1
   

Air strike-Hamas Founder dead

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 05:39 pm
So you do not see the assasination as either saving lives or promoting peace but are, nevertheless, undecided as to your support for it?

Finn, I think we differ in too many fundamental ways for this conversation to be meaningful.

My criteria is one of promoting peace and the end of the conflict in the region.

If you are operating on a different criteria, then our value judgements will never be compatible.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 06:15 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
So you do not see the assasination as either saving lives or promoting peace but are, nevertheless, undecided as to your support for it?


This is not so puzzling as it may seem. Because I do not see the assassination saving lives or promoting peace doesn't mean that it will not. I don't profess to have as clear an understanding of the dynamics on the ground as do the Israelis, however, if you will note, the statement I made was in the context of acknowledging I had misgivings about it serving a useful purpose.

Craven wrote:
Finn, I think we differ in too many fundamental ways for this conversation to be meaningful.

My criteria is one of promoting peace and the end of the conflict in the region.


Disengage if you so please. I didn't realize that the purpose of this forum was to come to an agreement on all things or to promote peace and an end to a conflict in the Middle East. A bit loftier than Abuzz, I must admit.

Craven wrote:
My criteria is one of promoting peace and the end of the conflict in the region. If you are operating on a different criteria, then our value judgements will never be compatible.


Again, I'm not sure why our value judgments need to be compatible for us to engage in discourse, but I do resent the implication that I am some sort of a warmonger, because I do not agree with you.

So be it. Somehow I think we'll engage in debate again.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2004 06:21 pm
I did not mean to imply that you are a warmonger and have no reason to do so.

I just think that without sharing a criterion and goal we will talk past each other.

For e.g. my criteria for evaluation of Mid East acts centers around the forwarding of the peace process.

IMO, retribution, however just it may be, often does no boon to the process.

So when I arrive at the conclusion that the act was a vengeful misstep it's a moral judgement based on that sole criteria.

If I were to operate under other criteria I'd not mind the assasination. Frankly, I shed no tears for the man.

But if we operate with vastly different criteria, we can only agree to disagree on suvjective moral issues.

It's not meant to imply bloodlust on your part, just the futility of trying to reconcile moral evaluations based on different criteria.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 11:43 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:

For e.g. my criteria for evaluation of Mid East acts centers around the forwarding of the peace process.


With all due respect, how can your evaluation be objective and still center on a given goal?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2004 11:50 pm
Objectivity and an objective are not mutually exclusive.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 03:03 pm
Let me blurt out my 2 cents...

Quote:
Terrorizing the terrorists
By Ryan Jones
Jerusalem - March 28, 2004

"The policy of escalation and confrontation adopted by the Israeli government is of great danger and an evidence of Israel's state terrorism, which led to the killing of unarmed civilians," read a statement from the Gulf Cooperation Council following Israel's execution of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin.

For once I have to agree with the decadent oil sheikhs of the Gulf - Israel last week did utilize terror and, as far as I am concerned, it was about time.

While Israel needs to destroy the terrorist organizations currently arrayed against it, the only way to finally end future aspirations of murdering Israelis is to effectively terrorize fanatics bent on killing in Allah's name into giving up their murderous ambitions.

Israel should terrorize the terrorists.

Until last week, one did not have much to fear from being the leader of a known and recognized "Palestinian" terrorist organization. Then the sheikh was vaporized, and the rules of the game were changed.

Now, characters such as Hamas' Abdel Aziz Rantisi and even Yasser Arafat himself are squirming, wondering if their current line of work will result in an IAF helicopter pilot putting out their lights.

If Yassin's execution turns out to be a one-off operation, however, the effect will be lost. Israel should seize the opportunity and open a new chapter in its war on terror, adopting a policy of ruthlessness to match that of the terrorists.

True, your average "suicide" bomber may already have a penchant for death, leaving him or her undeterred by Israel's war on terror. But your average bomber needs the Yassins, Rantisis and Arafats to guide, supply and train him.

By launching a brutal and determined execution campaign against the terrorist leadership, undaunted by world opinion, Israel can go a long way towards diminishing the scourge of "Palestinian" terror.

But world opinion is exactly the problem. Judging by the level of international indignation following Yassin's demise, and Israel's traditional bowing to outside pressure, the "Palestinian" terror chiefs are safe for the time being.

That is where our support, as Christian Zionists, comes in. Israel will feel far freer to pursue and destroy its enemies if tens of millions of bible-believing Christians demand that their governments stop tying Israel's hands.

I can hear some of the reactions already - "But we are called to be peacemakers, we cannot advocate war and killing."

Keep in mind that throughout the Bible, war was always an integral part of bringing peace. Those who believe all that changed with Jesus should remember that the world will experience its biggest ever bloodbath when Messiah comes to set up His kingdom on earth. (See Isaiah 63:1; Revelation 14:19)

The 17th century Dutch Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza offers wisdom Christians would do well to consider:

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."

It is to see justice for the victims of terror, for this virtue of peace, and our desire to see the children of Israel living free from fear that causes us to support a war against the self-declared enemies of God's chosen.

One day the world, under the direct kingship of the Lord, will live in complete and total peace. Until then, it is surely the wish of all right-thinking men that their children will enjoy a modicum of security and tranquility. As history has repeatedly shown, that kind of peace can only be found on the other side of war.

Declared Aristotle: "We make war that we may live in peace."


0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 03:16 pm
A very prevalent take by analysts is that the assasination isn't intended to curb terrorism but rather to blunt the possible criticism of an Israeli withdrawal.

Israeli extremists who favor keeping the conflict going and keeping the hope of greater Israel alive object to any withdrawals and negotiations and a common tactic they use is to say that it is to "reward terrorism".

Sharon is planning a unilateral withdrawal (which I support) and many think that moves such as the assasination are to blunt the criticism that Israel is "rewarding" terror by ending the occupation.

It seems plausible to me. If Sharon withdraws as planned, I expect more high profile moves aimed at blunting criticism that to end occupation is to reward terror.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 08:03 pm
If the last shot fired proves to be the assassination of a notorious terrorist, than so be it. Perhaps he'll consider that a significant enough target to get his message across... Especially considering all the proverbial fire he's taking right now. Let's hope.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2004 08:54 pm
It's not the last shot.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2004 10:13 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Objectivity and an objective are not mutually exclusive.


Strictly speaking true, but never in practice.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2004 10:17 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Sharon is planning a unilateral withdrawal (which I support) and many think that moves such as the assasination are to blunt the criticism that Israel is "rewarding" terror by ending the occupation.


How important is a unilateral withdrawl?

If the only way Sharon can, politically, accomplish it, might not these "high profile moves" be justified?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2004 10:18 pm
That makes no sense Finn. You'll have to clairify.

Never not mutually exclusive?

Are you trying to propose an axiom? If so, please spell it out. I suspect I know what it is and am eager to argue against it (if it is, indeed, what I suspect it is).
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2004 10:20 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Sharon is planning a unilateral withdrawal (which I support) and many think that moves such as the assasination are to blunt the criticism that Israel is "rewarding" terror by ending the occupation.


How important is a unilateral withdrawl?

If the only way Sharon can, politically, accomplish it, might not these "high profile moves" be justified?


Your last question is a good one, and quite frankly, in the context of the withdrawal I looked on the act in a less harsh light to see if I could reconcile that notion with the ME as I tend to see it.

Thing is, I can see no way in which this was necessary at all. Even for internal Israeli politics.

IMO, this "withdrawal" will be temporary and each side will use any pretext they can to violate it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2004 09:24 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
That makes no sense Finn. You'll have to clairify.

Never not mutually exclusive?

Are you trying to propose an axiom? If so, please spell it out. I suspect I know what it is and am eager to argue against it (if it is, indeed, what I suspect it is).


Once an objective is set, self interest is established and true objectivity is impossible.

Have at it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2004 09:25 pm
I suppose that depends on your definition. You seem to have defined true objectivity in a way that makes it a non-existent concept.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:11 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
I suppose that depends on your definition. You seem to have defined true objectivity in a way that makes it a non-existent concept.


Infinity is a concept. Does it exist?

Offer me an example of an objective pursuer of an objective.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:49 pm
I am well aware of concepts whose existence can't be established.

In another thread I happen to be arguing that randomness does not exist.

So I'm perfectly willing to cede that within your definition it is non-existent.

Now where we part company is in how you use "objectivity" to question the criteria of the peace process. Here you ask how having a goal is objective, implying a lack of objectivity.

Would that be a criticism based on something that is universally lacking?

Basically what I'm asking you is if this has relevance to the mid-east conflict or if this is tangiental philosophy.

Is your qualm with what I'd written that it does not meet an impossible criteria? Is that your point?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 11:49:37