Israel warns: free soldier or PM dies

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

2. Can you dislike the actions and policies (or even existence) of the state of Israel, and not be a racist?

part A: (actions and policies) Of course ... disagreeing with North Korea's policies doesn't necessarily mean you are racist towards North Koreans.

part B: (existence) This could be interpreted many different ways and I think a positive response to this question could be construed as racism a lot easier than the others.

Yeah, we'll very much have to disagree on part B. Believing that the state of Israel is 'technically illegitimate' does not = being a Mujahadeen. To paint anyone who disagrees with the Israeli occupation of Palestine (if you believe the Palestinians) as a racist is flat out wrong. I'm sure there were many in Britain back in the 18th century who didn't agree with the 'new' United States right to exist or legitimacy as a 'state'. Were they racist against... white protestants?

Holding a purely political point of view does not automatically construe religious bigotry. Thats why, when Azure whipped out the race card, I responded. I think its innappropriate when looking at the original post in question (not a hint of racism to it).

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Disliking actions or policies is not the same as blaming Israel for existing, or blaming them for the current situation.

Where you use the negative term 'blame', others might use the term 'take or assume responsibility'. Disagreeing with the current political status of Israel does not make one an anti-Semite, and its a really poor show to pull that term out unless its warranted. Looking at the original post, I don't see that it is.

Israel is a light of democracy in a troubled region. Its time we all realized that, and quit blaming them for the situation they are in.

Sure, and I don't see anyone here arguing for the extinguishment of that light. But they have to 'take responsibilty' (the blame?) for the situation their in. Its not like they just all moved in peacefully and were there, and then were attacked out of the blue. Both sides are fairly equally responsible for the decades of violence. Its not a one-sided conflict, and to believe that its not does not make one a anti-Jewish racist.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The US in Iraq for example could defeat the insurgency much faster if they wanted to string terrorists up by their toenails and hold public torture sessions in the streets.

I would highly question the effectiveness of this. You guys seriously believe public execution/torture of Iraqis/Muslims in Iraq would bring this country around to liberal-democracy? Sounds backwards to me... isn't this the stuff Saddam did to quell insurgencies

edit: maybe I'm missing your sarcasm..?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yeah, that's true. It only stands to reason that a daily spectacle of American soldiers publicly torturing Iraqis in the town square would do wonders for the Yank objective. If that kind of thing were to go on then maybe the Iraqi ingrates would finally pull out the flowers and have the parade they were supposed to have a few years ago when the Marines showed up in Baghdad.

At the very least a strictly regulated public torture program would go a long way towards ending those suicide bombings. Any martyr with a lick of sense isn't going to blow himself to smithereens if he has to worry about getting a public flogging after the fact.

Well, my suggestion wouldn't stop the most hardcore suicide bomber from fighting, but it would stop the average citizen or member of a resistance group from taking up a weapon and to start fighting. Oh and don't think for a second that public torture sessions would be a very "reactive" policy. Think proactive and preventitive.

If you want to target suicide bombers specifically, you could simply say that anyone who does that, their family, parents, grandparents would be tortured and murdered by soliders.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Yeah, we'll very much have to disagree on part B. Believing that the state of Israel is 'technically illegitimate' does not = being a Mujahadeen. To paint anyone who disagrees with the Israeli occupation of Palestine (if you believe the Palestinians) as a racist is flat out wrong. I'm sure there were many in Britain back in the 18th century who didn't agree with the 'new' United States right to exist or legitimacy as a 'state'. Were they racist against... white protestants?

Holding a purely political point of view does not automatically construe religious bigotry. Thats why, when Azure whipped out the race card, I responded. I think its innappropriate when looking at the original post in question (not a hint of racism to it).

Right, I get what you're saying. All I'm getting at is the "opposed to the existence of Israel" could mean a lot more things than the other ones, including racism, which I didn't mean to imply towards you. I hope that makes sense.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I would highly question the effectiveness of this. You guys seriously believe public execution/torture of Iraqis/Muslims in Iraq would bring this country around to liberal-democracy? Sounds backwards to me... isn't this the stuff Saddam did to quell insurgencies

edit: maybe I'm missing your sarcasm..?

Yeah it does sound backwards doesn't it. No, you aren't missing my sarcasm either.

The way you win a war is to crush the spirits of your enemy. There were many unspeakable attrocties committed against Japanese and German (Japanese in particular) in WW2, yet they transititioned to a democratic state.

Think about how WW2 ended with dropping nukes on the citizens of Japan, quite a few of them innocent.

I can elaborate later, but I've got to run.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The way you win a war is to crush the spirits of your enemy.

Well, for sure, though it depends on what 'winning' means to you. I'm sure the US could set up secret hit squads in Iraq to seek out and destroy any/all insurgents, sort of like a 'secret police'. That would be the best, easiest way, convert a bunch of the locals into a paramilitary cadre, funded by the US, whose sole purpose is to assasinate insurgents.

Of course, then you have an undemocratic police-state. Not exactly what the US wanted to get out of the equation (or so they say).

There were many unspeakable attrocties committed against Japanese and German (Japanese in particular) in WW2, yet they transititioned to a democratic state.

Yeah, but it was a different time, different circumstances. Japan was united as a nation, and lost as a nation. The people had a (fairly) unified political voice and homogenous society, same with Germany. Iraq is a polyglot of cultures, religions, and races. I don't think comparisons between '45 Japan and '06 Iraq are really accurate, imo.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Right, I get what you're saying. All I'm getting at is the "opposed to the existence of Israel" could mean a lot more things than the other ones, including racism, which I didn't mean to imply towards you. I hope that makes sense.

Sure, no offense taken. Though, I stand by the opinion that being "opposed to the existence of Israel" does not = racism. Being "opposed to the existence of Jewish people" is racism. And the two are entirely separate topics of discussion, I believe. The reason I took this tack, again, was because the anti-Semite card was drawn when it should not have been, regarding a basically purely political post.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Believing that the state of Israel is 'technically illegitimate' does not = being a Mujahadeen. To paint anyone who disagrees with the Israeli occupation of Palestine (if you believe the Palestinians) as a racist is flat out wrong.

That all depends on how you define a few of the points in your post. What do you mean by "technically illegitimate"?

Do you mean that the State of Israel was created on the map illegally (a political view)? If so, then the facts don't bear you out - Israel (pre-1967 boarders) was created by the people living there on land purchased in the early part of the 1900's and land given to them through the Balfour Declaration, and recognized by the UN in 1948. All quite legal.

Do you mean that the Jews do not have a right to a homeland either in that part of the world or at all? This can be construed as an anti-semetic position.

the Israeli occupation of Palestine

Are you refering to the occupation of what is commonly known as the west bank & gaza? Or the so called (by Hamas & other terrorist groups) occupation of historic Palestine?

Ending the first is a political issue, Ending the second is terrorist PR and slang for the destruction of Israel - an anti-semetic issue.

I think its innappropriate when looking at the original post in question (not a hint of racism to it).

I agree. I did not feel that the original post was anti-semetic - The poster took a position (that Israel is to blame) and pointed out that Israel should exist within the pre-1967 borders, a political stance.

One could argue that the State of Israel has no right to exist just as I could argue that tthe State of Israel has every right to exist. One could argue that the State of Israel should not be a Jewish State, just as I could argue the oposite. To call the arguments (or debators) anti-semitic or racist often lies in the motive - is there a malicious intent. I don't see any here.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

That all depends on how you define a few of the points in your post. What do you mean by "technically illegitimate"?

There are millions of people and hundreds of scholars that contend that the creation of Israel displaced an existing population. Whether or not this is true is not what we're debating. Whether or not you believe that Israel is a legal/moral state, or it isn't, does not necessarily have anything to do with opinions on Jewish people. Since the debate still rages across academia, I don't really care to pass judgement here one way or the other.

Do you mean that the State of Israel was created on the map illegally (a political view)? If so, then the facts don't bear you out - Israel (pre-1967 boarders) was created by the people living there on land purchased in the early part of the 1900's and land given to them through the Balfour Declaration, and recognized by the UN in 1948. All quite legal.

I've been pretty careful to suggest that this is a point of view that exists, I have not adressed it as my own. I am not engaging you as an anti-Israeli believer, so these arguments don't interest me. However, to believe it was the illegal creation of a state (and I'm not going to spend hours finding counter-points to yours, though I've no doubt they exist) is not to be a racist, as is my original (and constant) point. It is a political point of view.

Do you mean that the Jews do not have a right to a homeland either in that part of the world or at all? This is an anti-semetic position.

I don't believe any single 'race' or 'religion' 'deserves' their own 'homeland'. I believe every person deserves a home. The two are entirely different things.

I don't see how your religion entitles you to land. I don't see how your colour or race apply to your entitlement to land. Do the Falun Gong deserve their own homeland because there is no Falun Gong state? How about the Mormons? Are you a bigoted anti-Mormon if you do not believe in their right to have their own state?

The first is a political issue, the second is terrorist PR and slang for the destruction of Israel - an anti-semetic issue.

Don't know what the heck you're talking about. Believing that Israel is an illegal state does not make one anti-Semetic. I have Jewish friends. I argue with them till I'm blue in the face about the Israel/Palestine situation. They do not believe (and rightfully so) that I am anti-Semetic. The two are not the same.

While there certainly are people who both disagree with the existence of Israel, AND hate Jewish people, being one does not necessitate being the other, and to imply as such is to be very narrow-minded.

I agree. I did not feel that the original post was anti-semetic but some of the points above could be construed as such.

Only if you're looking to start a witch-hunt. That post had nothing in it that can be called out for being anti-Semetic, and yet it was. Thats my beef. I don't really care to debate the Israel/Palestine situation in detail, it would take hours and would get neither of us anywhere. I just think, as I've said ad nauseum, that it was an innappropriate comment given the wording of the original post.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So I guess you are unfamiliar with what has happened at Abu Gharib prison then? That was pretty moral.

Let alone the entire war itself, which is an illegal war.

What about lying to the entire world about the weapons of mass destruction they had concrete evidence of?

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the U.S. being morally responsible...

Can you prove to me that Saddam never had, nor did he ever use WMD?

[Azure]

Where you use the negative term 'blame', others might use the term 'take or assume responsibility'. Disagreeing with the current political status of Israel does not make one an anti-Semite, and its a really poor show to pull that term out unless its warranted. Looking at the original post, I don't see that it is.

Fair enough. But looking at the original post, it does seem to me that Red Mile Style "is" calling for Israel to cease existing, saying they don't even belong there as the land isn't theirs.

Sure, and I don't see anyone here arguing for the extinguishment of that light. But they have to 'take responsibilty' (the blame?) for the situation their in. Its not like they just all moved in peacefully and were there, and then were attacked out of the blue. Both sides are fairly equally responsible for the decades of violence. Its not a one-sided conflict, and to believe that its not does not make one a anti-Jewish racist.

Israel has shown more willingness to work with diplomacy then the Hamas government. Like Cowperson said, once Hamas became a government, they became responsible for their terrrorist like actions/ruling. We're saying them pay the price of that responsibility.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well, for sure, though it depends on what 'winning' means to you. I'm sure the US could set up secret hit squads in Iraq to seek out and destroy any/all insurgents, sort of like a 'secret police'. That would be the best, easiest way, convert a bunch of the locals into a paramilitary cadre, funded by the US, whose sole purpose is to assasinate insurgents.

Of course, then you have an undemocratic police-state. Not exactly what the US wanted to get out of the equation (or so they say).


Yeah, but it was a different time, different circumstances. Japan was united as a nation, and lost as a nation. The people had a (fairly) unified political voice and homogenous society, same with Germany. Iraq is a polyglot of cultures, religions, and races. I don't think comparisons between '45 Japan and '06 Iraq are really accurate, imo.

You missed my point, I probably shouldn't have made a half post like I did.

I wasn't comparing Germany/Japan 45 to Iraq directly, I was using it as an example where the the allies committed Terror acts against a civilian population and was able to parlay that into winning the war - and as such convert them into a Liberal Democracy - not a terror/police state.

Of course I understand they are different situations, but the same principles apply, you make your enemy not want to continue the fight because the risks far outweigh the benefits in their eyes. From our perspective right now, it seems like these insurgents are fighting a hopeless battle, but probably they have a completely different view of things.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Of course I understand they are different situations, but the same principles apply, you make your enemy not want to continue the fight because the risks far outweigh the benefits in their eyes. From our perspective right now, it seems like these insurgents are fighting a hopeless battle, but probably they have a completely different view of things.

I suppose I just disagree with the 'principle' that increased violence will = reduced morale of the resistance. The US killed (or the War caused the deaths of...) millions (millions!) of Vietnamese between '65 and '75 (and the South Vietnamese did perform public executions/torture), but all it did was harden the resistance (which had been going on for about 40 years) of the people.

I suppose looking at it from joe-Iraqi's point of view (something none of us can probably do), it seems that witnessing the torture of Iraqis/Muslims by the US/US supported government would not necessarily disincline them to resist.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Fair enough. But looking at the original post, it does seem to me that Red Mile Style "is" calling for Israel to cease existing, saying they don't even belong there as the land isn't theirs.

Sure, but is RMS calling for them to cease existing (which I'm not sure she explicitly states) because she believes Israel (and its existence) violates international law/norms? Or because she hates Jewish people?

Reading her post, it seems to be the former, meaning she is not (or rather, her post is not) anti-Semetic. You can't whip that card out against anyone who don't support Israel; many of them have political reasons, not racist reasons. The two are separate.

Its akin to suggesting that people that dislike the United States, and its actions internationally, hate white protestants... their are political underpinnings to anti-Americanism, not necessarily racist ones.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I suppose I just disagree with the 'principle' that increased violence will = reduced morale of the resistance. The US killed (or the War caused the deaths of...) millions (millions!) of Vietnamese between '65 and '75 (and the South Vietnamese did perform public executions/torture), but all it did was harden the resistance (which had been going on for about 40 years) of the people.

I suppose looking at it from joe-Iraqi's point of view (something none of us can probably do), it seems that witnessing the torture of Iraqis/Muslims by the US/US supported government would not necessarily disincline them to resist.

The US was fighting for the wrong reasons in Vietnam and clearly did not understand their enemy - as well, the bad pub from home was really one of the huge factors that got them out of the war.

I remember watching Fog of War with Robert McNamera, how he met one of the Vietnamese officials a long time after the war - it was clear that the US had absolutely no idea why they were resisting. They went into the war with the idea to "save them from communism" where the Vietnamese viewed it as something far different and need to fight for their freedom.

Terror campaigns can be a rallying point, with that I agree with, but to a point. If you push and keep pushing eventually they will give and lose the will to fight. Vietnam was not also designed as a Terror campaign - if you put your mind to it, you can make it a lot more effective.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The US was fighting for the wrong reasons in Vietnam and clearly did not understand their enemy - as well, the bad pub from home was really one of the huge factors that got them out of the war.

Well... the Vietnam War stretched over a decade, Iraq is still technically young. When the body count hits 4000-5000 (if), I think domestic pressure will steadily increase... though I don't know if the US citizenry is capable of domestic resistance like they once were, so that could be a point in US favour.

I remember watching Fog of War with Robert McNamera, how he met one of the Vietnamese officials a long time after the war - it was clear that the US had absolutely no idea why they were resisting. They went into the war with the idea to "save them from communism" where the Vietnamese viewed it as something far different and need to fight for their freedom.

Sure, great movie. Though, sometimes I feel like the US has the same attitude today. When I watch everything from FOX news to CNN, the common question seems to be 'why do these people hate us so much? Why does the world bash us so much?', when the answers, to outsiders, are obvious.

Terror campaigns can be a rallying point, with that I agree with, but to a point. If you push and keep pushing eventually they will give and lose the will to fight. Vietnam was not also designed as a Terror campaign - if you put your mind to it, you can make it a lot more effective.

Can you think of similar situations to Iraq when terror-campaigns by occupying forces worked? Japan/Germany, once conquered/occupied, put up extremely little resistance. The same is clearly not true in Iraq.

[CaramonLS]

US Civil War - The North had a campaign at the end of the war where they swept through a lot of the south strongholds and broke their will at the end.

There aren't a lot of examples because in warfare, citizens were considered largely off limits - and guerilla wars are a relatively new phenomenon.

I mean no one has really tried to launch a full fledged terror campaign on a group of people, except in limited and somewhat different circumstances. I mean the great purges in the USSR in effect did accomplish their goal and was probably one of the most brutal and bloody attacks on population base and that quickly brought the populus into line. I mean it had many other lasting effects, but it definately limited the dissedents in Russia.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I'm not sure how anyone can defend the actions of Israel. If someone had snatched Bush, the same people lauding the actions of Israel would be the same one condemning those that snatched Bush. The double standard never ceases to amaze me.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I'm not sure how anyone can defend the actions of Israel. If someone had snatched Bush, the same people lauding the actions of Israel would be the same one condemning those that snatched Bush. The double standard never ceases to amaze me.

And the same ones that are condemning the actions of Israel would be the same ones saying "he had it coming" if Bush was snatched.

The double standard goes both ways.