jewish people?

 

Old habits die hard..............

 

1/ Well if I was to contend that in the conflict between germany and russia, ala 1941 operation barbarrossa, that germany was the instigator here - would that mean I was biased against germany or would it simply mean I was stating the facts?

The same is true re the Basle zionist council ala the late 1900s. So your charge of bias is baseless.

2/ I dont consider Israeli civilian deaths justified. Unless they were reservists of course. I merely consider such deaths the natural consequence of wars that kill civilians on both sides. My sympathy is direct relation to the numbers killed on either side - that number unfortunately is much higher on the palestinian side.

If I say things in many different ways its because life is complicated. Remember 'context baby'? Not because Im wriggling.

 

1. Please be more specific on what point you are making with regard to the Basel Zionist Congresses. What do you mean "same is true"? BTW, it is OK if you are biased...don't sweat it.
2. From what I understand Israelis (as in the case until recently in Germany) have to go to the army and will all be reservists at some time, by complusion. Are they fair game? Everybody? At all times?
3. If death is the natural consequence of war, it makes no sense to feel sympathy with the side who has more losses, because in doing so you are not accepting the fact of war you claim to accept and that is that victims are the logical result. Your position is inconsistent.
4. Life may be complicated but principles are not. It is fine by me to say things in different ways, but the logic should continue to be present.

My view is:
- no targetting of civilians
- fair processes for crimes of murder/attempted (with actual acts and not assumptions of guilt) on both sides

 

At this congress it was decided to 'return' to palestine and 'redeem' the land. Thus the conflict was instigated.

I do have a problem with bias - and try to weed it out from my perception where I can. Do you?

Indeed they have national service. They can object if they wish.

All soldiers are fair game. Even me who treats more civilians than soldiers. If someone bombed Camp Bastion in Afghanistan and I get maimed Id have no complaints. So what if I was off duty? It matters not.

Same for israeli reservists.

This response is illogical. I am accepting of the war, and regreting the loss of dead in proportion to the numbers.

For example, I feel much greater sympathy for Russia than germany because firstly they lost much more.

I blame Japan for starting the war with the USA but feel more sympathy for the japanese people because they lost so much more.

Any other response is illogical.

Indeed principles are not, their application is complicated however.

Your notions of fair have been shown already to be amateur at best. But ive little problem with your basic stance. It does make me wonder why youre so keen to stand with the israelis so much though.

 

1. Which congress specifically? Who decided? Who handed over the land?

2. I certainly look at my bias and hence I have certain views on collective guilt which go both ways.

3. They can refuse to do compulsory national service? Makes no sense since Germans could not. Do you have information showing that they have a choice and may decline to serve their country if they so chose?

4. All solders are game means that they may all be attacked or that they are all guilty of crimes and deserve to be imprisoned? You appear to use these concepts interchangeably contrary to criminal law and its concept of what committing a crime means. At least you are now admitting that you are as guilty as Gilad by partipating. I am sure that you would consider it just if you were imprisoned in Afganistan for 5 years? (Yesterday you claimed otherwise BTW)

5. Your sympathies lying with the "loser" of a conflict is more Hollywood style than logical. Either you beleive war is unjust but that so be it, or you hate the victor for winning - hence you are not truly accepting the fairness of the losses. You emotional world and your logical understanding are a mismatch. Put another way - you say one thing (war is war) but you feel another (it is unfair for the weaker)

I beleive that your notions of fair are inconsistent.

All is fair in love and war except for the winners - that is your view.

I am standing up for a two state solution. I reject hamas as terrorists. I reject settlers as fanatics. I consider that a just position.

 

are you suggesting the British were allies to hitler?

Remember israel did not exist until 48', and the british controlled palestine

it was the british that were the first victims of zionist terrrorism as they would not let, the zionist migrate into the lands in the mass flow after ww2

i would consider you more of a hilter loving type as you appear to lie out your butt just for something to do.

 

No, he is quite clearly stating that the "Pals were Hitler's allies".

 

funny.............. you have an example of maybe ONE exiled person and you actually think he represented palestine?

wow......

that is like claiming osama bin laden speaks for all muslims, which is stupid.

Heck i could post whole groups of jews and rabbis that state that zionism of israel is against judaism and that would mean nothing.


i could share many terrorist attacks on british interest primarily because the british would not allow the zionist migration into palestine and then an idiot will post a letter from one brit requesting the allowance and claim britain accepted the jewish state.

the bias around here is just stupid!

 

Um not sure about the exact date of the congress. Doesnt really matter. Its not controversial.

The zionist council decided.

A little bit of land was bought, the rest handed over by either the british or the UN. Mostly it went without the approval of most people there.

Fascinating.

Um yes. Of course. The british made many such refusniks. Consciencious objectors they were called.

Um no. Ive charged Gilad with the specific crime against gazans of driving a tank that was likely to be used against them and that was imposing a blockade against a collective of millions. In what sense am I as guilty as Gilad for participating? Who exactly am I hurting? What collective are my individual actions as a medic hurting?

You seem so sure of yourself so Im interested to find out your response here.

Nonsense.
All is fair in war. However, causing war is different. As are the actions of the victors in their victory.

In israels case, its started the wars, and acted to steal land in victory.

This comment demonstrates your lack of consistency.

Hamas are no more terrorists than israel. Its renounced this tactic just like israel did. You know that. Theyve both had terrorist leaders. Yet youre more down on them than on israel - at least try to be even handed.

 

Not that I wholly disagree with you, but you may note that that poor boy Gilad Shalit may indeed have had little choice but driving said tank:

In Israel military service is compulsory and the "right to conscientious objection is not legally recognized in the case of men. It is only partially recognized in the case of women under art. 39 of the National Defence Service Law, which permits exemption on grounds of conscience but only if they are religious grounds." http://www.wri-irg.org/co/co-isr-03.htm

IMHO it's a scandalous violation of pacifists' human rights.

 

What's wrong with having 72 virgins at your beck and call, can't women have some fun too? Your idea of paradise is having a driving license, how boring! Come on, I'm sure you can do better than that was it that long ago you were an adolescent?

 

He could have left to live in France.

 

He was elected Mufti of Jerusalem from among four candidates and enjoyed
popular support until after the war and the Palestinian exodus when the PLO took over.

Bin Laden was never elected only a self proclaimed leader.

 

Theres no requirement for him to drive any tanks. Plenty of options available.

 

Maybe she loves woman ?

 

Options like facing court marshal and rotting in prison like Yoni Ben Artzi did.

While deeply appreciating Artzis and other refusniks courage I wouldn't blame a 19 year old boy for not mustering this kind of bravery.
Maybe being in my thirties I'm already mellowing with age.

 

What's the difference?

I suppose it would be less demanding on resources if the virgins can be recycled.....

 

Then do what many 'consciees' did in my land.

Carry stretchers.

No need to train for armoured assault work.

There really is no excuse.

 

You are equating legitimate for the most part legal (according to your beloved world court and the UN) warfare with terrorism, get real if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Rev A

 

Islam is violent and glorify the killing of infidels and expanding Islam by Jihad. Why you think there are hardly any Islamic states who have no issues with their neighbors?

 

Lol, theres hardly any states with no neighbor issues.

 

Carrying stretchers was an option offered to Yoni Ben-Artzi after he'd served seven prison sentences. He refused because he didn't want to be part of that army, undergo basic training and wear a uniform.
Now you may want to point an accusing finger at a boy who did not have that kind of wisdom and courage at such a young age, but did what was commonly expected of him. But even though I'm what you may call a radical pacifist I won't.
I'd rather point my finger at lawmakers who do not only wage unjust wars but who also don't give their countries youth a choice on whether they want to serve in the army or not.
The right to conscientious objection is a human right. That Israel, a country that's hailed as a 'democracy' by its supporters including the EU, doesn't grant this right is scandalous.

 

EXCERPT;

No, what is scandalous is someone, or a group of cowardly someone’s, be they youth or geezer, (ha ha, geezer...) that will suck a nation dry, taking and taking, like a vampire without giving back anything except for sinviling and whining and apathy to that nation. If a person will not serve in the military in a time that the nation and its people needs its youth and others to protect them, they should be considered unworthy, and should not be granted full citizenship, and even possibly jailed. They are equivalent to those that are attacking the nation or worse, they are treasonus. If the person is claiming pacifism his claim should be examined and he should be given special treatment if he is found to be a true pacifist, unless the was was an a demonstrable act of self defense i.e. survival.

Rev A ~