How useful idiots react to self-defense

Discussion in 'Other Discussions' started by SmilinSilhouette, Jun 5, 2010.

  1. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    Israeli forces seize Gaza aid ship - Israel-Palestinians- msnbc.com

    Yet another ship bound for Gaza must be captured. The express purpose of these useful idiots and supporters of terrorism is to break the legal naval blockade of Gaza. If Hamas would stop attacking Israel the blockade would become unnessary. The terrorists, their supporters, and the useful idiots are the root cause of these confrontations.

    Our administration joins the useful idiots and further strains relations with our great ally by ignorant statements like this:

    "the White House said Friday Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip was unsustainable"

    At least someone gets it:

    washingtonpost.com
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2010

  2. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    There is no moral compass when you can't tell the difference between good and evil. Sadly many of the world leaders and the UN are like this.
     
  3. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    What you don't seem to get, maybe because it's what Hollywood tells you time and again, is that you are not "good" or "evil" because of who and what you are, but because of what you do.

    And there are a few basic ethical rules that probably escape you entirely: Two wrongs don't make a right, and actions are of merit or flawed, moral or immoral regardless of who takes them.

    You know what your problem is? You take sides and then measure the actions of "your side" with a different yardstick than the actions of the other side.

    When Palestinians blow up 9 Israeli civilians with a bomb, it's terrorism. But when the Israeli government kills 9 civilians on a boat, it's "self defense". When Israel starts a war because of 12 hijacked soldiers that results in the death of 1000 Lebanese and/or Palestinian civilians, it's justified, but if Turkey declared war on Israel because of 9 killed civilians, it would be "evil". Did I get that right?

    Don't get me wrong, I don't say there are no reasons to sympathize with Israel after all. I do that too. But not as blindly as you do, and I am lacking the anti-humane bloodlust you seem to dwelve in.

    I'd like to ask you: What do you base your support for Israel on? Have you ever considered the Palestinian side of the problem, so that your support for Israel holds water? I bet you didn't.

    Bush is just the right intellectual level for you: You have simple, clear-cut good versus evil, and no shades in between. How comfortable for you. But I think that attitude is dangerous. Over here, we had to learn that lesson the hard way: The country defeated and in ruins, devided, or moral credibility destroyed for decades to come. And all just because we were so convinced we knew exactly what good and evil were, and that of course we are the good guys, because you are good not because of what you do, but of who you are. I hope you will learn your lesson with less bloodshed.
     
  4. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    You know Sim there really is no need to get this personal in your posts and this notion that "we're more educated on these subjects than you stupid Americans" lacks merit obviously so it would behoove you to drop them.

    When 9 Palestinians blow up people with a bomb yes it's terrorism. When Israel defends itself when attacked yes it's self-defense. Each example has it's own argument depending on the facts and it doesn't come down to as simple as you try and make it.
     
    BigBob likes this.
  5. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    Good standard only looks like arrogance from below.

    I'm not sure why you need to put words into my mouth, but keep molesting that strawman if you like. You have shown your true colors already when you implied you give a sh*t about Western values when you said you couldn't care less for Khaled al-Masri.

    For the record: I never said "we" or even "I" are "more educated" than "Americans". I never made this a "Germans/Europeans vs Americans" issue. I directly addressed SS and pro2A, and I never spoke for anybody but myself. And yes, I do have a severe problem with their attitude and lack of grasp on even the most basic ethical standards.

    Agreed, each example has its own argument. And I wasn't making anything more simple than it is, on the contrary, I was pointing out how silly and intellectually bankrupt this black-and-white thinking of the two aforementioned posters is.

    Is it really that simple? Evil Palestinian terrorists against good Israeli freedom fighters?

    Each example has its own argument - care to discuss some? Here a few questions to trigger a debate:

    Is it self-defense when Arab people, whose land has been taken by Jewish settlers, who have used terrorism against the British administrators to push their agenda for a zionist state, stand up and fight for their land?

    Who is more justified in owning that land - a desperate people that has just suffered the worst crime in human history, the Holocaust, who now once and for all want to be safe and have a home? Or those who had been living on this land for centuries before?

    Is it evil when these Arabs, dispelled from their home, decide to reject a particition plan by the UN and decide to fight instead?

    Is it self-defense when those who have just founded this zionist state then commit ethnic cleansing against the remaining Arabs after those have lost this war, is it justified, is it furthermore legal by international law standards, and even if it is not, is it ethical?

    Is it still self-defense, when more than 60 years later, the grandchildren of the expelled Arabs still "defend" themselves against the grandchildren of those who once expelled them?

    Is it still self-defense or already aggression when Hamas denies Israel's right to exist? Is it, when Israel keeps Palestinians in poverty? Does this anti-Palestinian Apartheid maybe rather keep their extremism alife, instead if minimizing it, and thus is counterproductive?

    Is there a vicious circle when each sides takes the entire population of the other side hostage, whenever fanatics on one side have committed another act of terrorism/"self-defense"/revenge? Is it still self-defense when Israel kills 1000 civilians as revenge for a terrorist attack by fanatics, although many of those thousands probably didn't even agree with these fanatics on their side? Is it still self-defense when Palestinians blow up Israeli schoolchildren as revenge for an act by the Israeli government, that killed many more Palestinian children?

    Does the Israeli government really want a two state solution, and if so, why do they still continue taking Palestinian land on the West Bank, dispelling Arabs from their homes to make space for illegal Jewish settlements to be filled with religious fanatics who believe they have a God-given right on that land?

    Is it self-defense when Israeli religious fanatics call for a destruction of the Mosque in Jerusalem to re-erect their temple?

    And if any of it is self-defense, how far can you legitimately go without being totally out of proportion? Is killing 1000 lives of the enemy for 1 life of your kind proportional? If yes, under which conditions and in which context?

    Does any of this even matter when it comes to finding a workeable solution for a sustainable peace, or do both sides need to let the past behind them, and focus on the future instead?


    I don't have very easy answers to any of these questions. Do you? You see, the problem is indeed pretty complex.

    But good for us we have SS and pro. They have all the answers, and don't bother asking or answering any of these questions: Ragheads=terrorists=evil, Israelis=saints. I assume they can't wait for the Final Solution of the Arab Question.

    But what do I know. I'm just a "useful idiot" who cares for communist elitist pinko-cr*p like ethics and a workable peace, while I should rather be roasting ragheads on a stick and eating them for dinner.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2010
  6. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    @ Sim: Where do you come up with this stuff? I never protrayed this as a battle between good and evil, I know it's hard to tell us apart but that was Pro. I don't see why you feel the need to project upon me your prejudiced opinions of what you think that I, or any conservative for that matter, holds. I didn't reply to your earlier posting assuming that your comments were directed at Pro. He can respond to your comments about what he wrote so I won't presume what he meant by his comment.

    LOL arrogance can be spotted a mile away. Hell, I can see it from across oceans

    Your ignorant and arrogant assumptions of my thinking on these subjects is astounding, and your racial slurs are offensive. So why don't you knock it off.

    Here are my thoughts on the subject even though you seem more interested in what you think that I think:

    Isreal exists, it has a right to exist, and it has the right of self-defense. The Obama administration are joining the useful idiots by mischaracterizing the situation with their ignorant public statements.
     
    BigBob likes this.
  7. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    Well, it was you who called people with a different opinion "useful idiots", right? And it was you who expressed that the murder on 9 unarmed (at least not armed with weapons that are any threat to trained soldiers equipped with machine guns) civilians on a humanitarian mission on international sea is "self-defense", right?

    If that's correct, then there is not much I need to take back.

    But let me apologize if one of the many things I said did not exactly represent what you believe.

    But keep in mind that it was you who started the arrogance and misrepresentation of statements others made, by broad-brushing them all with the label "useful idiots".

    Here I absolutely agree, 100%.

    What I do not agree on, though, is that in case of "self-defense", anything goes. For example, shooting 9 civilians (with the nationality of one of Israel's closest allies) on international sea who are armed with sticks at worst is unnecessarily excessive. The ship could have easily been stopped without this bloodshed, but it apparently was a deliberate decision by the far-right Israeli government of warmongering hawks to show the entire world the finger, and to rally the Israeli people up in nationalistic resentment against the rest of the world, in order to gain support for future excessive actions.

    Also, I do not agree that a blockade on Gaza is beyond criticism, but that there are good reasons to both question its legitimacy and effectiveness. Doing so does by no means imply you are "siding with the enemy" or opposing Israel. In fact, there are even Israelis who criticize it too (although they probably don't dare speaking freely about it these days, because their democratic duty of questioning the government will likely be labelled "treason" by the angry mob mongered into hatred by the Netanjahu government).

    You talk as if this blockade against Gaza will anyhow help solving Israel's problems. As if it was a war that could be won. What makes you think so?

    Israel has been using force, violence and suppression against the Palestinians for decades, yet they have not won this conflict. Apparently, this approach won't yield a solution. Maybe it makes it even worse, because the raped Palestinian people, who are all held hostage for the stances of Hamas and other radicals and have to pay the price, even further radicalize or at least don't deescalate.

    As I see it, there is no alternative to seeking peace. Force will obviously not solve the problem.

    Also, I doubt the Netanjahu government even wants peace. They are more than comfortable with the status quo: The occupation regime in the West Bank allows Israel access to water sources they wouldn't enjoy without the occupation, they can easily rob the Palestinians of their water and let them live in dirt. Also, it allows the far-right to appease their constituency of religious Jewish fanatics, who want to settle in the West Bank, believing its their God-given right, with the eventual plan for total ethnic cleansing against Arabs. And keeping the Arabs empoverished and afraid fosters radicalization and thus constantly new attacks against Israel, which is the perfect tool Netanjahu needs to justify his extremely violent, hawkish policies and public support for them.

    If you are looking for readiness for peace, you won't find it at the Netanjahu government, not anymore than among the Hamas terrorists.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2010
  8. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

     
    Boredie likes this.
  9. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    Look, overarching conflict and moral questions aside, as far as I'm concerned, this whole situation all comes down to one fundamental fact:

    1. Israel said, "If you try to run the blockade, we're going to stop you."
    2. The aid ships tried to run the blockade.

    I really don't see why so many people are still surprised by this?
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2010
  10. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    @ Sim: Well I can see that you are still preoccupied with molesting the straw silhouette you have built. Yet I will still waste my time pointing out your misrepresentations. I never called you a useful idiot, you can grab that mantle for yourself if you so choose. I pointed out the useful idiots of the Obama administration.

    As CO correctly points out, it is you who resorts to the tactics that you describe.

    If you took the time and effort to actually find out what I think, instead of wasting that time and effort building your straw silhouette, you may find that our opinions are not as far apart as you imagine.
     

Share This Page