Study Reveals The Key Factor In Why Some Muslim Countries Hate America

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Not even close, but I understand that you didn't get the point.

Jim

What is the point, that a highly criticized former professor can use a weak moral equivalance to justify the unjustifiable (by using a false analogy, to boot)?

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by scipio337

What is the point, that a highly criticized former professor can use a weak moral equivalance to justify the unjustifiable (by using a false analogy, to boot)?

Is the killing of civilians by Israeli's justified?

How about the atrocities by Israeli militias back in 1947?

How about their blowing up the King David Hotel?

Ya see, the only one's screaming about killing civilians is when Iraeli's are killed. But when the IDF drops bombs on Lebanese who had nothing to do with Hezobolah, it's OK.

When they bomb Gaza refugee cities, it's OK, because after all, the terrorist, who these civilians have no control over, launch missiles into remote areas of Israel.

Look up the body count between the two sides.

There is no justification for killing civilians, unless it's your civilians who are being killed by a powerful military force, and no one is coming to help you. You'll seek pay back just as American colonist did during the revolution..

Jim

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Not even close, but I understand that you didn't get the point.

Jim

I get the point. I'm just illustrating how ridiculous your question was. When you ask a one-sided, loaded question, it hardly leads to an enlightened outlook on a complex relationship between peoples.

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

I get the point. I'm just illustrating how ridiculous your question was. When you ask a one-sided, loaded question, it hardly leads to an enlightened outlook on a complex relationship between peoples.

Actually what happened to the Native Americans is what happened to the Palestinians, when the state of Israel was declared in 1948, and they were driven out into the desert.

Jim

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Actually what happened to the Native Americans is what happened to the Palestinians, when the state of Israel was declared in 1948, and they were driven out into the desert.

Jim

As I said, one-sided, narrow views are not helpful in understanding complex relationships between peoples.

[JimR-OCDS]

And with that, we'll have to agree to disagree, and being the Palestinians and Israelis haven't been able to solve their issues, I doubt we will.


Jim

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Actually what happened to the Native Americans is what happened to the Palestinians, when the state of Israel was declared in 1948, and they were driven out into the desert.

Jim

And yet there are Arab Palestinians in Israel who are citizens of Israel. Some are in the Knesset. Why? Because the Israelis did NOT drive the Arabs out into the desert. The Arab powers told them to get out of the way of the bloodbath they thought they were going to visit on the Jews.

Looking at it the other way, virtually the entire Arab world is Judenrein,and there are no Jews in the governing bodies of Muslim ARab countries, and why? Precisely because the Arabs, not the Israelis, are the ones who engage in "ethnic cleansing".

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Is the killing of civilians by Israeli's justified?

Nice strawman! Please point out where I justified any civillians being killed??

No. And when Israelis intentionally target civillians, just as when uniformed US military do, they are tried and prosecuted.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt...nea/154463.htm

vs being celebrated as a shahid, and having a city square named after you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalal_Mughrabi

Do you see a the difference, Jim??

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

How about the atrocities by Israeli militias back in 1947?

NOT justified.

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

How about their blowing up the King David Hotel?

Not justified, but at least they made an attempt to limit casualties by calling in the threat.

Can you point to a similar Palestinian Arab act of kindess in a bombing?

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Ya see, the only one's screaming about killing civilians is when Iraeli's are killed. But when the IDF drops bombs on Lebanese who had nothing to do with Hezobolah, it's OK.

When they bomb Gaza refugee cities, it's OK, because after all, the terrorist, who these civilians have no control over, launch missiles into remote areas of Israel.

Look up the body count between the two sides.

As a combat vet, I know the difference between an unintentional casualty of a legitimate military target, and the intentional targeting of a civillian.

You should learn the difference. The Hague certainly makes such distinctions.

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

There is no justification for killing civilians, unless it's your civilians who are being killed by a powerful military force, and no one is coming to help you. You'll seek pay back just as American colonist did during the revolution..

Jim

And the US Revolutionary forces who targeted civillians are....where?

Sorry, there is no justification for intentionally targeting and killing civillians. PERIOD.

Whether it's the imaginary American colonists you envision, a Palestinian Arab militia member, or a member of the US military or IDF.

I won't make exceptions or moral equivalences, in that regard.

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Actually what happened to the Native Americans is what happened to the Palestinians, when the state of Israel was declared in 1948, and they were driven out into the desert.

Jim

Only if you mean the Iroquois-Osage wars by "what happened to the Native Americans". As I've pointed out, the Israelis aren't a colonizing power, they are a native one.

Again, see the fall of the British Raj. Or Ottoman Greece. I've posted this several times.

A similar amount of Jews were kicked out of Arab lands. How about the Jews in Yemen, Libya, Iraq, or Syria? What happened to them? What happened to the 11-14 million displaced Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus in 1947?

More than 5 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from present-day Pakistan into present-day India, and more than 6 million Muslims moved in the other direction. A large number of people (more than a million by some estimates) died in the accompanying violence.

Why aren't any of these living in UNWRA camps??

(3rd time is the charm. I guess one more won't hurt, not that I expect an honest answer)

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Here's another articlel, which pretty much comfirns pervious post I've made;


Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors
August 9, 2001
Robert Malley and Hussein Agha


From the article;



Jim

And the article also says the following:

"These (Israeli) compromises notwithstanding, the Palestinians never managed to rid themselves of their intransigent image. Indeed, the Palestinians’ principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterproposal of their own. In failing to do either, the Palestinians denied the US the leverage it felt it needed to test Barak’s stated willingness to go the extra mile and thereby provoked the President’s anger. When Abu Ala’a, a leading Palestinian negotiator, refused to work on a map to negotiate a possible solution, arguing that Israel first had to concede that any territorial agreement must be based on the line of June 4, 1967, the President burst out, “Don’t simply say to the Israelis that their map is no good. Give me something better!” When Abu Ala’a again balked, the President stormed out: “This is a fraud. It is not a summit. I won’t have the United States covering for negotiations in bad faith. Let’s quit!” Toward the end of the summit, an irate Clinton would tell Arafat: “If the Israelis can make compromises and you can’t, I should go home. You have been here fourteen days and said no to everything. These things have consequences; failure will mean the end of the peace process…. Let’s let hell break loose and live with the consequences.”

Reading through the article, at times the authors, one of whom worked for Clinton in some capacity, seem to be laying the failure of the agreement on the U.S. in general and Clinton in particular. One is always a little put off by those who "kiss and tell".

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by scipio337

And the US Revolutionary forces who targeted civillians are....where?

Sorry, there is no justification for intentionally targeting and killing civillians. PERIOD.

Whether it's the imaginary American colonists you envision, a Palestinian Arab militia member, or a member of the US military or IDF.

I won't make exceptions or moral equivalences, in that regard.

Sadly, it did happen on both sides. The more notorious example was from Banastre Tarleton and his men on the King's side, but there were also cases where patriots and loyalists would take out their anger on innocents.