I'd like to ammend my response - another point you missed is that of the higher unbiased authority presumption.
In your example, the police would arrest you for firing into the crowd. should a neutral arbitrating force exist for resolving disputes between nations, your example would have more merit.
As it stands, while israel have no police force to call upon to stop the nutty shooter, it has both right and obligation towards it's own populace to resolve the situation on it's own.
One point to consider - suppose the crowd was cheering the shooter along, and after being warned elected to stand before the shooter or otherwise help said shooter - would you still feel so strongly against shooting at said crowd?
You are correct in your statement that the sides are unevenly matched. That being said - why will hamas, as responsible leaders of state, knowing they are condemning their own populace (http://europenews.dk/en/node/18140) not announce surrender, if for no other reason than to spare the lives of their civilians?
The muslim arabs, by far and large, are not using the same paradigms as western nations. It is simplistic to attribute to them what you might perceive as self evident truths. Among other things - the cynical usage of civilian deaths is perceived as justified (re previous link) by both governing authorities and civilian population, as long as it is effective. should western outcry about child deaths diminish, same child deaths would diminish proportionately. It is as cynical as it is sadly true.
The best way you could help prevent child deaths in current war is simply not respond to it. Sounds horrible, but if the goal is preservation of life, some means might be justified.
Explain to me how this works, please?
Swiss, being 100% surrounded by other countries, is occupied by them? or did I miss some leap of logic?
Occupation means presence at the territory in question. The so called occupation hamas keeps on about is the occupation of so called palestinian territories pre-1947 - virtually all of the israeli state. That is why their charter still denies israel's right to exist.
"So called", BTW, because back then there was no political entity correlating to the current palestinians.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, I needed that.
Was beginning to worry Slashdot was turning into a political forum...
I'd like to ammend my response - another point you missed is that of the higher unbiased authority presumption.
In your example, the police would arrest you for firing into the crowd. should a neutral arbitrating force exist for resolving disputes between nations, your example would have more merit.
As it stands, while israel have no police force to call upon to stop the nutty shooter, it has both right and obligation towards it's own populace to resolve the situation on it's own.
One point to consider - suppose the crowd was cheering the shooter along, and after being warned elected to stand before the shooter or otherwise help said shooter - would you still feel so strongly against shooting at said crowd?
You are correct in your statement that the sides are unevenly matched. That being said - why will hamas, as responsible leaders of state, knowing they are condemning their own populace (http://europenews.dk/en/node/18140) not announce surrender, if for no other reason than to spare the lives of their civilians?
The muslim arabs, by far and large, are not using the same paradigms as western nations. It is simplistic to attribute to them what you might perceive as self evident truths.
Among other things - the cynical usage of civilian deaths is perceived as justified (re previous link) by both governing authorities and civilian population, as long as it is effective. should western outcry about child deaths diminish, same child deaths would diminish proportionately. It is as cynical as it is sadly true.
The best way you could help prevent child deaths in current war is simply not respond to it.
Sounds horrible, but if the goal is preservation of life, some means might be justified.
Explain to me how this works, please? Swiss, being 100% surrounded by other countries, is occupied by them? or did I miss some leap of logic? Occupation means presence at the territory in question. The so called occupation hamas keeps on about is the occupation of so called palestinian territories pre-1947 - virtually all of the israeli state. That is why their charter still denies israel's right to exist. "So called", BTW, because back then there was no political entity correlating to the current palestinians.
I'm thinking prism