Land Of The Free? Imprisonment Without Trial

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@11 September 2003 - 20:52
What a nice for someone with the motivation (and I do not feel that Ratfaced has said motivation) to distort murder into an acceptable military tactic.

I don't think this information has any constructive value. It is a quibble, a nit-pick and an extreme way to justify what we all know to be an unacceptable act of civilian terror.

Had you told me the Palestineans were conscripted, I would have reponded the same way. In fact, I wish you had, just to show that I don't think either side is "right". In fact, both are "wrong".

---

I agree. both sides are wrong.


However I seem to remember reading that a "Military Objective" that involved the death of civilians was OK.

Therefore, you must take into account what is meant by "Military Target".

An unarmed "Soldier" is much easier to kill than an armed one...especially when you cant a nice Rocket Launcher or Jet to shoot them at a distance.


The Palestinians are not the 1st to target reservists.......the IRA were doing it 30 years ago.

Ah, now Israeli citizens are called "reservists".

Again, talking about retaliation with rockets has no bearing on the issue of justifying suicide bombers by calling all Israeli citizens military targets.

Suicide bombers in no way effect the military might of Israel, they serve to disrupt civilian life, period, end.

In the context of this exchange:
Shooting rockets to kill people- wrong
Suicide bombers to kill people- wrong
Let us not use a quibble (conscription) to distort reality (the people in the shopping malls are "shoppers" not minutemen) to justify an unacceptable act.

hobbes. I think the important distinction here is that no one is justifying suicide bombers and moreover no democratic western Gvt subsidises them to the tune of billions of $$'s every year.

Based on this evidence the current consensus is..

Suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians - wrong
Shooting rockets to kill Palestinian civilians - right

Are you commenting on the thread as a whole, or responding to my very specific discussion with RF about twisting definitions to justify actions.

That is why I specifically posted "in the context of this exchange" (exchange between RF and myself over the last 4 posts, exclusive to the rest of the thread), as we (everyone) discussed the bigger picture last night. I knew those last lines, read without the proper context, would bring about a flare-up I did not intend.

Please do not tell myfiles3000 that I used bold, he frowns about this, calls it amateur work.

Do you mean to say suicide bombings and rocket attacks against civilians could be 'right' in another context?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@11 September 2003 - 22:35


Based on evidence the consensus is..

Suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians - wrong
Shooting rockets to kill Palestinian civilians - right

---

Absolutely, I just found a post which confirms it.

Now please stay on topic, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes+11 September 2003 - 17:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 11 September 2003 - 17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@11 September 2003 - 22:35


Based on evidence the consensus is..

Suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians - wrong
Shooting rockets to kill Palestinian civilians - right

---

Absolutely, I just found a post which confirms it.

Now please stay on topic, thanks. [/b][/quote]
Hobbes,

I believe you just stooped to using "tactics".

Naughty, naughty.

now now clocker, he did say on topic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes
Now please stay on topic, thanks.

---

At the moment the topic is what constitutes a viable target.

Which, as it happens, is what I&#39;ve been talking about all along.. I guess there&#39;s OT and "OT".

According to Clockers own &#39;rules&#39; the recent suicide bombings were "legal" because the main target was Israeli soldiers (not reservists) and any civilians who got in the way are an acceptable loss.

Or are we working under a different set of &#39;rules&#39; now?

Clocker hasn&#39;t made any rules.

Clocker has stated that he thinks Israel has a right to exist and defend itself.

Clocker takes no delight in the death of any civilian.

Clocker has stated that, as this is a dispute based on religion more than politics, he sees no end in sight.

Clocker is no position to "justify" the actions of the Israelis or the US government, any more than you, EBP, can "justify" that the sky is blue.

Clocker is still completely mystified as to the nature of your beliefs EBP, as all he can see is an unending tirade against the US.

Clocker is now going to listen to God&#39;s Song by Randy Newman, and reflect on it&#39;s suitability as an anthem for this thread.

EBP-

Your.....uh.....method of, well.....I really hesitate to call it "debate", or "argument" or even "editorialization", because it is none of these things-it would more aptly be described as sophist sissy-fighting, which, I must say, you excell at.

You are a hater into the bargain, and not worth the papier-mache you are printed on.