How Obama Got Elected

[Kuya]

Arguing with terms such as "collateral damage" and the same tired old argument that people die in wars and we have to accept that, is just another way of saying that the ends justify the means. That it doesn't matter how many you kill, what matters is your intentions, which inevitably gives carte blanche to whomever wants it just so long as their intentions are "pure". Dangerous logic, not mention faulty. Also, insisting that people die in war is, fine, if not grossly obvious, except for the fact that Israel broke the cease fire, so they started this specific conflict, and it seems that the ones who are suffering for that, are the Palestinians. Go justice.

[Elvis]

/nod

Israel actually has been documented as breaking most of the truces since the beginning of the Second Intifada:

Nancy Kanwisher: Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?

[Elvis]

Hey guys, Israel doesn't mean to kill civilians.

Human rights in Gaza and Israel during the hostilities: Soldiers reportedly shot woman waving white flag

Today, Israeli soldiers shot a woman waving a white flag in the Khuza'a area, in the south-eastern Gaza Strip, a Palestinian who is besieged with his family there says. According to his report, the soldiers shot several civilians who were fleeing a bombed house on army orders, killing at least three and wounding others.

Casualties
Update for 13 January '09, morning (GMT+2)
Gaza: at least 900 killed, of them at least 270 children and 95 women. More than half those killed since the ground incursion began (450) are women and children. Over 4,200 injured, of them over 400 severely so.
Israel: 10 killed, of them 1 woman and 7 soldiers. Over 82 civilians injured, of them 4 severely injured, not including those treated for shock , and 61 soldiers injured, of them one in critical condition.

[Shinryuu]

"It's not that fucking hard. Stop sending your kids, women, and men over with explosives strapped on, stop launching rockets at random population centers, just stop thinking that because you can blow up a few random Jews, eventually you'll get rid of them. Invading their country didn't do it, sending entire armies over didn't do it, all it did was encourage the Israelis to dig in harder and want land for buffer areas."

Are you serious? It's not that hard? Maybe you should live in a Palestine area for one day. Heck, a few hours would suffice.

[Charla]

You can't mirror my post like that and make sense.

The purpose of mirroring the post was to point out that yours didn't make much more sense than mine did. You can take issue with the term civilized, but it still describes a nation that doesn't practice suicide bombing better than it describes one that does. Likewise, I can take issue with the term colonialism even though it still describes the oppressive practices of numerous extant governments.

I think it's very hypocritical of you to dismiss these international rules when you live well here in the US (or wherever) because of domestic progressiveness.

Really? Because I think I'm living in the US in the first place because several hundred years ago people colonized a continent, conquered and oppressed indigenous people, and fought wars against other colonial powers in order to claim and occupy that continent. As such, I think it would be equally hypocritical for me to condemn such things now, and even more hypocritical to try to overturn them after the fact. What is the meaning of an "ancestral homeland" when all such homelands date back only as far as when one's ancestors took the homeland in question by force from someone else's ancestors? Does someone have a right to have their ancestral homeland back because Alexander the Great conquered it from King Darius? Does someone else have the right to have their ancestral homeland back because Saladin conquered it from the Byzantine empire? I realize that we've been over this before, but despite all the bad aspects of conquest, there are currently very few nations that were not created or expanded by conquering or colonizing other nations.

This is utter garbage. The Palestinians do not have to accept that. Just like the Native Americans do not have to accept the United States' right to exist.

You're absolutely right. A nation's "right to exist" does not, in fact, have meaning, because nations do not require a right in order to exist. By extension of your Native American analogy, I conclude that you believe neither Native Americans nor Palestinians are justified in attempting to overthrow extant nations, and as such that we are more or less in agreement. If, as you say, Hamas is in fact willing to pursue a peaceful conclusion to their conflict, then I was mistaken earlier and I apologize.

[Kuya]

I thought Israel took Gaza and the West Bank when it was illegal to do so.

[Elvis]

The purpose of mirroring the post was to point out that yours didn't make much more sense than mine did. You can take issue with the term civilized, but it still describes a nation that doesn't practice suicide bombing better than it describes one that does. Likewise, I can take issue with the term colonialism even though it still describes the oppressive practices of numerous extant governments.

The idea that the Palestinians are not 'civilized' is not only idiotic but completely baseless. Where is your proof? You are conflating the behavior of fringe with the whole.

Furthermore, I've explained my views of terrorism before to you. It's not a taboo notion. All resistance groups use terror.

Arab antagonism to Zionism is due to fear of territorial displacement. It's not comic-book hatred of sunshine and marshmallows. There is context to the violence that you clearly are not aware of. Although, you're quick to defend the powerhouse because they are simply, the powerhouse.

All nationalist movements - INCLUDING THE ZIONISTS - used terror. Your mirroring lacks meaning. You don't know the history of this conflict. You don't know that the Stern gang and Irgun used terrorism against the British to 'liberate Historic Palestine.'

You don't know that, they themselves (the original Zionists), said that nothing in Jewish ethics should prohibit the use of terror to obtain the Jewish State.

Hence, my point. You are being sanctimonious. Your perception of the Palestinians and their cause is shallow. The rest of your post was indeed nonsensical. I'm not a grammar whore - you just didn't make sense. It was a very crude attempt at mocking my original post.

You failed to do so.

Really? Because I think I'm living in the US in the first place because several hundred years ago people colonized a continent, conquered and oppressed indigenous people, and fought wars against other colonial powers in order to claim and occupy that continent.

You're missing my point. I've explained my feelings on this fact before as well by the way.

My point is not that we have benefited from Euro-American conquest. My point is that the world has gotten much more civil. The progressive movements of the 20th century is supposed promote fairness and accountability between nations.

Just as the progressiveness in our domestic life is supposed to promote fairness and accountability between individuals.

What you write here is irrelevant and a diversion. I have never once uttered something similar in relation to Israel. I have never said I wanted to see Israel OR the US gone because of it's past crimes.

I think that my sticking to international law/etc. is evidence of that. I accept the crimes of the past as a product of the socio-political climate at that time. My POINT is that we've made progress and we should stick by the rules or we're hypocrites.

So once again, you enjoy the effects of progressiveness in your domestic/personal life but dismiss that same philosophy when it comes to relations between countries.

Hence, you are being sanctimonious/hypocritical in this respect.

As such, I think it would be equally hypocritical for me to condemn such things now, and even more hypocritical to try to overturn them after the fact.

Stop the straw-man. You know what I mean. Progressive movements that established more civility between people and countries. We now have legal rights that coincide with progressive morality (equality regardless of ethnicity/religion, etc.). The sins of the past are just that - the past. In the context of the past, there was no legal standard to coincide with the moral standard - if there even was one. We did refer to the Natives as 'savages'.

What is the meaning of an "ancestral homeland" when all such homelands date back only as far as when one's ancestors took the homeland in question by force from someone else's ancestors? Does someone have a right to have their ancestral homeland back because Alexander the Great conquered it from King Darius? Does someone else have the right to have their ancestral homeland back because Saladin conquered it from the Byzantine empire? I realize that we've been over this before, but despite all the bad aspects of conquest, there are currently very few nations that were not created or expanded by conquering or colonizing other nations.

Wow, why not just go back to the beginning of time and complain that we're all stealing land from the primordial ooze from which we've evolved? Or that we stole land from the dinosaurs? The Nativesaurus Rex?

Seriously, you're acting like a buffoon (and I know you're smarter than this). The only positive thing that's come out of this exchange is that I get to use the word 'buffoon'. For that I thank you.

You're absolutely right. A nation's "right to exist" does not, in fact, have meaning, because nations do not require a right in order to exist. By extension of your Native American analogy, I conclude that you believe neither Native Americans nor Palestinians are justified in attempting to overthrow extant nations, and as such that we are more or less in agreement. If, as you say, Hamas is in fact willing to pursue a peaceful conclusion to their conflict, then I was mistaken earlier and I apologize.

The Native Americans never had a State. The Palestinians never had a State.

I agree. I do not believe the Native Americans should overthrow the US. Same goes for the Palestinians. I personally, do not think Israel has a right to exist.

That's another matter. I don't plan on - by myself - overthrowing Israel. I recognize it as a fact. I recognize that it exists. I recognize that people have been living in there for a long time and I don't want to see them hurt or otherwise "thrown into the sea."

I suppose you could say that my issue with a country's 'right' to exist is philosophical.

Personally, I think a country only has a 'right' to exist insofar as it upholds the principles for which it stands (in sloganeering).

So if Israel is supposed to be a democracy and isn't then I don't believe it has the right to exist. Same goes for any other country. Of course, I'd hope that all countries protect the rights of all people and practice equality/respect human rights, etc.

Most do not though. So most States - in my opinion - do not have the right to exist. People do. People deserve those progressive rights and equality.

[Kuya]

Technically, most states are republics, which is not the same thing as a democracy.

[Charla]

The idea that the Palestinians are not 'civilized' is not only idiotic but completely baseless. Where is your proof? You are conflating the behavior of fringe with the whole.

Why yes, I was. To be precise, I was using the existence and power of such a fringe, as well as the evident inability of the majority to suppress that fringe as evidence of the faults of the whole. And finally, I never once used the words terror or terrorism. I don't believe my use of the word civilized was predicated on any use of terrorism, but rather on the political instability that gives rise to and is unable to contain violent actions. In addition, I most certainly was mocking your use of the term colonial, because I don't agree that colonization is inherently undesirable (conquest is undesirable because of the means necessary to carry it out, but that's a slightly different matter).

However, beyond defending my statements from two posts ago, I'm going to admit that I appear to be misinformed on this entire constellation of issues, and as such was probably wrong about a great deal of what I said regarding the situation. I will continue to hold my opinions regarding the nature of war, conquest,and colonization, but as you've already said, this is not the tread to debate all that.

In other words, you win.

[Elvis]

Why yes, I was. To be precise, I was using the existence and power of such a fringe, as well as the evident inability of the majority to suppress that fringe as evidence of the faults of the whole.

And this is where you and I differ. This is exactly why terrorists target civilians. They conflate the behavior of a State with it's civilian population.

Our country's foreign policy is the root cause of the hatred exhibited toward us as an 'entity'.

So all us Americans, are complicit in the Bush administration's crimes? My Dad actually voted for Bush - twice. He has his reasons. A lot of people vote/advocate for a candidate for specific policies that favor them.

Does that mean we conflate THEM with the policies they may not specifically agree with? Such as torture. Rendition.

It's stupid. Moreover, public opinion in our country almost always runs contrary to both domestic and foreign policy. By your logic we're all guilty. You're quick to apply this standard to the Palestinians.

And finally, I never once used the words terror or terrorism. I don't believe my use of the word civilized was predicated on any use of terrorism, but rather on the political instability that gives rise to and is unable to contain violent actions.

Terrorism is an unavoidable issue that exists in the periphery of what you said.

The political climate in Palestine is intertwined with Israel's policies. It all comes back to the Occupation. End the occupation and you're taking a step towards something other than constant war and misery.

These problems are not the result of the Palestinian monolith that you espouse. There are several variables that contribute to the instability.

I just can't understand how you'd come to the conclusion you have. These people are not inherently unstable.

In addition, I most certainly was mocking your use of the term colonial, because I don't agree that colonization is inherently undesirable (conquest is undesirable because of the means necessary to carry it out, but that's a slightly different matter).

Conquest and colonialism is good for those in power and their cheerleaders.

My issue with these two concepts/actions is based on my moral and political values. We simply differ here.