Question For Republicans

[quasi-modo]

The fact is that if Israel did not threaten the families of the bombers there would have been more bombers because there would be a good finantial reason to bomb. Israel takes that away. Which is a good thing because it decreases the total number of attacks. This is a defencive method. I hate the fact that whenever Israel tries to defend its people the UN takes a leak on them. Israel does not go after innocents the majority of the time like you seem to have said. Israel goes after the terrorists themselves. The number of palestinian innocents that gets listed Is inflated I believe. This is because the palestinians want to paint Israel as being evil, a real bad guy. I am sure plenty of those people had ties to terrorism. Not all of them of course, but a fair amount I would be willing to bet. I just hate how you like to say that Israel goes after civilians Adron. The civilians are not a threat to them, its the militant people who plan on blowing up buses. Going after civilians intentionally would not be prudent for tons of reasons. For one it would spawn even more hate, there would be more bombing and the rest of the world would step in. You are just so anti Israel that you want to believe that the jews there are truely evil. I wonder what Yoni thinks.

[Adron]

Just want to let you know, that in many things I agree with you, except for small details and interpretations.

The fact is that if Israel did not threaten the families of the bombers there would have been more bombers because there would be a good finantial reason to bomb. Israel takes that away. Which is a good thing because it decreases the total number of attacks. This is a defencive method.

OK, let's see here... Saddam isn't likely to be giving money anymore. Does that mean Israel has stopped blowing up houses? No.

I could see how someone might have bombed for financial reasons before, but I have never heard of anyone actually doing that. I don't think they need the financial reasons to attract people with what Israel's doing. And to be honest, I think having a father to support a family means much more than that money in the long run.

Perhaps what Israel is doing decreases the number of attacks. It's still not something I can agree with. Israel is strong, they should be better than that. Either it's war on civilians, or, as I'd like to see it, injustice in the legal system. They should be prosecuting terrorist leaders, not getting revenge on innocent families.

Side note: Didn't they do things like this in communist Soviet? If someone defected to the west, they'd exert punishment on relatives who remained, send them to a work camp or so? Did you agree with that?

I hate the fact that whenever Israel tries to defend its people the UN takes a leak on them. Israel does not go after innocents the majority of the time like you seem to have said. Israel goes after the terrorists themselves.

The number of palestinian innocents that gets listed Is inflated I believe. This is because the palestinians want to paint Israel as being evil, a real bad guy. I am sure plenty of those people had ties to terrorism. Not all of them of course, but a fair amount I would be willing to bet. I just hate how you like to say that Israel goes after civilians Adron. The civilians are not a threat to them, its the militant people who plan on blowing up buses. Going after civilians intentionally would not be prudent for tons of reasons. For one it would spawn even more hate, there would be more bombing and the rest of the world would step in.

Well, there are more bombings, and the rest of the world is trying to step in... It wouldn't surprise me if all numbers are a bit inflated. Israel is still killing a lot of civilians, and ruining the lives of more.

What I think about Israel's acts against civilians is that for one, they officially don't care about the effects what they're doing is having on them any more than what the world complains. And for two, inofficially fundamentalist jews wouldn't mind killing civilian palestinians (or any other unfairness against civilian palestinians) (think of those who choose to build houses on occupied areas).

I think that official Israel will gladly do unfair things against civilian palestinians. There has to be limits to what you do to prevent terrorism, and I think Israel is being too hard.

Having said all that, Israel does go after terrorist organizations, albeit not in the way I'd like to see them do it. They should be capturing and prosecuting, instead of just acting as excutioners. And what I said in the preceding paragraphs applies: If killing a terrorist leader means you also kill or injure a lot of palestinian civilians, they'll still go ahead.

If there was a crime lord living with his family in an apartment in New York, the police knew he was in, and that he's guilty of ordering a recent murder: Would you think it OK for the police to throw in a bomb, killing him, his wife, his young children, and maiming his neighbours?

You are just so anti Israel that you want to believe that the jews there are truely evil. I wonder what Yoni thinks.

Naa, I'm not really that anti-jews. Yoni is OK. I think all the jews who think like him (i.e. don't want to go to the palestinian areas to keep some ultra-religious settlers safe) are quite OK. I'm anti-any-religious-or-otherwise-emotionally-extremist. That includes anti-anti-abortionist, anti fundamental-christian/jew/muslim/..., anti-nazist, and so on.

I am also very anti- anyone who seems like a bully, which applies to Israel right now. If they were more humble, forgiving, and willing to give, I'm sure things could be solved much easier.

[quasi-modo]

Just want to let you know, that in many things I agree with you, except for small details and interpretations.

The fact is that if Israel did not threaten the families of the bombers there would have been more bombers because there would be a good finantial reason to bomb. Israel takes that away. Which is a good thing because it decreases the total number of attacks. This is a defencive method.

OK, let's see here... Saddam isn't likely to be giving money anymore. Does that mean Israel has stopped blowing up houses? No.

why should they? It is still a deturrent force.

I could see how someone might have bombed for financial reasons before, but I have never heard of anyone actually doing that. I don't think they need the financial reasons to attract people with what Israel's doing. And to be honest, I think having a father to support a family means much more than that money in the long run.

Maybe they did not blow up for the money, but that certainly encouraged it as it got rid of the what will happen to my family element.

Perhaps what Israel is doing decreases the number of attacks. It's still not something I can agree with. Israel is strong, they should be better than that.

Like what?

Either it's war on civilians, or, as I'd like to see it, injustice in the legal system. They should be prosecuting terrorist leaders, not getting revenge on innocent families.

their primary objective is to go after the terrorists themsevles

Side note: Didn't they do things like this in communist Soviet? If someone defected to the west, they'd exert punishment on relatives who remained, send them to a work camp or so? Did you agree with that?

I didn't have any knowlege of this. But it is a different matter. I mean one or two people leaving is not the same as blowing up a bus full of civilians. I do agree with it though, if it keeps people from defecting then it is doing its job. I wonder how many people actually were put in camps.

I hate the fact that whenever Israel tries to defend its people the UN takes a leak on them. Israel does not go after innocents the majority of the time like you seem to have said. Israel goes after the terrorists themselves.

The number of palestinian innocents that gets listed Is inflated I believe. This is because the palestinians want to paint Israel as being evil, a real bad guy. I am sure plenty of those people had ties to terrorism. Not all of them of course, but a fair amount I would be willing to bet. I just hate how you like to say that Israel goes after civilians Adron. The civilians are not a threat to them, its the militant people who plan on blowing up buses. Going after civilians intentionally would not be prudent for tons of reasons. For one it would spawn even more hate, there would be more bombing and the rest of the world would step in.

Well, there are more bombings, and the rest of the world is trying to step in... It wouldn't surprise me if all numbers are a bit inflated. Israel is still killing a lot of civilians, and ruining the lives of more.

But I would be willing to bet that the palestinians have killed many more civilians then Israel has.

What I think about Israel's acts against civilians is that for one, they officially don't care about the effects what they're doing is having on them any more than what the world complains. And for two, inofficially fundamentalist jews wouldn't mind killing civilian palestinians (or any other unfairness against civilian palestinians) (think of those who choose to build houses on occupied areas).

I would disagree with that completely. They care because the world bitches at them and because they know it is wrong. I would say Israel would rahter just evict them all. Not kill.

I think that official Israel will gladly do unfair things against civilian palestinians. There has to be limits to what you do to prevent terrorism, and I think Israel is being too hard.

then you are being like the un and slapping Israels wrist for putting a missile through the Hamas leaders window. If you chain it up I do not think it will be effective. I think there is a limit and that is do not target civilians. Israel is not targetting civilians.

If there was a crime lord living with his family in an apartment in New York, the police knew he was in, and that he's guilty of ordering a recent murder: Would you think it OK for the police to throw in a bomb, killing him, his wife, his young children, and maiming his neighbours?

Its a different situation all together. If the police know he is guilty they will take him to court first of all. Second he is not killing innocents on the same scale as the terrorist leaders. He is no immediate threat to others, we just need to keep some sharp shooters on the roofs if neccessary and a team of men there to storm the apartnment.

You are just so anti Israel that you want to believe that the jews there are truely evil. I wonder what Yoni thinks.

Naa, I'm not really that anti-jews. Yoni is OK. I think all the jews who think like him (i.e. don't want to go to the palestinian areas to keep some ultra-religious settlers safe) are quite OK. I'm anti-any-religious-or-otherwise-emotionally-extremist. That includes anti-anti-abortionist, anti fundamental-christian/jew/muslim/..., anti-nazist, and so on.

I am also very anti- anyone who seems like a bully, which applies to Israel right now. If they were more humble, forgiving, and willing to give, I'm sure things could be solved much easier.

I think Israel is a victim. I think they can take care of this whole situation by just going falluja on the terrorists and combing each persen and the like, but the rest of the world will not let them. Their citizens are dieing (which that is a primary goal of a country, to keep its people safe) because of these retards and their hands are pretty well tied up.

[muert0]

So people who don't have an army and have to use whatever means necesary to get their point across//defend themselves are terrorist. And people who have armies that are supplied with good weapons and training are obviously right and it's allright that they are killing people...

[Hazard]

So people who don't have an army and have to use whatever means necesary to get their point across//defend themselves are terrorist. And people who have armies that are supplied with good weapons and training are obviously right and it's allright that they are killing people...

No. The North Koreans are a prime example of a well armed group who are terrorist in nature. Terrorism is when the rules of war are ignored, the Geneva Convention is forgotten, and innocent civillians are put in jeopardy or killed.

[Arta]

You what? AFAIK, North Korea hasn't been involved in any armed conflict at all since the ceasefire with the US...

[...] the Geneva Convention is forgotten, and innocent civillians are put in jeopardy or killed.

Tell that to Iraqis, and the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib...

[hismajesty]

AFAIK, North Korea hasn't been involved in any armed conflict at all since the ceasefire with the US...

No, but they did threaten to anniliate Japan, since they can't reach the US.

[Hazard]

You what? AFAIK, North Korea hasn't been involved in any armed conflict at all since the ceasefire with the US...

You should read the news. North Korea went before the UN Security coucil and warned the US "not to mess with them" because they had nuclear weapons and would use them.

[...] the Geneva Convention is forgotten, and innocent civillians are put in jeopardy or killed.

Tell that to Iraqis, and the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib...

You want to know the difference? Iraqi civilians are not being specificially targeted at all. In fact, civillian loses in this war are miniscule compared to other major wars and thats a fact.

Sources: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ , http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html , http://www.vietnam-war.info/casualties/ , http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html , Department of Defense , Cent Com

Its been said before and I'll say it again, prison is not like staying at the Hampton Inn. The prisons meet the standards set forth for prisoners of war. Isolated incidents of prisoner abuses happens by misguided human beings and is by no means the work of the US government.

[Arta]

North Korea went before the UN Security coucil and warned the US "not to mess with them" because they had nuclear weapons and would use them.

What, precisely, is wrong with that? They are a sovereign nation, after all. The US's response to foreign attack has had exactly that consequence: Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Isolated incidents of prisoner abuses happens by misguided human beings and is by no means the work of the US government.

I agree.

[quasi-modo]

So people who don't have an army and have to use whatever means necesary to get their point across//defend themselves are terrorist. And people who have armies that are supplied with good weapons and training are obviously right and it's allright that they are killing people...

People that target civillians are terrorists.

[Arta]

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki targetted civilians...

[quasi-modo]

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki targetted civilians...

I agree, the use of the bomb was not right. If I were in charge I wouldnt have done that. The only good thing that came from the bomb was that we spared some troops from more fighting. I believe that if we would have just launched a massive air strike over japan and then landed we could have finished them rather quickly at the point where we used the bomb. Becuase japan was already crumbling at that time. We destroyed all of their aircraft carriers I believe.

[Adron]

No. The North Koreans are a prime example of a well armed group who are terrorist in nature. Terrorism is when the rules of war are ignored, the Geneva Convention is forgotten, and innocent civillians are put in jeopardy or killed.

That's not terrorism. Terrorism is rule by terror, or using terror to try to make others do as you like. Definitions are important or there will be endless misunderstandings.

[hismajesty]

I'm for the use of the atomic bomb, it accomplished it's mission. I'd rather enemy civilians die than American troops.

[Adron]

I'm for the use of the atomic bomb, it accomplished it's mission. I'd rather enemy civilians die than American troops.

It's good to know that you think so. It's the way I think the Israeli think. (replace American troops with Israeli)

Could you quantify anything about how you weigh them against each other? Is it better to kill a dozen enemy civilians than a dozen American troops? A dozen enemy civilians vs a single American troop? A million enemy civilians vs a single American troop?

I realize this becomes more of a morale question, so now I'm just trying to sound you out, not arguing advantages of any position on it.