Belief does not facts make...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
The destruction of the regime, rather than the country, is the contested argument. Please refrain from arguing without getting your facts streight
Investors walk away because investors walk away. Investors walked away on almost all major artists of the 20th cent. If it's not the perception of piracy, it'd be the perception of poor sales figures, or the perception of public backlash, or the perception of of being under/over perceptive. Investors in the art industry mostly suck at recognizing new talent. Old (as in provably profitable) talent they have no problem with. Go figure.
get a notebook (not net , note) with the new intel core i7 640M (U or L - http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=43563,47700,). The U model at 18W TDP gives the atom chips a run for their money (well, not really in same category, but much better performance/wattage than anything before mobile nehalem came along).
Lenovo has the x201s, but I'd take a look at the fujitsu P770 series - http://store.shopfujitsu.com/fpc/Ecommerce/buildseriesbean.do?series=P770.
Not really in the netbooks price range, and not featuring ION (which is a true shame) but more than adequate from power consumption versus performance standpoint.
If you want a portable gaming platform, either alienware or one of the eurocom models ( http://www.eurocom.com/ ) might suit you better.
I actually read TFA, and it states, as the summary quotes, "Apparently, the student violated school policies", but the article doesn't state the policy in question. It is hard to know if this is a case of stupid overreaction or a real violation of the rules. Does anyone know the exact wording of this "policy"?
Let me get this straight - If someone wrongs you, it is OK to wrong them in return? so far this is a symmetric argument that can go both ways, yet you only apply it to Israel. that is what I mean by impartial objectivity - can you come up with an argument that can be applied only to one side and not both? or else can you accept that both side have some blame in the current situation? So far I only see Israel bashing from your side, but no good justification for your non-neutrality.
I accept wiki's limitations. Wikipedia has many reliable and verifiable articles. The one you brought is not one of them. That usually means that a biased party edited the article.
I would, however, suggest you read a little before going into a definition war on what is terrorism. Despite all contrary noise, the only currently undisputed war crimes in the current conflict are the HAMAS rockets. All other actions, while alleged to be war crime by one side or the other, are not proven or generally accepted as such by UN security council or general assembly.
I fail to see how your logic works, here. The question was not of using any and all possible means to to obliterate the enemy territory. The question is much more pragmatic in nature - should two military forces face off in armed conflict - what could possibly motivate one side not to use superior arms in such a conflict, should it have them? Not the usage of ultimate weapons, just weapons that enable it to inflict damage while minimizing the exposure of it's own troops?
Again - this whole sub argument is concerning your "they should use roughly symmetric forces" assertion. I agree with many of your points, but fail to see how you could reasonably expect from any military force to handicap itself to accommodate an enemy that by all indications does not respect any rules of conduct whatsoever.
As for pragmatic - it can be argued that deterrence is working - re current avoidance of Hizbualla from formally opening a second front in support of Hamas. Deterrence might buy Israel a few more years, by which time perhaps a more lasting solution can be found via diplomatic channels. It has been argued that deterrence, at least partially, was responsible for the Israeli-Egyptian peace, after all.
A language changes and evolves. The definition I gave, while not thought out thoroughly or formally, is the working definition for many people, with quantification. A terrorist is most often perceived as acting against civilians, not military targets. that doesn't appear in the league of nations definition either, yet is the current state of affairs.
Well shit, why didn't they just nuke Gaza then? Why didn't we, the US, just kill Hussein then leave Iraq to their own devices? The reason, even if you're a murderous fuck who doesn't care about killing women and children, is that actions have a price in the long term. Israel is effectively creating a crucible from which the most psychotic and evil terrorists will emerge.
I would imagine, from purely pragmatics POV, that this is an argument for a systematic genocide, not against. How do you ensure no new combatants emerge in a few years? you kill them all now. And yet, despite that, no such methodical killing takes place. And still you avoid the question - why should a greater force endanger itself just to convenience it's enemy? I'm yet to hear a good argument.
Yeah, because that's important. Has anybody polled any of the Israeli settlers in the west bank about how they feel about the various killings and house burnings perpetrated there by Israeli settlers?
The poll was not conducted among a fringe group which the general public tends to regard as extremists. The poll was conducted among the general public, with a 91% approval rate for murder. What does that tell you about the populace?
How many of those religious assholes who think "God" gave them their land are now cheering at pictures of dead children in the Gaza strip?
from personal experience - none whatsoever. Can the reverse be said of the other side? But hey, if you can provide hard evidence of majority Israelis cheering, I'd be happy to denounce them.
So again, neither side is right. It's just that we, the US, are arming one side while they slaughter insanely poor and hopeless people like fish in a barrel with our munitions.
That is a whole new subject, and not quite as simplistic as you present. A couple of things to keep in mind - that money buys the US political leverage, and quite a lot of it. Also consider the fact that several Israeli weapons contracts have suffered due to US objections - a deal with china comes to mind, the fact that not a single instance of bid for armor (tanks) involving the abrams, also included the merkava MBT. The US is quite open in it's repression of Israel's military industries when seen as competitors to US mil industries. The so called give away munitions you complain about gives the US the right to monopolize (as in curtail competition) the weapons market, amongst other things. Not quite as one sided as you presented.
And the main question remains - why on earth would a people who are being slaughtered for fighting back not simply surrender and save themselves? why keep on fighting, when it is quite obvious, even to them, that surrender would guarantee (not virtually but actually) their survival?
Knowing the military strength differential, why start a fight you can't win?
Stopping the occupation is not valid reasoning when they are self governed and without military presence in their current land. The blockade is a rather cynical manipulation of the facts - it has started only after HAMAS who promised as part of their election campaign to murder civilians as much as they could, brought the blockade on themselves. Would you open your borders to a people who promise to kill you given half a chance?
It is well documented that Israel officials promised better relations with HAMAS should it renounce violence as legitimate diplomatic practice, and change it's charter to something which has any kind of semblance to tolerance towards Jews in general and the state of Israel in particular. HAMAS leaders were adamant in their refusal, and to this date continue calling for the total anihilation of all thigs Jewish.
What are you basing your analysis on? A simple counter argument would go something like:
If Israel had even slightly bad intentions you would see carpet bombing and death tolls in the tens of thousands by now...
And yet, for all your rhetoric, I fail to see a single justification for hamas actions or stated intent, in your argument. Israel bashing is all nice and well, but why throw impartial objectivity out the window?
The metaphorical crowd cheers the mass murderer. can such a crowd be reasoned with? Should the effort be made at all?
The answer to both questions is obviously YES, but it does take two to tango. One can not advance a diplomatic process unilaterally. The other side must participate, at least to some degree, in good faith.
Why should they? What could possibly be the motivation for a superior military force to restrict itself in order to suffer higher casualties, when fighting an enemy?
I'm not being cynical, I'm trying to understand your reasoning.
Have you, per chance, noted the disclaimer in your "impartial" reference?
"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)"
again, you fail to address my main argument - intent. your argument, to the best of my understanding, is as follows:
Since israel has invested in protecting it's populace, and actually built infrastructure to help limit and minimize child casualties, it is clearly in the wrong.
This kind of logic is hard to defend against - it assumes that the moral high ground is always on the side of the one suffered the most, never mind the actions taken by either side when trying to resolve the situation
Inflammatory comments aside, the point was clearly stated - the terrorist is the one who advocates and acts towards maximizing civilian casualties.
In this context Israel fails this definition by not maximizing civilian casualties. There are many civilian deaths, but considering means available - it was a far cry from maximizing.
Hamas, OTOH, is by self admission a terrorist organization. They are proud of the fact.
I fail to see why you would argue against their self definition.
"So, when Israel is attacked and they occupy the territory of the attacker, that is bad?"
No. But they'd better discern between government and a terrorist organization and between terrorists and unarmed civilians. They don't even try.
Patently false. either provide evidence or move along.
Contrary evidence, BTW, is quite abundant - there has not been single instance of carpet bombing by Israel in current conflict. not a single one.
OTOH, most of the Palestinian attacks up to the current offensive where directed at civilian population, and where only restricted by available weapons, not ethical or moral grounds.
"So when the allied forces occupied Germany after WWII that was wrong?"
No. Remember it was the German government the one lidering the war against other countries so occupation was granted till the time there could be reasonable confidence that a new non-beligerant government could be stablished.
Quite right. I'm glad you understand the Palestinian situation (I know you wrote 'German' but I fail to see where they differ in this instance).
"Was the liberation of Europe wrong too since we killed a lot of German children?"
Yes. The only reason things like carpet bombing Dresden haven't ended on an international tribunal on charges of war crimes is because all those international tribunals were controlled by the winning side that happened to be the same that commited such atrocity.
In the same vein Israeli leaders should be subjected to a tribunal on grounds of war crimes... if it were not for the USA aquitance.
Have you ever considered the practical implications of your suggestion? If I understand you correctly, a people should allow themselves to die, in order to uphold a moral high ground. please correct me if I misunderstood your statement.
"If Germany had kept fighting, with terror, the way the Arabs have after losing a war, Germany would still be occupied. Thankfully Germany is a place where reasonable thinking people live"
Probably. But if the allied forces would trashed away the German flag and the UN would tell the English "hey, most of you are of German origin, so we'll put the English flag here, we'll call it New England instead of Germany from now on and you are invited to come and live here" probably you'd have a different opinion of those "reasonable thinking people" nowadays.
To be honest, you lost me. Care to rephrase that in anything approaching a meaningful and preferably factually based way?
Fact - most flag thrashing occur on arab side. Burning Israel and US flags is common in Palestinian rallies. I have almost never saw the converse by the other side.
But again - feel free to rephrase. Your current statement's logic is very hard to follow - who are the germans, the english, new england, and the UN in your analogy?
You might wish to remember that at the time HAMAS was keeping themselves busy planning and executing mass murders inside Israel sovereign territoy. Than again, you might not.
Your point about a possible UN force safekeeping Gaza borders is valid, but somewhat impractical.
Not many nations relinquish their sovereignty easily, and any way you turn this - letting foreign troops operate in your land with autonomy (as UN troops are bound to) is tantamount to that. A political hot potato that could very well decide the coming elections.
Also, consider lebanon - prior to 1982 there was a UNIFIL force allegedly in control of the territory, and we all know how that ended.
Objections to a UN peacekeeping force in isralei public opinion would be hard to counter based on past performance.
Disclaimer: Both sides want peace, and both sides think terror is the way to get it.
I agree with most of your post, however your disclaimer is patently false.
view what ehud barak offered arafat in exchange for peace, if you don't believe me.
don't rely on propaganda - consider what each side actually did.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html
Slashdot Mirror
Belief does not facts make... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel The destruction of the regime, rather than the country, is the contested argument. Please refrain from arguing without getting your facts streight
Investors walk away because investors walk away. Investors walked away on almost all major artists of the 20th cent. If it's not the perception of piracy, it'd be the perception of poor sales figures, or the perception of public backlash, or the perception of of being under/over perceptive. Investors in the art industry mostly suck at recognizing new talent. Old (as in provably profitable) talent they have no problem with. Go figure.
get a notebook (not net , note) with the new intel core i7 640M (U or L - http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=43563,47700,). The U model at 18W TDP gives the atom chips a run for their money (well, not really in same category, but much better performance/wattage than anything before mobile nehalem came along). Lenovo has the x201s, but I'd take a look at the fujitsu P770 series - http://store.shopfujitsu.com/fpc/Ecommerce/buildseriesbean.do?series=P770. Not really in the netbooks price range, and not featuring ION (which is a true shame) but more than adequate from power consumption versus performance standpoint. If you want a portable gaming platform, either alienware or one of the eurocom models ( http://www.eurocom.com/ ) might suit you better.
I actually read TFA, and it states, as the summary quotes, "Apparently, the student violated school policies", but the article doesn't state the policy in question. It is hard to know if this is a case of stupid overreaction or a real violation of the rules. Does anyone know the exact wording of this "policy"?
http://www.mtechmiddle.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=58810&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=87933&hideMenu=1&rn=8708720
Let me get this straight - If someone wrongs you, it is OK to wrong them in return? so far this is a symmetric argument that can go both ways, yet you only apply it to Israel. that is what I mean by impartial objectivity - can you come up with an argument that can be applied only to one side and not both? or else can you accept that both side have some blame in the current situation? So far I only see Israel bashing from your side, but no good justification for your non-neutrality.
I accept wiki's limitations. Wikipedia has many reliable and verifiable articles. The one you brought is not one of them. That usually means that a biased party edited the article.
I would, however, suggest you read a little before going into a definition war on what is terrorism. Despite all contrary noise, the only currently undisputed war crimes in the current conflict are the HAMAS rockets. All other actions, while alleged to be war crime by one side or the other, are not proven or generally accepted as such by UN security council or general assembly.
I fail to see how your logic works, here. The question was not of using any and all possible means to to obliterate the enemy territory. The question is much more pragmatic in nature - should two military forces face off in armed conflict - what could possibly motivate one side not to use superior arms in such a conflict, should it have them? Not the usage of ultimate weapons, just weapons that enable it to inflict damage while minimizing the exposure of it's own troops?
Again - this whole sub argument is concerning your "they should use roughly symmetric forces" assertion. I agree with many of your points, but fail to see how you could reasonably expect from any military force to handicap itself to accommodate an enemy that by all indications does not respect any rules of conduct whatsoever.
As for pragmatic - it can be argued that deterrence is working - re current avoidance of Hizbualla from formally opening a second front in support of Hamas.
Deterrence might buy Israel a few more years, by which time perhaps a more lasting solution can be found via diplomatic channels.
It has been argued that deterrence, at least partially, was responsible for the Israeli-Egyptian peace, after all.
A language changes and evolves. The definition I gave, while not thought out thoroughly or formally, is the working definition for many people, with quantification. A terrorist is most often perceived as acting against civilians, not military targets. that doesn't appear in the league of nations definition either, yet is the current state of affairs.
Well shit, why didn't they just nuke Gaza then? Why didn't we, the US, just kill Hussein then leave Iraq to their own devices? The reason, even if you're a murderous fuck who doesn't care about killing women and children, is that actions have a price in the long term. Israel is effectively creating a crucible from which the most psychotic and evil terrorists will emerge.
I would imagine, from purely pragmatics POV, that this is an argument for a systematic genocide, not against. How do you ensure no new combatants emerge in a few years? you kill them all now. And yet, despite that, no such methodical killing takes place. And still you avoid the question - why should a greater force endanger itself just to convenience it's enemy? I'm yet to hear a good argument.
Yeah, because that's important. Has anybody polled any of the Israeli settlers in the west bank about how they feel about the various killings and house burnings perpetrated there by Israeli settlers?
The poll was not conducted among a fringe group which the general public tends to regard as extremists. The poll was conducted among the general public, with a 91% approval rate for murder. What does that tell you about the populace?
How many of those religious assholes who think "God" gave them their land are now cheering at pictures of dead children in the Gaza strip?
from personal experience - none whatsoever. Can the reverse be said of the other side? But hey, if you can provide hard evidence of majority Israelis cheering, I'd be happy to denounce them.
So again, neither side is right. It's just that we, the US, are arming one side while they slaughter insanely poor and hopeless people like fish in a barrel with our munitions.
That is a whole new subject, and not quite as simplistic as you present. A couple of things to keep in mind - that money buys the US political leverage, and quite a lot of it. Also consider the fact that several Israeli weapons contracts have suffered due to US objections - a deal with china comes to mind, the fact that not a single instance of bid for armor (tanks) involving the abrams, also included the merkava MBT. The US is quite open in it's repression of Israel's military industries when seen as competitors to US mil industries. The so called give away munitions you complain about gives the US the right to monopolize (as in curtail competition) the weapons market, amongst other things. Not quite as one sided as you presented.
And the main question remains - why on earth would a people who are being slaughtered for fighting back not simply surrender and save themselves? why keep on fighting, when it is quite obvious, even to them, that surrender would guarantee (not virtually but actually) their survival?
Knowing the military strength differential, why start a fight you can't win?
Stopping the occupation is not valid reasoning when they are self governed and without military presence in their current land. The blockade is a rather cynical manipulation of the facts - it has started only after HAMAS who promised as part of their election campaign to murder civilians as much as they could, brought the blockade on themselves. Would you open your borders to a people who promise to kill you given half a chance?
It is well documented that Israel officials promised better relations with HAMAS should it renounce violence as legitimate diplomatic practice, and change it's charter to something which has any kind of semblance to tolerance towards Jews in general and the state of Israel in particular. HAMAS leaders were adamant in their refusal, and to this date continue calling for the total anihilation of all thigs Jewish.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/international/middleeast/29hamasx.html
What are you basing your analysis on? A simple counter argument would go something like:
If Israel had even slightly bad intentions you would see carpet bombing and death tolls in the tens of thousands by now...
And yet, for all your rhetoric, I fail to see a single justification for hamas actions or stated intent, in your argument. Israel bashing is all nice and well, but why throw impartial objectivity out the window?
An overwhelming majority of 84% support and 13% oppose the shooting attack that took place in a religious school in West Jerusalem. Support for this attack is greater in the Gaza Strip (91%) compared to the West Bank (79%).
The metaphorical crowd cheers the mass murderer. can such a crowd be reasoned with? Should the effort be made at all?
The answer to both questions is obviously YES, but it does take two to tango. One can not advance a diplomatic process unilaterally. The other side must participate, at least to some degree, in good faith.
It should respond with roughly symmetric force.
Why should they? What could possibly be the motivation for a superior military force to restrict itself in order to suffer higher casualties, when fighting an enemy?
I'm not being cynical, I'm trying to understand your reasoning.
Have you, per chance, noted the disclaimer in your "impartial" reference?
"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)"
again, you fail to address my main argument - intent. your argument, to the best of my understanding, is as follows:
Since israel has invested in protecting it's populace, and actually built infrastructure to help limit and minimize child casualties, it is clearly in the wrong.
This kind of logic is hard to defend against - it assumes that the moral high ground is always on the side of the one suffered the most, never mind the actions taken by either side when trying to resolve the situation
For a quick reference, try the following from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
Inflammatory comments aside, the point was clearly stated - the terrorist is the one who advocates and acts towards maximizing civilian casualties.
In this context Israel fails this definition by not maximizing civilian casualties. There are many civilian deaths, but considering means available - it was a far cry from maximizing.
Hamas, OTOH, is by self admission a terrorist organization. They are proud of the fact.
I fail to see why you would argue against their self definition.
Israel has killed more civilians than hamas.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=5255
To date, I would say the numbers are about the same, difference being in intent - hamas is proud of targeting civilians (http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/pij_e_spokesmen.htm), Israel trying to avoid it (http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2009/01/israel-tries-to-minimize-civilian.html)
Shitty situation, but not as one sided as portrayed by you
I would be quite surprised to hear of Gandhi pulling any stunt, now.
"So, when Israel is attacked and they occupy the territory of the attacker, that is bad?"
No. But they'd better discern between government and a terrorist organization and between terrorists and unarmed civilians. They don't even try.
Patently false. either provide evidence or move along. Contrary evidence, BTW, is quite abundant - there has not been single instance of carpet bombing by Israel in current conflict. not a single one. OTOH, most of the Palestinian attacks up to the current offensive where directed at civilian population, and where only restricted by available weapons, not ethical or moral grounds.
"So when the allied forces occupied Germany after WWII that was wrong?"
No. Remember it was the German government the one lidering the war against other countries so occupation was granted till the time there could be reasonable confidence that a new non-beligerant government could be stablished.
Quite right. I'm glad you understand the Palestinian situation (I know you wrote 'German' but I fail to see where they differ in this instance).
"Was the liberation of Europe wrong too since we killed a lot of German children?"
Yes. The only reason things like carpet bombing Dresden haven't ended on an international tribunal on charges of war crimes is because all those international tribunals were controlled by the winning side that happened to be the same that commited such atrocity.
In the same vein Israeli leaders should be subjected to a tribunal on grounds of war crimes... if it were not for the USA aquitance.
Have you ever considered the practical implications of your suggestion? If I understand you correctly, a people should allow themselves to die, in order to uphold a moral high ground. please correct me if I misunderstood your statement.
"If Germany had kept fighting, with terror, the way the Arabs have after losing a war, Germany would still be occupied. Thankfully Germany is a place where reasonable thinking people live"
Probably. But if the allied forces would trashed away the German flag and the UN would tell the English "hey, most of you are of German origin, so we'll put the English flag here, we'll call it New England instead of Germany from now on and you are invited to come and live here" probably you'd have a different opinion of those "reasonable thinking people" nowadays.
To be honest, you lost me. Care to rephrase that in anything approaching a meaningful and preferably factually based way?
Fact - most flag thrashing occur on arab side. Burning Israel and US flags is common in Palestinian rallies. I have almost never saw the converse by the other side.
But again - feel free to rephrase. Your current statement's logic is very hard to follow - who are the germans, the english, new england, and the UN in your analogy?
interestingly enough that is precisely why Switzerland was chosen - another territory with no such thing as a totally independent border...
You might wish to remember that at the time HAMAS was keeping themselves busy planning and executing mass murders inside Israel sovereign territoy.
Than again, you might not.
Please provide facts twisted by Israeli propaganda, so we can judge the merit of your statements for ourselves.
Your point about a possible UN force safekeeping Gaza borders is valid, but somewhat impractical.
Not many nations relinquish their sovereignty easily, and any way you turn this - letting foreign troops operate in your land with autonomy (as UN troops are bound to) is tantamount to that. A political hot potato that could very well decide the coming elections.
Also, consider lebanon - prior to 1982 there was a UNIFIL force allegedly in control of the territory, and we all know how that ended.
Objections to a UN peacekeeping force in isralei public opinion would be hard to counter based on past performance.
This was modded up? for real?!?!?
I would have countered the factual fallacies one bye one, but unfortunately that would leave the parent post void and null.
Did you ever study history of the region, from an impartial POV? I'm just curious.
Actually, I'd be more curious to know who was the idiot who modded you up.
I agree with most of your post, however your disclaimer is patently false.
view what ehud barak offered arafat in exchange for peace, if you don't believe me.
don't rely on propaganda - consider what each side actually did. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html