ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Are there to be specific rules about what a woman can and cannot do to defend herself against a rapist or anybody against a serial killer?

Foxfyre wrote:

Are there to be specific rules about what a woman can and cannot do to defend herself against a rapist or anybody against a serial killer?

no specific rules, just a modicum of common sense. You dont have the right to kill a trespasser just because he was on your property. Proportionate is the word...Israel's response was disproportionate and therefore constituted a war crime. But hey thats not new.

[...]The scourge of munitions from the cluster bombs littering southern Lebanon, mostly American-made but some manufactured in Israel, will be a "lasting legacy," the United Nations has said. UN officials estimate that the Israeli military fired 90 percent of the bombs during the last 72 hours of the conflict, which began July 12 after Hezbollah fighters seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid and ended with a cease-fire on Aug. 14. Up to 1 million of the bomblets are unexploded, they say, wounding or killing three people a day. The threat of stumbling across a bomblet has paralyzed life in parts of the south that depend on the harvest of tobacco and now-abandoned groves of bananas, olives and citrus.[...]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see spelling out 'appropriate action' in the case of war. It is absurd to make rules for how one must defend himself/herself from those who intend bodily harm so long as the attacker is the one targeted. Are there to be specific rules about what a woman can and cannot do to defend herself against a rapist or anybody against a serial killer? Or do you just do what you can do at the time?

What is Israel allowed to do when a person is kidnapped? If they cannot target the specific kidnapper, are they allowed to do nothing? They have to just take it? Obviously if they start going through the neighborhood destroying property to get the kidnappers, they will be condemned. But if they fire at one target intended to impose significant punishment to get the attention of those who can get the kidnappers, they are condemned.

Steve 41oo wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Are there to be specific rules about what a woman can and cannot do to defend herself against a rapist or anybody against a serial killer?

no specific rules, just a modicum of common sense. You dont have the right to kill a trespasser just because he was on your property. Proportionate is the word...Israel's response was disproportionate and therefore constituted a war crime. But hey thats not new.

So again, what IS Israel allowed to do to stop that kind of attack? What would be appropriate and not a war crime?

I don't care whose point of view it is Walter. I only care about the implications in it. Who made the point is irrelevent. The point made is wrong.

Foxfyre wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Are there to be specific rules about what a woman can and cannot do to defend herself against a rapist or anybody against a serial killer?

no specific rules, just a modicum of common sense. You dont have the right to kill a trespasser just because he was on your property. Proportionate is the word...Israel's response was disproportionate and therefore constituted a war crime. But hey thats not new.

So again, what IS Israel allowed to do to stop that kind of attack? What would be appropriate and not a war crime?

they could have done what they did before and traded prisoners. Instead they launched a month long war killing thousands. Sooner or later the zionists will have to conclude what everyone else knows already, that their dream of eretz yisrael is dangerous nonsense. And that if they persist it will lead to the demise of the israel they have at present. Israel is already a failed state imo.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't care whose point of view it is Walter. I only care about the implications in it. Who made the point is irrelevent. The point made is wrong.

That's right . . . anyone who disagrees with Fox--the most well-educated and well-informed person on the planet (no, really, just ask her)--cannot possibly be correct, even if they are Israelis who have lived their entire lives in that region dealing with these situations and watching and judging Israeli governments.

Fox didn't even notice this entire bruhaha until three days after Hezbollah snatched the IDF boys, but she's been playing the bloody oracle since she first puked up her right-wing hatred and her "Israel can do no wrong" mantra. What a loon.

But 'doing what they did before' just encourages more of the same, don't you think? If Israel gives them what they want each time they do this sh*t, what's to stop them from doing it?

I do not see capitulating to the demands of terrorists as a reasonable response to terrorism. I think Israel has come to that same conclusion, as well they should.

Setanta wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't care whose point of view it is Walter. I only care about the implications in it. Who made the point is irrelevent. The point made is wrong.

That's right . . . anyone who disagrees with Fox--the most well-educated and well-informed person on the planet (no, really, just ask her)--cannot possibly be correct, even if they are Israelis who have lived their entire lives in that region dealing with these situations and watching and judging Israeli governments. (emphasis added)

Fox didn't even notice this entire bruhaha until three days after Hezbollah snatched the IDF boys, but she's been playing the bloody oracle since she first puked up her right-wing hatred and her "Israel can do no wrong" mantra. What a loon.

Can't handle discussing the issue, so Setanta once again resorts to personal attacks. Tell me Set, which part of what you said actually addresses the topic? I don't see Foxfyre making any personal attacks here, so why the puerile attempt on your part?

McGentrix wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't care whose point of view it is Walter. I only care about the implications in it. Who made the point is irrelevent. The point made is wrong.

That's right . . . anyone who disagrees with Fox--the most well-educated and well-informed person on the planet (no, really, just ask her)--cannot possibly be correct, even if they are Israelis who have lived their entire lives in that region dealing with these situations and watching and judging Israeli governments. (emphasis added)

Fox didn't even notice this entire bruhaha until three days after Hezbollah snatched the IDF boys, but she's been playing the bloody oracle since she first puked up her right-wing hatred and her "Israel can do no wrong" mantra. What a loon.

Can't handle discussing the issue, so Setanta once again resorts to personal attacks. Tell me Set, which part of what you said actually addresses the topic? I don't see Foxfyre making any personal attacks here, so why the puerile attempt on your part?

I have bold-faced the portion of my response which directly responds to Fox's remarks to imply that she knows better on these issues than Israelis who have lived in Israel all of their lives. I can only assume that your reading comprehension has sunken to a new, heretofore unanticipated low.

When Fox first showed up at this site, she told us we should listen to her because she is well-informed and well-educated. The obvious implication was that the rest of us are not well-education and are ill-informed. Her performance since she's been here suggests that what education she has had was badly flawed, or that she wasn't paying proper attention. Her performance since she has been here shows that she is not well informed at all--it is incredible the basic events in today's world of which she is unaware. This thread throughout shows that she acknowledges absolutely not valid criticism of Israel.

It's not a "personal attack" to point out things about a member's posts which happen to be true.

B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was established in 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. It endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.

B'Tselem in Hebrew literally means "in the image of," and is also used as a synonym for human dignity. The word is taken from Genesis 1:27 "And God created humans in his image. In the image of God did He create him." It is in this spirit that the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights."

As an Israeli human rights organization, B'Tselem acts primarily to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government, which rules the Occupied Territories, protects the human rights of residents there and complies with its obligations under international law.

B'Tselem is independent and is funded by contributions from foundations in Israel, Europe, and North America that support human rights activity worldwide, and by private individuals in Israel and abroad.

B'Tselem has attained a prominent place among human rights organizations. In December, 1989 it received the Carter-Menil Award for Human Rights. Its reports have gained B'Tselem a reputation for accuracy, and the Israeli authorities relate to them seriously. B'Tselem ensures the reliability of information it publishes by conducting its own fieldwork and research, whose results are thoroughly cross-checked with relevant documents, official government sources, and information from other sources, among them Israeli, Palestinian, and other human rights organizations.

You didn't actually expect him to read the material linked, did you? You don't actually believe that Fox has read it, do you?

It's not a "personal attack" to point out things about a member's posts which happen to be true.

When Fox first showed up at this site, she told us we should listen to her because she is well-informed and well-educated.