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

I don't have any problem with it in conventional war against conventional enemies. In this case the GC is great and though I don't pretend to have studied it in depth, I appreciate its intent.

But again, we are dealing with terrorists who play by no rules but their own and who think the GC or any other humanitarian rules or any offers of compromise or peace to be signs of weakness that they can exploit.

You really can't leave the UN out of this discussion, however, as some do seem to defer to them to judge issues of violations of the 'rules of war'. But how many of us give credibility to judges who regularly condemn choices we consider to be what we have to do while giving our opponents a pass in comparison?

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

...

I honestly don't know enough of the intricities of the Geneva Convention to answer your question intelligently. I only know that it is not immoral to protect innocent men, women, and children from murderers who intend to murder them. That is the principle I start with. And I think any rules that apply should follow once that principle is addressed.

Maybe this is relevant:

Quote:

UN CHARTER Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Thanks Ican. But I think several here will interpret this to mean that the authority of the UN supercedes and can override the right to self-defense and once the UN steps in, they are to be in the driver's seat. From time to time don't you see undercurrents of a notion (from some) that the UN is seen as sort of the government of the New World Order? That's a real scary thought to me.

ican quote:
But the UN 's 1947 resolution granted the Arabs the right to govern a part of Palestine, and granted the Jews the right to govern a different part of Palestine

That is the problem: the UN decided that the Arabs WOULD NOT be allowed 'to govern'. No one bothered to ask the Arabs what THEY thought about this decision.

The UN decided that the Arabs WOULD be allowed 'to govern' part of Palestine.

The Arabs were kicked out of part of their country (partitioned) and told to go live in another. Would you like to be kicked out of your homeland by a bunch of displaced immigrants who were not welcomed anywhere else?

The Arabs were NOT kicked out of part of their country (partitioned) and told to go live in another. Many Arabs fled Israel in 1948 at the urging of fellow Arabs. Some Arabs stayed in Israel and their progeny are there today.

Would you give up some of Texas so the Jews could live there?

Jews currently live in Texas, and more are on the way along with others. Jews in Texas have purchased and not conquered the property they inhabit in Texas.

Hay, Jews, y'all come!

Hay, you damnable Islamic Terrorists go to hell!

Would you like your home bulldozed and 'settlements' built in what is Palestinian land? They continue to invade/encroach with no one to hinder them. In fact, the US helps them. You have a very effective Zionist propaganda machine in the US. Learn the truth.

If I were to continue to support Palestinian Arabs deliberately killing Israeli non-combatants, I wouldn't like it, but I would nevertheless deserve whatever was done to me by Israelis attempting to defend themselves against those Palestinian Arabs.

Here, ican...chew on this: MORE PALESTINIANS, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN, HAVE BEEN KILLED BY ISRAELIS THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

That is the price the non-combatant Palestinian Arabs must continue to pay as long as combatant Palestinian Arabs deliberately kill non-combatant Israelis. I recomend that the non-combatant Palestinian Arabs act in their own interest to save themselves and deliberately kill those damnable Palestinian Arabs who are deliberately killing non-combatant Israelis.
...
Rationalize that. Jews lost the battles to keep the land and subsequently left. When you lose a battle you typically lose the right to that land.

Rationalize this. The residents of Palestine, Arabs, Jews, et al, lost wars to rule the land of Palestine, and some of those residents, but not all, subsequently left. When you lose a war you typically lose the power to rule that land, but you do not typically lose the right to remain.


Who gave the UN the right to 'give' these people- the 'Israelites'- a home with no thought whatsoever to the rights of the resident Palestinians, hmmm?

The governents who joined the UN, thereby delegated to the UN the right to pass UN resolutions. In 1947, the UN passed a resolution authorizing the partitioning of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. The Jews then enforced that part of the resolution pertaining to them by declaring their independence as an independent state in part of Palestine.

I think the UN did this thinking it would end the then existing 27 year conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. Obviously, the UN was wrong. The UN failed to take into account the widespread entitlement psychosis being suffered by Palestinian residents due to thousands of years of victimization by conquerers ruling them instead of them ruling themselves. When given the chance in 1947 to rule themselves and declare their own independence in part of Palestine, Palestinian Arabs preferred to perceive themselves as victims until and unless they became self-rulers of all of Palestine. I fear that until they are cured of their entitlement psychosis, they will continue to be victims of the predictable consequences of their own actions.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't have any problem with it in conventional war against conventional enemies. In this case the GC is great and though I don't pretend to have studied it in depth, I appreciate its intent.

But again, we are dealing with terrorists who play by no rules but their own and who think the GC or any other humanitarian rules or any offers of compromise or peace to be signs of weakness that they can exploit.

But we are also dealing with a civilian population in Lebanon or Gaza. What about them? Should they be punished because terrorists perpetrate attacks?

And what's the difference between bombing Iraq (i.e. attacking a "conventional enemy") and bombing Lebanon (i.e. attacking "terrorists")? Why should the Iraqi population be protected by the Geneva Conventions, but not the people of Lebanon?

I am saying that you do whatever you have to do to stop the terrorists from bombing, kidnapping, or otherwise terrorizing, injuring, maiming, and murdering innocent men, women, and children.

Quote:

I am saying that you do whatever you have to do to stop the terrorists from bombing, kidnapping, or otherwise terrorizing, injuring, maiming, and murdering innocent men, women, and children.

And that's the point - how do you do that without bombing the places where they live, intermixed with the civilian population who really doesn't have the power to kick them out?

Cycloptichorn

Hezbollah kidnapped two members of the IDF--do you contend that they are innocents? If so, why would not Hezbollah fighters be as "innocent" as members of the IDF? By the way, the Israeli Brigadier who was responsible for the sector from which the two IDF members were kidnapped has been cashiered.

Despite your attempt, Fox, to spread propaganda, Israel reacted to the kidnapping by immediately declaring that they held the Lebanon responsible, and fewer than 24 hours after the two soldiers were snatched, they launced massive attacks on Lebanese infrastructure, including the bombing of six highway bridges--that was before Hezbollah began to rain rockets on northern Israel.

As always, the Israeli apologists need to warp the record, and falsify history to make a point. Do you consider that members of the IDF are "innocents," and if so, how do members of Hezbollah differ?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I am saying that you do whatever you have to do to stop the terrorists from bombing, kidnapping, or otherwise terrorizing, injuring, maiming, and murdering innocent men, women, and children.

And that's the point - how do you do that without bombing the places where they live, intermixed with the civilian population who really doesn't have the power to kick them out?

Cycloptichorn

I don't accept that you have to keep targeted innocent men, women, and children at perpetual risk just because those who try to murder them hide behind other innocent men, women, and children. Once we adopt a policy like that, the terrorists will be able to keep the entire free world hostage.

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I am saying that you do whatever you have to do to stop the terrorists from bombing, kidnapping, or otherwise terrorizing, injuring, maiming, and murdering innocent men, women, and children.

And that's the point - how do you do that without bombing the places where they live, intermixed with the civilian population who really doesn't have the power to kick them out?

Cycloptichorn

I don't accept that you have to keep targeted innocent men, women, and children at perpetual risk just because those who try to murder them hide behind other innocent men, women, and children. Once we adopt a policy like that, the terrorists will be able to keep the entire free world hostage.

I know, and that's my point - what is the solution?

If we cannot allow the people to remain at risk, and we cannot bomb neighborhoods indiscriminately, and we cannot clearly distinguish who is an enemy and who isn't, what hope do we have of putting an end to the violence?

Cycloptichorn

Setanta wrote:

Hezbollah kidnapped two members of the IDF--do you contend that they are innocents? If so, why would not Hezbollah fighters be as "innocent" as members of the IDF? By the way, the Israeli Brigadier who was responsible for the sector from which the two IDF members were kidnapped has been cashiered.

Despite your attempt, Fox, to spread propaganda, Israel reacted to the kidnapping by immediately declaring that they held the Lebanon responsible, and fewer than 24 hours after the two soldiers were snatched, they launced massive attacks on Lebanese infrastructure, including the bombing of six highway bridges--that was before Hezbollah began to rain rockets on northern Israel.

As always, the Israeli apologists need to warp the record, and falsify history to make a point. Do you consider that members of the IDF are "innocents," and if so, how do members of Hezbollah differ?

Yep. They did that, but you have failed to mention why they did that.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I am saying that you do whatever you have to do to stop the terrorists from bombing, kidnapping, or otherwise terrorizing, injuring, maiming, and murdering innocent men, women, and children.

And that's the point - how do you do that without bombing the places where they live, intermixed with the civilian population who really doesn't have the power to kick them out?

Cycloptichorn

I don't accept that you have to keep targeted innocent men, women, and children at perpetual risk just because those who try to murder them hide behind other innocent men, women, and children. Once we adopt a policy like that, the terrorists will be able to keep the entire free world hostage.

I know, and that's my point - what is the solution?

If we cannot allow the people to remain at risk, and we cannot bomb neighborhoods indiscriminately, and we cannot clearly distinguish who is an enemy and who isn't, what hope do we have of putting an end to the violence?

Cycloptichorn

The answer to is make sure the terrorist are unable to terrorize, threaten, injure, maim, and murder. So we do whatever is necessary to accomplish that whatever it takes within reason. I think there will be different processes for different situations of course, and I think decent people will mitigate collateral damage to innocents as much as possible in those processes, but the ugly part is that no war has ever been fought nor will ever be fought in which no good people are harmed.

The answer to is make sure the terrorist are unable to terrorize, threaten, injure, maim, and murder. So we do whatever is necessary to accomplish that whatever it takes within reason. I think there will be different processes for different situations of course, and I think decent people will mitigate collateral damage to innocents as much as possible in those processes, but the ugly part is that no war has ever been fought nor will ever be fought in which no good people are harmed.

You don't seem to realize that the Geneva conventions protect us from our actions as much as they protect others.

It is important that we don't torture, snatch people up in the middle of the night, hold people without trial indefinately - because these things are wrong to do and unAmerican. Not because the convention binds us.

I suggest you start campaigning for our withdrawl from the convention if you don't like the terms of it, Ican. It is the only honorable move for us to make.

Cycloptichorn

foxfyre wrote:

The answer to is make sure the terrorist are unable to terrorize, threaten, injure, maim, and murder. So we do whatever is necessary to accomplish that whatever it takes within reason. I think there will be different processes for different situations of course, and I think decent people will mitigate collateral damage to innocents as much as possible in those processes, but the ugly part is that no war has ever been fought nor will ever be fought in which no good people are harmed.

One way to to start to make terrorists unable to terrorize, threaten, injure, maim, and murder is to take away their reasons for doing so. Israel can begin by abandoning it's ethnocentric raison d'etre that necessarily discriminates against, and oppresses the Palestinian populations in Israel and the Occupied Territories. It should dismantle its oppressive regime, and emplace a truly democratic and egalitarian government that incorporates and enfranchises all of the peoples therein.

foxfyre wrote:

The answer to is make sure the terrorist are unable to terrorize, threaten, injure, maim, and murder. So we do whatever is necessary to accomplish that whatever it takes within reason. I think there will be different processes for different situations of course, and I think decent people will mitigate collateral damage to innocents as much as possible in those processes, but the ugly part is that no war has ever been fought nor will ever be fought in which no good people are harmed.

One way to to start to make terrorists unable to terrorize, threaten, injure, maim, and murder is to take away their reasons for doing so. Israel can begin by abandoning it's ethnocentric raison d'etre that necessarily discriminates against, and oppresses the Palestinian populations in Israel and the Occupied Territories. It should dismantle its oppressive regime, and emplace a truly democratic and egalitarian government that incorporates and enfranchises all of the peoples therein.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/panacea
Main Entry: pan·a·cea
Pronunciation: "pa-n&-'sE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek panakeia, from panakEs all-healing, from pan- + akos remedy
: a remedy for all ills or difficulties : CURE-ALL
- pan·a·ce·an /-'sE-&n/ adjective