alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L05286248.htm
From what I'm reading without Sharon Likud is favored to win the next elections, meaning netanyahu would once again be prime minister.
Israeli PM Sharon fighting for his life after suffering a massive brain haemorrhage
- Thread starter alonzomourning23
- Start date
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L05286248.htm
From what I'm reading without Sharon Likud is favored to win the next elections, meaning netanyahu would once again be prime minister.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
I've always hated sharon but, the last year or so, he has made himself very important to the peace process. He has continued making some aspects worse (basically his handling of the palestinians) but he was laying framework for future successes. I feel with him there is a positive and a negative, without him just negatives (especially since netanyahu is much more of a hardliner). While I never despised arafat like I do sharon, I have begun viewing sharon as essential to the current process, in a way that I had previously viewed arafat. While there are vast differences in the political systems, the death of arafat hasn't exactly resulted in good, neither will the death of sharon.
I still hate him, but he's much more useful alive than dead.
I still hate him, but he's much more useful alive than dead.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I've always hated sharon but, the last year or so, he has made himself very important to the peace process. He has continued making some aspects worse (basically his handling of the palestinians) but he was laying framework for future successes. I feel with him there is a positive and a negative, without him just negatives (especially since netanyahu is much more of a hardliner). While I never despised arafat like I do sharon, I have begun viewing sharon as essential to the current process, in a way that I had previously viewed arafat. While there are vast differences in the political systems, the death of arafat hasn't exactly resulted in good, neither will the death of sharon.
I still hate him, but he's much more useful alive than dead.[/QUOTE]
I've never understood why people think one is better than the other.
I still hate him, but he's much more useful alive than dead.[/QUOTE]
I've never understood why people think one is better than the other.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I've never understood why people think one is better than the other.[/QUOTE]
well it seems that Sharon wants/ed peace while Arafat just wanted to push the Israelis into the sea.
well it seems that Sharon wants/ed peace while Arafat just wanted to push the Israelis into the sea.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']well it seems that Sharon wants/ed peace while Arafat just wanted to push the Israelis into the sea.[/QUOTE]
Everyone wants "peace". Even al qaeda wants peace if you get down to it. Whatever you want to say arafat would do if it was possible, he hasn't been responsible for large scale massacres of civilians, unlike sharon. Both took more pragmatic views in how to handle situations when it became necessary. A significant difference in opinion can be based simply on how you view the situation. If you are strongly pro israeli or pro palestinian then the views that accompany that are more acceptable.
Though if you are to suggest that sharon wants peace with the palestinians then you have to also say that arafat only wanted a palestinian state to coexist with Israel, as both were positions they adopted at later points (sharon taking longer, most likely due to his later rise to power and his side having much more firepower).
Arafat is not an ideological extremist, that label belongs to groups like hamas bolstered by the younger generation. Sharon is not exactly an ideological extremist either, adopting whatever position he sees as best for Israel (ie. he concluded giving up land was best so he does that). Arafats and Sharon lack of overt religion play a role in this, as both were essentially secular.
Everyone wants "peace". Even al qaeda wants peace if you get down to it. Whatever you want to say arafat would do if it was possible, he hasn't been responsible for large scale massacres of civilians, unlike sharon. Both took more pragmatic views in how to handle situations when it became necessary. A significant difference in opinion can be based simply on how you view the situation. If you are strongly pro israeli or pro palestinian then the views that accompany that are more acceptable.
Though if you are to suggest that sharon wants peace with the palestinians then you have to also say that arafat only wanted a palestinian state to coexist with Israel, as both were positions they adopted at later points (sharon taking longer, most likely due to his later rise to power and his side having much more firepower).
Arafat is not an ideological extremist, that label belongs to groups like hamas bolstered by the younger generation. Sharon is not exactly an ideological extremist either, adopting whatever position he sees as best for Israel (ie. he concluded giving up land was best so he does that). Arafats and Sharon lack of overt religion play a role in this, as both were essentially secular.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Everyone wants "peace". Even al qaeda wants peace if you get down to it. Whatever you want to say arafat would do if it was possible, he hasn't been responsible for large scale massacres of civilians, unlike sharon. Both took more pragmatic views in how to handle situations when it became necessary. A significant difference in opinion can be based simply on how you view the situation. If you are strongly pro israeli or pro palestinian then the views that accompany that are more acceptable.
Though if you are to suggest that sharon wants peace with the palestinians then you have to also say that arafat only wanted a palestinian state to coexist with Israel, as both were positions they adopted at later points (sharon taking longer, most likely due to his later rise to power and his side having much more firepower).
Arafat is not an ideological extremist, that label belongs to groups like hamas bolstered by the younger generation. Sharon is not exactly an ideological extremist either, adopting whatever position he sees as best for Israel (ie. he concluded giving up land was best so he does that). Arafats and Sharon lack of overt religion play a role in this, as both were essentially secular.[/QUOTE]
Naive to a fault... Don't be fooled into in thinking that Arafat would not have acted in a similar manner if they reversed roles and power. It's not like he didn't mind Palestians killing Israelis (for a longtime he promoted it), it's also a safe bet that if he had the forces he would've done the same or similar actions as Sharon. Sharon is essentially a war criminal (I dunno that he was directly responsible for massacres but he was no doubt involved) and Arafat was essentially a terriost leader (you could call him a war criminal too I suppose if you care too look at it that way). Like RvB I think both of them are assholes that went about it all the wrong ways, placing one above another is totally credulous IMO.
Though if you are to suggest that sharon wants peace with the palestinians then you have to also say that arafat only wanted a palestinian state to coexist with Israel, as both were positions they adopted at later points (sharon taking longer, most likely due to his later rise to power and his side having much more firepower).
Arafat is not an ideological extremist, that label belongs to groups like hamas bolstered by the younger generation. Sharon is not exactly an ideological extremist either, adopting whatever position he sees as best for Israel (ie. he concluded giving up land was best so he does that). Arafats and Sharon lack of overt religion play a role in this, as both were essentially secular.[/QUOTE]
Naive to a fault... Don't be fooled into in thinking that Arafat would not have acted in a similar manner if they reversed roles and power. It's not like he didn't mind Palestians killing Israelis (for a longtime he promoted it), it's also a safe bet that if he had the forces he would've done the same or similar actions as Sharon. Sharon is essentially a war criminal (I dunno that he was directly responsible for massacres but he was no doubt involved) and Arafat was essentially a terriost leader (you could call him a war criminal too I suppose if you care too look at it that way). Like RvB I think both of them are assholes that went about it all the wrong ways, placing one above another is totally credulous IMO.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Hmm, so Arafat dies, now Sharon looks like he's on his death bed? I wonder if, with both of these two asses gone, some peace can finally be worked on?[/QUOTE]
Sure...right after the middle east becomes a pane of glass.
Nice new avatar btw.
Sure...right after the middle east becomes a pane of glass.
Nice new avatar btw.
Sharon to me was like de Klerk of the Apartheid regime, in that he had the opportunity and was in the right place to do great things, but ultimately his character failed him and he only did a few good things.
I think there are great men and women who find their occasion to be great, and there are great men and women who happen upon occasions that are great, and there are men and women who are forced by great occasions - Sharon to me is this third person.
I think there are great men and women who find their occasion to be great, and there are great men and women who happen upon occasions that are great, and there are men and women who are forced by great occasions - Sharon to me is this third person.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Everyone wants "peace". Even al qaeda wants peace if you get down to it. Whatever you want to say arafat would do if it was possible, he hasn't been responsible for large scale massacres of civilians, unlike sharon.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Al Queda wants peace by killing all the infidels. And as far as Yassir is concerned, I always thought he was a terrorist but that must have been some other guy named arafat:
And, so that I'm not accused of taking sides, there's a good reason Sharon's nickname is "The Butcher".
Yeah, Al Queda wants peace by killing all the infidels. And as far as Yassir is concerned, I always thought he was a terrorist but that must have been some other guy named arafat:
And, so that I'm not accused of taking sides, there's a good reason Sharon's nickname is "The Butcher".
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Mulligan the control Arafat had over various factions of Fatah, especially in his later years, is always debatable. He was often the only one who could rein them in (particularly the more militant groups) but they are not the most obedient group.
Also, I never said he didn't engage in terrorist activity. I did say that, like sharon, he changed tactics as was necessary. What he did after he came to power in the PA will likely always be debated.
As for the munich massacre, the claim for arafat's connection is he endorsed the action. He was not involved in the planning or implementation of it. Even if he was, its not quite on the same level as allowing militias to rampage towns killing men, women and children, which an Israeli commission found Sharon bore personal responsibility for.
I think in the environment that both were raised in less is expected. They are both products of their environment. I don't think anyone of sharons or arafat's character could get anywhere in the u.s. or europe politically, but you work with whats available.
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Naive to a fault... Don't be fooled into in thinking that Arafat would not have acted in a similar manner if they reversed roles and power[/QUOTE]
To quote myself:
Also, I never said he didn't engage in terrorist activity. I did say that, like sharon, he changed tactics as was necessary. What he did after he came to power in the PA will likely always be debated.
As for the munich massacre, the claim for arafat's connection is he endorsed the action. He was not involved in the planning or implementation of it. Even if he was, its not quite on the same level as allowing militias to rampage towns killing men, women and children, which an Israeli commission found Sharon bore personal responsibility for.
I think in the environment that both were raised in less is expected. They are both products of their environment. I don't think anyone of sharons or arafat's character could get anywhere in the u.s. or europe politically, but you work with whats available.
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Naive to a fault... Don't be fooled into in thinking that Arafat would not have acted in a similar manner if they reversed roles and power[/QUOTE]
To quote myself:
usickenme
CAGiversary!
once again Pat Robertson steps up to the plate with words of wisdom and compassion..
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=770
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=770
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Mulligan the control Arafat had over various factions of Fatah, especially in his later years, is always debatable. He was often the only one who could rein them in (particularly the more militant groups) but they are not the most obedient group.
Also, I never said he didn't engage in terrorist activity. I did say that, like sharon, he changed tactics as was necessary. What he did after he came to power in the PA will likely always be debated.
As for the munich massacre, the claim for arafat's connection is he endorsed the action. He was not involved in the planning or implementation of it. Even if he was, its not quite on the same level as allowing militias to rampage towns killing men, women and children, which an Israeli commission found Sharon bore personal responsibility for.
I think in the environment that both were raised in less is expected. They are both products of their environment. I don't think anyone of sharons or arafat's character could get anywhere in the u.s. or europe politically, but you work with whats available.
To quote myself:[/QUOTE]
So, are you saying that while both Sharon and Arafat engaged in terrorist activities, Arafat was not evil because he didn't kill as many?
Also, I never said he didn't engage in terrorist activity. I did say that, like sharon, he changed tactics as was necessary. What he did after he came to power in the PA will likely always be debated.
As for the munich massacre, the claim for arafat's connection is he endorsed the action. He was not involved in the planning or implementation of it. Even if he was, its not quite on the same level as allowing militias to rampage towns killing men, women and children, which an Israeli commission found Sharon bore personal responsibility for.
I think in the environment that both were raised in less is expected. They are both products of their environment. I don't think anyone of sharons or arafat's character could get anywhere in the u.s. or europe politically, but you work with whats available.
To quote myself:[/QUOTE]
So, are you saying that while both Sharon and Arafat engaged in terrorist activities, Arafat was not evil because he didn't kill as many?
[quote name='usickenme']once again Pat Robertson steps up to the plate with words of wisdom and compassion..
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=770[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps, and call me crazy, old people get sick and die?
http://jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=770[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps, and call me crazy, old people get sick and die?
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='RedvsBlue']So, are you saying that while both Sharon and Arafat engaged in terrorist activities, Arafat was not evil because he didn't kill as many?[/QUOTE]
Sharon killed (or technically let die) large amounts of people for no apparent reason. As horrible as killing athletes is, it probably isn't quite as bad as killing civilians (including children) going about their life, and there was the political goal to put a spotlight on the palestinian cause.
Also, when I think of terrorism I see primarily two different forms. One views terrorism as an end (al qaeda), one as one means to an end (arafat's form). A somewhat similar (though less extreme) example would be Michael Collins and his supporters within the IRA. He was an IRA leader who engaged in terrorism until it was no longer beneficial. He was killed in 1922 by IRA members opposed to a treaty he signed with the british, he even remarked that he had signed his own death warrant when he signed the treaty.
Also I have to bring up what I said earlier, that the side you favor also makes a difference. I don't think arafat was on the wrong side, obviously the terrorism he engaged in went way too far, but his basic cause I have no problem with.
Sharon killed (or technically let die) large amounts of people for no apparent reason. As horrible as killing athletes is, it probably isn't quite as bad as killing civilians (including children) going about their life, and there was the political goal to put a spotlight on the palestinian cause.
Also, when I think of terrorism I see primarily two different forms. One views terrorism as an end (al qaeda), one as one means to an end (arafat's form). A somewhat similar (though less extreme) example would be Michael Collins and his supporters within the IRA. He was an IRA leader who engaged in terrorism until it was no longer beneficial. He was killed in 1922 by IRA members opposed to a treaty he signed with the british, he even remarked that he had signed his own death warrant when he signed the treaty.
Also I have to bring up what I said earlier, that the side you favor also makes a difference. I don't think arafat was on the wrong side, obviously the terrorism he engaged in went way too far, but his basic cause I have no problem with.
From mulligan's list
Obviously Arafat is not above attacking civilian, children targets.
Just because you have a reasoning behind your terrorism, does not lessen the severity of your crimes. It may alleviate that individual person's possible guilt but in the end targeting and murdering civilians is still terrorism. Arafat and Sharon were both guilty of this which is the reason why I think both are trash.
Obviously Arafat is not above attacking civilian, children targets.
Just because you have a reasoning behind your terrorism, does not lessen the severity of your crimes. It may alleviate that individual person's possible guilt but in the end targeting and murdering civilians is still terrorism. Arafat and Sharon were both guilty of this which is the reason why I think both are trash.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='RedvsBlue']From mulligan's list
Obviously Arafat is not above attacking civilian, children targets.
Just because you have a reasoning behind your terrorism, does not lessen the severity of your crimes. It may alleviate that individual person's possible guilt but in the end targeting and murdering civilians is still terrorism. Arafat and Sharon were both guilty of this which is the reason why I think both are trash.[/QUOTE]
Well I do believe the severity of the crime differs depending on whether there is a reasonable goal beyond simply killing, that's a point I've argued before regarding non terrorist activity as well. It doesn't mean its acceptable or not a crime, its just a different degree.
But, with most PLO activities, its always difficult to figure out how much arafat (or other leaders) knew of particular activities. I think those who say he had no idea of terrorist activity other than what he was directly implemented in are wrong, but I also believe those who think he had total control and was informed of every activity carried out by PLO members are wrong as well.
Also, the school massacre was carried out by members of the democratic front for the liberation of palestine. They were affiliated with the PLO, but a different group. Its unlikely arafat had anything to do with that.
Though back to the original argument, what benefit is there from sharon's death? The end result appears to be the election of netanyahu, who makes sharon look like a pacifist in comparison. The election will likely result in more palestinians being killed due to Israeli politicians wanting to show their strength, and then the next prime minister (if it is netanyahu) will have no inclination, whatesoever, to put an end to the conflict other than through violence, which we know doesn't work in this case. I see no benefit for anyone here, other than the "settlers".
Obviously Arafat is not above attacking civilian, children targets.
Just because you have a reasoning behind your terrorism, does not lessen the severity of your crimes. It may alleviate that individual person's possible guilt but in the end targeting and murdering civilians is still terrorism. Arafat and Sharon were both guilty of this which is the reason why I think both are trash.[/QUOTE]
Well I do believe the severity of the crime differs depending on whether there is a reasonable goal beyond simply killing, that's a point I've argued before regarding non terrorist activity as well. It doesn't mean its acceptable or not a crime, its just a different degree.
But, with most PLO activities, its always difficult to figure out how much arafat (or other leaders) knew of particular activities. I think those who say he had no idea of terrorist activity other than what he was directly implemented in are wrong, but I also believe those who think he had total control and was informed of every activity carried out by PLO members are wrong as well.
Also, the school massacre was carried out by members of the democratic front for the liberation of palestine. They were affiliated with the PLO, but a different group. Its unlikely arafat had anything to do with that.
Though back to the original argument, what benefit is there from sharon's death? The end result appears to be the election of netanyahu, who makes sharon look like a pacifist in comparison. The election will likely result in more palestinians being killed due to Israeli politicians wanting to show their strength, and then the next prime minister (if it is netanyahu) will have no inclination, whatesoever, to put an end to the conflict other than through violence, which we know doesn't work in this case. I see no benefit for anyone here, other than the "settlers".
[quote name='RedvsBlue']From mulligan's list
Obviously Arafat is not above attacking civilian, children targets.
Just because you have a reasoning behind your terrorism, does not lessen the severity of your crimes. It may alleviate that individual person's possible guilt but in the end targeting and murdering civilians is still terrorism. Arafat and Sharon were both guilty of this which is the reason why I think both are trash.[/QUOTE]
you have to understand Alonzo's principles.
civilian lives > millitary lives
freedom fighters > occupiers
palestinians > "settlers"
and killing innocents is okay as long as you have good intentions and goals, unless you are part of the US millitary.
What Alonzo fails to realize is that the money that comes into the PLO authority and distributed to it's terrorist affiliates passed directly through the dictator's, I mean president's, hands before it was used to buy machine guns and explosives. How else do you think he syphoned almost $1 billion into his own personal account before he died?
Obviously Arafat is not above attacking civilian, children targets.
Just because you have a reasoning behind your terrorism, does not lessen the severity of your crimes. It may alleviate that individual person's possible guilt but in the end targeting and murdering civilians is still terrorism. Arafat and Sharon were both guilty of this which is the reason why I think both are trash.[/QUOTE]
you have to understand Alonzo's principles.
civilian lives > millitary lives
freedom fighters > occupiers
palestinians > "settlers"
and killing innocents is okay as long as you have good intentions and goals, unless you are part of the US millitary.
What Alonzo fails to realize is that the money that comes into the PLO authority and distributed to it's terrorist affiliates passed directly through the dictator's, I mean president's, hands before it was used to buy machine guns and explosives. How else do you think he syphoned almost $1 billion into his own personal account before he died?
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
While I'm going to ignore mulligans lack of reading comprehension (since I'm accustomed to it), I would like to know whats so controversial to think that its less desireable for a civilian to die compared to a soldier?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']While I'm going to ignore mulligans lack of reading comprehension (since I'm accustomed to it), I would like to know whats so controversial to think that its less desireable for a civilian to die compared to a soldier?[/QUOTE]
Why in your mind are soldiers' lives worth less than civilians' lives? Because their job requires life and death decisions and they have to put their life on the line? Or because you personally dislike anything military?
Why in your mind are soldiers' lives worth less than civilians' lives? Because their job requires life and death decisions and they have to put their life on the line? Or because you personally dislike anything military?
[quote name='alonzomourning23']While I'm going to ignore mulligans lack of reading comprehension (since I'm accustomed to it), I would like to know whats so controversial to think that its less desireable for a civilian to die compared to a soldier?[/QUOTE]
Well, if we adopted the popular media and liberal mantra of disingenuine, hyperbolic lament everytime the soldier death total reaches a 00 milestone, you'd think just the opposite.
Your own words say it all:
Here is another example of your inconsistency. You are someone who would blame Bush for any and all malities occuring under his watch from Katrina to enron to 9/11 yet you would knowingly pardon Yassir Arafat as 'not knowing' these terrorist acts were taking place under his watch. You just ignore the parts about him being a founding member of one of those organizations and the fact he took part in terrorist activities for many years.
My reading comprehension is just fine. The problem is that you don't even understand what you are saying most of the time.
Well, if we adopted the popular media and liberal mantra of disingenuine, hyperbolic lament everytime the soldier death total reaches a 00 milestone, you'd think just the opposite.
Your own words say it all:
Here is another example of your inconsistency. You are someone who would blame Bush for any and all malities occuring under his watch from Katrina to enron to 9/11 yet you would knowingly pardon Yassir Arafat as 'not knowing' these terrorist acts were taking place under his watch. You just ignore the parts about him being a founding member of one of those organizations and the fact he took part in terrorist activities for many years.
My reading comprehension is just fine. The problem is that you don't even understand what you are saying most of the time.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Why in your mind are soldiers' lives worth less than civilians' lives? Because their job requires life and death decisions and they have to put their life on the line? Or because you personally dislike anything military?[/QUOTE]
Because they have offered to put their life on the line. If a soldier is in a civilian role, or was drafted (ie. in the military unwillingly) then their death is just as tragic as a civilians. The military should only be used to protect civilians (this is not a judgement on reasons for war), particularly their own countries civilians but also the civilians of the country they are protecting (and supposedly they are protecting Iraq from insurgents and terrorists). It's an unfortunate and tragic situation when a soldier dies, but thats a risk they willingly took. A civilian is caught up in a situation that they had no part in.
If your reading comprehension were fine you wouldn't have accused me of saying killing innocents is okay as long as you have a good reason.
People have to be judged according to their environments, what they have become (or changed into), and their reasons. If a modern politician or general behaved in the way of a roman politician or general (such as caesar) they would be viewed entirely differently. The same is true when comparing places like Israel and Palestine to the u.s. and canada. You have to take them in the context of their environment.
I've never blamed bush for enron, I've never blamed him for 9/11, and I've never blamed him for Katrina. I complained about his responses to each of those situations (except I've never said much of anything on enron). The PLO is an umbrella organization, they did not/do not have direct control over all the smaller groups. Bush didn't know or do things that were will within what should be expected, particularly with Katrina. In regards to 9/11 I have more problems with the methods used after that.
As I said with arafat figuring out what he knew is impossible, those who say he wasn't involved in anything other than what is obvious are wrong, but those who think he was involved in everything involving the PLO are wrong. There are many competing groups and interests in the PLO, and that is often overlooked since they all have the same basic goal (palestinian independence).
But as for Arafat's founding of Fatah and his instrumental role in the PLO's success, I said before I had no problem with the general goals of these groups. I have problems with how they went about things, but I am very pro palestinian and view Israel as something that must be lived with, but not something that was essentially a good idea. Therefore simply his relations to the PLO and Fatah are not something I would judge as a negative.
Because they have offered to put their life on the line. If a soldier is in a civilian role, or was drafted (ie. in the military unwillingly) then their death is just as tragic as a civilians. The military should only be used to protect civilians (this is not a judgement on reasons for war), particularly their own countries civilians but also the civilians of the country they are protecting (and supposedly they are protecting Iraq from insurgents and terrorists). It's an unfortunate and tragic situation when a soldier dies, but thats a risk they willingly took. A civilian is caught up in a situation that they had no part in.
If your reading comprehension were fine you wouldn't have accused me of saying killing innocents is okay as long as you have a good reason.
People have to be judged according to their environments, what they have become (or changed into), and their reasons. If a modern politician or general behaved in the way of a roman politician or general (such as caesar) they would be viewed entirely differently. The same is true when comparing places like Israel and Palestine to the u.s. and canada. You have to take them in the context of their environment.
I've never blamed bush for enron, I've never blamed him for 9/11, and I've never blamed him for Katrina. I complained about his responses to each of those situations (except I've never said much of anything on enron). The PLO is an umbrella organization, they did not/do not have direct control over all the smaller groups. Bush didn't know or do things that were will within what should be expected, particularly with Katrina. In regards to 9/11 I have more problems with the methods used after that.
As I said with arafat figuring out what he knew is impossible, those who say he wasn't involved in anything other than what is obvious are wrong, but those who think he was involved in everything involving the PLO are wrong. There are many competing groups and interests in the PLO, and that is often overlooked since they all have the same basic goal (palestinian independence).
But as for Arafat's founding of Fatah and his instrumental role in the PLO's success, I said before I had no problem with the general goals of these groups. I have problems with how they went about things, but I am very pro palestinian and view Israel as something that must be lived with, but not something that was essentially a good idea. Therefore simply his relations to the PLO and Fatah are not something I would judge as a negative.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
^^ You do realize that many of the groups you're talking about have as their goal not peaceful coexistence, but the ultimate destruction of Israel as a nation? And I am having a hard time believing you think Arafat was as naive and stupid as you make him out to be...not to mention actions speak louder than words (and the words aren't pretty in this case either)...
In any case your military v civilian viewpoint is very interesting. I can't agree with it, because I feel people's lives aren't devalued by them volunteering to protect their country and by them volunteering to put themselves in harm's way to help others. I just can't see the logic behind a viewpoint where the life a soldier handing out candy to Iraqi children in the streets is somehow worth less than an average civilian, for example.
In any case your military v civilian viewpoint is very interesting. I can't agree with it, because I feel people's lives aren't devalued by them volunteering to protect their country and by them volunteering to put themselves in harm's way to help others. I just can't see the logic behind a viewpoint where the life a soldier handing out candy to Iraqi children in the streets is somehow worth less than an average civilian, for example.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If your reading comprehension were fine you wouldn't have accused me of saying killing innocents is okay as long as you have a good reason. [/quote]
You said:
"Well I do believe the severity of the crime differs depending on whether there is a reasonable goal beyond simply killing..."
You're right, I must have read it wrong. In other words, you agree with the US precision bombing of the house that was sanctuary for the three bomb planting terrorists. Glad to see we can agree for once.
I'll agree on the contextual argument, but the "according to their environment" part wasn't a good enough excuse for the Nazi officers who were just following orders after WWII, was it?
I was just giving examples. Don't go soft on your Bush hating just to prove a point. It WILL come back to haunt you.
As el principe said, their common goal is the destruction of Israel. You are either blind or kidding yourself if you think they want peaceful coexistence.
You said:
"Well I do believe the severity of the crime differs depending on whether there is a reasonable goal beyond simply killing..."
You're right, I must have read it wrong. In other words, you agree with the US precision bombing of the house that was sanctuary for the three bomb planting terrorists. Glad to see we can agree for once.
I'll agree on the contextual argument, but the "according to their environment" part wasn't a good enough excuse for the Nazi officers who were just following orders after WWII, was it?
I was just giving examples. Don't go soft on your Bush hating just to prove a point. It WILL come back to haunt you.
As el principe said, their common goal is the destruction of Israel. You are either blind or kidding yourself if you think they want peaceful coexistence.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']
In any case your military v civilian viewpoint is very interesting. I can't agree with it, because I feel people's lives aren't devalued by them volunteering to protect their country and by them volunteering to put themselves in harm's way to help others. I just can't see the logic behind a viewpoint where the life a soldier handing out candy to Iraqi children in the streets is somehow worth less than an average civilian, for example.[/QUOTE]
Its more that, while both are tragic, the death of civilians are moreso. Most people find the death of civilians particularly horrible when compared to soldiers.
Wow, just wow. You can even quote a sentence clearly stating that the severity of a crime differs based on goals and reasons, but still not understand it. There are more options than good or bad. There are varying degrees of those good and varying degrees of bad. That's what I said. Just because one crime is wrong doesn't mean that every criminal act is equally wrong.
Well it can't for practical purposes. Its not a "good enough" excuse, but it is an excuse. There are multiple psychological studies out there showing the extreme influence authority figures have over people. The most famous one being milgram's experiments, where the majority of people gave the most powerful shock that was possible (it was also fatal). This is the result of a relationship that wasn't even an hour old. You build that up over years (like the nazi's did), and with personal relationships, its not particularly shocking that many crimes were committed by people who simply were following orders. Obviously many (particularly higher ranking ones) weren't, but many were.
Though, again, I'm not saying actions are acceptable due to the environment, it just effects how they are viewed in relation to the entire person.
My bush hating is more in the line of jokes and sarcasm. I'm sure if you did a search you can find me saying that I don't believe bush lied about Iraq either, just that he chose to use shaky (or sometimes very shaky) information because he was convinced of the outcome. You won't find the extremist anti bush arguments from me like you do many others here. Sure I despise him, but he's hardly the racist, evil, fascist leader that people often describe him as. Most of my complaints are about his policies.
Well, the PLO has recognized Israel's right to exist. The PLO is made up of 9 different groups, some militant, extremist, communist, some not. There's a wide range. The main goal is a palestinian state, the rest varies. The suggestion that they'd all welcome a war with Israel (I assume you mean the forcible removal of all jews, and not just taking over the land itself) doesn't have any basis.
They recognize their right to exist as simply accepting reality, to do otherwise is not practical. That's consistent with my view. I see Israel as a mistake and a nation that, as it currently is, should not exist. The nations politics should be dominated by whichever group is the largest, I don't really care which. The power should be held by the largest demographic, and one group should not be endorsed by the government as most important. If not that then there should be a 2 state solution.
In any case your military v civilian viewpoint is very interesting. I can't agree with it, because I feel people's lives aren't devalued by them volunteering to protect their country and by them volunteering to put themselves in harm's way to help others. I just can't see the logic behind a viewpoint where the life a soldier handing out candy to Iraqi children in the streets is somehow worth less than an average civilian, for example.[/QUOTE]
Its more that, while both are tragic, the death of civilians are moreso. Most people find the death of civilians particularly horrible when compared to soldiers.
Wow, just wow. You can even quote a sentence clearly stating that the severity of a crime differs based on goals and reasons, but still not understand it. There are more options than good or bad. There are varying degrees of those good and varying degrees of bad. That's what I said. Just because one crime is wrong doesn't mean that every criminal act is equally wrong.
Well it can't for practical purposes. Its not a "good enough" excuse, but it is an excuse. There are multiple psychological studies out there showing the extreme influence authority figures have over people. The most famous one being milgram's experiments, where the majority of people gave the most powerful shock that was possible (it was also fatal). This is the result of a relationship that wasn't even an hour old. You build that up over years (like the nazi's did), and with personal relationships, its not particularly shocking that many crimes were committed by people who simply were following orders. Obviously many (particularly higher ranking ones) weren't, but many were.
Though, again, I'm not saying actions are acceptable due to the environment, it just effects how they are viewed in relation to the entire person.
My bush hating is more in the line of jokes and sarcasm. I'm sure if you did a search you can find me saying that I don't believe bush lied about Iraq either, just that he chose to use shaky (or sometimes very shaky) information because he was convinced of the outcome. You won't find the extremist anti bush arguments from me like you do many others here. Sure I despise him, but he's hardly the racist, evil, fascist leader that people often describe him as. Most of my complaints are about his policies.
Well, the PLO has recognized Israel's right to exist. The PLO is made up of 9 different groups, some militant, extremist, communist, some not. There's a wide range. The main goal is a palestinian state, the rest varies. The suggestion that they'd all welcome a war with Israel (I assume you mean the forcible removal of all jews, and not just taking over the land itself) doesn't have any basis.
They recognize their right to exist as simply accepting reality, to do otherwise is not practical. That's consistent with my view. I see Israel as a mistake and a nation that, as it currently is, should not exist. The nations politics should be dominated by whichever group is the largest, I don't really care which. The power should be held by the largest demographic, and one group should not be endorsed by the government as most important. If not that then there should be a 2 state solution.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\01\08\story_8-1-2006_pg7_39
That's good. Him being alive probably helps keep him around as a figurehead. The next prime minister (assuming he's from kadima) is likely to be more doveish, though won't have as much political capital. While Sharon is 99.9% done in terms of holding political positions, I hope he is still capable of normal thought and able to communicate his ideas. His role as a figurehead combined with a more liberal PM is good for the peace process.
Anyone know what kind of cognitive impairment is likely to result? Does it involve mostly functioning, or actual damage to his intelligence, meaning he is essentially done in all forms of public relevance?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Its more that, while both are tragic, the death of civilians are moreso. Most people find the death of civilians particularly horrible when compared to soldiers.[/QUOTE]
I don't find the death of people engaged in noble actions (and trying to create a free country and hunt down terrorists are noble actions) to be somehow less horrible than civilian deaths. I don't understand how that viewpoint is even formed. Do you feel the deaths of police are also less horrible than civilians? After all, they volunteered to put themselves in harm's way for society's benefit as well...
I don't find the death of people engaged in noble actions (and trying to create a free country and hunt down terrorists are noble actions) to be somehow less horrible than civilian deaths. I don't understand how that viewpoint is even formed. Do you feel the deaths of police are also less horrible than civilians? After all, they volunteered to put themselves in harm's way for society's benefit as well...
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm sure if you did a search you can find me saying that I don't believe bush lied about Iraq either, just that he chose to use shaky (or sometimes very shaky) information because he was convinced of the outcome.[/QUOTE]
Whats funny is that this is the same argument you see from many W supporters yet they still support him.
Whats funny is that this is the same argument you see from many W supporters yet they still support him.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']Whats funny is that this is the same argument you see from many W supporters yet they still support him.[/QUOTE]
I doubt die-hard Bush supporters would say he decided to go to war on flimsy evidence because he wanted to go to war in any case.
I do believe Alonzo may be onto something with that line of reasoning, though. I think all of us do this to some extent, which is to take any information that fits into our position as gospel truth and disregard or be critical of information that seems contrary. I think it's something we all have to be careful of, and to sometimes take a step back and think, do I accept this just because it seems to fit with my view of the world? Or should I be a bit more skeptical? Or am I rejecting this because it seems to contradict my previous reasoning? Face it, once people have made their minds up, they are pretty resistant to change or being shown they're wrong in most cases.
I doubt die-hard Bush supporters would say he decided to go to war on flimsy evidence because he wanted to go to war in any case.
I do believe Alonzo may be onto something with that line of reasoning, though. I think all of us do this to some extent, which is to take any information that fits into our position as gospel truth and disregard or be critical of information that seems contrary. I think it's something we all have to be careful of, and to sometimes take a step back and think, do I accept this just because it seems to fit with my view of the world? Or should I be a bit more skeptical? Or am I rejecting this because it seems to contradict my previous reasoning? Face it, once people have made their minds up, they are pretty resistant to change or being shown they're wrong in most cases.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Its more that, while both are tragic, the death of civilians are moreso. Most people find the death of civilians particularly horrible when compared to soldiers.[/QUOTE]
Your thinking is warped.
Your thinking is warped.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't find the death of people engaged in noble actions (and trying to create a free country and hunt down terrorists are noble actions) to be somehow less horrible than civilian deaths. I don't understand how that viewpoint is even formed. Do you feel the deaths of police are also less horrible than civilians? After all, they volunteered to put themselves in harm's way for society's benefit as well...[/QUOTE]
Yes. Again they're both tragic, but one is there to essentially protect and the other to be protected. Honestly that statement has never raised an eyebrow to anyone until I mentioned on here. I've had people agree or disagree, but they never reacted as if it was a particularly odd thing to say.
I've never been accused of having, and I've never desired to have, a normal way of thinking.
Yes. Again they're both tragic, but one is there to essentially protect and the other to be protected. Honestly that statement has never raised an eyebrow to anyone until I mentioned on here. I've had people agree or disagree, but they never reacted as if it was a particularly odd thing to say.
I've never been accused of having, and I've never desired to have, a normal way of thinking.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I've never been accused of having, and I've never desired to have, a normal way of thinking.[/QUOTE]
OK.
To be technical, I find your statement to be morally bankrupt. Capice?
OK.
To be technical, I find your statement to be morally bankrupt. Capice?
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']OK.
To be technical, I find your statement to be morally bankrupt. Capice?[/QUOTE]
So be it. It's my opinion.
To be technical, I find your statement to be morally bankrupt. Capice?[/QUOTE]
So be it. It's my opinion.
no, but a civillian's death is basically murder, where as a soldier's death is an act of patriotism... duh.
i think zo' is just saying that one can psychologically be prepared for a soldier's death considering the situation, whereas no one expects on average for a civilian to be killed - you can slippery slope this all you want, but intuitively it's a sound statement.
i think zo' is just saying that one can psychologically be prepared for a soldier's death considering the situation, whereas no one expects on average for a civilian to be killed - you can slippery slope this all you want, but intuitively it's a sound statement.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']So, can we quantify this? Is a soldier worth, like, 3/4 of a real person?
That would make the death toll in Iraq a bit less....[/QUOTE]
Alonzo, would you like something like this to be put in the constitution? Are there any other amendments that you would like reinstated?
That would make the death toll in Iraq a bit less....[/QUOTE]
Alonzo, would you like something like this to be put in the constitution? Are there any other amendments that you would like reinstated?
[quote name='Sleepkyng']i think zo' is just saying that one can psychologically be prepared for a soldier's death considering the situation, whereas no one expects on average for a civilian to be killed - you can slippery slope this all you want, but intuitively it's a sound statement.[/QUOTE]
That's a great point, and probably what alonzo means by his opinion. Kinda like pawns in chess. You expect to lose a few for strategic purposes, but you don't shed any tears over them like, say, a rook or a knight.
That's a great point, and probably what alonzo means by his opinion. Kinda like pawns in chess. You expect to lose a few for strategic purposes, but you don't shed any tears over them like, say, a rook or a knight.
bread's done