Just got this from regular contributor Stanley Dubinsky, with this commentary:
Anyone who says that Israeli soldiers opened fire first, or that they came to kill (or even hurt) any of those aboard the Turkish boat, is lying … the “humanitarians” own video says otherwise.
Make of it what you will. Personally, I’m fed up with Israel taking the blame for every damned thing that happens amid all that insanity over there. Want to blame Israel for something? Get on them about all those settlements on the West Bank. That’s an unnecessary provocation — although not nearly as overt as the provocation from these activists doing everything they can to provoke these troops into violence.
The very idea that any nation would unequivocally condemn Israel for what happened — much less MOST nations, which is what we’re seeing — is outrageous. I’ve really about had it with the opinion of the “international community” with regard to Israel.
Did somebody screw up? Yes, in failing to carry out this operation in a way that prevented hostiles from provoking gunfire. In failing to assume that there were people present who would act this way, and boarding in sufficient force to control the situation. This must not be allowed to happen again. But rest assured, whatever Israel does to try to control such a situation, there will be provocateurs thinking of ways to take it to the point of bloodshed.
Perhaps you think there should be no blockade of Hamas. I’d be interested in hearing that argument. But as long as there is one, as as long as there are blockade runners, we run the danger of this happening.
Related Posts
Other than:
1) Boarding a ship in international waters
2) Using deadly force to kill people (including a Turk/American teenager)
3) Cutting off all communication and confiscating all cameras
4) Detaining people who had committed no crime
5) Preventing food from being delivered to starving people (check into what the blockade will not allow to pass thru… it’s clearly an attempt to provide only the bare essentials)
Israel is a lot like the U.S. “Moral superiority” means never having to admit you’re wrong. We can kill the #3 Al-Qaeda guy with a missile that also takes out women and children, but that’s okay. They can kill ten protesters because they botched a manuever.
The part that Israel apologists seem to forget is that nothing would have happened if the soldiers had not attempted to board the helicopter in international waters. Nothing. It was a stupid, brazen move that SHOULD be condemned.
So you’re saying that there should be no blockade — that Israel shouldn’t isolate Hamas. Right?
I find your brand of moral certainty interesting, Doug. For instance, did you even LOOK at the video of the armed commando being stabbed repeatedly in the back without retaliating?
But you don’t think he should have been there, which means you don’t think Israel should enforce the blockade. So present your arguments.
More on the moral certainty front: Let’s talk about that missile attack. Israel’s Mossad sends assassination teams against its enemies, and kills them up close and personal — as they did with that guy in Dubai in January. The US has long ago ruled that out. We do missile attacks, which means innocents get killed, too.
There is a third possibility — just leave al Qaeda alone. After all, they’re not the ones who carried out 9/11 — oops, wait, they are. In which case, what should we do about them? Wait for them to come turn themselves in? What is the morally perfect solution?
I know that no matter what we do, Doug will condemn it. Because I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who can find fault the way Doug does.
We need to stand up FOR Israel before its too late. Coming to your backyard soon. These videos are shocking and will not be shown on MSM.
My arguments against the blockade:
The people of Hamas are being systematically starved to death by Israel. Israel is deciding what they can eat, when they can eat, what newspapers they have access to. There is no justification for that policy. Food is not a threat to Israel.
You want to fight terrorism, fight terrorism. You want to kill innocent people, don’t try to sell me on the justification. I have a simple view of life – don’t kill innocent people. It’s a whole lot easier than trying to jump through the logical hoops of that allow you to equate X dead innocent lives as justification for killing Y bad guys.
If we had information that Bin Laden was sitting at a table in the middle of an orphanage with 100 children, would you approve sending in the missile to take him out? How about 10 kids? How about 1? You either are for killing innocent people or you aren’t.
Al-Queda sent 20 guys with box cutters who were able to easily enter the cockpits of four planes and then hit the lottery when the Twin Towers fell. There is no amount of killing that will prevent another attack. We’ll burn through another 1000 U.S. soldiers dying in Afghanistan… and then another 1000… we’ve already killed more people than the 911 terrorists did and lost more soldiers than died on 911. It’s a fools game run by people with no real skin in the game.
Look, Brad, I’m FOR lots of things, and I think Doug makes a very compelling case.
Israel long ago ceded the moral high ground on the Palestinian issue repeatedly–the settlements, as you say, and the blockade, which constituted warfare against civilians before this violent encounter.
Speaking of provocateurs…this was a very provocative operation, dontcha think? Is this the way one normally enforces a blockade? I can think of a whole spectrum of options that don’t even involve boarding a boat at all…and yet they insist on sending soldiers straight down from on high, right into the middle of a swarming crowd?
Smells fishy.
Whole thing’s rotten. Can’t trust Hamas, can’t trust Netanyahu. These people deserve each other. And both sides know that if they provoke the other, their own position becomes stronger. That’s pretty cynical, eh? But I think it’s clear that Netanyahu is keen on continued expansion of settlements in extremely sensitive areas, and it’s also clear that Hamas is keen on trying to send a rocket straight into the Knesset.
I hate that every President of the USA feels honor-bound to take the same spin on the Wheel of Futility that is the “Mideast Peace Process”. Maybe one day, when we get our alternative energy ducks in a row and no longer have to cast a long, paranoid shadow over every oil field and shipping channel in that region, we can stop playing this dopey game of “let’s try and be nice to each other” with people who think the dirt under their feet is something holy that they have to try and grab from the blaspheming infidel. They’re all infidels, these militant muslims and jews, and any holiness that might have been in that dirt once upon a time has long since been washed away by rivers of primate blood.
I’d probably be more sympathetic to Israel in the present moment if it stopped with the “we can have nukes in secret, but you can’t have them at all” hypocrisy in perpetuity with which it warmly greets its regional neighbors.
Doug, you’re right on. Don’t forget the use of white phosphorus against the civilian population in Gaza.
International law prohibits the use of white phosphorus in heavily populated civilian areas.
Israel admitted to the use – so much for moral clarity. It’s not a matter of personality or opinion, but one of facts.
Good thing flower-power Doug wasn’t around in WWII when we used to carpet bomb and nuke entire cities. I laugh when I hear people go ballistic when one single innocent person gets killed in a war zone. It’s WAR Doug, people get killed, it’s a fact and nothing can prevent it.
More soldiers died on D-Day than have in both Desert Storm I and II.
Let’s call each other names as that makes our arguments more credible.
I dislike the way Israel found to enforce this blockade. I also hear the charges that they are literally starving the people in the Hamas controlled area. But I’m also aware that the people in that area tend to keep lobbing missles into Israel. Israel has a right to protect itself, and those missles kill plenty of innocent people. Rather than condemning one side or another, wouldn’t the world be better served by helping Israel find a way to protect itself that doesn’t leave it open to these charges?
Ok, one at a time:
1) Boarding a ship in nternational waters
Israel did indeed have the legal right (under international law) to interdict a ship in international waters, if they suspected that the ship MIGHT be carrying contraband (e.g. weapons). We do it to drug runners all the time.
2) Using deadly force to kill people (including a Turk/American teenager)
The Israeli soldiers (stupidly) were expecting not to have any resistance, and to simply order the boat’s crew to divert. They boarded with paintball guns (!) just in case. This provided an opportunity for them to be attacked by a stick and knife wielding mob. The soldiers were forced to open fire in this instance. Name for me one police/military force that would not open fire in such a circumstance. Unfortunate yes, evil no.
3) Cutting off all communication and confiscating all cameras
When under arrest, which these people were, it is normally the case to confiscate such things. Get arrested yourself in Columbia (for anything) and see if that doesn’t happen.
4) Detaining people who had committed no crime
Their only offense was to challenge a military blockade. In WW2, the US and Britain blockaded Germany. If you had tried to challenge that blockade, you would have been arrested (if you were very lucky). Hamas governs Gaza and is in a declared state of war with Israel. Israel has set a blockade of an enemy belligerent. How hard is that to understand?
Try breaking into Iran or North Korea and see what happens.
5) Preventing food from being delivered to starving people (check into what the blockade will not allow to pass thru… it’s clearly an attempt to provide only the bare essentials)
The conditions in Gaza are actually far from dire. Hamas does control everything though, so it is likely that families of Palestinian Authority supporters might be starving. Otherwise, the only things that they are really in need of are construction materials. Israel has actually allowed passage of food and medical supplies Gaza (something that the Allies never did for Germany in WW2). Furthermore, Gaza actually has a border with a country that they are not at war with, Egypt. So, ask Egypt why it has closed its borders to Gaza. Perhaps they know something about Hamas that you don’t (or won’t admit).
P.S. – The Mavi Marmara passengers should be thankful that they weren’t trying to open up North Korea (which would have just torpedoed all six boats, denied having done it, and then threatened all out war against anyone who said otherwise).
@Michael P
It’s not war if Congress doesn’t declare war.
There’s a difference between accidental collateral damage and making a conscious decision to kill women and children in order to take out one guy. There’s no honor in that. That’s what THEY do.
Flower-power Doug? Bet you’ve never been called that before, eh, Doug?
Israel vows to block an Irish aid ship loaded with food and medicine.
They have also admitted to sabotaging aid boats “far from Gaza”.
“The Irish vessel is named after an American college student crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer while protesting house demolitions in Gaza.”
Another “Oops, I did it again” moment apparently.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100604/ap_on_re_eu/eu_turkey_israel
Here’s a firsthand account by an American on another ship that was boarded during the raid.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/06/03/paul_larudee_flotilla_account/index.html
“When the Israeli forces picked him up, Larudee said, he was severely beaten and tied to a mast at the stern of their ship. His legs and hands were bound as he was subjected to the hot sun in wet soaking clothes for four hours. He said his body almost went into shock from the extreme hot and cold conditions.”
”
When on land, Larudee was taken to the processing area, but refused to cooperate with authorities, who wanted him to say that he entered the country illegally. “This happened at 18 miles at sea, which is well beyond their own territorial waters, or anyone’s territorial waters,” he said. “We were in international waters. We weren’t violating anyone’s sovereignty or breaking any rules that we knew of, even by their standards.”
“More beating ensued. Larudee, who again let his body go limp, said he was carried by nylon restraints, which were placed on his arms and legs. They cut into his skin, causing more contusions and deep pain. He was carried into an ambulance and taken to a hospital, but wasn’t treated. He said he believes he was taken there because the Israeli soldiers didn’t want the media to see his black eye, pronated joints, bruised jaw and body contusions.”
Indefensible. “More beating ensued.” For the U.S. to tread lightly while Israeli soldiers beat American citizens is an embarrassment.
Doug,
I’m starting to understand it now, the perception stated is dependent on how you want it to be read.
– Japanese women vaporized while hanging clothes in their backyard “accidental collateral damage”
– A family killed while feeding and housing Osama Bin Laden “conscious killing of innocent civilians”.
I think I’ve got it now. Thanks.
The ghetto-ization – in the Warsaw sense – of Gaza suggests that the Israelis are becoming what they most despise.
When you become what you hate to fight what you hate, you’ve lost.
That applies to the USA, too. The Israelis (current government) have lost the moral high ground. Just like us.
@Michael P
Not sure I get your point. I think both your cases are the same: “conscious killing of innocent civilians”.
“accidental collateral damage” would be cases where we did not know there were innocent people in the area.
Doug – So using your terminology, during WWII should we not have dropped atomic bombs on Japan? Should we not have bombed entire cities in Germany? Should soldiers not have fired upon houses where a half-dozen Nazi leaders were hold up because there was one civilian inside the house?
If so, all Bin Laden has to do is strap a 3 month old to his back and he can walk through downtown USA and not have to worry.
@michael
I’ve already stated recently on this blog that I did not agree with dropping nukes on Japan.
As for Bin Laden, he’s probably hiding out at George Bush’s house in Texas. Osama was a good buddy of GWB’s daddy.
Anyway, I saw news recently that a British sniper took out two terrorists in Afghanistan from 1.5 miles away. Don’t we have the same capability? I know, I know, it’s easier to fire a missile and ask for forgiveness later.
Thou shalt not kill. Peace, out.
Stanley, I think where you and I differ is that I judge the morality of an act based on the nature of the act, not on who commits the act.
The Israelis took the communications equipment because they wanted to conceal what was going on, and present an unchallenged, although distorted, picture, of what happened.
What happened before the beginning of the clip you furnished? I know what happened. Do you?
I wonder who of you who post here have served this country through our military. My father served in WWII and I served during Vietnam.
Killing innocents is “mortally” serious and is recognized and outlawed through international conventions. Other than the civil war, our nation has not experienced wartime killing that we and other nations inflict so “casually” on other people in trumped up conflicts like Iraq. It’s easy to say collateral damage. War is hell and I hope our families and neighbors never experience it in our land.
The Israelis are locked in a never ending battle with their neighbors and they are not willing to seriously negotiate except on their own terms. If you have your boot on the necks of your neighbors and take their land, you’d better expect a violent and deadly reaction.
If you were evicted by a military force from your farms and your homes are destoyed so that new settlers can build on your property, you had better expect a violent reaction from your “displaced” cousins. Terrorism is a tactic in which individuals and groups pursue violent revenge with a political aim whether it is home grown (OKC) or foreign (9-11) or in Israel’s case from Gaza where they dropped white phosphorus on civilians.
Who has the real courage to take the first step of peace or be a peacemaker or do we just continue destroying each other?
Yitzhak Rabin tried to be a genuine peace maker but was disparaged personally by ultra-orthodox conservatives and Likud leaders. Current Likud Leader and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Rabin’s government of being “removed from Jewish tradition…and Jewish values.
Rabin was killed in 1995 by an individual who wanted his country back. There are consequences of rabid right-wing talk about taking your country back.
The assassin was Yigal Amir, a religious Orthodox far-right law student at Bar-Ilan University. Amir had strenuously opposed Rabin’s peace initiative and especially the signing of the Oslo Accords because he felt that an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank would deny Jews their “biblical heritage which they had reclaimed by establishing settlements.”
I guess that Rabin was a flower-power person! The orthordox right wingers had no appreciation for his extensive military service.
They later found in Rabin’s pocket a blood-stained sheet of paper with the words of the song Shir Lashalom (“Song to Peace”), which ironically dwells on the impossibility of bringing a dead person back to life and therefore the need for peace.
“I’m fed up with Israel taking the blame for every damned thing that happens amid all that insanity over there.” From whom? Certainly not from the United States government, except by the gentlest of finger-wagging.
There may be a lot of official criticism from OTHER countries, as well as much critical commentary from within the US, but would any other country that killed a US citizen be treated so gingerly as in this case?
What puzzles me about your views vis-a-vis Israel, Brad, is how consistently you support America’s right to pursue its interests using all the diplomatic and military tools at its disposal, but when it comes to Israel’s actions, it seems you often feel that this pursuit of American self-interest should suddenly take a back seat to Israeli self-interest?
It makes me feel odd that the British Prime Minister is expressing more outrage over the death of one of my fellow American citizens at the hands of a foreign power than my own President is.
Nice post, j.
Interesting you should mention the U.S., the U.K. and Israel all together that way…
I see US interests and UK interests and Israeli interests as being so closely related that there’s hardly any difference. That doesn’t mean they’re exactly the same; obviously sovereignty dictates some separation. And it doesn’t mean we always agree. In fact, we can get really ticked off at each other, partly BECAUSE our respective interests track so closely. If a teammate screws up you’re likely to be especially mad at him for letting the side down, as the Brits would say.
What American interest do you think stands in opposition to Israeli interest in this case? Because one of those killed held American citizenship? To my knowledge he wasn’t there as a U.S. agent, to carry out some U.S. goal or policy that the Israelis undermined. And anyone would have to be insane to suggest that they set out to kill him or any of the other people (and yet that’s exactly what the international outcry against Israel suggests), because it was so clearly not in Israel’s interest to do so. Can you really suppose Israel is surprised by the bad position it finds itself in because of this? Say horrible things about the Israelis if you will, but I don’t think even their detractors would say they’re stupid (doesn’t fit the ethnic stereotype, does it?).
And as ridiculous as it would be to suppose they set out to kill these people, it would be several orders of magnitude MORE absurd to believe they actually set out to kill an American. And that’s what you would have to suppose to posit that this represents a clash of American and Israeli interests. You would be saying that America has an interest in protecting its citizens (which it does), but that Israel has decided that its interests require killing American citizens (which makes ZERO sense).
Do you see what I’m saying?
Doug – Now we just need to get Bin Laden and his boys to stand out in the open long enough for a sniper to spot and shoot him. While we’re waiting, maybe we can get someone to throw a rock at him instead….
[insult to other commenter removed]
Doug Ross says:
“Thou shalt not kill. Peace, out.”
Another famous quote, “Kill them all… let God sort them out”.
Note that on the above comment — two up — rather than refuse to allow the whole thing, I edited out where Michael called somebody else a “dope.”
I keep working at this civility thing…
Get with it Brad, I didn’t call Dough a “dope”, I said “Peace, love, dope Doug”. “dope” as in drugs… having grown up in the 1970’s I’m sure you’ve heard of the substance.
Well Brad — “twit” (allowed several weeks ago) is worse than “dope” (disallowed today) AND “moron” (also disallowed today).
There are still some kinks to be worked out, for sure.
###
Doug, I am starting to wonder if there isn’t a bit of truth to those who say Ron Paul’s big umbrella harbors many anti-Semites. What all else is up under there?
@Michael P
Sorry, I came to my philosophy on not killing innocent people without the assistance of illegal drugs.
I have a clear memory at age 11 of seeing the picture of the naked Vietnamese girl running down the road after being napalmed. I’d say that was a defining moment for me.
The other was when I heard my father (a WWII and Korean War veteran) say that if my older brother was drafted, he would take him immediately to the bus station and send him to live with his relatives in Canada. Luckily, the war was over before that option was necessary.
We haven’t been in a “just war” in my lifetime.
You give yourself away, Brad, when you refer to us as “teammates” with the Israelis and speak of “another side.” Yes, we support Israel’s right to exist, as we should; to that end (even as we turn ourselves inside out to prevent Iran from possibly making ONE nuclear weapon) we wink at Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal (estimated at 75-200 nuclear weapons) and neighboring countries’ protestations of nervousness over this nuclear capacity falls on deaf ears. OK, fine, I can accept that if that helps guarantee Israel’s security.
But if our interests are “closely related” with Israel’s insofar as we both support Israel’s right to safe existence, so must we also say that we have strong and close interest in the well-being of the Palestinian people, with the eventual goal of a Palestinian state. The world has paid a heavy price for this situation remaining unresolved as long as it has; the US has paid a price, too. Any action, by any party in the area that moves AWAY from the direction of resolution must be condemned at the very least, and opposed firmly, with consequences.
You complain about people criticizing Israel “for every damned thing” but again I have to point out that a serious questioning of our knee-jerk governmental support of Israel in almost controversial circumstance has NEVER taken place. The raising of such questions is shot down immediately in a hail of accusations of anti-Semitism. It has come to the point where much of our foreign policy seems in fact to be dictated by Israel itself. Both Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for this situation, so it’s not a partisan cause. Time and again since he took office, Netanyahu has essentially laughed at us, (or dissed us indirectly, as in the Biden visit) knowing as he does that there is virtually nothing he can do that will seriously undermine US support.
You ask “what American interest do you think stands in opposition to Israeli interest in this case?” I’ll let my President answer that, Brad:
“Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s…
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.”–President Obama, Cairo University, June 2009.
Ah, there it is.
Mab is the winner.
I was wondering how much longer it would take before the inevitable, ubiquitous “You criticized Israel, therefore you’re an anti-Semite!” post.
Congratulations, Mab!
This is bad, but I laughed anyway:
http://www.cnas.org/files/u16/aDbBc0.png
For an insightful view by a Jewish scholar and author on the current government of Israel, you may want to read Leon Wieseltier’s article about the assault on the ‘Mavi Marmara.’
Link: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/75287/operation-make-the-world-hate-us
Mab, can you explain the reasoning that leads you to mention anti-Semitism in your remarks to Doug? It looks to me like all he is doing is criticizing the actions of a foreign country.
“It is possible to empathize with the Israeli soldiers who were placed in the untenable position of carrying out this mission while also being furious at the government which made the decision to put them there. It is possible to empathize with the people of Gaza who are living under blockade while also being furious at those among them who would fire rockets into Israel. It is possible to empathize with the earnest do-gooders on the flotilla while also recognizing that the flotilla was also a PR stunt designed to goad Israel into behaving badly. It is possible to empathize with Israel’s beleaguered position while also being exasperated that Israel behaved badly in exactly the way this incident was meant to provoke. And most of all, it is possible to sincerely regret the loss of life regardless of whose “side” one is on.”
— The Velveteen Rabbi (http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2010/06/five-things-about-the-gaza-flotilla.html#more)
She acknowledges the problems on both sides of this situation, but still feels that the clash was both unnecessary and counterproductive. She’s not a political blogger, but wants to have a real conversation about it, not just the standard talking points. Seemed in the spirit of this blog, so thought I’d post it if anyone’s interested.
Yes, it is not only possible, but advisable, to do all those things.
Something I neglect to do on the blog, perhaps out of my own impatience, is walk through all those kinds of steps on my way to my conclusion. I jump straight to the conclusion. Chalk it up to decades in the news business, which require one to do the hand-wringing in the subconscious, but to make a quick decision — whether it’s about what to put on the front page, or what to conclude about an issue on the editorial page.
In the end, after going through all those steps and acknowledging all the things to be sorry about, I end up furious at the people all over this planet who end up with an analysis that breaks down this way: “Oh, those poor, poor Palestinians and those wicked, vicious Israelis!”
So what I tend to end up doing is attacking that position by pointing out the horrendously difficult position Israel finds itself in simply trying to maintain its security and protect its people, as well as condemning a “humanitarian” mission that obviously had the goal of provoking violence.
I have sympathy for ordinary people caught up in any bad system. And the people of Gaza are caught in a very bad system, namely government by terrorists. I realize that the best hope for a two-state solution that would lead to a good future for Palestinians, living in peace, is for Hamas to lose and the Palestinian Authority to represent Palestinians in dealing with Israel and the world. And when you have come to such a conclusion, you see the blockade of Gaza as a rational, measured way of helping bring that about. And you have no patience with people who will provoke confrontation by trying to run the blockade. None whatsoever. And that’s where I end up.
Doug – If your brother was drafted it would have meant he was 18 years old and old enough to decide for himself. Your dad’s decision for him would have made your brother a federal criminal. The bigger question is, could your brother made it across the Canadian border on a commercial bus or personal vehicle during a time of the draft? I’m guessing that border patrol officers were checking everyone who crossed into Canada, 18 year old males would have been especially stopped and questioned. Your war veteran father should have been knowledgeable enough to know that your brother could declare conscientious objector status, and serve honorably washing dishes and cleaning toilets in an Officer’s Mess Hall for his tour.
BTW, at what age did your dad quit making decisions for you?
I’ll admire my uncle who did three tours in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne a hell of a lot more than any draft dodging coward. BTW, he was the recipient of receiving three purple hearts (last one forced him out of Vietnam), a silver star, and two bronze stars, among others. Did he kill innocent civilians, probably… but he also saved the lives of several men who just may be relatives of your friends or neighbors. It was no bus ride to Canada, but he did what his country requested of him.
Is that actually rational? Or just a stilted rationalization for a blockade?
Seems like when you shut down or severely restrict the exchange of goods, services, or people to a population, the population becomes an isolated echo chamber that rings loudly with the victimization propaganda of its own extremist authority apparatus.
The notion that…isolate the whole and it will eventually turn against its most extreme parts…is that actually rational, borne of consistent historical precedent? Maybe Israel feels like it has no choice, but is there good, consistent evidence that such measures actually work? And how long does it take for that “rational” option to work? We’ve successfully isolated North Korea for half a century, and it’s just as sensitive as ever.
Don’t we have just as compelling historical precedent that this sort of “rational” approach tends to backfire and create more extremists than it eliminates?
I really don’t see such an isolation mechanism as rational and measured in any mature or positive sense. I see it more as either exasperated and desperate, or calculated and cynical. It’s easy to rationalize such an approach as measured and thoughtful in the presence of an immensely powerful military backstop.
Brad, I guess what you are describing as the best hope for Palestinians is pretty much what actually happened in Northern Ireland. Where’s Bono?
jfx and Rob Evans:
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it reasoning that leads me to mention anti-Semitism in my remarks to Doug.
It is really more of an ‘I’m trying to understand this.’
Mostly it has to do with trying to figure out what Alex Jones (PrisonPlanet) is REALLY all about. He talks an awful lot but I think he wants to blame all the world’s ills on some nebulous Jewish cabal of Bilderberg types.
I just never hear Ron Paul or Alex Jones speak about radical Islam.
Why is that?
“Where’s Bono?”… who cares, unless you’re a sunglass salesman.
M.A.D – Mutually Assured Destruction.
With the Cuban Missile Crisis, we were at the brink of destruction. The US and Russia had their missiles aimed at each other.
R.E.M. – It’s The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmxyj6iInMc
A time machine would be great to go back and see what would happen if the US hadn’t dropped the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But the thing is that dropping the bomb was the defining moment to ending World War II.
As @DougRoss mentioned, the image of the napalmed naked Vietamese girl was a defining image of the Vietnam War. I didn’t want to go to Vietnam and come home in a body bag. I didn’t see an advancement of Communism. The enlistment lottery ended in my year of eligibility and I was at the bottom 2/3rds.
Some actions are justified. Israel is bombarded by missiles from Hamas and Hezbolla. What action would the US take if Mexico and Canada lobbed missiles into our territory killing innocent civilians?
When I saw the second plane plow into the World Trade Center, I said to myself “al-Queda”.
Afghanistan was the right decision.
There are some things that we have to do to stop more killings.
@Michael P
“Did he kill innocent civilians, probably… ”
Nice. If he wasn’t there fighting a phony “war”, he wouldn’t have to kill innocents or save people.
I’m guessing you keep a notepad by your computer where you can keep a tally of the number of innocents killed by U.S. forces. Let me know when the number gets big enough for you to experience the slightest bit of remorse.
Doug – You didn’t answer my question. “At what age did your dad quit making decisions for you?” Maybe you couldn’t answer because he’s still making them for the both of you.
Doug, it’s clear you have no knowledge of our military so arguing with you is pointless. my uncle was called upon to be there, he was a career military man… but you wouldn’t know anything about honor and duty and I don’t feel like explaining it to you, because you probably wouldn’t understand it anyway.
BTW – your last paragraph, as ignorant as it is, you guessed wrong. We’ll both be long gone before I feel the need to feel remorse for any military actions taken by this country. Besides, you’re feeling enough for both of us.
Bono was significantly instrumental in the achievement of the Northern Ireland peace. I care where Bono is.
…and Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter and George Mitchell, and anyone else who has acted as a peacemaker.
@Michael
My father stopped making decisions for me about the time I reached high school if that helps you.
But since he was a smart, hard working, honest man, my brothers and I had no problem taking his advice. Since he had enlisted in the Navy in WWII and served in the Coast Guard for the Korean War, I guess his sons felt he knew what he was talking about.
Some of us have solid role models and think for ourselves, others like your uncle let someone else decide which human lives are valuable or not. Stay proud!
Brad — what’s the official name for this procedure again?
“Newspeak?”
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177749
I need to know — I am about bring attention to this malarkey around the interwebs and want to appear knowledgeable.
You posted a blurb about it a few weeks back.
I don’t know; I don’t recall what I said. I say a lot of stuff. What was the context?
It was a post about an “unperson.”
e.g.,
A Soviet “nonperson” vanishes: commissar Nikolai Yezhov retouched after falling from favor and being executed in 1940.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words
###
I guess the word is photocropping in relation to the unknife-ist.