So, what is the difference....
 

During WW2, the Nazi's in Occupied France would often, in reprisal for Resistance fighters' attacks, pull out a ranndom selection of French civillians, put them against a wall, and shooting them.

This became know as 'collective punishment', which was quickly banned by the newly-formed UN immediately after WW2 . The very same UN then instigated the Nuremberg trials for crimes against Humanity and set about creating the state of Israel.

During recent days, the Isreali Defence Force has carried out random attacks on the civilian popualation of Lebannon in reprisal for resistance attacks on its troops.....

Presumably, the fact that you cannot actually see the face of the innocent you are killing makes it more palatable, justifiable and indeed more random.....


And that, I guess is the difference between Israel and the Nazi's.....

Israel is less-selective in its death-dealing.

My understanding is that Israel is targeting a specific militant group that the Lebonese govt is considering attacking themselves.

The militant group is intertwined with the civillian population.
The road bridges, power-stations and Beirut airport are , not to my knowledge, owned or operated by Hezbollah.

Current figures put at least 107 dead in Lebannon. of which about 40% are women and children.

So, the Hezbollah use women and children as shields.

nah, the Israeli Defence Force use defective (yank made) missiles that can't tell the difference between men with guns and women with kids.

If that's the difference you see between the Nazis and Israel in this situation, your myopia is truly profound. My diagnosis for you: chronic severe moral equivalance...probably terminal.

well, if your going to give out clinical diagnoses, why not go the whole doctor hog and cure me? Your comments, please, Dr. L .......

Some of the nastier Hisballah missiles were Syrian and Iranian in origin. So I can think of at least one very good reason to knock out the roads and airport.

As far as I know the French Resistance never staged any pre-war 1939 cross-border raids into Germany. They were a partisan group that sprang up during occupation and disbanded when the occupation was over. Unlike Hezbollah which stayed in business and grew.

mmmmmm......

@UT.....

where is that arguement going? Given that NY and Boston were the major financiers of the IRA (via the coillection tins 'for the cause') are you saying that HMG had every right to bomb NY and Boston?

Dr Z.......


perhaps your memory is better than mine....

were Hezbolah active before the creation of the Israeli state in 1948?

Red Herring

?

If those who are being targeted have not been proved to be active terrorists already, it is the same.

That fact is a Red Herring, meaning it is not relevant and is a distraction.

The following information is quoted under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License from Wikipedia, the free onliine encyclopedia.

The phrase red herring has a number of metaphorical senses that share the general sense of something being a diversion or distraction from the original objective:

* a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one's point by means of irrelevant arguments. See Ignoratio elenchi.
* in politics, a minor or even phony issue trumped up as being of great importance, in order to influence voters to vote for one party or candidate and against the other, or distract from more important issues that might help the opposing party.
* in literature, a plot device intended to distract the reader from a more important event in the plot, usually a twist ending. See also MacGuffin.
* in detective work, mystery fiction, and puzzle-solving, a false clue which leads investigators, readers, or solvers towards an incorrect solution.
* in adventure games, an item or object of no practical use; its purpose may be to frustrate the gamer who tries to find the intended use for it.

The phrase may have originated from the practice of saving a hunted fox by dragging a red herring across its trail to cause the pursuing hounds to lose the true scent and follow the false trail of herring odour instead. In this context the Oxford English Dictionary records its first written use occurring in 1686 "To draw a red herring across the track".
...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Those that are targeted have been proven. The others are "colllateral damage". But, those that use human shields are the guilty parties here.

The other difference with the Nazis is sheer numbers, like 12,000,000 innocents verus 140.

It isn't unusual for insugents or guerillas in modern warfare to hide amongst their own people. It makes them harder to find, and then, when you kill a bunch of innocents in the attempt to squish the guerillas, they get to tell everyone what a bunch of monsters you are...then fire their own missles at civilian targets of the other side, claiming that the other guys started it anyway.

They have been previously tried in a neutral court of law as proof?
Collateral damage? Numbers of dead as a difference? ... no.

What Elspode said.

"Hey, Look!... That guys got a green hat on! Shoot a missile at that block"!!!

Bullshit. There is more evidence than that. An international court of law is a fucking joke. France might as well change their flag to all white.

US Citizens deserve a fair trial under the US Constitution.

These international criminals should be shot on sight.

Just like any nation that invades another that was no threat to them killing lots of civilians?

In war against an enemy with limited resources, you take out the supply routes. Hisballah is using shells and missiles from Syria and Iran, therefore the roads from Syria and and airports from anywhere have been taken out.

That sounds like a "yes".

Try it another way. Hisballah can stop this whole thing within hours. All they need to do is give the two soldiers back.

Israel can stop this whole thing within hours as well. All they need to do is agree to cease to exist.

No threat to them?????? You are seriously ignorant. Seriously.

I think the formation of Israel was a serious mistake. But, I can't blame them for defending themselves.

So, if some Indians told you that your house was built on top of a sacred burial ground, would you give your real estate title to them.

I think not.

We Eurpopians stole the land in the New Continent.

No, the "Eurpopians" actually bought most of the land they settled, from the Indians.
The Americans, stole most of the "New Continent".;)

One difference is that Israel drop leaflets in the week leading up to the bombing, telling the Lebanese people in the south to go north and disassociate from Hezbollah, if they wanted to stay safe. They were warned, and could have stayed alive, had they chosen to remove themselves from danger.

I told you the prognosis was terminal....what part of that didn't you understand? Some things Kant be cured.

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/cartoons/071906.jpg

So which was Penn?

Heh, "Judeo-Christian moral values". I always hear that in Bill O'Reilly's voice: "JuuuuuDAYYYYYo-Christian VALues". Is that supposed to be a long way to say Old Testament?

How about "a short way of saying 'there's a difference between right and wrong'"? If you are guided by moral equivalance in a case like this, I maintain you're willfully blind.

Oh, by the way: belated Godwin's Law call.

No, that would be "Moral absolutism". "Judeo-Christian" is orthogonal to that.

My gawd, you people use some big words sometimes. I had to go look up Happy Monkey's term, 'orthogonal'.

Couldn't you have said 'different'? :p

Stormie

'orthogonal' is stronger than 'different'. It's a great word. It's the most concise way I know of saying "doesn't have anything to do with" or "you're not even in the right ballpark".

I was using definition 5, though perhaps not precisely. I would expect religious people to be statistically more likely to be moral absolutists, and people who self-identify as "Judeo-Christian" to be statistically more likely to be religious people. But all moral absolutists certainly aren't "Judeo-Christian" and all Jews and Christians aren't moral absolutists.

And speaking of definitions and mathematical etymologies, given the sets "Jewish values" and "Christian values", is "Judeo-Christian values" the union or the intersection of the sets?

I'd dispute both those claims. First off, "there's a difference between right and wrong" is not identical with "right and wrong are absolutes". How orthogonal "Judeo-christian" is to that depends on where you stand...so I'll embrace some relativism on *that* point. :-)

The "moral equivalance" I take issue with would hold that the actions of Hezbu'lah and those of Israel have equal moral standing, and I think that's totally bogus. Anyway, being neither Jewish nor Christian I'm not defending Chris Muir's use of "Judeo-christian" in pointing out the bankruptcy of "moral equivilance"...it just happened to be today's Day-by-Day.

Moral absolutism says that morals exist on an objective basis, outside of the minds of humans (often but not always as dictates from God). If that isn't the case, then morals are subjective.

Of course, even if there are objective morals, there's still the question of how to discover what they are, since everyone disagrees.Of course, after the philosophical discussion above, that stuff isn't really useful. Whether morals are objective, subjective, or relative is more suited to a philosophy class than politics, but when "moral relativists" becomes some sort of political insult it has to be dealt with to some extent.

On a practical level, however, I'd agree that Israel is better than Hezbu'lah, but that doesn't excuse any of the bad things they do.Good, because I have a strong suspicion that people using the term "Judeo-Christian" are usually talking out of their ass.

classic avoidance berhaviour...... faced with moralistic issue you can't cope with, you turn the thread into a dictionary thread.



(PS The lebbonese death toll is now over 300 - how many fighters does Hezbollah have, and whats the minimum age?)

I guess you're having reading comprehension issues. No worries, I'm sure you'll catch up.

I'm coping just fine. The Israelis have a right to defend themselves; that their attackers choose to hide among the (relatively) innocent is not their fault.

mmmm.... the attackers are hiding amongst the (relatively) innocent? But, presumably, not very well as the IDF seem able to find enough targets. Pedrhaps the IDF think Hezbollah are trolls, hiding under bridges.... or maybe hoodies, living in the inner-city apartment blocks....


and are you really sure you want to with that 'hiding amongst (relatively) innocent' remark? Think long before you answer.....

I suspect you didn't realize when you wrote this, how much it revealed about you.

In any discussion intended to rise above the level of shouting-match, terms must be defined and agreed upon. Otherwise, you don't really understand what the other person is saying. To stop and define terms is the mark of reason.

Don't let me stop you, though. Shout away.

Perhaps, dar, but I'm not the one liviing in Neverland.

Well enough to elicit maximum propiganda value, that being their pupose. But this time even Hezbullah's usual friends (as distinct from their direct patrons in Syria and Iran) in the region aren't so strongly behind them as they usually are.

Maybe they know something you don't. Or maybe they're just not as dogmatically encumbered...now wouldn't that be ironic.

I'm sure the 100 plus Lebannese children kiilled and maimed appreciate the irony...

As I recall, Penn bought but there was a dispute later in that the distance West was described as how far a man walks in a day. White man walk with purpose. Indians just kind of moseyed along.

Another problem is the Iroquois sold the land because they said it was theirs....... unfortunately for the Pocopsens(sp?) and other tribes that the Iroquois felt were subservient.:(

Of course they are victims. The problem is you're confused as to who victimized them. Diagnosis is still terminal myopia. Prognosis not improving.

The only upside is that (as UT pointed out elsewhere), Hezbollah will say they are now eligible to be considered martyrs (albeit involuntary and retroactive) because they are not Jewish.

If they aren't. Surely at least some of them are Christian, which presumably makes them "infidel Crusaders who deservered what they got".

you're all heart, maggiel...... and a stone one at that.

Are all Americans like you, reducing the deaths of non-American children to mere 'point-scorers' in an Interenet forum?

Lebannese children should not be harmed, because they are humans and humans should not be harmed.......except the ones on my list. ;)

A heart is of no use without a brain.

Perhaps it makes you feel all warm and morally superior, but if you're unable to see who is actually responsible for their pain, your no doubt deeply-felt liberal sympathy does the victims no good...in fact it is an obstacle to preventing this from happening again.

The same applies to your shallowly-reasoned accusations of heartlessness.

No-one can do the victims any good, maggie, 'cos they're dead.

I'm just trying to stir you into some kind of action that may be can prevent more victims. Don't you have this 'megan's law' thingie over there in some of your states? If you can legislate and act over the death of one child, why can you not act over the death of hundreds of children?

You seem to be confused. Maggie, and many of us, are in the USA, not Israel. You, on the other hand, are considerably closer to Lebanon than we.

Maybe it's you that should be stirred to do something for the children. :eyebrow:

oxo, I 've tried kicking Tony's ass, but all I did was stub my toe.

Realistically, onyl the US can reign in Isreal, and Bush not only won't but has implicitely given Israel free reign for the next week or so. How many more kids will be killed in this next week?

Ah yes, the Walking Purchase. Not our finest hour.:right: William Penn's sons even cheated the guy who made the walk and got them the land. It just goes to show that honesty and decency are not necessarily inherited traits.

Why does Jay feel that we American's have any more influence over our leaders than he does? Why is everything on the face of the fuqing Earth the fault of the US? It's so easy to point fingers, isn't it? There are thousands of American's very, very distressed at what is going on--Lebanese AND Jewish children are being killed. Where does the blame lay? WITH THOSE WHO STARTED IT BY KIDNAPPING. Hizbollah. That's where your anger needs to point to.

It's funny how the US is supposed to police the world but NOT police the world, ya know? Like any country does ANYTHING the US asks. HA! What are we to do? Tell Israel, "hey, stop that!" and have them listen to us, just like Iran and NK and USSR all listen to what we say?

Bri, I disagree slightly... The blame doesnt lay with hezbollah. The blame can't be placed on anyone.


you're bombing our houses!
well you took our soldiers!
well you imprisoned our men!
well you are on our land!
well you TOOK the land from us!
well you tried to keep our holy land from us!
well it's our holy land too!
well we were persecuted for a long time!


BOTH sides are to blame. You'd have to go back thousands of years to figure out where this started, but it keeps being a problem because neither side is going to stop until the other one does.

yeah, it's gone on forever and probably always will. However, this Particular session is in response to what hezbollah did.

I was talking about the US in Iraq.

But they did that in response to this which israel did in response to that... etc etc etc