Islam Can Be Constructive and Not Violent

[Black Dog]

I think rather a clear majority of native born Canadians are angry about multiculturalism, whoever one defines it. A lot of them are too cowed by the threat of being called a racist to say it of course...

Uh huh.

Jbg:

If Europe could not tolerate a group of relatively cerebral Jews appearing to take the ascendancy, imagine the violence that may erupt in Europe when the populace perceives that the politicians are twiddling their thumbs as Denmark, Germany, France, Spain and perhaps even the UK are going down the cr@pper into the ummah. I only hope this does not happen to Canada. I fear it may. (the US's Muslims are more integrated due in part to the "melting-pot" crucible as opposed to multi-culturalism).

How does it feel, then, to be a new anti-semite? After all, you're essentially pushing the same ideas as teh Jew haters of the past.

Anyway, a better analogy for what we're seeing today would be the "yellow peril" hysteria that swept western nations in the late nineteenth century.

[jbg]

Anyway, a better analogy for what we're seeing today would be the "yellow peril" hysteria that swept western nations in the late nineteenth century.

Not really. I wouldn't called Zaccarias Mousseaui (sp) harmless. The plots to blow up the various NYC tunnels (foiled by the Clinton administration), WTC I and II and Atta's attempt to rent crop dusters had a certain common element.

[cybercoma]

Anyway, a better analogy for what we're seeing today would be the "yellow peril" hysteria that swept western nations in the late nineteenth century.

Not really. I wouldn't called Zaccarias Mousseaui (sp) harmless. The plots to blow up the various NYC tunnels (foiled by the Clinton administration), WTC I and II and Atta's attempt to rent crop dusters had a certain common element.

Israel has plotted (and carried out) counter-attacks against terrorists in Lebanese and Palestinian civilian areas subsequently killing innocent people...

Think we can agree that both really suck?

[ScottSA]

Anyway, a better analogy for what we're seeing today would be the "yellow peril" hysteria that swept western nations in the late nineteenth century.

And had the yellow peril bombed the center of new york, and then commenced a world wide attack against non-yellow perilists across the globe with a death toll of hundreds a day, I submit to you that the yellow peril hysteria would have been more than warranted.

Don't forget to trot out an abortion bombing in 1998 as proof that Christianity is no better than the Religion of Peace.

[Black Dog]

Not really. I wouldn't called Zaccarias Mousseaui (sp) harmless. The plots to blow up the various NYC tunnels (foiled by the Clinton administration), WTC I and II and Atta's attempt to rent crop dusters had a certain common element.

Is the common element multicultralism? The existence of a small group of extremists doesn't support your premise in the slightest. Try again.

[jbg]

Israel has plotted (and carried out) counter-attacks against terrorists in Lebanese and Palestinian civilian areas subsequently killing innocent people...

Think we can agree that both really suck?

It really sucks that Israel would be medievally ripped to shreds, along with it's people, if it didn't mount such counter-attacks. Moral equivalence can only go so far.

[Black Dog]

It really sucks that Israel would be medievally ripped to shreds, along with it's people, if it didn't mount such counter-attacks.

That is, of course, false.

[M.Dancer]

It really sucks that Israel would be medievally ripped to shreds, along with it's people, if it didn't mount such counter-attacks.

That is, of course, false.

Interesting. Is that some sort of Zen defense? The best defense is no defense at all?

Don't defend yourself, allow the attacks of the enemy to crash against the rocks of our moral superiority......

[Bonam]

Obviously, just use the Force:

These are not the droids you are looking for...

[Black Dog]

Interesting. Is that some sort of Zen defense? The best defense is no defense at all?

Er. No. Nowhere did I say anything about not exercising any form of self-defense. I was quite simply taking issue with the notion that the particular methods under discussion (in particular, Israel's policy of revenge killings) are all that stands between the people of Israel and extinction. Tha would be a false dilemma.

[M.Dancer]

Interesting. Is that some sort of Zen defense? The best defense is no defense at all?

Er. No. Nowhere did I say anything about not exercising any form of self-defense. I was quite simply taking issue with the notion that the particular methods under discussion (in particular, Israel's policy of revenge killings) are all that stands between the people of Israel and extinction. Tha would be a false dilemma.

Surely you don't think that counter strikes are revenge killings? That is a false dilemma...

[Black Dog]

Surely you don't think that counter strikes are revenge killings? That is a false dilemma...

Where's the false dilmma in my statement? We're talking semantics now. Revenge killings, reprisals, counterstrikes: different terms for the same phenomenon.

[Bonam]

So you propose for Israel not to counter attack against terrorists? What form of self-defense then are you in favor of, given that you said: "Nowhere did I say anything about not exercising any form of self-defense".

[Black Dog]

So you propose for Israel not to counter attack against terrorists? What form of self-defense then are you in favor of, given that you said: "Nowhere did I say anything about not exercising any form of self-defense".

Clearly you're having some reading comprehension issues. Cybercoma started this, and defined the parameters of the discussion with the following:

Israel has plotted (and carried out) counter-attacks against terrorists in Lebanese and Palestinian civilian areas subsequently killing innocent people...

(emphasis mine)

So, clearly, I'm opposed to "counter attacks" against "terrorists" in civilian areas. This includes the "targeted" killings, instances where a disproportionate amount of force is used in civilian areas, and cases of collective punishment.

Now, no doubt you or some other apologist will whinge about such limitations as handicapping Israel's ability to keep itself safe. But I have to wonder why, after decades of such heavy handedeness and cavalier disregard for "collateral damage," Israel isn't a safe, secure paradise. IOW: if such tactics were effective counterterrorism tools, we shoudl see less terrorism after years of their use, not the same amount or more.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Black Dog

[Rue]

Yes. Of course you go on to miss the entire point of what she said, but yes, the majority (still) of Canadians are Christian or post Christian. The atheist left is vociferous, to be sure, shoving into forums in hugely disproportionate numbers, but they are a minority.

Atheists are more common on forums because they are younger and use technology more, as compared to older Christian Canadians(yourself excluded Scott).

Yoh Nova Scotia I just think you called this believer in a divine scheme behind it all old and technologically retarded. O.k. so its true. Smart ass. Lol.

[Rue]

So, clearly, I'm opposed to "counter attacks" against "terrorists" in civilian areas. This includes the "targeted" killings, instances where a disproportionate amount of force is used in civilian areas, and cases of collective punishment.

Now, no doubt you or some other apologist will whinge about such limitations as handicapping Israel's ability to keep itself safe. But I have to wonder why, after decades of such heavy handedeness and cavalier disregard for "collateral damage," Israel isn't a safe, secure paradise. IOW: if such tactics were effective counterterrorism tools, we shoudl see less terrorism after years of their use, not the same amount or more.

You can't have it both ways arm-chair security expert. If Israel should not do what you say, then what SHOULD THEY DO? Answer the question you were asked by Bonham.

Yet another security expert lecturing Israel on what they should not do but continually remaining silent on what they should do to protect themselves from terror.

You would be the first Black Dog who would demand action if someone was threatening you. Sorry if I do not take your arm-chair security expertise seriously.

Its easy to lecture from the safety of where you sit.

[Bonam]

Now, no doubt you or some other apologist will whinge about such limitations as handicapping Israel's ability to keep itself safe

Well, whatever you want to call it, it's the truth. If terrorists could fire rockets from a civilian area, and then know with 100% certainty that they would not get retaliated against while in that area, what would discourage them from doing it?

Anyway, I would further argue that if terrorists are in an area with civilians than either:

1) The civilians condone the actions of the terrorists, realize that they put themselves at risk by remaining in the vicinity of the terrorists, and remain in the area specifically to deter retaliation against the terrorists. By doing this, they provide meaningful military assistance to the terrorists, which means they are no longer civilians, but instead valid targets.

Or

2) They are forcibly compelled to remain in the area by the terrorists, or are unwilling to remove themselves from the area that the terrorists forcibly appropriated for their activities. In such cases, the blame for the deaths of civilians in any possible combat that may result between Israel and that terrorist group is 100% the fault of the terrorists.

But I have to wonder why, after decades of such heavy handedeness and cavalier disregard for "collateral damage

This is one of the myths that keeps getting propagated by those that are anti-Israel. Any objective research will show that Israel tries harder than almost any other nation that has been involved in conflict to minimize civilian casualties on the other side. Who else phones a building suspected to contain terrorists and/or their equipment in advance, to give the civilians time to evacuated, before destroying the building? Who else provides food, power, and water to the very population (Gaza) that is such a breeding ground for terrorists, just so civilians don't end up with a shortage of these?

Perhaps you'd like to take a look at some of the other conflicts around the world where the more powerful side really disregards collateral damage and is heavy handed. In such cases, the casualties are in the hundreds of thousands or in the millions per year, not in the hundreds.

if such tactics were effective counterterrorism tools, we shoudl see less terrorism after years of their use, not the same amount or more.

The tactics are effective to a certain extent. They keep terrorism at a certain level. If not for the tactics, terrorism would be higher. This can be seen easily every time Israel decreased their "heavy-handedness", that terrorism has increased. Specifically, after Israel pulled out of Gaza, or of southern Lebanon, thus decreasing their level and severity of occupation, terrorist attacks increased rather than decreased. While the tactics might not be good enough to lower and completely abolish it over time, they are good enough to keep it at the comparitively low and constant level that it has been at in recent years.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Bonam

[Black Dog]

Well, whatever you want to call it, it's the truth. If terrorists could fire rockets from a civilian area, and then know with 100% certainty that they would not get retaliated against while in that area, what would discourage them from doing it?

Is the certainty of “collateral damage” from reprisals currently a big deterrent? IOW: is the strategy working?

Anyway, I would further argue that if terrorists are in an area with civilians than either:

1) The civilians condone the actions of the terrorists, realize that they put themselves at risk by remaining in the vicinity of the terrorists, and remain in the area specifically to deter retaliation against the terrorists. By doing this, they provide meaningful military assistance to the terrorists, which means they are no longer civilians, but instead valid targets.

Or

2) They are forcibly compelled to remain in the area by the terrorists, or are unwilling to remove themselves from the area that the terrorists forcibly appropriated for their activities. In such cases, the blame for the deaths of civilians in any possible combat that may result between Israel and that terrorist group is 100% the fault of the terrorists.

Interesting that you take it for granted that there are, in fact, terrorists there. Also missing is the third option:

3) the civilians are minding their own damn business.

this is one of the myths that keeps getting propagated by those that are anti-Israel. Any objective research will show that Israel tries harder than almost any other nation that has been involved in conflict to minimize civilian casualties on the other side.

Except when they don’t.

The tactics are effective to a certain extent. They keep terrorism at a certain level. If not for the tactics, terrorism would be higher. This can be seen easily every time Israel decreased their "heavy-handedness", that terrorism has increased. Specifically, after Israel pulled out of Gaza, or of southern Lebanon, thus decreasing their level and severity of occupation, terrorist attacks increased rather than decreased.

Cites?

[cybercoma]

Interesting. Somehow, condemning the irresponsible leveling of civilian areas equates to saying that Israel should not defend itself. It also means one "hates" Israel. Very interesting indeed. Just wondering if anyone here thinks about what they say before they say it? I'm as guilty as the next person of posting before I think, but this thread takes the cake.

[jbg]

Er. No. Nowhere did I say anything about not exercising any form of self-defense. I was quite simply taking issue with the notion that the particular methods under discussion (in particular, Israel's policy of revenge killings) are all that stands between the people of Israel and extinction. Tha would be a false dilemma.

It is hardly a false dilemna.

What Israel's counterattacks do is force the state actor (who is charged with ensuring their own peoples' safety) in the area, i.e. Lebanon, to control the activities of the "irregulars" or insurgents operating within its borders. The other alternative, probably not palatable to Lebanon or other area under Israeli retaliation, is to allow Israeli forces leave to search house to house within its territory to root out insurgents.

These countries have an option. Either stop insurgent attacks emanating from their cuntries on bordering countries, or face massive retaliation.

So, clearly, I'm opposed to "counter attacks" against "terrorists" in civilian areas. This includes the "targeted" killings, instances where a disproportionate amount of force is used in civilian areas, and cases of collective punishment.

I guess whatever Israel does is wrong. But for the record the killing of Dar Yassin is the prime example of a "targeted killing". He was killed, along with his bodyguard and no one else, on an empty plaza. Is this the use of a "disproportionate amount of force" in a "civilian area"? Edited August 1, 2007 by jbg

[ScottSA]

Interesting. Somehow, condemning the irresponsible leveling of civilian areas equates to saying that Israel should not defend itself. It also means one "hates" Israel. Very interesting indeed. Just wondering if anyone here thinks about what they say before they say it? I'm as guilty as the next person of posting before I think, but this thread takes the cake.

I doubt you can even conceive of living in a place where you never know when a rocket may may fired at your house, or a suicide bomber may kill you or your kids next time they go downtown. I sincerely doubt you can imagine living in a place surrounded by 100 times the number of enemies of your people, who cheer whenever one of them manages to kill some of your people and who, if they had their druthers, would kill you and your kids and everyone like you in an instant. Can you begin to imagine the intrusive everyday fear?

Yet you find it easy, I know, to sit in your fat peaceful life over here, where you have a reasonable expectation...this decade at least...of going through your entire life without ever seeing a violent act outside the TV screen, and pontificating about the "irresponsible actions" of people who are in exactly that situation. You think the fight is one sided? The fact that the pigs and apes fight better and with better equipment is the only thing keeping them this side of a walk in the sea.

Do you really believe the Arabs would leave Israel alone if Israel stopped fighting back?

[Black Dog]

It is hardly a false dilemna.

Yes it is. A textbook example.

What Israel's counterattacks do is force the state actor (who is charged with ensuring their own peoples' safety) in the area, i.e. Lebanon, to control the activities of the "irregulars" or insurgents operating within its borders. The other alternative, probably not palatable to Lebanon or other area under Israeli retaliation, is to allow Israeli forces leave to search house to house within its territory to root out insurgents.

These countries have an option. Either stop insurgent attacks emanating from their cuntries on bordering countries, or face massive retaliation.

Which kinda undermines the notion that Israel takes great pains to avoid civilian casualties. Indeed,civilian casualties are a necessary part of the above strategy. A strategy based around the collective punishment of the state and its citizens for the actions of a third party cannot be said to follow the norms of armed conflict.

I doubt you can even conceive of living in a place where you never know when a rocket may may fired at your house, or a suicide bomber may kill you or your kids next time they go downtown. I sincerely doubt you can imagine living in a place surrounded by 100 times the number of enemies of your people, who cheer whenever one of them manages to kill some of your people and who, if they had their druthers, would kill you and your kids and everyone like you in an instant. Can you begin to imagine the intrusive everyday fear?

And I suppose you can? Of course not. This kind of thing is your porn.

[Bonam]

And I suppose you can? Of course not.

I dunno whether Scott has or not, but some of us here have actually lived in warzones.

[Black Dog]

I guess whatever Israel does is wrong. But for the record the killing of Dar Yassin is the prime example of a "targeted killing". He was killed, along with his bodyguard and no one else, on an empty plaza. Is this the use of a "disproportionate amount of force" in a "civilian area"?

Check your facts: the name was Sheik Ahmed Yassin (you were probably thinking of Deir Yassin, an Arab vilage that was the site of a massacre led by the Stern gang and Irgun during the 1948 war). And it was two bodyguards and at least seven other bystanders who were killed (as well as dozen injured) when a helicopter gunship fired two missiles into the crowded street in front of the mosque Yassin was leaving.

I dunno whether Scott has or not, but some of us here have actually lived in warzones.

So what? Even if he was talking from personal experience, I find Scott's invocation of what life is like for Jews in Israel to be manipulative and hollow. Cetainly one could probably trot out a similar account of what life is like for the average Mahmoud in the Palestinian territories as justification for armed resitance activity against Israel. But I doubt that would cut much ice for the "Israel right or wrong" crowd, nor should it. That's to say nothing of the underhanded accusation of anti-semitism directed at cybercoma.

[Bonam]

And it was two bodyguards and at least seven other bystanders who were killed (as well as dozen injured) when a helicopter gunship fired two missiles into the crowded street in front of the mosque Yassin was leaving.

So what would you suggest then? Should Israel only attack a known terrorist when it is completely 100% assured that no civilian could possibly be harmed in the attack? If they adapted such a policy, would it not simply enable terrorists to remain completely safe, by hiding among civilians, while continuing with their attacks?

See, the problem with your statements is, you seem to assert that on a level of general principles, Israel has a right to defend itself (which we all agree with of course). But when it comes to any specific means of defending itself, you seem to condemn just about any possible example. Since Israel's enemies hide among civilians, it is very difficult to strike them without some risk to those civilians. Israel tries to minimise those casualties as much as is feasible, but of course it is not always perfectly succesful.

What, specifically, do you propose should happen differently, in the context of Israel defending itself? What measures at harm reduction among Palestinian civilians should the Israeli army implement, that it has not yet implemented? What methods should it employ to effectively combat insurgents that are based in hospitals, schools, mosques, etc, in the Palestinians territories without endangering civilians that also use those buildings? How low of a civilian casualty rate as a side effect of strikes against militants would you deem acceptable?