No. For one, the drug "problem" is altogether another question. It's not analogous. Even if it weren't drug-related, it would still be a false analogy - in your scenario, the police made a mistake and chose the wrong house. In the case of the mortar-school, they knew very well that militants were present and immediately dangerous. The IDF acted correctly.
As for the question of whether or not the military's action creates more terrorists then it kills: you may very well be right. One might argue, however, that whether or not a given officer decides to bomb this present danger (and I will confess that I have no idea how their chain of command works in a situation like that) isn't really up to him: there is a danger, its up to him to get rid of it before anymore Israelis die. I'm all for different tactics, but not at the expense of allowing those who kill Israeli civilians to live.
Because really, this is Hamas' fault in the first place. If they would keep their attacks focused on military targets, I would have no problem whatsoever with them. At least the IDF attempts to target only militants, whereas Hamas unabashedly tries to kill every Israeli in sight - women, children, no problem.
Disbelief in God is easily supported. The atheist should simply reply with "I have no sensory, analytical, logical, epistemic, or other evidence that God does exist. In addition, all arguments for His (Her/It/Whatever) existence have been proven false time and time again, while arguments against His existence have, many times, proven quite strong. Until you provide an argument for His existence that has merit, the disexistence of God remains the most likely choice to me."
What do you suggest the Israeli military do in a situation where they have a danger coming from a structure that may or not house civilians?Treat those civilians with the same respect for life that they would Israeli civilians.
That's really not a hard question to answer.
Those Palestinian civilians present in the school should have removed themselvesWHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO GO THAT IS SAFER THAN A UN REFUGEE CAMP?
These people are trapped in a big cage, with bombs being dropped on then at any place and at any time and without warning. Isreal has provided exactly ZERO places where an unarmed civilian may go and wait this out.
There is no excuse for this type of conduct on ANY side. You have no right to label someone a terrorist when you bomb a fucking school. And the nonsense about the rocket fire is pretty stupid. If Isreal wants people to actually believe what they are saying, then they should allow the press to freely document the situation.
If all these bombings are justified, what do they have to hide?
If they actually know the names and locations of these people, then arrest them. Arresting people you don't like and putting them on trial is what makes you different from a terroist.
a) Why is this UN organization allowing militants to fire mortars from schools it sets up in the first place? Don't they have any sort of UN security to stop this sort of activity going on in their own buildings?
b) Like I said before - the Israeli military's first objective is and should be to protect their own people. If people are firing mortars (or missiles, or whatever) into Israeli territory, then it is the IDF's job to stop those people. In the the manner which protects, in this order: the most ISRAELI LIVES, the most ISRAELI PROPERTY, and, if at all possible, the lives and property of other nationals.
Imagine, for a moment, that you live on the Mexico-U.S. Border, near, say, Tijuana. All the sudden, mortars start coming over the border from TJ and exploding around you. Now we have two options:
1)The military tells you that they're coming from a school, so instead of simply bombing the shit out of it, they decide to launch an assault to arrest those responsible. In the extra time it takes to organize and assault, 50 more American lives are lost, including your wife and mother. But hey! Those responsible are caught and captured, put on trial, sent to jail for life.
2) The military bombs the everloving crap out the school these mortars are coming from immediately, killing all inside. The number of dead in the school may be more or less than the number of American lives saved. It's irrelevant, really.
And here's why: The U.S. military, just like the IDF, is not a fucking international peacekeeping organization. They exist to protect Israel's citizens, by whatever means necessary. If that means accidental death of civilians on the other side, then so be it. They have fulfilled their duty.
Of course, by no means am I suggesting purposeful targeting of civilians. So far, however, every report on Israeli bombings I've seen has shown that they made at least an attempt to target enemy militants.
c) Which brings me to my final point: You work or live or go to school somewhere where, when men start firing mortars from buildings, those buildings get destroyed. Some men show up in your building and start firing mortars. Do you stay or leave? HMMM. Tough one, I know.
As for arresting those responsible: sounds great, so long as the IDF can do that without endangering the lives of any Israeli citizens. This incident, as I showed above, does not seem to be a case where that was possible.
I agree wholeheartedly - Israel and the U.S. should be doing their best to help these people. Start building hospitals, start providing Palestinians with clean water, start giving stimulus to families, and most important, let them live in the same areas as Israelis, and watch how fast support shifts, both among Palestinians and in the world community as a whole.
Nonetheless, when hostilities occur, something has to be done militarily. You can't just sit back and let militants attack your people. The trick is to straddle that fine line between being too harsh and too giving. At the moment, the world community seems to agree that Israel is on the harsh side.
Take this to its extreme - I imagine election night-like coverage following the "votes" people make with their cycles. Or even better, a game show:
"...and the votes are in for this years' Guam-south African conflict. It looks like...YES, GUAM TAKES IT! CONGRATULATIONS, GUAM! Tell him what he could win, Johnny!"
"Well, Bob, behind one of these doors is a U.N. cease-fire resolution! Behind another, 15.67% of South Africa's land and lasting resentment! Behind the third, a lifetime supply of CHOCOLATE! Choose wisely, Guam!"
GAZA CITY, Gaza - Israeli mortar shells struck outside a U.N. school where hundreds of Palestinians had sought refuge on Tuesday, killing at least 30 people -- many of them children whose parents wailed in grief at a hospital filled with dead and wounded.
From slugtastic's post below: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651722,00.html
What do you suggest the Israeli military do in a situation where they have a danger coming from a structure that may or not house civilians? The military has a responsibility, first, to its people, second, to its land, and third, to preventing casualties to other county's civilians. Those Palestinian civilians present in the school should have removed themselves once a military force began using their building as a staging ground. I will not and can not fault a military for destroying a site launching mortars into their territory immediately. It is within their purview, and if anything, civilian casualties are the militants' fault - they should be telling civilians to leave areas they they are planning to use as staging grounds. Of course, civilian deaths are all part of their public relations war - just so people like you can look at the situation and say "Oh hey look, the Israelis just killed 30 people to take out a couple militants! That's barbaric!" Bullshit.
What your saying is akin to saying the the IRS has a moral responsibility not to use computers, and everything must be calculated by hand.
Not an entirely accurate analogy: A computer (in its calculating capacity, at least) can't make its own decisions (i.e. this person is speeding, therefore, take a picture and initiate whatever process leads to review and ticketing), unlike a traffic cam.
"Creepy?" Please explain how you're qualified to make that particular judgment without knowing any of the people involved. Just because the law says something is so, does not make it right.
Well, its sort of the nature of the game: in order to keep up demand for new sets, they have to keep overpowering them. Which is super lame for guys like me who still have cards from arabian nights.:(
Wasn't a sample size of one.
Try sticking your hand in a badger hole (or a weasel den, or porcupine hole, or eagle nest, etc etc etc) See what happens. Then tell me I'm operating off only our behavior.
Wow. And there you opened an avenue of meaning I had not even begun to explore.
I was imagining tap in its most prevalent colloquial sense, but you bring back memories...I miss Magic.
Ridiculous. If this were true, why didn't everyone in those old-school villages live in the same big hut? Likewise with animal homes. As some poster above said, territoriality, and hence privacy, is inherent to all life above a certain intelligence threshold.
Though, as in all things, there are exceptions to prove the rule. Like dirty hippies.
Alzheimer's has certain autoimmune-like tendencies. Autoimmune diseases are generally thought to have a genetic and an environmental component: Hashimoto's, for instance, is thought to spring at least in part from overconsumption of iodine (ironic, considering iodine was added to the US food supply to prevent goiter, another thyroid disorder) combined with a genetic predisposition.
With this article in mind, then, it is not ridiculous to think that dietary intake might play a large role in the development of a disorder like Alzheimer's.
Slashdot Mirror
No. For one, the drug "problem" is altogether another question. It's not analogous. Even if it weren't drug-related, it would still be a false analogy - in your scenario, the police made a mistake and chose the wrong house. In the case of the mortar-school, they knew very well that militants were present and immediately dangerous. The IDF acted correctly.
As for the question of whether or not the military's action creates more terrorists then it kills: you may very well be right. One might argue, however, that whether or not a given officer decides to bomb this present danger (and I will confess that I have no idea how their chain of command works in a situation like that) isn't really up to him: there is a danger, its up to him to get rid of it before anymore Israelis die. I'm all for different tactics, but not at the expense of allowing those who kill Israeli civilians to live.
Because really, this is Hamas' fault in the first place. If they would keep their attacks focused on military targets, I would have no problem whatsoever with them. At least the IDF attempts to target only militants, whereas Hamas unabashedly tries to kill every Israeli in sight - women, children, no problem.
Disbelief in God is easily supported. The atheist should simply reply with "I have no sensory, analytical, logical, epistemic, or other evidence that God does exist. In addition, all arguments for His (Her/It/Whatever) existence have been proven false time and time again, while arguments against His existence have, many times, proven quite strong. Until you provide an argument for His existence that has merit, the disexistence of God remains the most likely choice to me."
THANK YOU. Jesus (pun unintended), I wish I had mod points for you. Thousands of them.
Maybe Palestinians ought to, you know...not elect the sort of people who provoke military responses that end up in said 550/1 ratios. Hmmm.
What do you suggest the Israeli military do in a situation where they have a danger coming from a structure that may or not house civilians? Treat those civilians with the same respect for life that they would Israeli civilians. That's really not a hard question to answer. Those Palestinian civilians present in the school should have removed themselves WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO GO THAT IS SAFER THAN A UN REFUGEE CAMP? These people are trapped in a big cage, with bombs being dropped on then at any place and at any time and without warning. Isreal has provided exactly ZERO places where an unarmed civilian may go and wait this out. There is no excuse for this type of conduct on ANY side. You have no right to label someone a terrorist when you bomb a fucking school. And the nonsense about the rocket fire is pretty stupid. If Isreal wants people to actually believe what they are saying, then they should allow the press to freely document the situation. If all these bombings are justified, what do they have to hide? If they actually know the names and locations of these people, then arrest them. Arresting people you don't like and putting them on trial is what makes you different from a terroist.
a) Why is this UN organization allowing militants to fire mortars from schools it sets up in the first place? Don't they have any sort of UN security to stop this sort of activity going on in their own buildings?
b) Like I said before - the Israeli military's first objective is and should be to protect their own people. If people are firing mortars (or missiles, or whatever) into Israeli territory, then it is the IDF's job to stop those people. In the the manner which protects, in this order: the most ISRAELI LIVES, the most ISRAELI PROPERTY, and, if at all possible, the lives and property of other nationals.
Imagine, for a moment, that you live on the Mexico-U.S. Border, near, say, Tijuana. All the sudden, mortars start coming over the border from TJ and exploding around you. Now we have two options:
1)The military tells you that they're coming from a school, so instead of simply bombing the shit out of it, they decide to launch an assault to arrest those responsible. In the extra time it takes to organize and assault, 50 more American lives are lost, including your wife and mother. But hey! Those responsible are caught and captured, put on trial, sent to jail for life.
2) The military bombs the everloving crap out the school these mortars are coming from immediately, killing all inside. The number of dead in the school may be more or less than the number of American lives saved. It's irrelevant, really.
And here's why: The U.S. military, just like the IDF, is not a fucking international peacekeeping organization. They exist to protect Israel's citizens, by whatever means necessary. If that means accidental death of civilians on the other side, then so be it. They have fulfilled their duty.
Of course, by no means am I suggesting purposeful targeting of civilians. So far, however, every report on Israeli bombings I've seen has shown that they made at least an attempt to target enemy militants.
c) Which brings me to my final point: You work or live or go to school somewhere where, when men start firing mortars from buildings, those buildings get destroyed. Some men show up in your building and start firing mortars. Do you stay or leave? HMMM. Tough one, I know.
As for arresting those responsible: sounds great, so long as the IDF can do that without endangering the lives of any Israeli citizens. This incident, as I showed above, does not seem to be a case where that was possible.
I agree wholeheartedly - Israel and the U.S. should be doing their best to help these people. Start building hospitals, start providing Palestinians with clean water, start giving stimulus to families, and most important, let them live in the same areas as Israelis, and watch how fast support shifts, both among Palestinians and in the world community as a whole.
Nonetheless, when hostilities occur, something has to be done militarily. You can't just sit back and let militants attack your people. The trick is to straddle that fine line between being too harsh and too giving. At the moment, the world community seems to agree that Israel is on the harsh side.
Take this to its extreme - I imagine election night-like coverage following the "votes" people make with their cycles. Or even better, a game show:
"...and the votes are in for this years' Guam-south African conflict. It looks like...YES, GUAM TAKES IT! CONGRATULATIONS, GUAM! Tell him what he could win, Johnny!"
"Well, Bob, behind one of these doors is a U.N. cease-fire resolution! Behind another, 15.67% of South Africa's land and lasting resentment! Behind the third, a lifetime supply of CHOCOLATE! Choose wisely, Guam!"
Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30
From slugtastic's post below: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651722,00.html What do you suggest the Israeli military do in a situation where they have a danger coming from a structure that may or not house civilians? The military has a responsibility, first, to its people, second, to its land, and third, to preventing casualties to other county's civilians. Those Palestinian civilians present in the school should have removed themselves once a military force began using their building as a staging ground. I will not and can not fault a military for destroying a site launching mortars into their territory immediately. It is within their purview, and if anything, civilian casualties are the militants' fault - they should be telling civilians to leave areas they they are planning to use as staging grounds. Of course, civilian deaths are all part of their public relations war - just so people like you can look at the situation and say "Oh hey look, the Israelis just killed 30 people to take out a couple militants! That's barbaric!" Bullshit.
insert joke about swallowing here.
Previously, calculation was only mentioned. Considering that software makes your analogy valid. :) Good man.
What your saying is akin to saying the the IRS has a moral responsibility not to use computers, and everything must be calculated by hand.
Not an entirely accurate analogy: A computer (in its calculating capacity, at least) can't make its own decisions (i.e. this person is speeding, therefore, take a picture and initiate whatever process leads to review and ticketing), unlike a traffic cam.
"Creepy?" Please explain how you're qualified to make that particular judgment without knowing any of the people involved. Just because the law says something is so, does not make it right.
Ironic, considering your signature. Why not phrase the question you mean to ask, instead of making a sensationalist comment:
At what age should we allow consent? Is the answer age? If not, what criteria can be used? A test? Who administers and grades such a thing?
If only more people said what they meant instead of dressing it up...What a world we'd live in. No more politicians, that's for sure.
YES. One of the greatest freeware games of all time, bar none.
Well, its sort of the nature of the game: in order to keep up demand for new sets, they have to keep overpowering them. Which is super lame for guys like me who still have cards from arabian nights. :(
Ooh! (To paraphrase from the discussion waaay above) "More marijuana users are in prison than all violent crimes combined."
Does this mean we can beat that record with spammers? Or maybe capital punishment would be more efficient...
This isn't REALLY a troll post. I mean, he's insulting, sure. But he's on topic, and correct.
Wasn't a sample size of one. Try sticking your hand in a badger hole (or a weasel den, or porcupine hole, or eagle nest, etc etc etc) See what happens. Then tell me I'm operating off only our behavior.
Wow. And there you opened an avenue of meaning I had not even begun to explore. I was imagining tap in its most prevalent colloquial sense, but you bring back memories...I miss Magic.
I initially read that as "Definitely tap them." It was, suffice it to say, a confusing experience.
What do you think it takes to jailbreak those phones?
Privacy may turn out to have become an anomaly.
Ridiculous. If this were true, why didn't everyone in those old-school villages live in the same big hut? Likewise with animal homes. As some poster above said, territoriality, and hence privacy, is inherent to all life above a certain intelligence threshold.
Though, as in all things, there are exceptions to prove the rule. Like dirty hippies.
Oh, sweet irony.
Never got around to the expansions but holy shit - that ending! So great.
Saves me $60.
Alzheimer's has certain autoimmune-like tendencies. Autoimmune diseases are generally thought to have a genetic and an environmental component: Hashimoto's, for instance, is thought to spring at least in part from overconsumption of iodine (ironic, considering iodine was added to the US food supply to prevent goiter, another thyroid disorder) combined with a genetic predisposition.
With this article in mind, then, it is not ridiculous to think that dietary intake might play a large role in the development of a disorder like Alzheimer's.