March 5, 2010
Sometimes You Just Have to Shoot People
Barry Rubin explains why it's necessary and desirable to assassinate terrorists. I'd like to think this is so blazingly obvious that there's hardly any point in even discussing it, but that would be wrong.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at March 5, 2010 1:09 AM
Comments
Not everyone has liberal hangups about killing terrorists. Personally I think there should be a lot more efforts like the Dubai one. Its on target and does not kill innocent bystanders...
Posted by: Jabba the Cat at March 5, 2010 4:50 am
Another example of how so-called supporters of Israel so frequently give arguments in favor of terrorism against Israel and assassination of Israeli officials. The only way to avoid this obvious conclusion is by ignoring the victims of Israeli violence against civilians. Which can only be done by discounting the consistent reports of pretty much every major and serious human rights organization.
So Rubin justifies the assassination by quoting this:
"
"Mr. Mabhouh had a role in the 1989 abduction and killing of two Israeli soldiers, and was also involved in smuggling weapons into Gaza, Israel and Hamas have said. Israel officials say the weapons came from Iran."
And by those standards, who else deserves assassination?
Posted by: Seth at March 5, 2010 6:15 am
So Rubin justifies the assassination by quoting this:
"
"Mr. Mabhouh had a role in the 1989 abduction and killing of two Israeli soldiers, and was also involved in smuggling weapons into Gaza, Israel and Hamas have said. Israel officials say the weapons came from Iran."
And by those standards, who else deserves assassination?
Yes, in principle, I believe it is right. But if the blowback of these actions stokes anti-Israeli fervor, I think it's possible to end up much worse off than when you started, practically speaking.
However, if you believe that it's impossible to incite more hatred than is already directed towards Israel, I guess there is really nothing to lose.
Posted by: N. at March 5, 2010 6:40 am
However, if you believe that it's impossible to incite more hatred than is already directed towards Israel, I guess there is really nothing to lose.
"And by those standards, who else deserves assassination?"
The rest of Hamas and Hezbollah, and their supporters. I mean, seeing how the vast majority of that "Israeli violence against civillians" is the natural result of terrorists not only hiding amongst civilians, but intentionally causing as many civilian casualties as possible on the side of those they claim to be fighting for. In the jihad, ombs are more valuable than lives, after all, and propaganda is more valuable than bombs.
But that's not the answer you were looking for, was it?
Posted by: Squires at March 5, 2010 7:58 am
The rest of Hamas and Hezbollah, and their supporters. I mean, seeing how the vast majority of that "Israeli violence against civillians" is the natural result of terrorists not only hiding amongst civilians, but intentionally causing as many civilian casualties as possible on the side of those they claim to be fighting for. In the jihad, ombs are more valuable than lives, after all, and propaganda is more valuable than bombs.
But that's not the answer you were looking for, was it?
The rest of Hamas and Hezbollah, and their supporters
The supporters would include a large percentage of civilians. These organizations exist because they have civilian support.
Posted by: Toady at March 5, 2010 8:32 am
The supporters would include a large percentage of civilians. These organizations exist because they have civilian support.
Seth, it's good that we have you here to present the case for moral-equivalency.
And by those standards...
By "those standards"? He kidnapped and tortured to death two soldiers. The penalty for war crimes such as that is either life imprisonment or execution. Tell us who else you feel is in the same category of war criminal, Seth?
...who else deserves assassination?
Why don't you tell us? Who is it in the US who is guilty of such egregious war crimes (and boasts about it!?) and has not been prosecuted?
By the way, Seth, why aren't you complaining about the fact these scumbag murderers and terrorists are allowed to go where they please in much of the world, and not be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes?
And another by the way... are you claiming that terrorists would NOT assassinate American or Israeli politicians if they could? Did you totally miss the first half of the decade when they were cutting the heads off every westerner they could lay hands on, and uploading the videos to YouTube? But you think they'd draw the line when it comes to assassinations, right? :o
Posted by: Craig at March 5, 2010 9:53 am
And by those standards...
By "those standards"? He kidnapped and tortured to death two soldiers. The penalty for war crimes such as that is either life imprisonment or execution. Tell us who else you feel is in the same category of war criminal, Seth?
...who else deserves assassination?
Why don't you tell us? Who is it in the US who is guilty of such egregious war crimes (and boasts about it!?) and has not been prosecuted?
By the way, Seth, why aren't you complaining about the fact these scumbag murderers and terrorists are allowed to go where they please in much of the world, and not be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes?
And another by the way... are you claiming that terrorists would NOT assassinate American or Israeli politicians if they could? Did you totally miss the first half of the decade when they were cutting the heads off every westerner they could lay hands on, and uploading the videos to YouTube? But you think they'd draw the line when it comes to assassinations, right? :o
I think a discussion about what's going on in Turkey is in order.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/world/europe/06turkey.html?ref=world
Turkey just recalled its US Ambassador; that's sort of a big deal, especially in light of the other actions by Turkey in recent months and years.
Indeed, in the last eight years there has been a slow chipping away at the influence of the Turkish military and other civil liberties. There's a slow-motion Islamist coup against secularism in many quaters and we seem to be asleep to this, but we shouldn't be. Turkey is a major regional player, a bridge between east and west, a member of NATO ... I'm just floored that alarm bells aren't going off in Washington ...
Here's an e-mail from a very erudite Turkish friend of mine after I asked him about what's going on in Turkey:
"Hi Zak,
The Military, which has been rated highest in people's confidence statistics in decades, is the primary target of the current government.
This is for a reason of course, one of the Military's primary objectives is to uphold democracy, and secularism. The Gov. on the other hand is less concerned about secularism and more concerned about a pseudo-democracy. If the un-informed uneducated majority sides with the Gov. they're happy.
Top level brass is held in jail until they are assigned a court date. A journalist has been held in jail for over a year without even being charged with anything.
The current government is trying to shift this balance of powers. One can argue of course that in a democracy, the military should never posses the power to bring down a government. The people should decide. Unfortunately the majority of our people are not educated enough to make the "right" decision. Recently a bank manager was arrested for transferring funds to a charlatan who said he would rid her off the six demons in her soul. A bank manager for focks sake.
I have a meeting in a bit, just wanted to give you a quick update.
More, later :)"
Another Turkish friend of mine lamented how the EU has helped to create this situation by putting so much pressure on Turkey to make sure the military plays a back seat, despite the fact that the military protects the secular nature of the country. As far as foreign policy is concerned, the EU has practiced criminal negligence by weakening the Ataturk version of Turkey, and for what? For high-minded ideals that fit nicely in Europe but don't make sense in a country like Turkey.
Posted by: semite5000 at March 5, 2010 9:55 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/world/europe/06turkey.html?ref=world
Turkey just recalled its US Ambassador; that's sort of a big deal, especially in light of the other actions by Turkey in recent months and years.
Indeed, in the last eight years there has been a slow chipping away at the influence of the Turkish military and other civil liberties. There's a slow-motion Islamist coup against secularism in many quaters and we seem to be asleep to this, but we shouldn't be. Turkey is a major regional player, a bridge between east and west, a member of NATO ... I'm just floored that alarm bells aren't going off in Washington ...
Here's an e-mail from a very erudite Turkish friend of mine after I asked him about what's going on in Turkey:
"Hi Zak,
The Military, which has been rated highest in people's confidence statistics in decades, is the primary target of the current government.
This is for a reason of course, one of the Military's primary objectives is to uphold democracy, and secularism. The Gov. on the other hand is less concerned about secularism and more concerned about a pseudo-democracy. If the un-informed uneducated majority sides with the Gov. they're happy.
Top level brass is held in jail until they are assigned a court date. A journalist has been held in jail for over a year without even being charged with anything.
The current government is trying to shift this balance of powers. One can argue of course that in a democracy, the military should never posses the power to bring down a government. The people should decide. Unfortunately the majority of our people are not educated enough to make the "right" decision. Recently a bank manager was arrested for transferring funds to a charlatan who said he would rid her off the six demons in her soul. A bank manager for focks sake.
I have a meeting in a bit, just wanted to give you a quick update.
More, later :)"
Another Turkish friend of mine lamented how the EU has helped to create this situation by putting so much pressure on Turkey to make sure the military plays a back seat, despite the fact that the military protects the secular nature of the country. As far as foreign policy is concerned, the EU has practiced criminal negligence by weakening the Ataturk version of Turkey, and for what? For high-minded ideals that fit nicely in Europe but don't make sense in a country like Turkey.
Seth,
Barry Rubin is not a "so-called supporter"; he is an unequivocal supporter. Your quote from the NYT was made by Rubin to illustrate how that paper whitewashes these terrorists, not as a criterion for their assassination. The activities of this terorrist certainly do justify his extinction. They were genocidal!
Hamas etc. do not need any arguments to kill Israeli or Jews. The very existence of Israel and the presence of non-servile Jews is justification enough.
Now as for civilians...unfortunately, civilians are killed in battlegrounds and wars, but usually not intentionally. Although in the case of Hamas and Hezb'allah, civilians are just considered as a "flak vest". Are those the civilians you mean or do you mean the ones who scream "death to the Jews" or the ones who actually Hamas and Hezb'allah but choose to do their fighting dressed as civilians.
Perhaps you would like to comment on the Syrian army's killing 20000 civilians in Hama or how Hamas routinely disposes of civilians in Gaza who support Fatah?
As far as "pretty much every major and serious human rights organization."... its funny how they all use the same sources, non-verifiable, and unfortunately biased and perhaps even fictitious.
I think you should be calling THEM "so-called".
Oh one more thing, could you send me links to any of your posts condemning the US government for killing Al-Quaeda thugs or killing civilians in Afghanistan.
Posted by: jb at March 5, 2010 10:42 am
Barry Rubin is not a "so-called supporter"; he is an unequivocal supporter. Your quote from the NYT was made by Rubin to illustrate how that paper whitewashes these terrorists, not as a criterion for their assassination. The activities of this terorrist certainly do justify his extinction. They were genocidal!
Hamas etc. do not need any arguments to kill Israeli or Jews. The very existence of Israel and the presence of non-servile Jews is justification enough.
Now as for civilians...unfortunately, civilians are killed in battlegrounds and wars, but usually not intentionally. Although in the case of Hamas and Hezb'allah, civilians are just considered as a "flak vest". Are those the civilians you mean or do you mean the ones who scream "death to the Jews" or the ones who actually Hamas and Hezb'allah but choose to do their fighting dressed as civilians.
Perhaps you would like to comment on the Syrian army's killing 20000 civilians in Hama or how Hamas routinely disposes of civilians in Gaza who support Fatah?
As far as "pretty much every major and serious human rights organization."... its funny how they all use the same sources, non-verifiable, and unfortunately biased and perhaps even fictitious.
I think you should be calling THEM "so-called".
Oh one more thing, could you send me links to any of your posts condemning the US government for killing Al-Quaeda thugs or killing civilians in Afghanistan.
MJT,
Respectfully, semite5000's post just above describes the present situation in Turkey far better than Vali Nasr's apparent claim that the "Islamists" have lost their struggle with the Turkish secularists, which you discussed in your book review.
The recent jailing of 50 Turkish military leaders on charges of plotting a coup against the elected "Islamist" government is more realistically part of this slow-motion coup against Turkish secularism. The "Islamists" did not lose. They instead successfully burrowed inside the civilian government and are now using their power to root out the remaining opposition to their program and goal -- to remake Turkey as an Islamic, rather than secular, nation.
Posted by: del at March 5, 2010 10:44 am
Respectfully, semite5000's post just above describes the present situation in Turkey far better than Vali Nasr's apparent claim that the "Islamists" have lost their struggle with the Turkish secularists, which you discussed in your book review.
The recent jailing of 50 Turkish military leaders on charges of plotting a coup against the elected "Islamist" government is more realistically part of this slow-motion coup against Turkish secularism. The "Islamists" did not lose. They instead successfully burrowed inside the civilian government and are now using their power to root out the remaining opposition to their program and goal -- to remake Turkey as an Islamic, rather than secular, nation.
From the article on Turkey linked above:
“On one side of the scale, there is the Congress under the influence of ethnic lobby groups, and on the other, there are the greater United States’ interests in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Caucasus,” said Sedat Ergin, a foreign policy analyst at the Hurriyet newspaper. “It is up to the American administration to come up with the best choice between the two.”
What a repugnant piece of rhetoric. Open bigotry followed by a not very cleverly veiled threat.
Posted by: Craig at March 5, 2010 11:06 am
“On one side of the scale, there is the Congress under the influence of ethnic lobby groups, and on the other, there are the greater United States’ interests in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Caucasus,” said Sedat Ergin, a foreign policy analyst at the Hurriyet newspaper. “It is up to the American administration to come up with the best choice between the two.”
What a repugnant piece of rhetoric. Open bigotry followed by a not very cleverly veiled threat.
Del: Respectfully, semite5000's post just above describes the present situation in Turkey far better than Vali Nasr's apparent claim that the "Islamists" have lost their struggle with the Turkish secularists, which you discussed in your book review.
Well, I agree that it's looking worse in Turkey all the time. Nasr wrote his book two years ago (the publishing industry moves at glacial speed) and I wrote the review last spring. The NYT sat on it for quite a while after I submitted it. So neither Nasr nor I were current.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 5, 2010 11:15 am
Well, I agree that it's looking worse in Turkey all the time. Nasr wrote his book two years ago (the publishing industry moves at glacial speed) and I wrote the review last spring. The NYT sat on it for quite a while after I submitted it. So neither Nasr nor I were current.
Re: Turkey
Wow!
I knew things were bad, but this is pretty close to a catastrophe.
Are the leaders looking at recreating the Ottoman Empire??
Posted by: jb at March 5, 2010 11:23 am
Wow!
I knew things were bad, but this is pretty close to a catastrophe.
Are the leaders looking at recreating the Ottoman Empire??
I don't think this Armenian genocide business has much at all to do with neo-Ottomanism. Turkey, like the rest of the Middle East, has a shame culture instead of a guilt culture, so to speak. I think (although I am not entirely sure) that resistance to admitting what occurred during World War I has more to do with an emotional need to save face than anything else.
The West finds it cathartic when beating itself up for the crimes in its past, but that's not how it is in most parts of the world.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 5, 2010 11:35 am
The West finds it cathartic when beating itself up for the crimes in its past, but that's not how it is in most parts of the world.
Nice to see you come out of the closet on extra-judicial killings, Totten. Im Norwegian, and I remember the killing of an innocent waiter in Lillehammer by a Israeli hit-squad. Some of us over here in Eurpe still believes in the rule of Law, and dont understand why this man couldnt have been arrested. We further dont understand why Israel chose to do a public killing in a key allied country a week before admiral Mullen was due to visit Israel. We even less understand why Israel at this time and place chooses to piss off all its neighbours (except Egypt) as well as the EU and the Obama administration. But hey, you got Sarah Palin on your side, so I guess im just confused.
And hey, the Jerusalem Post racist commentariat sure are happy. Yeehaw, lets annex the Tomb of Abraham. Kach all the way.
Posted by: Fnord at March 5, 2010 11:54 am
And hey, the Jerusalem Post racist commentariat sure are happy. Yeehaw, lets annex the Tomb of Abraham. Kach all the way.
Well fsnort, you definitely are confused! There's no doubt about that.
"Some of us over here in Europe still believes in the rule of Law"
which Law is that, Sharia??
Posted by: jb at March 5, 2010 12:01 pm
"Some of us over here in Europe still believes in the rule of Law"
which Law is that, Sharia??
Fnord,
Your waiter in Lellehammer wasn't a terrorist, and the Hamas dude in Dubai was a war criminal, not a waiter.
The Obama Administration engages in extra-judicial killings from the skies all the time and even takes out innocent civilians in the process. What Israel did was much more restrained and defensible.
Some of us over here in Eurpe still believes in the rule of Law, and dont understand why this man couldnt have been arrested.
Go live in the Middle East for a couple of years and get out of your bubble. As Lebanon's militia leader and elected president Bashir Gemayel once said after being lectured by Israelis for his brutality, "This is not Norway here, and it is not Denmark."
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 5, 2010 12:02 pm
Your waiter in Lellehammer wasn't a terrorist, and the Hamas dude in Dubai was a war criminal, not a waiter.
The Obama Administration engages in extra-judicial killings from the skies all the time and even takes out innocent civilians in the process. What Israel did was much more restrained and defensible.
Some of us over here in Eurpe still believes in the rule of Law, and dont understand why this man couldnt have been arrested.
Go live in the Middle East for a couple of years and get out of your bubble. As Lebanon's militia leader and elected president Bashir Gemayel once said after being lectured by Israelis for his brutality, "This is not Norway here, and it is not Denmark."
Oh, and by the way Fnord, will you please either call me by my first name or put "Mr" in front of my last time? Just calling me "Totten" is a bit rude.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 5, 2010 12:05 pm
Some of us over here in Eurpe still believes in the rule of Law, and dont understand why this man couldnt have been arrested.
Which explains why you have Hezbollah listed as an international terrorist group, right Fnord?
Oh. Wait. Not THAT law. The other law... the one that Norwegians and other self-righteous Euro-weenies believe in. The one with all the double standards where "justice" is supposed to be.
Posted by: Craig at March 5, 2010 12:23 pm
Which explains why you have Hezbollah listed as an international terrorist group, right Fnord?
Oh. Wait. Not THAT law. The other law... the one that Norwegians and other self-righteous Euro-weenies believe in. The one with all the double standards where "justice" is supposed to be.
Mr. Totten/Michael, over here its not rude at all, its how adults call each other in workplaces. No rudenes intended.
But seriously, sir, do you see that making the hit such a spectacular affair, and sort-of-kind-of bragging about it on freaking twitter, Israel has shot itself in the foot? Israel is now on par with Chechnya when it comes to official killings abroad. Nobody else does it that publicly, the CIA learned their lesson in Italy. Its a determined insult to a key US ally.
Posted by: Fnord at March 5, 2010 12:25 pm
But seriously, sir, do you see that making the hit such a spectacular affair, and sort-of-kind-of bragging about it on freaking twitter, Israel has shot itself in the foot? Israel is now on par with Chechnya when it comes to official killings abroad. Nobody else does it that publicly, the CIA learned their lesson in Italy. Its a determined insult to a key US ally.
PS: And did you notice the hit took place as the first israeli athlete played tennis in Dubai?
Posted by: Fnord at March 5, 2010 12:27 pm
PPS: The US dont use passports from friendly countries (I hope)
Posted by: Fnord at March 5, 2010 12:28 pm
Fnord;
You will not win a war against a ruthless enemy by being politically correct.
When it comes to national security, all the rules about polite and acceptable behavior go out the airlock. Nations who perceive themselves threatened will offend sensibilities if need to.
Good or bad, that’s just the way it is.
Posted by: Toady at March 5, 2010 12:58 pm
You will not win a war against a ruthless enemy by being politically correct.
When it comes to national security, all the rules about polite and acceptable behavior go out the airlock. Nations who perceive themselves threatened will offend sensibilities if need to.
Good or bad, that’s just the way it is.
Fnord,
I assumed no rudeness was intended, which is why I said "please."
It's not rude in every context in the US either, but it is when people don't really know each other, and certainly on the Internet. Those who call me "Totten" in my comments section are almost invariably those who come over here to slag me.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 5, 2010 1:06 pm
I assumed no rudeness was intended, which is why I said "please."
It's not rude in every context in the US either, but it is when people don't really know each other, and certainly on the Internet. Those who call me "Totten" in my comments section are almost invariably those who come over here to slag me.
Fnord;
PS - So far, the only people arrested have been Palestinians and some members of the hit squad fled to Iran.
The count of hit team members has reached 26. A bit high for Mossad.
It may not be the Israelis after all.
Posted by: Toady at March 5, 2010 1:11 pm
PS - So far, the only people arrested have been Palestinians and some members of the hit squad fled to Iran.
The count of hit team members has reached 26. A bit high for Mossad.
It may not be the Israelis after all.
Those who call me "Totten" in my comments section are almost invariably those who come over here to slag me.
Exactly, MJT. I don't think it's ever considered to be polite to use somebody's surname(only) while you are insulting them. Even in Norway. I think Fnord is being as intellectually dishonest about that bit as he was with his ludicrous claim that his country believes in the "rule of law".
Fnord: Israel is now on par with Chechnya when it comes to official killings abroad.
If Chechnya has decided to stop mass-murdering children in schools and start assassinating known war criminals instead, I may need to revise my opinion of them. For the better. Got any links for me?
Posted by: Craig at March 5, 2010 1:16 pm
Exactly, MJT. I don't think it's ever considered to be polite to use somebody's surname(only) while you are insulting them. Even in Norway. I think Fnord is being as intellectually dishonest about that bit as he was with his ludicrous claim that his country believes in the "rule of law".
Fnord: Israel is now on par with Chechnya when it comes to official killings abroad.
If Chechnya has decided to stop mass-murdering children in schools and start assassinating known war criminals instead, I may need to revise my opinion of them. For the better. Got any links for me?
PS, Fnord: How come you are so down on Chechnya? They never did anything that Hezbollah and Hamas haven't done, and you like Hezbollah and Hamas just fine.
Posted by: Craig at March 5, 2010 1:18 pm
Toady,
The count of hit team members has reached 26. A bit high for Mossad.
Yes. And they released the first list of names and all the data they had on them almost immediately. I suspect that might have been a panic reaction on Dubai's part, and they listed everyone they could find traveling on what seemed to be dubious credentials as a suspect.
Posted by: Craig at March 5, 2010 1:22 pm
The count of hit team members has reached 26. A bit high for Mossad.
Yes. And they released the first list of names and all the data they had on them almost immediately. I suspect that might have been a panic reaction on Dubai's part, and they listed everyone they could find traveling on what seemed to be dubious credentials as a suspect.
Regarding Mahboub, I find it hard to believe that the vaunted Mossad has been reduced to stealing the identities of its own citizens in order to conduct espionage. That the only people arrested so far are two Palestinians and that three of the operatives fled Dubai for Iran leaves amble room to cast doubt on Israeli complicity.
But I don't think Fnorg really cares about such details; he's only interested in tarring and feathering Israel. Of course, I'm sure he's in no way an anti-Semite in the least; he's just obsessed with Israel while simultaneously ignoring that many other countries take out terrorists all the time. He's just incensed about alleged Israeli the use of forged passports but has no concern that Mahbouh has five passports and every intelligence agency uses forged passports. He's just enraged that Israel would take out a terrorist dedicated to destroying Israel and killing innocents in the process yet, yet it Nford doesn't seem to care that Dubai is a transit for terrorists who have been using that country for years. No, no double standards there. Fnord is as fair as fair can be.
Posted by: semite5000 at March 5, 2010 2:16 pm
But I don't think Fnorg really cares about such details; he's only interested in tarring and feathering Israel. Of course, I'm sure he's in no way an anti-Semite in the least; he's just obsessed with Israel while simultaneously ignoring that many other countries take out terrorists all the time. He's just incensed about alleged Israeli the use of forged passports but has no concern that Mahbouh has five passports and every intelligence agency uses forged passports. He's just enraged that Israel would take out a terrorist dedicated to destroying Israel and killing innocents in the process yet, yet it Nford doesn't seem to care that Dubai is a transit for terrorists who have been using that country for years. No, no double standards there. Fnord is as fair as fair can be.
Back to Turkey ... again, where are the alarm bells in the State Department? That's what I don't get. Why do we continue to pretend it's business as usual with Turkey when it's clear to even the casual observer that serious changes are under way, changes that will have seriously negative consequences for US foreign policy objectives? Foggy bottom never ceases to justify its moniker. Again: WE ARE LOSING THE COUNTRY THAT WAS THE MODEL OF A PRO-WESTERN, DEMOCRATIC MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY.
The damage to Israeli-Turkish relations are merely a symptom of a slide towards Islamization in Turkey that's been happening for a long time. We in the west haven't been paying attention to the other attacks on Turkey's secular foundation over the last years. Now, in the blink of an eye the Turks have angrily recalled their ambassador. Again, in diplomacy that is a really big deal. It's a shot across the bow. Turkey is flexing its muscles, but not against its formal regional competitors but against the USA.
There are frightening parallels to Hitler's grip on power over Germany and Erdogan's slow coup. I don't mean to compare Erodgan's ideology to Hitler's, but what is frighteningly similar is the parallel development in the way that both Hitler and now Erdogan slowly chipped away at the democratic and moderate foundations of their respective societies, slowly but surely, until one day the world woke up and it was too late.
Posted by: semite5000 at March 5, 2010 2:28 pm
The damage to Israeli-Turkish relations are merely a symptom of a slide towards Islamization in Turkey that's been happening for a long time. We in the west haven't been paying attention to the other attacks on Turkey's secular foundation over the last years. Now, in the blink of an eye the Turks have angrily recalled their ambassador. Again, in diplomacy that is a really big deal. It's a shot across the bow. Turkey is flexing its muscles, but not against its formal regional competitors but against the USA.
There are frightening parallels to Hitler's grip on power over Germany and Erdogan's slow coup. I don't mean to compare Erodgan's ideology to Hitler's, but what is frighteningly similar is the parallel development in the way that both Hitler and now Erdogan slowly chipped away at the democratic and moderate foundations of their respective societies, slowly but surely, until one day the world woke up and it was too late.
Irreconcilables and the Petraeus perspective:
1. Capture them.
or
2. drive them away permanently
or
3. kill them; they're too dangerous otherwise.
True irreconcilables with a terrorist history? I'd move directly to step 3. Anything less invites more.
And, tragically, WW II really began long before 1 September, 1939.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 5, 2010 3:43 pm
1. Capture them.
or
2. drive them away permanently
or
3. kill them; they're too dangerous otherwise.
True irreconcilables with a terrorist history? I'd move directly to step 3. Anything less invites more.
And, tragically, WW II really began long before 1 September, 1939.
I think this recent essay by John Bolton intersects our current discussions:
"Should the United States Act with Humility in International Affairs?"
http://www.aei.org/article/101742
Posted by: Paul S. at March 5, 2010 5:19 pm
"Should the United States Act with Humility in International Affairs?"
http://www.aei.org/article/101742
Very inciteful analysis, Semite5000, and i feel quite correct.
Unfortunately when we look at history we generally only look at summaries and rarely at the daily papers of the time in their original languages.
That might be a wake-up call!
Changes such as the loss of human rights never happens overnight. Its always gradual and the powers in charge needs to make sure the public accepts each change before moving on to the next.
Once the situation reaches a certain level, it can accelerate pretty quickly and the public be damned.
Mein Kampf was ignored as the ravings of a madman by western powers and few took Hitler seriously until he started carrying out what he had written and not even then!
Today, there seem to be several emulators/immitators of Herr Hitler and once again hardly anyone is taking it seriously.
And the leaders we have are more emulators of Lord Halifax then they are of Churchill
Posted by: yesjb at March 5, 2010 7:17 pm
Unfortunately when we look at history we generally only look at summaries and rarely at the daily papers of the time in their original languages.
That might be a wake-up call!
Changes such as the loss of human rights never happens overnight. Its always gradual and the powers in charge needs to make sure the public accepts each change before moving on to the next.
Once the situation reaches a certain level, it can accelerate pretty quickly and the public be damned.
Mein Kampf was ignored as the ravings of a madman by western powers and few took Hitler seriously until he started carrying out what he had written and not even then!
Today, there seem to be several emulators/immitators of Herr Hitler and once again hardly anyone is taking it seriously.
And the leaders we have are more emulators of Lord Halifax then they are of Churchill
yesjb,
"insightful" is probably what you meant :)
Posted by: del at March 5, 2010 7:58 pm
"insightful" is probably what you meant :)
yesjb,
In the backyard of my hemisphere today, I'd be interested in seeing a timeline for the Chavez regime's power grab, along with a breakdown of its tactics; considering the personality, I suspect subtlety wasn't a high priority.
Posted by: Paul S. at March 5, 2010 8:08 pm
In the backyard of my hemisphere today, I'd be interested in seeing a timeline for the Chavez regime's power grab, along with a breakdown of its tactics; considering the personality, I suspect subtlety wasn't a high priority.
del,
Of course! Those bloody homonyms! (lol)
Posted by: yesjb at March 5, 2010 8:15 pm
Of course! Those bloody homonyms! (lol)
No, yesjb was right--I'm trying to create a riot! :p
Thanks for your thoughts, yesjb.
Posted by: semite5000 at March 5, 2010 8:21 pm
Thanks for your thoughts, yesjb.
fnord, you still haven't answered me. Trying to make yourself look even-handed, you claimed you posted criticisms of Hamas on a Hamas website. Where are the links to that that I asked for?
There are two possibilities:
1. You post the links.
2. You stand revealed as a lying antisemitic hypocrite.
Those are the only logical possibilities. Which is it?
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 6, 2010 12:02 am
There are two possibilities:
1. You post the links.
2. You stand revealed as a lying antisemitic hypocrite.
Those are the only logical possibilities. Which is it?
"We even less understand why Israel at this time and place chooses to piss ... the Obama administration."
Why would BO be pissed off? He just recognized a country that assassinated not a murdering terrorist, but a political leader of a neighboring country. Hey, you could even say that was the green light to let Israel know assassinations are A-OK!
Were you as outraged when Syria murdered Hariri? Probably not, you only get your panties in a wad when the assassination target is an antisemitic annihilationist.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 6, 2010 12:20 am
Why would BO be pissed off? He just recognized a country that assassinated not a murdering terrorist, but a political leader of a neighboring country. Hey, you could even say that was the green light to let Israel know assassinations are A-OK!
Were you as outraged when Syria murdered Hariri? Probably not, you only get your panties in a wad when the assassination target is an antisemitic annihilationist.
Were you as outraged when Syria murdered Hariri? Probably not, you only get your panties in a wad when the assassination target is an antisemitic annihilationist.
I bet he was seriously pissed off when Imad Mugniyah was offed in Syria, though! Seeing as how he doesn't view the man who murdered more Americans than anyone else in history as a criminal, or a terrorist. That probably explains why it doesn't upset Fnord that people like Imad Mugniyah are never brought to justice despite his claims that he and his country believe in the rule of law. He doesn't think Mugniyah and the organization(s) he worked for did anything wrong.
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 4:04 am
I bet he was seriously pissed off when Imad Mugniyah was offed in Syria, though! Seeing as how he doesn't view the man who murdered more Americans than anyone else in history as a criminal, or a terrorist. That probably explains why it doesn't upset Fnord that people like Imad Mugniyah are never brought to justice despite his claims that he and his country believe in the rule of law. He doesn't think Mugniyah and the organization(s) he worked for did anything wrong.
...the man who murdered more Americans than anyone else in history...
Obviously needed an exclusion for AQ in there!
So, anyway, Fnord... how would you classify this Hamas man who was killed in Dubai? Are people who kidnap enemy combatants and torture them to death war criminals? If you need a link to the Geneva Conventions, let me know. I'm here to help!
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 4:08 am
Obviously needed an exclusion for AQ in there!
So, anyway, Fnord... how would you classify this Hamas man who was killed in Dubai? Are people who kidnap enemy combatants and torture them to death war criminals? If you need a link to the Geneva Conventions, let me know. I'm here to help!
"There are two possibilities:
1. You post the links.
2. You stand revealed as a lying antisemitic hypocrite."
lol, is that how you speak to your mother? For your reference, I was writing with palestinians at Facebooks PST page and at islam.no, both of wich are norwegian. I dont remember the freaking links 3 months later. I *have* been arguing w pro-iranians lately, but that was in a newspaper called klassekampen and they dont print their letters on the web.
so i guess that makes me a lying antisemite hypocrite?
Posted by: Fnord at March 6, 2010 4:31 am
1. You post the links.
2. You stand revealed as a lying antisemitic hypocrite."
lol, is that how you speak to your mother? For your reference, I was writing with palestinians at Facebooks PST page and at islam.no, both of wich are norwegian. I dont remember the freaking links 3 months later. I *have* been arguing w pro-iranians lately, but that was in a newspaper called klassekampen and they dont print their letters on the web.
so i guess that makes me a lying antisemite hypocrite?
MJT
You have to remember that you are dealing with people who see the firing of random missiles into civilian population centers a just act, but see retaliatory strikes against military positions purposefully placed in civilian areas as grievous war crimes, due to civilian casualties.
There is no reasoning with them.
Posted by: SirGlubb at March 6, 2010 4:51 am
You have to remember that you are dealing with people who see the firing of random missiles into civilian population centers a just act, but see retaliatory strikes against military positions purposefully placed in civilian areas as grievous war crimes, due to civilian casualties.
There is no reasoning with them.
Lol, you guys should really get a crashcourse on the difference between opposition and eenemy.Opposition is good for ya.
Posted by: Fnord at March 6, 2010 5:16 am
Opposition is good for ya.
I don't think dishonesty and hypocrisy is good for anyone. You claimed earlier that you and your country believed in the rule of law. I've seen you support and defend both Hezbollah and Hamas. I know that your country does not consider HA a terror group, despite numerous murders, hostage-takings and other crimes against innocent westerners (and others). Where is your evidence that either you or your country believe in "rule of law" when it comes to international affairs, Fnord?
I also asked you your opinion on whether this Hamas man who was killed would be considered a war criminal under the Geneva Conventions. I was going to follow that up with a question about why he was hanging out in 5 star hotels in the middle east, being a notorious war criminal and all, but since you didn't answer I don't get to do that.
I don't know about everyone else, fnord, but I'd like some answers from you. You've come in here stomping around and expressing your outrage at extra-judicial killings, but yet you don't seem to support judicial proceedings against war criminals. Nor does your country. It's attitudes like that which make extra-judicial killings necessary. You might think it's great to have terrorists and mass murderers roaming around without a care in the world about being brought to justice, but most decent folks would rather they were killed before they got a chance to commit any more crimes against the innocent. Since court cases seem to be out of the question.
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 8:09 am
I don't think dishonesty and hypocrisy is good for anyone. You claimed earlier that you and your country believed in the rule of law. I've seen you support and defend both Hezbollah and Hamas. I know that your country does not consider HA a terror group, despite numerous murders, hostage-takings and other crimes against innocent westerners (and others). Where is your evidence that either you or your country believe in "rule of law" when it comes to international affairs, Fnord?
I also asked you your opinion on whether this Hamas man who was killed would be considered a war criminal under the Geneva Conventions. I was going to follow that up with a question about why he was hanging out in 5 star hotels in the middle east, being a notorious war criminal and all, but since you didn't answer I don't get to do that.
I don't know about everyone else, fnord, but I'd like some answers from you. You've come in here stomping around and expressing your outrage at extra-judicial killings, but yet you don't seem to support judicial proceedings against war criminals. Nor does your country. It's attitudes like that which make extra-judicial killings necessary. You might think it's great to have terrorists and mass murderers roaming around without a care in the world about being brought to justice, but most decent folks would rather they were killed before they got a chance to commit any more crimes against the innocent. Since court cases seem to be out of the question.
PS fnord... weren't you bragging about being an anarchist over on AM's blog? An anarchist who believes in "rule of law"? That's an oxymoron. If your comments weren't proof enough that you don't even have any understanding of what "rule of law" is, the obvious contradiction between your political ideology and the concept of law-and-order should make it clear to anyone that you are just saying what you say to score cheap points against your enemies.
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 8:19 am
I love Gary Rosen ... I mean, not in gay way (not that there's anything wrong with being gay), but I love his willingness to call a spade a spade. People often argue that Jews scream "anti-Semite" at anybody that disagrees with us. And while here and there some Jews use the charge when it's not accurate, most Jews also have a sixth sense about these things. Gary has strong "anti-Semite" radar and I'm glad he puts it to good use. Finally, of course any actual anti-Semite will always hide behind the argument that Jews unfairly use this accusation.
Keep up the good work, Gary.
Posted by: semite5000 at March 6, 2010 9:05 am
Keep up the good work, Gary.
i thought hamas and Israel were at war? so how does it make it extra judicial killing? is their an out of bounds line in a war where there no boundaries, especially this war? Geneva conventions rules not being adhered to by hamas crowd, what rule of law does the jihadist go by. they hold the west to Geneva convention standards but ignore them when it suits them. we should do the proper mea culpa and send condolences and move on. oops sorry, works for me
Posted by: john from cinncinatti at March 6, 2010 10:55 am
I agree that it is necessary to assassinate terrorists. It is the only effective way to deal with them (if you're targeting the management sector of their infrastructure)
When the United Nations rewarded Yassar Arafat for his terrorist attacks against Israel, when the UN cheered for his "olive branch" speech, this was a declaration that the rules of war had changed.
Terrorists believe that their 'field of battle' is in our cities, our neighborhoods, our Olympics and our office buildings. When the UN honored a known terrorist and rewarded him for his attacks, they acknowledged that terrorism, assassination and the use of non-uniformed combatants was a legitimate tool of war. Thus, there are no borders to warfare anymore. Terrorists live by these rules, they should die by them.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 6, 2010 11:03 am
When the United Nations rewarded Yassar Arafat for his terrorist attacks against Israel, when the UN cheered for his "olive branch" speech, this was a declaration that the rules of war had changed.
Terrorists believe that their 'field of battle' is in our cities, our neighborhoods, our Olympics and our office buildings. When the UN honored a known terrorist and rewarded him for his attacks, they acknowledged that terrorism, assassination and the use of non-uniformed combatants was a legitimate tool of war. Thus, there are no borders to warfare anymore. Terrorists live by these rules, they should die by them.
"is that how you speak to your mother"
My mother is dead, but no, I didn't speak to her that way when she was alive. But I probably would have had she been a lying hypocrite.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 6, 2010 11:38 am
My mother is dead, but no, I didn't speak to her that way when she was alive. But I probably would have had she been a lying hypocrite.
semite5000, Jews have two overreactions to antisemitism. One is to see an antisemite under every bed, the other is to ignore and deny it. The unfortunate lesson of history is that the first is closer to the truth than the second.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 6, 2010 11:41 am
Gary,
Even more unfortunate is the fact that being a Jew and being an anti-Semite are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: yesjb at March 6, 2010 1:37 pm
Even more unfortunate is the fact that being a Jew and being an anti-Semite are not mutually exclusive.
Self-criticism has been one of the Wests' greatest strengths since Ancient Greece, and outbursts of self-loathing its greatest weakness.
Marxists systematized this as a political weapon, and after their patrons in the USSR fell, Islamists filled the vacuum.
Posted by: Squires at March 6, 2010 2:52 pm
Marxists systematized this as a political weapon, and after their patrons in the USSR fell, Islamists filled the vacuum.
There is the "minor issue" of the laws of foreign countries and using the passports of your allies to do your hit jobs. Oh, and defining who the "terrorists" are. What is a terrorist? Someone who explicitly kills civilians for political aims? Well the Americans have never produced terrorists: not at Dresden or Hiroshima or Vietnam or Nicaragua.
Pray tell, what would occur if others could treat America the way America) treat the world? Well, if that were to occur, I suppose neither would last very long.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 2:57 pm
Pray tell, what would occur if others could treat America the way America) treat the world? Well, if that were to occur, I suppose neither would last very long.
There is the "minor issue" of the laws of foreign countries
That's only an issue if those foreign countries refuse to prosecute or arrest and extradite known criminals. As is the case with Dubai. Harboring fugitives from justice is itself considered a criminal act in most parts of the world.
Oh, and defining who the "terrorists" are.
Well, that's not a problem in this case, is it? The Geneva Conventions define this man as a war criminal. Are you disputing the Geneva Conventions, or just being a snot?
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 3:12 pm
That's only an issue if those foreign countries refuse to prosecute or arrest and extradite known criminals. As is the case with Dubai. Harboring fugitives from justice is itself considered a criminal act in most parts of the world.
Oh, and defining who the "terrorists" are.
Well, that's not a problem in this case, is it? The Geneva Conventions define this man as a war criminal. Are you disputing the Geneva Conventions, or just being a snot?
What is a terrorist?
You aren't stupid, so stop pretending to be. Seriously. You know damn well what a terrorist is.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 3:21 pm
You aren't stupid, so stop pretending to be. Seriously. You know damn well what a terrorist is.
A law is only just if it applied to all parties equally. The victors apply the law and write the history books. What was it that old World War II innovator in "strategic bombing" Curtis LeMay said? Ah, that he'd better not lose the war, for being so good at burning civilian men, women and children alive from the air, "I would have been tried as a war criminal."
Today this difficult in defining "terrorists" and "war criminals" persists. Israel does not produce any. Certainly not the one whose sleep might be haunted by the hundreds or thousands allowed to die at Sabra and Shatila. Certainly not those who deemed it good and decent to take 100 eyes in Gaza for each of their own in 2009.
You see? There is this little question of point of view and one doesn't need to be an expert on Kantian morality to understand there is no goodness where there is hypocrisy.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 3:24 pm
Today this difficult in defining "terrorists" and "war criminals" persists. Israel does not produce any. Certainly not the one whose sleep might be haunted by the hundreds or thousands allowed to die at Sabra and Shatila. Certainly not those who deemed it good and decent to take 100 eyes in Gaza for each of their own in 2009.
You see? There is this little question of point of view and one doesn't need to be an expert on Kantian morality to understand there is no goodness where there is hypocrisy.
The entire "terrorist" paradigm is stupid. Actually, it is not stupid, it is incredibly useful.
As I said: terrorists do not burn women and children alive in Dresden, Hiroshima and Vietnam, and they certainly don't kill innocent civilians and priests in Nicaragua and El Salvador.
The term is only applicable to individuals not citizens of our own country who blow up public spaces, preferably themselves at the same time, ideally wearing a Keffiyeh and screaming "Allahuh Akhbar!"
Hence, an American who plows himself and his airplane into an IRS building to protest against the gov't is... well, he's kind of a terrorist but not with a capital "T" like psychiatrist-massacrer and the crotch-bomber!
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 3:30 pm
As I said: terrorists do not burn women and children alive in Dresden, Hiroshima and Vietnam, and they certainly don't kill innocent civilians and priests in Nicaragua and El Salvador.
The term is only applicable to individuals not citizens of our own country who blow up public spaces, preferably themselves at the same time, ideally wearing a Keffiyeh and screaming "Allahuh Akhbar!"
Hence, an American who plows himself and his airplane into an IRS building to protest against the gov't is... well, he's kind of a terrorist but not with a capital "T" like psychiatrist-massacrer and the crotch-bomber!
Like I said, "outbursts of self loathing". It is saddening just how useful these useful idiots make themselves.
Posted by: Squires at March 6, 2010 3:38 pm
You misunderstand everything Squires. What you call self-loathing is in fact the self-criticism you so praise. And, in that it allows for one's moral improvement and social betterment, is is the noblest form of self-love.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 3:44 pm
Ombrageux, what on earth is your point? Are you saying Israelis aren't allowed to fight back because they aren't morally perfect? Because their American and former Lebanese allies aren't perfect? That's not how the world works. If someone is trying to kill you, your family, or your countrymen, you take care of it.
I assume you are a college student, and if not that you were one recently. I'm damn certain you have never been shot at.
My recommendation to you is to leave your comfort zone and spend a little time in the hard parts of the world where politics is a matter of who lives and who dies.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 3:54 pm
I assume you are a college student, and if not that you were one recently. I'm damn certain you have never been shot at.
My recommendation to you is to leave your comfort zone and spend a little time in the hard parts of the world where politics is a matter of who lives and who dies.
My point is that no one would be cheering if an Arab intelligence agency managed to pull the plug on Ariel Sharon or assassinate the organizers of Operation Cast Lead (without civilian casualties!). You talk about "receiving bullets," but again, it is not only the Israelis who receive them. The Arabs bleed a hundred times more.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 3:58 pm
A law is only just if it applied to all parties equally.
Aren't you the same person who has made dubious allegations against Israel for war crimes, such as Blockade = collective punishment? And now you are in here claiming this individual, who has clearly been directly involved in serious war crimes (murder and torture are the worst possible), is being unfairly labeled?
I'm having trouble believing that somebody who endorses double standards as much as you do is lecturing people about justice and equal treatment under the law. As MJT said "You aren't stupid, so stop pretending to be." Though, I think I must be more cynical than MJT, because I'm not convinced you are only pretending. I've met a lot of people who talked a good game but turned out to be dumb as a box rocks. I think that's a trick some people learn to fake their way through college or something.
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 4:01 pm
Aren't you the same person who has made dubious allegations against Israel for war crimes, such as Blockade = collective punishment? And now you are in here claiming this individual, who has clearly been directly involved in serious war crimes (murder and torture are the worst possible), is being unfairly labeled?
I'm having trouble believing that somebody who endorses double standards as much as you do is lecturing people about justice and equal treatment under the law. As MJT said "You aren't stupid, so stop pretending to be." Though, I think I must be more cynical than MJT, because I'm not convinced you are only pretending. I've met a lot of people who talked a good game but turned out to be dumb as a box rocks. I think that's a trick some people learn to fake their way through college or something.
Michael,
Have you ever been shot at?
If so, where?
Posted by: Abu Guerrilla at March 6, 2010 4:02 pm
Have you ever been shot at?
If so, where?
The Arabs bleed a hundred times more.
They'd stop bleeding entirely if they would stop trying to destroy Israel and each other.
I want to know why you only care about Arabs if they're killed by Americans or Israelis. Arab terrorists and governments kill a lot more Arabs than Americans or Israelis do, but that hardly bothers you in the least. That's why the phrase "self-loathing" was used up above. Grow up.
Once again, I think you need to leave the country for a while and spend some quality time in a hard place. I have known more Arabs than you ever will, and I have even known some who were killed. They were not killed by Americans or Israelis.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 4:04 pm
They'd stop bleeding entirely if they would stop trying to destroy Israel and each other.
I want to know why you only care about Arabs if they're killed by Americans or Israelis. Arab terrorists and governments kill a lot more Arabs than Americans or Israelis do, but that hardly bothers you in the least. That's why the phrase "self-loathing" was used up above. Grow up.
Once again, I think you need to leave the country for a while and spend some quality time in a hard place. I have known more Arabs than you ever will, and I have even known some who were killed. They were not killed by Americans or Israelis.
Abu Guerrilla, I've been to Iraq seven times and to northern Israel while Hezbollah was firing its rockets. Hezbollah wasn't aiming at me personally, but their rockets were exploding around me.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 4:06 pm
Ombrageux: My point is that no one would be cheering if an Arab intelligence agency managed to pull the plug on Ariel Sharon or assassinate the organizers of Operation Cast Lead (without civilian casualties!).
That's true, but that's because Israel is an American ally. But things would be very different if Israel's Arab enemies aimed at military targets exclusively. That has never happened, but my view of Israel's enemies will change dramatically if they ever decide to fight the way Israel fights.
Since their objective is to destroy the country, they can't fight the way Israel fights without first undergoing radical changes. I'll become a lot more even-handed if that ever happens.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 4:12 pm
That's true, but that's because Israel is an American ally. But things would be very different if Israel's Arab enemies aimed at military targets exclusively. That has never happened, but my view of Israel's enemies will change dramatically if they ever decide to fight the way Israel fights.
Since their objective is to destroy the country, they can't fight the way Israel fights without first undergoing radical changes. I'll become a lot more even-handed if that ever happens.
"What is a terrorist?
You aren't stupid, so stop pretending to be. Seriously. You know damn well what a terrorist is. "
yes, it's obvious, just like it's obvious for people on the other side of Israeli weapons.
From the Goldstone report:
-------------------------------
"1690.... It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population...."
"1724...The Mission finds that the rounding-up of large groups of civilians and their prolonged detention under the circumstances described in this Report constitute a collective penalty on those persons in violation of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and article 50 of the Hague Regulations. Such treatment amounts to measures of intimidation or terrorism prohibited by article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
"1256...One particular characteristic of the conflict, namely that the population could not flee the conflict areas as can be done in many conflicts, and had no shelters or safe places in which to hide or protect themselves, reinforced feelings of being trapped, defenceless and vulnerable to more attacks with a sense of inevitability. Many of those who met the Mission stated that they felt terrorized.
-------------------------------
Can you point to a legal/official definition of "terrorism" that would not apply to Israel (and the US) but would apply to Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.?
Keeping in mind that there is an actual documentary record to refer to, which I notice is almost never done here.
btw, it was very brave of you, Mr. Totten, to be in northern Israel while Hezbollah was firing its rockets. It would also have been brave to have been in South Lebanon when Israel was firing its rockets, or to join the demining teams in their efforts in South Lebanon, trying to stop more people from getting maimed and killed by the U.S. bombs dropped by Israel. Perhaps in your next essay for the Weekly Standard you can count up the number of dead from those cluster bombs and compare it to the number of dead from Hezbollah rockets and Hamas rockets, and then argue that it's not a good comparison because Israel wasn't trying to kill civilians. Or perhaps make some brave fighting words about what the people in South Lebanon should do about those in Israel who ordered the dropping of the bombs and now walk around with complete impunity, at least in Israel. Hopefully though they will be arrested and put away for a long time in other countries.
Posted by: Seth at March 6, 2010 4:53 pm
You aren't stupid, so stop pretending to be. Seriously. You know damn well what a terrorist is. "
yes, it's obvious, just like it's obvious for people on the other side of Israeli weapons.
From the Goldstone report:
-------------------------------
"1690.... It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population...."
"1724...The Mission finds that the rounding-up of large groups of civilians and their prolonged detention under the circumstances described in this Report constitute a collective penalty on those persons in violation of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and article 50 of the Hague Regulations. Such treatment amounts to measures of intimidation or terrorism prohibited by article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
"1256...One particular characteristic of the conflict, namely that the population could not flee the conflict areas as can be done in many conflicts, and had no shelters or safe places in which to hide or protect themselves, reinforced feelings of being trapped, defenceless and vulnerable to more attacks with a sense of inevitability. Many of those who met the Mission stated that they felt terrorized.
-------------------------------
Can you point to a legal/official definition of "terrorism" that would not apply to Israel (and the US) but would apply to Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.?
Keeping in mind that there is an actual documentary record to refer to, which I notice is almost never done here.
btw, it was very brave of you, Mr. Totten, to be in northern Israel while Hezbollah was firing its rockets. It would also have been brave to have been in South Lebanon when Israel was firing its rockets, or to join the demining teams in their efforts in South Lebanon, trying to stop more people from getting maimed and killed by the U.S. bombs dropped by Israel. Perhaps in your next essay for the Weekly Standard you can count up the number of dead from those cluster bombs and compare it to the number of dead from Hezbollah rockets and Hamas rockets, and then argue that it's not a good comparison because Israel wasn't trying to kill civilians. Or perhaps make some brave fighting words about what the people in South Lebanon should do about those in Israel who ordered the dropping of the bombs and now walk around with complete impunity, at least in Israel. Hopefully though they will be arrested and put away for a long time in other countries.
What you call self-loathing is in fact the self-criticism you so praise. And, in that it allows for one's moral improvement and social betterment, is is the noblest form of self-love.
Steaming, towering pile of sick and twisted shit.
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at March 6, 2010 4:54 pm
Steaming, towering pile of sick and twisted shit.
Now, why would I be more concerned about the Arabs killed by U.S. or Israeli policy than those killed by Arabs, Iranians, cancer, liver disease or any number of causes of death?
My government doesn't give $500 in weapons to every Syrian every year so they can muck about in Lebanon. My vote counts in American elections, not Iranian ones. It follows that myself and my countrymen might have had some influence on preventing the destruction of Iraq between 1990 and 2003. I cannot, on the other hand, have much influence as to whether gays can live in Tehran. I don't expect the all-power or the morality of my government to be such that they can prevent the Syrians and Egyptians from running a police state with torture chambers.. but it could restrain itself from putting innocent people Maher Arar into their hands!
And that is not self-hatred or inhumanity. The point is a simple as recognizing: a German citizen in 1941 should have been destroyed by guilt for the crimes of his State, but he should not have been as troubled by those of Japan in China!
All this is putting aside the fact that the Middle East is an extremely "extroverted" region, distorted more than most by external powers, including (and if past these have inertia) oil wealth, Cold War militarization and American/Israeli imperialism. This extroversion goes a long way to explaining why the Muslims of the Middle East are decidedly more "problematic" than those of, say, Southeast Asia or the Balkans.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 5:20 pm
My government doesn't give $500 in weapons to every Syrian every year so they can muck about in Lebanon. My vote counts in American elections, not Iranian ones. It follows that myself and my countrymen might have had some influence on preventing the destruction of Iraq between 1990 and 2003. I cannot, on the other hand, have much influence as to whether gays can live in Tehran. I don't expect the all-power or the morality of my government to be such that they can prevent the Syrians and Egyptians from running a police state with torture chambers.. but it could restrain itself from putting innocent people Maher Arar into their hands!
And that is not self-hatred or inhumanity. The point is a simple as recognizing: a German citizen in 1941 should have been destroyed by guilt for the crimes of his State, but he should not have been as troubled by those of Japan in China!
All this is putting aside the fact that the Middle East is an extremely "extroverted" region, distorted more than most by external powers, including (and if past these have inertia) oil wealth, Cold War militarization and American/Israeli imperialism. This extroversion goes a long way to explaining why the Muslims of the Middle East are decidedly more "problematic" than those of, say, Southeast Asia or the Balkans.
Ombrageux: the Middle East is an extremely "extroverted" region, distorted more than most by external powers...This extroversion goes a long way to explaining why the Muslims of the Middle East are decidedly more "problematic" than those of, say, Southeast Asia or the Balkans.
That's not true. It isn't even remotely true. You only think it's true because you aren't interested in the Middle East on its own terms. Since you're only really intersted in what "we" do there, as you explain above, you downplay, ignore, or are entirely unaware of how many of the Middle East's problems are self-generated.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 5:33 pm
That's not true. It isn't even remotely true. You only think it's true because you aren't interested in the Middle East on its own terms. Since you're only really intersted in what "we" do there, as you explain above, you downplay, ignore, or are entirely unaware of how many of the Middle East's problems are self-generated.
"...the noblest form of self-love."
How fascinatingly masturbatory of you, Ombrageux. In a figurative sense of course.
Posted by: del at March 6, 2010 5:35 pm
How fascinatingly masturbatory of you, Ombrageux. In a figurative sense of course.
"And that is not self-hatred or inhumanity. The point is a simple as recognizing: a German citizen in 1941 should have been destroyed by guilt for the crimes of his State, but he should not have been as troubled by those of Japan in China!"
Wait, what? Didn't you earlier use our waging war against the Germans and Japanese - who had mobilized their entire civilian populaces to the cause of destroying us and every other nation in their path - as an example of American/Western "terrorism"?
That's a rhetorical question of course, as is this one: How much of a two-faced, duplicitous, vapid, intellectually dishonest, hubris-fueled rube can you be?
Posted by: Squires at March 6, 2010 6:02 pm
Wait, what? Didn't you earlier use our waging war against the Germans and Japanese - who had mobilized their entire civilian populaces to the cause of destroying us and every other nation in their path - as an example of American/Western "terrorism"?
That's a rhetorical question of course, as is this one: How much of a two-faced, duplicitous, vapid, intellectually dishonest, hubris-fueled rube can you be?
Ombrageux,
Your name is most appropriate.
It reminds me of those whining pathethic hamas and hezballah leaders who have no compunction about killing Jews (that's Jews, not just Israelis), but when bombs start falling on their heads they start their miserable little whining claiming human rights abuse.
Now I see where you get your twisted moral posturing!
Its nice to spout all those big words such as "imperialism" etc and blindly and blithely accuse America and Israel of their worst aspects while the Muslim ummah expands through violence aimed directly at your crotch; and all you can say is: "How interesting".
Posted by: yesjb at March 6, 2010 6:51 pm
Your name is most appropriate.
It reminds me of those whining pathethic hamas and hezballah leaders who have no compunction about killing Jews (that's Jews, not just Israelis), but when bombs start falling on their heads they start their miserable little whining claiming human rights abuse.
Now I see where you get your twisted moral posturing!
Its nice to spout all those big words such as "imperialism" etc and blindly and blithely accuse America and Israel of their worst aspects while the Muslim ummah expands through violence aimed directly at your crotch; and all you can say is: "How interesting".
MJT - Ignore the rest of the post! And it is extroverted. That is a simple fact. The Middle East exists the way it does because of the modern, technological civilization that exists to its north and west. Without that civilization there would be no wealth for oil, no advanced weapons to slaughter each other with, no (neo)colonial powers dominating them. All that is fact and there is no comparable region in the world in this respect.
del - I was accused of self-hatred, I give the only appropriate response.
Squires - Now, lets be clear. At what date, exactly, were we incinerating little German and Japanese boys and girls? Now, in the name of survival, we might excuse the British from doing this in 1940. But after Stalingrad? D-Day? The Battle of the Bulge? At what point does one lose the right to murder non-combatants and children?
And that leaves aside the Japanese! The Japanese who - for all their ills - never were capable of "world domination" and whose only crime against the West was to attempt to replace their colonial empires in Asia with their own. These Japanese who in 1945 were virtually reduced to the home islands and were given no peace terms except total surrender. The Americans preferred to burn Japanese women and children alive by the hundreds of thousands than to even consider that they might keep their emperor or, even worse, like the British and French and Soviets might keep their old colonial empire for the time being (Korea, Taiwan which have since been sources of unending headaches).
There is no incoherence. In your mind, the guilt of others means your hands are clean. That a Japanese soldier killed a Chinese in 1938 means you need to be wholly carefree as you incinerate a Japanese baby in 1945. All violence is evil and violence abets violence. That sometimes - in the most exceptional of circumstances - it may be necessary to counter greater evil does not mean we need to be lax in identifying the overwhelming majority of cases where there was nothing but needless bloodlust.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 7:05 pm
del - I was accused of self-hatred, I give the only appropriate response.
Squires - Now, lets be clear. At what date, exactly, were we incinerating little German and Japanese boys and girls? Now, in the name of survival, we might excuse the British from doing this in 1940. But after Stalingrad? D-Day? The Battle of the Bulge? At what point does one lose the right to murder non-combatants and children?
And that leaves aside the Japanese! The Japanese who - for all their ills - never were capable of "world domination" and whose only crime against the West was to attempt to replace their colonial empires in Asia with their own. These Japanese who in 1945 were virtually reduced to the home islands and were given no peace terms except total surrender. The Americans preferred to burn Japanese women and children alive by the hundreds of thousands than to even consider that they might keep their emperor or, even worse, like the British and French and Soviets might keep their old colonial empire for the time being (Korea, Taiwan which have since been sources of unending headaches).
There is no incoherence. In your mind, the guilt of others means your hands are clean. That a Japanese soldier killed a Chinese in 1938 means you need to be wholly carefree as you incinerate a Japanese baby in 1945. All violence is evil and violence abets violence. That sometimes - in the most exceptional of circumstances - it may be necessary to counter greater evil does not mean we need to be lax in identifying the overwhelming majority of cases where there was nothing but needless bloodlust.
There's no point talking to you if you think we were the bad guys in World War II.
You would be well-advised to read some history books that weren't written by leftists.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 7:10 pm
You would be well-advised to read some history books that weren't written by leftists.
yesjb - There is no "Muslim Ummah" any more than there is a coherent polity known as "Christianity" or "Buddhislandia". I am not a convert to the clash of civilizations.
I oppose all violence. The fact is now it is going mainly in one direction. The Israelis lose a dozen people and they kill 1,200 in Gaza. The Americans lose 3,000 people and they launch a vast crusade in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond which has resulted, by even the most exaggeratedly conservative estimate, in 100,000 dead and 4 million refugees. In comparison, how many Westerners have fallen to this non-existent "Ummah". That "Ummah" and the West-Islam struggle only exist in the minds of the new crusaders and the Islamic fundamentalists. You share your warped vision of a Manichaean world struggle while real people die by the wayside.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 7:17 pm
I oppose all violence. The fact is now it is going mainly in one direction. The Israelis lose a dozen people and they kill 1,200 in Gaza. The Americans lose 3,000 people and they launch a vast crusade in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond which has resulted, by even the most exaggeratedly conservative estimate, in 100,000 dead and 4 million refugees. In comparison, how many Westerners have fallen to this non-existent "Ummah". That "Ummah" and the West-Islam struggle only exist in the minds of the new crusaders and the Islamic fundamentalists. You share your warped vision of a Manichaean world struggle while real people die by the wayside.
MJT - I write very specifically. Do not caricature. I repeat again: does the fact that a Japanese soldier murdered a Chinese in 1938 give you the right to burn a Japanese baby alive in 1945? Evil does not excuse evil. You can only do an evil act if it can plausibly be said to prevent a greater evil. As I specifically said, I thought in 1940 when Britain was literally threatened with extinction, killing German civilians might be justified. I do not think that by late 1944 and certainly 1945 that you could kill German women and children with the same serenity. I don't think it was ever the case with the Japanese.
All this is wholly unrelated to the question of who "the good guys" and "the bad guys" are. Stalin was a totalitarian tyrant. The Brits and French let millions starve in their Asian colonies. On VE day, the French slaughtered thousands of Algerians at Setif. The Americans were the first to use the atom bomb. That doesn't mean all states and causes are equal. It means we should think not in terms of the essential goodness of nations and causes (and therefore, what evils we can commit in their name), but what, practically, in every moment and context, is and is not justified, will and will not lead to good.
It means the world isn't a ****ing comic book. (As much as "Spider-Man" is both a metaphor of the American superpower and the most nuanced self-perception Americans are capable of in popular culture (much preferable, for instance, to that other metaphor for America, "Rambo").)
And I read widely, thank you very much for asking.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 7:27 pm
All this is wholly unrelated to the question of who "the good guys" and "the bad guys" are. Stalin was a totalitarian tyrant. The Brits and French let millions starve in their Asian colonies. On VE day, the French slaughtered thousands of Algerians at Setif. The Americans were the first to use the atom bomb. That doesn't mean all states and causes are equal. It means we should think not in terms of the essential goodness of nations and causes (and therefore, what evils we can commit in their name), but what, practically, in every moment and context, is and is not justified, will and will not lead to good.
It means the world isn't a ****ing comic book. (As much as "Spider-Man" is both a metaphor of the American superpower and the most nuanced self-perception Americans are capable of in popular culture (much preferable, for instance, to that other metaphor for America, "Rambo").)
And I read widely, thank you very much for asking.
It is propellerheads such as yourself - diseducated and morally vacuous, and with no concept of real violence or evil, who hold much of the responsibility for the millions who die in killing fields, death-camps, gulags, and in the battles resisting the REAL crusades launched by Marxist and Islamist states. It is fools like you who give the enemy moral shelter and sign off on short-lived "peace in our time" exercises in vanity which only serve the interests of those who ultimately intend to cut your head off and put it on a stick.
Posted by: Squires at March 6, 2010 7:31 pm
Ombrageux,
does the fact that a Japanese soldier murdered a Chinese in 1938 give you the right to burn a Japanese baby alive in 1945?
Would it be right for an American soldier in 1945 to pick up a Japanese baby, pour gasoline on the child's head, and toss a match? No. He should go to prison for war crimes if he did that.
Even so, babies die in every single war, sometimes because of war crimes, and other times as permitted but tragically regrettable "collateral damage." That's why war is hell even when it is fought by civilized countries.
You need to actually read the Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Convention so you will understand what is legal and illegal in war. It is obvious to everyone here that you have not read them. It's obvious just from the way you phrased that question above that you have not read them.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 7:45 pm
does the fact that a Japanese soldier murdered a Chinese in 1938 give you the right to burn a Japanese baby alive in 1945?
Would it be right for an American soldier in 1945 to pick up a Japanese baby, pour gasoline on the child's head, and toss a match? No. He should go to prison for war crimes if he did that.
Even so, babies die in every single war, sometimes because of war crimes, and other times as permitted but tragically regrettable "collateral damage." That's why war is hell even when it is fought by civilized countries.
You need to actually read the Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Convention so you will understand what is legal and illegal in war. It is obvious to everyone here that you have not read them. It's obvious just from the way you phrased that question above that you have not read them.
You make such a harsh distinction between the Israelis and the "terrorists" in this regard, because one will kill a civilian out of explicit principle, and the other will kill 9 civilians and a militant in practice. Yet there was no difference between soldier and civilian by 1945. They attacked not soldiers, not even industries, but the civilian populations of Tokyo, Nagoya and many other cities. The dead civilian men, women and children were not "collateral damage" but the explicit targets.
For a "popular" account of this, see Errol Morris's "The Fog of War" with Robert McNamara, who helped design the bombing campaign.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 6, 2010 7:55 pm
For a "popular" account of this, see Errol Morris's "The Fog of War" with Robert McNamara, who helped design the bombing campaign.
I am well aware of what happened during World War II, and some of it bothers me a great deal. It would bother me more if Hitler and Hirohito won--which is the reason we did what we did--but that doesn't change the fact that I get a sinking feeling when I read about Hiroshima and Dresden.
What I don't understand is why you get your panties in a wad when Israelis quietly take out a terrorist while he's by himself in a hotel room. I wish the entire could be fought so cleanly, and I think you're just weird for comparing it in any other way to the firebombing of Tokyo.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 8:21 pm
What I don't understand is why you get your panties in a wad when Israelis quietly take out a terrorist while he's by himself in a hotel room. I wish the entire could be fought so cleanly, and I think you're just weird for comparing it in any other way to the firebombing of Tokyo.
Ombrageux...you are stealing the thread by making false 'Strawman' comments. I will cease reading your posts as of right now, you are a waste of time..
Posted by: Gene at March 6, 2010 8:25 pm
Ombrageux,
You're a malignant fool. I'll get out my violin!
Perhaps you should speak to the Chinese about Japanese behaviour. Perhaps you should speak to the survivors of Japanese brutality in the POW camps. Perhaps you should speak to the civilian survivors of Okinawa whom the Japanese used as human shields, you ignoramus. And there is plenty more and a lot worse.
Have you never heard of the "Co-prosperity sphere" the Japanese were espousing. What the fuck do you think that meant?? Do you know what the German concept of "lebensraum" meant for the countries of Europe??
You swallow every bit of out-of-context generality the leftists can crap on your head. You ignore the heinous crimes of your Arab friends against their own peoples, against anyone who would refuse to succumb to their odious tyranny.
And of course you blame anyone except those responsible for it. If any country in wartime took the rights of others into consideration it was Israel. And the proof is documented but surely not in the corrupted rotting minds and propaganda of your hamas friends.
You ignore the vile rantings of Iran mullahs, the genocidal call to arms from the Mosques in Gaza to excoriate the Israeli for wanting to be left alone in peace!
You talk about 1400 or in your fervid imagination it could be 14000 killed in Gaza, all no doubt innocent women and children.
You give credence to every lie, every imagined insult every negative sentiment directed at America and Israel to show what a great evenhanded person you are; what a great protector of the self-proclaimed victim.
Thanks for trying to reinvent the wheel of fascism. I'm sure some petty tyrant has room for you in their government.
Israelis and the west are the real terrorists and the terrorists are "militants". That explains everything. If you don't get a job in Venezuela you can always write for the Guardian or the FT.
And...
Isn't it strange in your excoriation of the West in WWII and in the present you omit the Russian invasion of Germany during the last months of the war and the Russian actions even before the war (ie against the Ukrainians).
Just a coincidence no doubt.
You're widely read?
I'll bet!
Posted by: yesjb at March 6, 2010 9:02 pm
You're a malignant fool. I'll get out my violin!
Perhaps you should speak to the Chinese about Japanese behaviour. Perhaps you should speak to the survivors of Japanese brutality in the POW camps. Perhaps you should speak to the civilian survivors of Okinawa whom the Japanese used as human shields, you ignoramus. And there is plenty more and a lot worse.
Have you never heard of the "Co-prosperity sphere" the Japanese were espousing. What the fuck do you think that meant?? Do you know what the German concept of "lebensraum" meant for the countries of Europe??
You swallow every bit of out-of-context generality the leftists can crap on your head. You ignore the heinous crimes of your Arab friends against their own peoples, against anyone who would refuse to succumb to their odious tyranny.
And of course you blame anyone except those responsible for it. If any country in wartime took the rights of others into consideration it was Israel. And the proof is documented but surely not in the corrupted rotting minds and propaganda of your hamas friends.
You ignore the vile rantings of Iran mullahs, the genocidal call to arms from the Mosques in Gaza to excoriate the Israeli for wanting to be left alone in peace!
You talk about 1400 or in your fervid imagination it could be 14000 killed in Gaza, all no doubt innocent women and children.
You give credence to every lie, every imagined insult every negative sentiment directed at America and Israel to show what a great evenhanded person you are; what a great protector of the self-proclaimed victim.
Thanks for trying to reinvent the wheel of fascism. I'm sure some petty tyrant has room for you in their government.
Israelis and the west are the real terrorists and the terrorists are "militants". That explains everything. If you don't get a job in Venezuela you can always write for the Guardian or the FT.
And...
Isn't it strange in your excoriation of the West in WWII and in the present you omit the Russian invasion of Germany during the last months of the war and the Russian actions even before the war (ie against the Ukrainians).
Just a coincidence no doubt.
You're widely read?
I'll bet!
Back to Turkey, once more:
"WE ARE LOSING THE COUNTRY THAT WAS THE MODEL OF A PRO-WESTERN, DEMOCRATIC MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY."
Sorry, I've never considered the "secular" state of Turkey to be "pro-Western" or "democratic." Not when they would imprison me for making the sign of the cross over myself in the Hagia Sophia. I mean, if it's "just" a museum, why should it matter?
But matter it does, and always has in my life.
Turkey's massive unwillingness even to acknowledge the *question* of past wrongs, stands in the way of its ability to mature as a nation. They can either get with the program and act civilized, or they can go pi-- up a rope for all I care.
Posted by: gus3 at March 6, 2010 10:15 pm
"WE ARE LOSING THE COUNTRY THAT WAS THE MODEL OF A PRO-WESTERN, DEMOCRATIC MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY."
Sorry, I've never considered the "secular" state of Turkey to be "pro-Western" or "democratic." Not when they would imprison me for making the sign of the cross over myself in the Hagia Sophia. I mean, if it's "just" a museum, why should it matter?
But matter it does, and always has in my life.
Turkey's massive unwillingness even to acknowledge the *question* of past wrongs, stands in the way of its ability to mature as a nation. They can either get with the program and act civilized, or they can go pi-- up a rope for all I care.
Ombrageux, I'm glad you brought up the Goldstone report.
"1690.... It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack (everything after this is pejorative blah blah blah, the disproportionate attack is the allegation)...
This is a dubious allegation. It's impossible to quantify a "disproportionate attack", and furthermore it's not at all clear in the Geneva Conventions that there is even such a concept. The language refers to not using more force than is necessary to achieve military goals, which is itself something that is hard to quantify. Who gets to decide what Israel's military goals were? An outspoken critic of Israel, like Goldstone?
"1724...The Mission finds that the rounding-up of large groups of civilians and their prolonged detention under the circumstances described in this Report constitute a collective penalty...
That's a patently false charge. In fact, the same section of the Geneva Conventions that makes Israeli settlements illegal ALSO specifies that civilians can be forcibly removed from a conflict enemy temporarily, which is what Israel did. How can the same behavior on Israel's part be in compliance with one part of the Geneva Conventions, and in violation of another apart? Obviously, that can only happen if somebody is willfully misinterpreting the Geneva Conventions, which is the case here. Temporary evacuation of civilians from battlefields happens in every conflict, and it's never been considered collective punishment. The whole idea that it should be is absurd.
"1256...One particular characteristic of the conflict, namely that the population could not flee the conflict areas as can be done in many conflicts, and had no shelters or safe places in which to hide or protect themselves, reinforced feelings of being trapped, defenceless and vulnerable to more attacks with a sense of inevitability. Many of those who met the Mission stated that they felt terrorized.
That's a whole lot of nothing. It isn't Israel's responsibility to build shelters for Palestinian civilians, and he already listed the actions of Israel to remove Palestinian civilians from the battlefield as a separate "crime". he tries to get Israelis coming and going, there. And since when has frightening enemy nationals been a war crime? Notice he doesn't even try to cite a specific article that has been violated in that last accusation. Why? Because there are none.
I suggest you read the Geneva Conventions for yourself, as MJT suggested. They aren't that long, really. And they are easy to understand. If you still don't understand the difference between the dubious charges made against Israel and the clear and uncontested violations made this Hamas man who was killed, then I can't help you. The man was personally responsible for murder and torture. Nobody denies it. In fact, Hamas has been bragging about it. He was a war criminal, by any definition.
Posted by: Craig at March 6, 2010 11:26 pm
"1690.... It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack (everything after this is pejorative blah blah blah, the disproportionate attack is the allegation)...
This is a dubious allegation. It's impossible to quantify a "disproportionate attack", and furthermore it's not at all clear in the Geneva Conventions that there is even such a concept. The language refers to not using more force than is necessary to achieve military goals, which is itself something that is hard to quantify. Who gets to decide what Israel's military goals were? An outspoken critic of Israel, like Goldstone?
"1724...The Mission finds that the rounding-up of large groups of civilians and their prolonged detention under the circumstances described in this Report constitute a collective penalty...
That's a patently false charge. In fact, the same section of the Geneva Conventions that makes Israeli settlements illegal ALSO specifies that civilians can be forcibly removed from a conflict enemy temporarily, which is what Israel did. How can the same behavior on Israel's part be in compliance with one part of the Geneva Conventions, and in violation of another apart? Obviously, that can only happen if somebody is willfully misinterpreting the Geneva Conventions, which is the case here. Temporary evacuation of civilians from battlefields happens in every conflict, and it's never been considered collective punishment. The whole idea that it should be is absurd.
"1256...One particular characteristic of the conflict, namely that the population could not flee the conflict areas as can be done in many conflicts, and had no shelters or safe places in which to hide or protect themselves, reinforced feelings of being trapped, defenceless and vulnerable to more attacks with a sense of inevitability. Many of those who met the Mission stated that they felt terrorized.
That's a whole lot of nothing. It isn't Israel's responsibility to build shelters for Palestinian civilians, and he already listed the actions of Israel to remove Palestinian civilians from the battlefield as a separate "crime". he tries to get Israelis coming and going, there. And since when has frightening enemy nationals been a war crime? Notice he doesn't even try to cite a specific article that has been violated in that last accusation. Why? Because there are none.
I suggest you read the Geneva Conventions for yourself, as MJT suggested. They aren't that long, really. And they are easy to understand. If you still don't understand the difference between the dubious charges made against Israel and the clear and uncontested violations made this Hamas man who was killed, then I can't help you. The man was personally responsible for murder and torture. Nobody denies it. In fact, Hamas has been bragging about it. He was a war criminal, by any definition.
I suggest you read the Geneva Conventions for yourself, as MJT suggested. They aren't that long, really. And they are easy to understand.
That's right. Short, easy to understand, and it's obvious when someone has not done the reading. The Geneva Convention does not say what most people think.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 6, 2010 11:43 pm
That's right. Short, easy to understand, and it's obvious when someone has not done the reading. The Geneva Convention does not say what most people think.
So when th spit hits the fan (as it will) should the Iranian leadership be off-limits for targeted assassination?
Posted by: Mike Reynolds at March 7, 2010 12:34 am
If anyone here wants to read the full text of the Geneva Convention in English, its right here http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention
Posted by: Ali at March 7, 2010 1:21 am
i still don't see what the big deal about assassinating this guy is. I don't think he was planting flowers of peace and kissing babies in Dubai, or was he? We have to understand that he was an illegal arms dealer, not Mother Teresa.
Posted by: Ali at March 7, 2010 1:24 am
Curtis LeMay was no more the father of strategic bombing then were the Wright Bros. But he did order a switch from high altitude precision bombing to low level fire bomb attacks against Japan's infrastructure. And I think considering that a member of Japan's royal family,"... Prince Fumimaro Konoe, who said that "the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing." In that regard fire bomb attacks either in mass payloads or a single atomic bomb are an unfortunate part of war.
Between the time of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Hirohito order the IJA and its scientists to begin a rush program to develop bombs to be placed on submarines to attack American cities. Now that would have been an example of a war crime as there was absolutely nothing of strategic value such an act would have resulted in for Japan.
But the targeting of either opposition politicians and military leaders was part and parcel of practically every war in history. From Cleopatra turning her younger brother over to Caesar to the many plots against Rommel, Eisenhower, Patton and even later Lord Mountbatten. The difference usually is that the West doesn't plant a bomb in a pizza parlor and then claim it is merely targeting an Israeli politician that ate there occasionally.
Posted by: Pat Patterson at March 7, 2010 3:56 am
Between the time of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Hirohito order the IJA and its scientists to begin a rush program to develop bombs to be placed on submarines to attack American cities. Now that would have been an example of a war crime as there was absolutely nothing of strategic value such an act would have resulted in for Japan.
But the targeting of either opposition politicians and military leaders was part and parcel of practically every war in history. From Cleopatra turning her younger brother over to Caesar to the many plots against Rommel, Eisenhower, Patton and even later Lord Mountbatten. The difference usually is that the West doesn't plant a bomb in a pizza parlor and then claim it is merely targeting an Israeli politician that ate there occasionally.
MJT - It always come down to this Kantian universality. Would what I am doing be good if everyone else did it? If some goons from Hamas pulled the plug on Sharon or "hit" those who bombed Gaza (without civilian casualties), you would not be cheering. (If you did cheer for those events, then actually you would have a consistent position. And it would really be a quite good development, if Israeli and Palestinian hawks applied their violence solely to soldiers and politicians. It would probably lead to a winding down of the conflict.)
yesjb - I am sorry for your irrelevant comments and babbling incoherence.
Craig - Proportionality was obviously rejected during Cast Lead which is why honest Israelis and Israeli-backers I speak with will say: "I reject proportionality." If someone came and killed a member of my family, I might retaliate and kill one of his. Whether right or wrong, it is "proportional". It is not "proportional" to go to the killer's neighborhood, raze it to the ground, and kill him and 99 of his relatives. It is not proportional because it is reacting with 100 times the violence that was received. That is what occurred during Cast Lead.
And just to make it clear. I am not defending the assassinated individual. I am only saying one needs to be consistent. If you cheer Israelis as they do hit jobs on war criminals, you have to pray the Palestinians do the same to the Israelis.
Pat Patterson - I don't quite understand why you draw a distinction between Americans bombing Japanese civilians as a valid tactic and Japanese bombing Americans as a war crime. Well, actually, I do. That is exactly what terrorism "is" to this day.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 7, 2010 4:36 am
yesjb - I am sorry for your irrelevant comments and babbling incoherence.
Craig - Proportionality was obviously rejected during Cast Lead which is why honest Israelis and Israeli-backers I speak with will say: "I reject proportionality." If someone came and killed a member of my family, I might retaliate and kill one of his. Whether right or wrong, it is "proportional". It is not "proportional" to go to the killer's neighborhood, raze it to the ground, and kill him and 99 of his relatives. It is not proportional because it is reacting with 100 times the violence that was received. That is what occurred during Cast Lead.
And just to make it clear. I am not defending the assassinated individual. I am only saying one needs to be consistent. If you cheer Israelis as they do hit jobs on war criminals, you have to pray the Palestinians do the same to the Israelis.
Pat Patterson - I don't quite understand why you draw a distinction between Americans bombing Japanese civilians as a valid tactic and Japanese bombing Americans as a war crime. Well, actually, I do. That is exactly what terrorism "is" to this day.
What disproportionate cluelessness!
Yet another victim of Chomsky.
Sigh.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 7, 2010 6:49 am
Yet another victim of Chomsky.
Sigh.
Craig,
I (not Ombrageux) cited the some sections of the Goldstone report in response to Michael Totten's rather strong comment about how easy it is to know what a terrorist is. I cited three paragraphs of the Golstone report that refer to "terrorism" committed by Israel, simply to show that the victims of Israeli violence might perceive things quite differently. There are of course countless other examples.
As far as your specific comments about the Goldstone report and the Geneva conventions: I don't expect people to read the entire thing, since it is very long, but when commenting on that particular passage you should at least read the whole thing, not just the part that I excerpted for reference to "terrorism". In particular, with regard to paragraph 1724 in that section of the report, they are actually referring to something with that phrase "under the circumstances described in this report". See also pp. 315-316 (paragraph 1162)
What would your reaction be to someone describing the alleged and very real possibility of torture as removing "civilians from a conflict"? That is what you did. Think about it.
The Goldstone report, like the reports of every serious human rights group that I know of, is full of references to international law, including the Geneva conventions and other aspects. If you or Michael Totten wish to claim that the interpretations of international law in the Goldstone report, HRW, AI, B'Tselem, etc. are in error, in some specific ways, that would at least be the basis for a rational conversation. Simply referring to a wiki page listing the text of the Geneva Conventions is not such a basis.
Mr. Totten's tough-guy comments such "If someone is trying to kill you, your family, or your countrymen, you take care of it" applies both ways, although he like you seems blind to what that implies, and what he is actually justifying.
Posted by: Seth at March 7, 2010 7:48 am
I (not Ombrageux) cited the some sections of the Goldstone report in response to Michael Totten's rather strong comment about how easy it is to know what a terrorist is. I cited three paragraphs of the Golstone report that refer to "terrorism" committed by Israel, simply to show that the victims of Israeli violence might perceive things quite differently. There are of course countless other examples.
As far as your specific comments about the Goldstone report and the Geneva conventions: I don't expect people to read the entire thing, since it is very long, but when commenting on that particular passage you should at least read the whole thing, not just the part that I excerpted for reference to "terrorism". In particular, with regard to paragraph 1724 in that section of the report, they are actually referring to something with that phrase "under the circumstances described in this report". See also pp. 315-316 (paragraph 1162)
What would your reaction be to someone describing the alleged and very real possibility of torture as removing "civilians from a conflict"? That is what you did. Think about it.
The Goldstone report, like the reports of every serious human rights group that I know of, is full of references to international law, including the Geneva conventions and other aspects. If you or Michael Totten wish to claim that the interpretations of international law in the Goldstone report, HRW, AI, B'Tselem, etc. are in error, in some specific ways, that would at least be the basis for a rational conversation. Simply referring to a wiki page listing the text of the Geneva Conventions is not such a basis.
Mr. Totten's tough-guy comments such "If someone is trying to kill you, your family, or your countrymen, you take care of it" applies both ways, although he like you seems blind to what that implies, and what he is actually justifying.
Ombrageux,
Craig - Proportionality was obviously rejected during Cast Lead which is why honest Israelis and Israeli-backers I speak with will say: "I reject proportionality."
You misunderstand. There is no such thing as "proportionality" in warfare. That's a myth that has been created by peaceniks and propagandists (often but not always the same people). What they have used to create this myth is language in the Geneva Conventions that prohibits using more force than is necessary to accomplish the military objective. That doesn't mean that if the enemy only sends one fighter armed with a rifle, you are limited in your response to sending one fighter with a rifle against him. Which would be proportionality. What the Geneva Conventions seek to prevent is something like carpet bombing a whole city because one squad of enemy combatants was seen entering it.
If someone came and killed a member of my family, I might retaliate and kill one of his. Whether right or wrong, it is "proportional". It is not "proportional" to go to the killer's neighborhood, raze it to the ground, and kill him and 99 of his relatives. It is not proportional because it is reacting with 100 times the violence that was received. That is what occurred during Cast Lead.
Again, this is not in the Geneva Conventions. The concept of proportionality does not exist in warfare. Israel's stated military objective was to destroy Hamas. If Israel did not exceed the level of force required to accomplish that goal, Israel did not violate the Geneva Conventions.
And just to make it clear. I am not defending the assassinated individual. I am only saying one needs to be consistent.
It seems to me that you are the one being inconsistent. You are and have been defending this man even though he was both a combatant and a known war criminal. And at the same time you are making dubious charges against Israel, accusing Israelis of war crimes.
If you cheer Israelis as they do hit jobs on war criminals, you have to pray the Palestinians do the same to the Israelis.
I don't have to do any such thing. All I have to do is acknowledge that both are legal. I'd have to be some kind of an idiot to root for the enemy (Hamas and other terror groups), wouldn't you agree? Or do you tie that into your concept of "proportionality" as well? :o
By the way, if Hamas did target Israeli combatants instead of Israeli innocents, I'd have a substantially higher opinion of them. So in that sense, yes... I should be "praying" that Hamas would start to do that. But only if they STOPPED deliberately targeting the innocent. Doing both is not an improvement.
Posted by: Craig at March 7, 2010 7:57 am
Craig - Proportionality was obviously rejected during Cast Lead which is why honest Israelis and Israeli-backers I speak with will say: "I reject proportionality."
You misunderstand. There is no such thing as "proportionality" in warfare. That's a myth that has been created by peaceniks and propagandists (often but not always the same people). What they have used to create this myth is language in the Geneva Conventions that prohibits using more force than is necessary to accomplish the military objective. That doesn't mean that if the enemy only sends one fighter armed with a rifle, you are limited in your response to sending one fighter with a rifle against him. Which would be proportionality. What the Geneva Conventions seek to prevent is something like carpet bombing a whole city because one squad of enemy combatants was seen entering it.
If someone came and killed a member of my family, I might retaliate and kill one of his. Whether right or wrong, it is "proportional". It is not "proportional" to go to the killer's neighborhood, raze it to the ground, and kill him and 99 of his relatives. It is not proportional because it is reacting with 100 times the violence that was received. That is what occurred during Cast Lead.
Again, this is not in the Geneva Conventions. The concept of proportionality does not exist in warfare. Israel's stated military objective was to destroy Hamas. If Israel did not exceed the level of force required to accomplish that goal, Israel did not violate the Geneva Conventions.
And just to make it clear. I am not defending the assassinated individual. I am only saying one needs to be consistent.
It seems to me that you are the one being inconsistent. You are and have been defending this man even though he was both a combatant and a known war criminal. And at the same time you are making dubious charges against Israel, accusing Israelis of war crimes.
If you cheer Israelis as they do hit jobs on war criminals, you have to pray the Palestinians do the same to the Israelis.
I don't have to do any such thing. All I have to do is acknowledge that both are legal. I'd have to be some kind of an idiot to root for the enemy (Hamas and other terror groups), wouldn't you agree? Or do you tie that into your concept of "proportionality" as well? :o
By the way, if Hamas did target Israeli combatants instead of Israeli innocents, I'd have a substantially higher opinion of them. So in that sense, yes... I should be "praying" that Hamas would start to do that. But only if they STOPPED deliberately targeting the innocent. Doing both is not an improvement.
Seth,
Mr. Totten's tough-guy comments such "If someone is trying to kill you, your family, or your countrymen, you take care of it" applies both ways, although he like you seems blind to what that implies, and what he is actually justifying.
What it implies and what it justifies is obvious: kill the person who is trying to kill you. In other words, kill the enemy combatants. Why? How did you interpret it? :o
MJT, I was confusing Sean with this guy Seth :)
Posted by: Craig at March 7, 2010 8:02 am
Mr. Totten's tough-guy comments such "If someone is trying to kill you, your family, or your countrymen, you take care of it" applies both ways, although he like you seems blind to what that implies, and what he is actually justifying.
What it implies and what it justifies is obvious: kill the person who is trying to kill you. In other words, kill the enemy combatants. Why? How did you interpret it? :o
MJT, I was confusing Sean with this guy Seth :)
I didn't bring up the Geneva conventions although they are a good minimum. I ascribe to common decency. The Old Testament, the one with a brutal God, ascribes to proportionality: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth! The Israelis scourge 100 souls from the Earth for each of their own.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 7, 2010 8:45 am
I ascribe to common decency. The Old Testament, the one with a brutal God, ascribes to proportionality: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth! The Israelis scourge 100 souls from the Earth for each of their own.
A truly decent individual would not tirelessly maintain your kind of smear campaign. The bottom line is, and always has been, that the Israelis do not target civilians. The reasons why Arab civilians sometimes die alongside the terrorists are well known to you. You also know that unlike any other army in the world, the IDF takes extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties. But your decency won't allow you to recognize this, apparently.
You should go back to musing about self-love. You are more amusing when you do that.
Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at March 7, 2010 9:25 am
A truly decent individual would not tirelessly maintain your kind of smear campaign. The bottom line is, and always has been, that the Israelis do not target civilians. The reasons why Arab civilians sometimes die alongside the terrorists are well known to you. You also know that unlike any other army in the world, the IDF takes extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties. But your decency won't allow you to recognize this, apparently.
You should go back to musing about self-love. You are more amusing when you do that.
"The Israelis scourge 100 souls from the Earth for each of their own."
The reality is that "Palestinian" casualties are generally grossly over-exagerated by Hamas' propagandists, who control all media access.
The reality is that those civilian casualties which do occur, are largely the result of Hamas hiding amongst civilians, and taking steps to INTENTIONALLY cause as many civilian casualties on their own side as possible. In their twisted worldview, bombs are worth more than lives, and propaganda fodder is worth more than bombs.
The reality is that many of those "civilians", aren't.
The reality is that Hamas and their ilk do everything possible to kill as many Jews as they can - at any cost - be they man, woman, or child.
The reality is:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
- Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive, 1977
The reality is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA4WQ-MbjRo
The reality is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvEDj7MweBs
The reality is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBNRVgq59Y
But as the rest of us know by now, you nor your like-minded brethren do not care one whit for reality, any more than you really care about the "Palestinians". This is all just an adolescent ego trip - an exercise in uncritical self-righteousness and blissful self-unawareness.
Posted by: Squires at March 7, 2010 9:39 am
The reality is that "Palestinian" casualties are generally grossly over-exagerated by Hamas' propagandists, who control all media access.
The reality is that those civilian casualties which do occur, are largely the result of Hamas hiding amongst civilians, and taking steps to INTENTIONALLY cause as many civilian casualties on their own side as possible. In their twisted worldview, bombs are worth more than lives, and propaganda fodder is worth more than bombs.
The reality is that many of those "civilians", aren't.
The reality is that Hamas and their ilk do everything possible to kill as many Jews as they can - at any cost - be they man, woman, or child.
The reality is:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."
- Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive, 1977
The reality is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA4WQ-MbjRo
The reality is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvEDj7MweBs
The reality is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBNRVgq59Y
But as the rest of us know by now, you nor your like-minded brethren do not care one whit for reality, any more than you really care about the "Palestinians". This is all just an adolescent ego trip - an exercise in uncritical self-righteousness and blissful self-unawareness.
Lets talk proportionality, Ombrageux, since you love it so much.
lets talk about proportionality of intent and motivation.
The Arabs you cherish want a genocidal solution. They teach their children about the evil Jews. They exhort their minions in the mosques about the evil Jews and to destroy them all.
That only a few are killed is not due to their lack of desire or ambition but only their lack of skill and weaponry. They deliberately (not accidentally) target cities and civilian populations and if they could destroy every city and person in Israel, they would not hesitate one microsecond.
And since you are so well-read you should know that.
So if the Israelis were to respond with the same proportionality, they should do so with a view to extermination.
But you know they wont for the same reason that Hamas can safely use human shields.
They know the Israelis are basically moral and decent and won't go after non-combatants; something your Jihadist friends would never consider; something BTW the Nazi and Japanese had also had no problem with.
But you excuse them all preferring to let your your emotional bias overtake what is both common knowledge and common sense.
But in any case, Craig is correct. There is not nor can their be proportionality in war. Its a phony concept and one the left espouses without realizing its suicidal consequences.
Your comment about the Bible is just plain stupid and inexcusable, but alas, no surprise.
Posted by: yesjb at March 7, 2010 9:59 am
lets talk about proportionality of intent and motivation.
The Arabs you cherish want a genocidal solution. They teach their children about the evil Jews. They exhort their minions in the mosques about the evil Jews and to destroy them all.
That only a few are killed is not due to their lack of desire or ambition but only their lack of skill and weaponry. They deliberately (not accidentally) target cities and civilian populations and if they could destroy every city and person in Israel, they would not hesitate one microsecond.
And since you are so well-read you should know that.
So if the Israelis were to respond with the same proportionality, they should do so with a view to extermination.
But you know they wont for the same reason that Hamas can safely use human shields.
They know the Israelis are basically moral and decent and won't go after non-combatants; something your Jihadist friends would never consider; something BTW the Nazi and Japanese had also had no problem with.
But you excuse them all preferring to let your your emotional bias overtake what is both common knowledge and common sense.
But in any case, Craig is correct. There is not nor can their be proportionality in war. Its a phony concept and one the left espouses without realizing its suicidal consequences.
Your comment about the Bible is just plain stupid and inexcusable, but alas, no surprise.
obraguy:The Old Testament, the one with a brutal God, ascribes to proportionality: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth! the one that Islam claims to be descended from?
there is a difference between tactical and strategic.proportional my eye. when will your peeps get tired of war and want to live in peace? when they take over? like i said proportional my eye!
Posted by: john from cinncinatti at March 7, 2010 10:15 am
there is a difference between tactical and strategic.proportional my eye. when will your peeps get tired of war and want to live in peace? when they take over? like i said proportional my eye!
Squires: In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.
You probably don't realize it, but that's just Arab Nationalist propaganda, the line peddled by Nasser, Saddam, and Assad. It is National Socialism for Arabs.
Many Americans, including me, bought into this line of thinking without quite realizing what we were doing or where the idea came from. I've had it beaten out of me by Arab liberals who are trying desperately hard to change their societies for the better.
Understand, the idea of an "Arab" identity didn't even exist in this world until the Ottoman Empire was on its way out.
Anyway, none of those countries you listed above are cohesive nation-states. Lebanon and Syria are potentially little Yugoslavias unto themselves. Lumping the citizens in all four into one people is just absurd.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 7, 2010 11:01 am
You probably don't realize it, but that's just Arab Nationalist propaganda, the line peddled by Nasser, Saddam, and Assad. It is National Socialism for Arabs.
Many Americans, including me, bought into this line of thinking without quite realizing what we were doing or where the idea came from. I've had it beaten out of me by Arab liberals who are trying desperately hard to change their societies for the better.
Understand, the idea of an "Arab" identity didn't even exist in this world until the Ottoman Empire was on its way out.
Anyway, none of those countries you listed above are cohesive nation-states. Lebanon and Syria are potentially little Yugoslavias unto themselves. Lumping the citizens in all four into one people is just absurd.
Squires - Talk of Palestinians "not existing" is as meaningless and false as saying the Holocaust or the nation of Israel "do not exist". It is a *prescriptive* falsehood. That which does not exist has no right to exist (as people or as a state). It is as reprehensible as the hateful lies that come from Ahmadinejad's mouth.
yesjb - One can want whatever one likes if one can't implement it. I am talking about proportionality of the deed. I don't particularly care if allegedly the murderous fantasies that exist in the mind of a Hamas terrorist are not proportional to that of an Israeli expansionist. I do care that in actual events, one side which could restrain itself, sees nothing wrong with killing 100 human beings for each of their own.
Now of course, the morality of the situation can change with changing circumstance. If tomorrow Hamas and Hezbullah stopped being the deranged guerrilla rulers of impoverished territories, largely powerless in the face of the modern, sophisticated and technologically advanced military power of Israel then we might reconsider the position. That is if the situation were reversed, if Hamas were actually in a position to inflict on Israel 100 times what they inflict on them (which is to say, 120,000 Israelis in retaliation for Cast Lead!) then my position would naturally be reversed. In that fantastical, non-existent situation, one would chide Hamas for its lack of proportionality and one would be morally compelled to help the Israelis defend themselves insofar as one could.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 7, 2010 12:17 pm
yesjb - One can want whatever one likes if one can't implement it. I am talking about proportionality of the deed. I don't particularly care if allegedly the murderous fantasies that exist in the mind of a Hamas terrorist are not proportional to that of an Israeli expansionist. I do care that in actual events, one side which could restrain itself, sees nothing wrong with killing 100 human beings for each of their own.
Now of course, the morality of the situation can change with changing circumstance. If tomorrow Hamas and Hezbullah stopped being the deranged guerrilla rulers of impoverished territories, largely powerless in the face of the modern, sophisticated and technologically advanced military power of Israel then we might reconsider the position. That is if the situation were reversed, if Hamas were actually in a position to inflict on Israel 100 times what they inflict on them (which is to say, 120,000 Israelis in retaliation for Cast Lead!) then my position would naturally be reversed. In that fantastical, non-existent situation, one would chide Hamas for its lack of proportionality and one would be morally compelled to help the Israelis defend themselves insofar as one could.
Ombrageux: Talk of Palestinians "not existing" is as meaningless and false as saying the Holocaust or the nation of Israel "do not exist". It is a *prescriptive* falsehood. That which does not exist has no right to exist (as people or as a state). It is as reprehensible as the hateful lies that come from Ahmadinejad's mouth.
I mostly agree with what you're getting at, though I would have phrased it a bit differently.
Though I realize now that Squires didn't actually say that. It was Zahir Muhsein of the Palestine Liberation Organization who said it, and Squires was quoting him.
It underscores my point that the quote is Arab Nationalist propagandistic bullshit.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 7, 2010 1:52 pm
I mostly agree with what you're getting at, though I would have phrased it a bit differently.
Though I realize now that Squires didn't actually say that. It was Zahir Muhsein of the Palestine Liberation Organization who said it, and Squires was quoting him.
It underscores my point that the quote is Arab Nationalist propagandistic bullshit.
That is if the situation were reversed, if Hamas were actually in a position to inflict on Israel 100 times what they inflict on them (which is to say, 120,000 Israelis in retaliation for Cast Lead!) then my position would naturally be reversed.
Your numbers are ridiculous.
------------
First Intifada (Deaths)
Palestinians 1549 Israelis 421
Second Intifada (Deaths):
Palestinians 3194 Israelis 946
------------
That's 3 to 1, not 100 to 1. As for Operation Cast lead, why was Hamas unable to kill more Israeli soldiers? In your opinion? The IDF went into Gaza oin the ground. Hamas swore they were fighting the israeli military. Where's the evidence? Could it be that Hamas doesn't have the stomach to fight soldiers, and prefers terror attacks against the defenseless? Is it Israel's fault that when they sent soldiers into Gaza, Hamas ran and hid? I honestly can't come up with any other explanation for such low casualty rates for an engagement that size in an urban area. The US had 71 American military personnel killed at the second battle of Fallujah, and that was a MUCH smaller operation. Maybe Iraqis just fight harder and better than Palestinian Hamas? Is that Israel's fault?
And while we are speaking of Iraq, I'm pretty sure that al Qaida in Iraq managed to inflict casualties on Iraqi civilians at a rate of at least 1000 to 1, compared to their own losses. What's your opinion on that? Both the fact that AQ in Iraq was targeting (Iraqi)civilians and the fact that they did it in such a "disproportionate" manner? And do you have any doubt that like minded individuals would do the same or worse to Israeli civilians, if they could?
Posted by: Craig at March 7, 2010 2:01 pm
Your numbers are ridiculous.
------------
First Intifada (Deaths)
Palestinians 1549 Israelis 421
Second Intifada (Deaths):
Palestinians 3194 Israelis 946
------------
That's 3 to 1, not 100 to 1. As for Operation Cast lead, why was Hamas unable to kill more Israeli soldiers? In your opinion? The IDF went into Gaza oin the ground. Hamas swore they were fighting the israeli military. Where's the evidence? Could it be that Hamas doesn't have the stomach to fight soldiers, and prefers terror attacks against the defenseless? Is it Israel's fault that when they sent soldiers into Gaza, Hamas ran and hid? I honestly can't come up with any other explanation for such low casualty rates for an engagement that size in an urban area. The US had 71 American military personnel killed at the second battle of Fallujah, and that was a MUCH smaller operation. Maybe Iraqis just fight harder and better than Palestinian Hamas? Is that Israel's fault?
And while we are speaking of Iraq, I'm pretty sure that al Qaida in Iraq managed to inflict casualties on Iraqi civilians at a rate of at least 1000 to 1, compared to their own losses. What's your opinion on that? Both the fact that AQ in Iraq was targeting (Iraqi)civilians and the fact that they did it in such a "disproportionate" manner? And do you have any doubt that like minded individuals would do the same or worse to Israeli civilians, if they could?
Ombrageux - in this thread, you whine about Americans being too warlike, yet in the Falklands War thread, you whine that we're not warlike enough.
This was basically the Reagan administration's attitude during the Falkland's War. The Cold Warriors preferred their anti-Communist Latin American despots to their foremost ally in NATO (which warded against potential Soviet aggression). Crusaders then were as poor prioritizers as today...Oh, it made sense between Churchill and Roosevelt, because if the Americans decided to wait until the totalitarians had conquered most of Europe and Asia, they did actually save the world. But what has Britain gained since then? It was humiliated at Suez in 1956. The US fostered European integration in the 1950s when the Brits were hostile. The US invaded Grenada (a Commonwealth country) over British protests in 1983. Reagan did nothing to help the UK during the Falklands War...
Let's face it, you'll hate us no matter what we do. So, we should do as we please, ignoring critics who damn us if we do and damn us if we don't.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 7, 2010 2:09 pm
This was basically the Reagan administration's attitude during the Falkland's War. The Cold Warriors preferred their anti-Communist Latin American despots to their foremost ally in NATO (which warded against potential Soviet aggression). Crusaders then were as poor prioritizers as today...Oh, it made sense between Churchill and Roosevelt, because if the Americans decided to wait until the totalitarians had conquered most of Europe and Asia, they did actually save the world. But what has Britain gained since then? It was humiliated at Suez in 1956. The US fostered European integration in the 1950s when the Brits were hostile. The US invaded Grenada (a Commonwealth country) over British protests in 1983. Reagan did nothing to help the UK during the Falklands War...
Let's face it, you'll hate us no matter what we do. So, we should do as we please, ignoring critics who damn us if we do and damn us if we don't.
Ombra
Your argument is a total cop-out.
Now that Hamas and hezb'allah have better missiles and will no doubt use them to inflict more civilian casualties simply illustrates that their motivation which defines their actions is not only important but essential to understanding the situation.
The fact that you don't care is irrelevant except to show the bankruptcy of your argument and moral turpitude.
"...your position would be reversed"
What an astonishing argument!
Posted by: yesjb at March 7, 2010 3:25 pm
Your argument is a total cop-out.
Now that Hamas and hezb'allah have better missiles and will no doubt use them to inflict more civilian casualties simply illustrates that their motivation which defines their actions is not only important but essential to understanding the situation.
The fact that you don't care is irrelevant except to show the bankruptcy of your argument and moral turpitude.
"...your position would be reversed"
What an astonishing argument!
Michael,
With respect to the Palestinians...had Israel not won in 1948 or even in 1967, I'm certain there would not be any Palestinians nor a Palestine. Ias I have said before, it would have been divided up by the surrounding countries with or without civil strife, but probably without.
Even up until 1967 many if not most of them in the West Bank considered themselves as Syrians or Jordanians and would have been just as happy to be part of those states.
The PLO and Palestinian nationalism as opposed to Arab nationalism was and is a stick to beat the Jews and Israel.
But this is off topic.
Posted by: yesjb at March 7, 2010 3:34 pm
With respect to the Palestinians...had Israel not won in 1948 or even in 1967, I'm certain there would not be any Palestinians nor a Palestine. Ias I have said before, it would have been divided up by the surrounding countries with or without civil strife, but probably without.
Even up until 1967 many if not most of them in the West Bank considered themselves as Syrians or Jordanians and would have been just as happy to be part of those states.
The PLO and Palestinian nationalism as opposed to Arab nationalism was and is a stick to beat the Jews and Israel.
But this is off topic.
Even up until 1967 many if not most of them in the West Bank considered themselves as Syrians or Jordanians and would have been just as happy to be part of those states.
That's true, but it's different now. Palestinians are very much a distinct group of people who are different from other Arabs, and even they themselves don't make up a cohesive group. Who at this point would deny that Israeli Arabs in Haifa for instance--who once were part of the same undifferentiated mass--are now radically different from the people of Gaza?
Anyway, trust me on this: Gazans aren't at all like Beirutis. They are so different that it's not just wrong but rude to say they're the same.
A huge number of Lebanese don't even like to be referred to as Arabs at all. And I'm not just talking about the Christians here. I'll never forget what one annnoyed Lebanese friend of mine said when I called him an Arab: "What the fuck do I have in common with a goat herder in Yemen?"
A huge number of Arabs dislike Palestinians intensely, and that wouldn't be true if they were all one and the same.
Arab Nationalism is an anti-Ottoman ideology that has outlived its usefulness. Describing the Middle East using its terminology wasn't even accurate at the time.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 7, 2010 3:49 pm
That's true, but it's different now. Palestinians are very much a distinct group of people who are different from other Arabs, and even they themselves don't make up a cohesive group. Who at this point would deny that Israeli Arabs in Haifa for instance--who once were part of the same undifferentiated mass--are now radically different from the people of Gaza?
Anyway, trust me on this: Gazans aren't at all like Beirutis. They are so different that it's not just wrong but rude to say they're the same.
A huge number of Lebanese don't even like to be referred to as Arabs at all. And I'm not just talking about the Christians here. I'll never forget what one annnoyed Lebanese friend of mine said when I called him an Arab: "What the fuck do I have in common with a goat herder in Yemen?"
A huge number of Arabs dislike Palestinians intensely, and that wouldn't be true if they were all one and the same.
Arab Nationalism is an anti-Ottoman ideology that has outlived its usefulness. Describing the Middle East using its terminology wasn't even accurate at the time.
Thanks Michael.
Interesting that the gulf is so wide between these groups. I know there are differences but this looks like another Iran vs Iraq type conflict.
One would have to conclude that it does not auger well for the future. It also merely confirms that the talk of support for the Palestinians is just rhetoric and nothing more.
Its too bad the Palestinian leaders don't recognize this or just ignore it.
They could have had a great friend and ally in Israel if they had more honest with themselves.
Unfortunately emotion (and religion) trumps common sense far too often.
Posted by: yesjb at March 7, 2010 4:44 pm
Interesting that the gulf is so wide between these groups. I know there are differences but this looks like another Iran vs Iraq type conflict.
One would have to conclude that it does not auger well for the future. It also merely confirms that the talk of support for the Palestinians is just rhetoric and nothing more.
Its too bad the Palestinian leaders don't recognize this or just ignore it.
They could have had a great friend and ally in Israel if they had more honest with themselves.
Unfortunately emotion (and religion) trumps common sense far too often.
Its too bad the Palestinian leaders don't recognize this or just ignore it.
Oh, they recognize it alright. Hamas just accused Egypt and Jordan of the assassination in Dubai that everyone else is pinning on Israel.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 7, 2010 5:32 pm
Oh, they recognize it alright. Hamas just accused Egypt and Jordan of the assassination in Dubai that everyone else is pinning on Israel.
If a new "national identity" arises among a group of people who share territory with a previously existing group, either having been a part of that group, or a part of another group, what should be appropriate, in response, by the previously existing group, and by those "anothers", and by the world at large?
Particularly if the new group is hell-bent on the destruction of the previously existing group, is it reasonable to expect the existing group to just step aside or to commit group suicide?
Would the US or Russia or China or any other country do what they expect Israel to do?
Posted by: del at March 7, 2010 6:56 pm
Particularly if the new group is hell-bent on the destruction of the previously existing group, is it reasonable to expect the existing group to just step aside or to commit group suicide?
Would the US or Russia or China or any other country do what they expect Israel to do?
If Israel were *trying* to kill Palestinian civilians there wouldn't be any left. And if the Palestinians pulled that terrorism/suicide bombing/rockets on civilians horseshit on anyone else, especially their Arab "brothers", they would be ground into dust like Carthage. Or like the hundreds of thousands of Sudanese slaughtered by Arabs without a peep from blood-libeling bastards like ombrageux and fnord.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 7, 2010 8:23 pm
Now, now, Gary. I'm sure they care a little bit....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 7, 2010 11:38 pm
....Enough, at least, to blame the West for the carnage there.
(Assuming one wishes to admit that mass murder, rape and destruction of villages is considered carnage....)
(Assuming one wishes to acknowledge that mass murder, rape and destruction has even been occurring....)
Posted by: Barry Meislin at March 7, 2010 11:41 pm
(Assuming one wishes to admit that mass murder, rape and destruction of villages is considered carnage....)
(Assuming one wishes to acknowledge that mass murder, rape and destruction has even been occurring....)
Mary Madigan - I did not say I expected the U.S. to encourage the Falklands War. I said I wondered why the Brits have since Thatcher been so keen on the American relationship when they get nothing out of it that the French and Germans don't (besides caskets draped in Union Jacks). The Falklands War itself was senseless and, ideally, the U.S. would have been able to restrain the parties as it did during the 1956 Suez War. (Although, that might have been beyond the abilities of the country.)
Gary - The U.S. government doesn't give $500 bucks to every Arab Sudanese in guns and missiles every year. We can talk about punishing Omar Bashir, sanctions, or even military force, if they were effective (which is a very complicated question).
yesjb - It isn't a cop out, it is a rational, decent and coherent moral position.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 8, 2010 1:43 am
Gary - The U.S. government doesn't give $500 bucks to every Arab Sudanese in guns and missiles every year. We can talk about punishing Omar Bashir, sanctions, or even military force, if they were effective (which is a very complicated question).
yesjb - It isn't a cop out, it is a rational, decent and coherent moral position.
I said I wondered why the Brits have since Thatcher been so keen on the American relationship when they get nothing out of it that the French and Germans don't (besides caskets draped in Union Jacks).
Oh, they get a lot more than that out of it. They get to feel they are in the leadership position of the English-speaking world, which is damn important. Especially to a people as proud as the British. Your question "what do they get out of it" is a bit like asking what Saudi Arabia gets out of being the birthplace of Islam and the point of origin for Arab culture.
However, I think it's becoming much less important - to both the US and the UK - as the two countries become increasingly multi-cultural.
Posted by: Craig at March 8, 2010 3:59 am
Oh, they get a lot more than that out of it. They get to feel they are in the leadership position of the English-speaking world, which is damn important. Especially to a people as proud as the British. Your question "what do they get out of it" is a bit like asking what Saudi Arabia gets out of being the birthplace of Islam and the point of origin for Arab culture.
However, I think it's becoming much less important - to both the US and the UK - as the two countries become increasingly multi-cultural.
This extroversion goes a long way to explaining why the Muslims of the Middle East are decidedly more "problematic" than those of, say, Southeast Asia or the Balkans.
I would not say that the Muslims of Pakistan and Afghanistan are less 'problematic'
Posted by: Toady at March 8, 2010 6:06 am
I would not say that the Muslims of Pakistan and Afghanistan are less 'problematic'
I disagree, Toady.
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1715
The official PA daily newspaper reports today that the PA has chosen to ignore PM Netanyahu's criticism and protests to the US. Not only does it still intend to name the square after the terrorist, but the date chosen for the inaugural ceremony is this Thursday, March 11, the 32nd anniversary of the terror attack.
And what did she do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalal_Mughrabi
On the morning of March 11, 1978, Mughrabi and her Palestinian terrorist unit of eleven members, including one other woman, landed on an Israeli beach, killed an American photographer named Gail Rubin and hijacked a taxi, killing its occupants. They proceeded along the coastal highway shooting at traffic along the way.They next hijacked a bus and later a second bus, from which the passengers were transferred to the first one. The bus was finally stopped at a police roadblock. A shooting battle ensued. Eventually, Mughrabi blew up the bus which became a large deathtrap of fire. Many of the passengers were killed. In total, Mughrabi and her team killed 37 people, including at least 10 children. Some 71 people were wounded. Mughrabi and several other attackers died. [1] The attack became known as the Coastal Road Massacre. Israeli military forces launched Operation Litani against PLO bases in Lebanon three days later.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?
I can't imagine this kind of hero worship of a mass murderer and child killer by the *government* of Afghanistan or Pakistan. I might be wrong about that, but it's my opinion that terrorism doesn't have anywhere near the same level of official sanction in South Asia as it does in some parts of the middle-east.
Posted by: Craig at March 8, 2010 8:58 am
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1715
The official PA daily newspaper reports today that the PA has chosen to ignore PM Netanyahu's criticism and protests to the US. Not only does it still intend to name the square after the terrorist, but the date chosen for the inaugural ceremony is this Thursday, March 11, the 32nd anniversary of the terror attack.
And what did she do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalal_Mughrabi
On the morning of March 11, 1978, Mughrabi and her Palestinian terrorist unit of eleven members, including one other woman, landed on an Israeli beach, killed an American photographer named Gail Rubin and hijacked a taxi, killing its occupants. They proceeded along the coastal highway shooting at traffic along the way.They next hijacked a bus and later a second bus, from which the passengers were transferred to the first one. The bus was finally stopped at a police roadblock. A shooting battle ensued. Eventually, Mughrabi blew up the bus which became a large deathtrap of fire. Many of the passengers were killed. In total, Mughrabi and her team killed 37 people, including at least 10 children. Some 71 people were wounded. Mughrabi and several other attackers died. [1] The attack became known as the Coastal Road Massacre. Israeli military forces launched Operation Litani against PLO bases in Lebanon three days later.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?
I can't imagine this kind of hero worship of a mass murderer and child killer by the *government* of Afghanistan or Pakistan. I might be wrong about that, but it's my opinion that terrorism doesn't have anywhere near the same level of official sanction in South Asia as it does in some parts of the middle-east.
Craig;
I would say you are right. The Arabs have been sympathizing with terrorism for a very long time because of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Indeed, there was widespread approval in the middle-east when the towers fell. You must have seen the video clips of average folks honking their horns in glee or celebrating in the street.
While the Arab middle-east keeps insisting that most Arabs are not terrorists, applauding terrorist acts is no better. What happened to the Arabs is the same thing that happened to dear Dr Frankenstein. The monster they supported got out of control.
Posted by: Toady at March 8, 2010 12:19 pm
I would say you are right. The Arabs have been sympathizing with terrorism for a very long time because of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Indeed, there was widespread approval in the middle-east when the towers fell. You must have seen the video clips of average folks honking their horns in glee or celebrating in the street.
While the Arab middle-east keeps insisting that most Arabs are not terrorists, applauding terrorist acts is no better. What happened to the Arabs is the same thing that happened to dear Dr Frankenstein. The monster they supported got out of control.
I just can't understand why the Palestinians would do such a thing as dedicate a square to a blatant murderer and her accomplices. and I.m not being naive. I just find it totally incomprehensible!
Do they really believe this was a noble deed, something in self-defense, something that would persuade the Israelis that they should seek the Palestinian version of peace and concession themselves out of existence?
If they don't really believe it and are doing it for show and to illustrate how "tough" they are, that is reprehensible enough.
But if they really believe that these people were heros and martyrs instead of terrorists and criminals then the likelihood of peace with these people is an unfulfillable dream at best and more likely an awful nightmare.
One can only depressingly conclude that they really don't believe in coexistence. Its just a pretense to blindside a gullible Western audience.
There is an unfortunate straight line logic from this action and I suppose many others, to the conclusion that what they really seek is the end of Israel.
The only difference between the various groups, entities, organisations and quasi-governmental bodies, all claiming to be Palestinian, is not the end but only the means.
Posted by: yesjb at March 8, 2010 1:36 pm
Do they really believe this was a noble deed, something in self-defense, something that would persuade the Israelis that they should seek the Palestinian version of peace and concession themselves out of existence?
If they don't really believe it and are doing it for show and to illustrate how "tough" they are, that is reprehensible enough.
But if they really believe that these people were heros and martyrs instead of terrorists and criminals then the likelihood of peace with these people is an unfulfillable dream at best and more likely an awful nightmare.
One can only depressingly conclude that they really don't believe in coexistence. Its just a pretense to blindside a gullible Western audience.
There is an unfortunate straight line logic from this action and I suppose many others, to the conclusion that what they really seek is the end of Israel.
The only difference between the various groups, entities, organisations and quasi-governmental bodies, all claiming to be Palestinian, is not the end but only the means.
"But if they really believe that these people were heros and martyrs instead of terrorists and criminals then the likelihood of peace with these people is an unfulfillable dream at best and more likely an awful nightmare.
One can only depressingly conclude that they really don't believe in coexistence. Its just a pretense to blindside a gullible Western audience.
There is an unfortunate straight line logic from this action and I suppose many others, to the conclusion that what they really seek is the end of Israel.
The only difference between the various groups, entities, organisations and quasi-governmental bodies, all claiming to be Palestinian, is not the end but only the means."
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.
Read the Hamas Charter and the PLO Covenant. Both are widely available online, and in particular at mideastweb.org.
Posted by: del at March 8, 2010 3:46 pm
One can only depressingly conclude that they really don't believe in coexistence. Its just a pretense to blindside a gullible Western audience.
There is an unfortunate straight line logic from this action and I suppose many others, to the conclusion that what they really seek is the end of Israel.
The only difference between the various groups, entities, organisations and quasi-governmental bodies, all claiming to be Palestinian, is not the end but only the means."
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.
Read the Hamas Charter and the PLO Covenant. Both are widely available online, and in particular at mideastweb.org.
That says it all, ombrageux, that you draw moral equivalence between Sudanese genocide and Israel defending itself from terrorists openly sworn to its destruction. Thanks for confirming everything I've said about you.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 8, 2010 11:50 pm
The Falklands War itself was senseless and, ideally, the U.S. would have been able to restrain the parties as it did during the 1956 Suez War. (Although, that might have been beyond the abilities of the country.)
Yeah, it kinda would've been.
Apparently, you want the United States to be an omnipotent, omnipresent force that simultaneously serves as your own personal poodle, anticipating and immediately responding to your political and historical needs.
Why would Americans have a problem with that?
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 9, 2010 6:20 am
Yeah, it kinda would've been.
Apparently, you want the United States to be an omnipotent, omnipresent force that simultaneously serves as your own personal poodle, anticipating and immediately responding to your political and historical needs.
Why would Americans have a problem with that?
Craig - I don't think the pretense of basking in the reflection of America's glory is good enough (as much as it moves a Blair think he's got "the hand of history" on his shoulder).
Mary Madigan - I don't *blame* people for their impotence. I would want peacemakers to be strong and warmongers to be weak. America played a successful anti-imperialist and peacemaking role in 1956 by pulling the plug on the British pound and leaving the French out to dry. America did not in 1982, for example, put comparable pressure on the Argentinians to back down. The responsibility for the war obviously remains primarily with the British and Argentinian governments of the time.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 9, 2010 6:28 am
Mary Madigan - I don't *blame* people for their impotence. I would want peacemakers to be strong and warmongers to be weak. America played a successful anti-imperialist and peacemaking role in 1956 by pulling the plug on the British pound and leaving the French out to dry. America did not in 1982, for example, put comparable pressure on the Argentinians to back down. The responsibility for the war obviously remains primarily with the British and Argentinian governments of the time.
America played a successful anti-imperialist and peacemaking role in 1956 by pulling the plug on the British pound and leaving the French out to dry.
So to prevent war this time we should pull the plug on the Argentinian economy and leave the British out to dry?
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 9, 2010 8:18 am
So to prevent war this time we should pull the plug on the Argentinian economy and leave the British out to dry?
Craig - I don't think the pretense of basking in the reflection of America's glory is good enough (as much as it moves a Blair think he's got "the hand of history" on his shoulder).
That's not what I said at all :)
I think the UK views the US as an unruly child that needs a lot of guidance. And as i said, i think the British view themselves as the leader of Anglophile nations, as they probably should seeing as how England is over there and not over here...
That all changes, when the "special relationship" is gone. It'd be kinda hard for the Brits to pretend they have a leash on the US if we flip em the bird and go our own way, right? That's already happened to an extent (I don't think most Americans feel there is a "special relationship" with the UK anymore) but the UK is still our closest ally.
Posted by: Craig at March 9, 2010 9:46 am
That's not what I said at all :)
I think the UK views the US as an unruly child that needs a lot of guidance. And as i said, i think the British view themselves as the leader of Anglophile nations, as they probably should seeing as how England is over there and not over here...
That all changes, when the "special relationship" is gone. It'd be kinda hard for the Brits to pretend they have a leash on the US if we flip em the bird and go our own way, right? That's already happened to an extent (I don't think most Americans feel there is a "special relationship" with the UK anymore) but the UK is still our closest ally.
Mary Madigan - If it had forced the two parties to a peaceful resolution, wouldn't you think that would be a success? I'd imagine the Argentine military dictatorship would also have more difficulties surviving without American aid.
Craig - The Brits have a far more realistic perception of themselves than the fantastically powerful role you assume they have. The U.S. did flip the bird to them many times (whether good or bad) at Suez, the Falklands War, the invasion of Grenada, and the attitude towards German reunification (Thatcher opposed it).
Your argument seems to be that the U.K. gets "pretending to be important" out of its relationship with the U.S. Quite. That is pretty close "basking in reflected glory," if less poetic.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 9, 2010 2:00 pm
Craig - The Brits have a far more realistic perception of themselves than the fantastically powerful role you assume they have. The U.S. did flip the bird to them many times (whether good or bad) at Suez, the Falklands War, the invasion of Grenada, and the attitude towards German reunification (Thatcher opposed it).
Your argument seems to be that the U.K. gets "pretending to be important" out of its relationship with the U.S. Quite. That is pretty close "basking in reflected glory," if less poetic.
If it had forced the two parties to a peaceful resolution, wouldn't you think that would be a success?
No, because we would be treating our friends more cruelly than we treat our enemies. A nation that manipulates people that way winds up with few friends, many enemies and lost empires.
Britain and Argentina are both friendly nations, both are allies. You would bankrupt both in an effort to avoid war, ignoring the fact that the resulting social disruption would probably cause just as much violence and death.
Posted by: Mary Madigan at March 9, 2010 8:51 pm
No, because we would be treating our friends more cruelly than we treat our enemies. A nation that manipulates people that way winds up with few friends, many enemies and lost empires.
Britain and Argentina are both friendly nations, both are allies. You would bankrupt both in an effort to avoid war, ignoring the fact that the resulting social disruption would probably cause just as much violence and death.
France, the UK, and Israel recovered fairly quickly (economically) after 1956... in fact they didn't even economically decline, the mere threat was enough for the Brits to back down.
Posted by: Ombrageux at March 10, 2010 2:59 am
Craig - The Brits have a far more realistic perception of themselves than the fantastically powerful role you assume they have.
I hope you'll excuse me if I go with my own perceptions, and not with yours. I haven't been very impressed with either your worldliness or your understanding of foreign cultures. For that matter, you don't even seem to understand American culture outside of whatever left-leaning circle you run in.
Posted by: Craig at March 10, 2010 5:55 am
I hope you'll excuse me if I go with my own perceptions, and not with yours. I haven't been very impressed with either your worldliness or your understanding of foreign cultures. For that matter, you don't even seem to understand American culture outside of whatever left-leaning circle you run in.
Post a comment
