When????Originally Posted by ShowtekGER
When????
It doesnt seem so easy to find this sort of incident. maybe you have some examples?
Usually it seems that the paliestinians are doing somthing like throwing rocks or its a crowd of palestinians advancing on an israeli position (ie in a threatening manner) or somthing to that effect.
Maybe the tensions are just so high that it is really difficult to get a decent sized peaceful group together without at least one psychopath or um... "rightious crusader".
There are also scenarios in this sort of conflict where the elite engineer situations where they try to ratchet up the tension to the point where they get one of their own plebs killed so that they can get sympathy for the cause and make them a martyr ... i suspect the palistinian elite may well be one of those.
the last word of the sentence you quote, "peacefully", is probably a bit misleading as such protests do not usually involve the kind of "peaceful" protests as we know them from the west. however, finding evidence of israelis killing absolutely innocent palestinians or people thought to be palestinians is possible nevertheless. for example, in response to pedal's pro-israeli propaganda video i watched a pro-palestinian pedant, "death in gaza", in which the director is ultimately shot while approaching israeli soldiers in the dark with a white flag. we can only imagine how many such incidences go unaccounted when western film teams with cameras are not present.When????
on the other hand, evidence that palestinians who pose no threat to israelis, which i really tried to allude to in the quoted statement, is readily available. only one week back this video was in the news of israeli settlers killing a palestinian guy in the west bank. the palestinians only had rocks. israeli soldiers kill palestinians that pose no true threat even though they can't be considered peaceful (e.g., throwing rocks) all the time. you read it in the news weekly and google is full of such information. here is on example:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...150521659.html
imagine if american soldiers shot mexicans that tried to cross into texas illegally. the situation illustrated in the article is even more skewed as the area the palestinians were trying to enter is actually theirs. israel only occupies it.
If throwing rocks is peaceful protest - then the word has lost meaning since I have little doubt I could kill someone with rocks and I could certainly incapacitate them with a single one if it was a good throw. Maybe a good helmet would mean I could only seriously injure the person...
Anyway... Even in NZ... I would not have a high expectation of survival if I attacked a armed solder with rocks.
As to the death in gaza thing...
It seems to me you probably have an israeli soldier who must not have seen their TV signs, not recognised their language as english (let alone that they were saying they were journalists) and either not recognised or not have seen the white flag (which apparently works for the locals but not so much for the journalists).
I mean... he wasnt exactly looking for a english speaking tv journalist head for a trophy on his wall... I could believe that with arabs (afterall there are some US soldiers who seem to want that every now and then) but not with foreign journalists...
i specifically argued that throwing rocks was not peaceful protesting.
i doubt that throwing rocks is that dangerous for people who have equipment. it's probably not very nice. but the blatant injustice here is that israeli soldiers return the stones with bullets. imagine the same scenario in the west where policemen are bombarded with stones by protesters all the time. they are hurt rather rarely and respond with teargas and arrests at most.
my point is exactly that the israeli soldier probably didn't recognize his victims as arabs, otherwise he wouldn't have shot. they wouldn't dare to handle westerners the way they handle arabs as killing westerners is problematic whereas it's okay to kill arabs.As to the death in gaza thing...
It seems to me you probably have an israeli soldier who must not have seen their TV signs, not recognised their language as english (let alone that they were saying they were journalists) and either not recognised or not have seen the white flag (which apparently works for the locals but not so much for the journalists).
I mean... he wasnt exactly looking for a english speaking tv journalist head for a trophy on his wall... I could believe that with arabs (afterall there are some US soldiers who seem to want that every now and then) but not with foreign journalists...
and it wasn't viewed as a legitimate action by anyone. according to israel the soldier violated the rules of engagement and an english court ruled that the incidence was murder.
Really? what kind of person throws rocks like that - its like walking into a room and shooting with your eyes closed... Imagine if the police threw rocks into the protest crowd... they would hve to want to seriously injure someone even if they didnt always suceed...
Im still not getting the point here, your example just seems to make the israelis look better. Ie it highlights that in such situations they usually dont have all the information required to make the right decision. I dont quite get how one can draw from the shooting of a westerner that israelis target arabs.they wouldn't dare to handle westerners the way they handle arabs as killing westerners is problematic whereas it's okay to kill arabs.
there is a wide space between "evil israelis targeting arabs for trophys" and ""a breach of the rules of engagement" because soldier was .. lets say... "pissing his pants with nervousness due to his first night on the job". (just a hypothetical excuse)and it wasn't viewed as a legitimate action by anyone. according to israel the soldier violated the rules of engagement and an english court ruled that the incidence was murder.
my point being that to drive the more "israel is evil" argument you need somthing a bit closer to the former as otherwise there will be what you might call collateral damage from this sort of chain of logic.
1 israeli leadership set up check point because it stops terrorist attacks on a group of jews. lets say there is a net benefit (ie they kill less than they save)
2 leadership hire with the intent of getting the appropriate people and try to train them - but dont always get it right.
3 those people try to do the best job they can, but at times are in situations where they dont have the right information avalilable, or they are nervous or they are lacking some areas of training.
4 given such limitations solder makes the rational choice to 'defend' themselves
5 as a result they sometimes shoot some innocent people.
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-06-2012 at 12:18 PM.
I did find this just for interest
from uganda in march i think
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNew...82L06L20120322
and from egypt protests
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41246699...rotests-egypt/
"• Three people have been killed in the protests. Reports say two protesters were killed in Suez, while a police officer died after being hit by a rock in Cairo. An Egyptian official said one protester died of respiratory problems after inhaling tear gas, while another was hit by a rock."
also there was a campaign related incident in DR Congo for a civilian i think - maybe that was another case of friendly fire...
and this sort of thing doest exactly win them sympathy from the israelis
"Yehuda Shoham, 5 months
Yehuda Shoham, five months old, from the community of Shilo, died on June 11, 2000, of wounds he sustained a week earlier when a Palestinian hurled a rock at the family car, in which he sat with his father Benny and mother Bat-Sheva, near Shilo. The father eulogized his baby son: "Pure soul. All he did was laugh and smile at everyone. A babe who harmed no one."
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-06-2012 at 12:43 PM.
Speaking of NZ (although completely out of context!), I'm thinking of giving a paper this December at a conference at the University of Auckland. I know it's one of the best universities in the world, probably top 75, so I would be excited to see the campus and meet the people there. I also read that the city of Auckland is ranked 3rd in the world in terms of quality of living, and 9th by the Economist as the "most livable." Absolutely impressive!
tell me when you will be there (I mean when you know) - I'll take a day off or more if i need to
thrasher might come to NZ too.
YEAH! real live civ people!
wow, NZ must be very peaceful. throwing rocks at the police is pretty normal. ever seen a G8 demonstration?
however, it's not THAT dangerous for the police. they are properly equipped and armed.
it shows that israeli soldiers kill supposed palestinians without much hesitation. they wouldn't do the same in tel aviv because the life of an israeli is worth more. what is there not to understand. even the english courts agree with me. i don't think there's any evidence that this soldier had any good excuse for shooting, not to mention that he changed his account of the story once.Im still not getting the point here, your example just seems to make the israelis look better. Ie it highlights that in such situations they usually dont have all the information required to make the right decision. I dont quite get how one can draw from the shooting of a westerner that israelis target arabs.
that isn't my agenda. my point is that one dominant power oppresses another. i'm sure that if the palestinians were backed by the US and the west they would oppress the israelis.drive the more "israel is evil"
are you not critical of such statistics at all? do their criteria and premises in no way seem arbitrary and meaningless to you? this is the same as the happiness study which put denmark at the top. i doubt that such studies say very much about so relative concepts.
i might do a semester abroad in auckland in about 1.5 years. though, there are other interesting places i would consider, such as san fransisco and australia in general. moreover, i am also dependent on luck. but we'll see what it will be. it could be cool to come near someone from this boardtell me when you will be there (I mean when you know) - I'll take a day off or more if i need to
thrasher might come to NZ too.
YEAH! real live civ people!
I'm sure you'll hate each other and they will think that they should have went to Mtl, because SVPM seems so nicer in reality and all those Montrealers banging on their casseroles seems expressive people too.
ahh another real civ person. you are all welcomei might do a semester abroad in auckland in about 1.5 years. though, there are other interesting places i would consider, such as san fransisco and australia in general. moreover, i am also dependent on luck. but we'll see what it will be. it could be cool to come near someone from this board
If any of you get stuck without a place to stay I might have a room (depending on if we have an overseas student at the time). only temporary though.
the same goes to anyone here ever travelling to denmark or northern germany. always welcome!
good point by the CIA counterterrorism guy about how the killings of people in the middle east by drones might actually just further the terrorist problem instead of combating it. i never get tired to insist on the fact that trying to solve problems by only attacking its symptoms instead of removing its root causes is futile.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...acks-too-broad
Harsh!!
I don't doubt you one bit... honestly. I was just trying to pay my respects to Scottie and his country. That's all...
I know an expert in CIA history, so I should ask his thoughts on this as well...
Awesome!!!! I almost met SPVM when I went to Montreal for a conference, but then I got super busy and plus didn't see him posting here for a while, but if I go to NZ I would love to meet you. When is Thrasher going??ahh another real civ person. you are all welcome
If any of you get stuck without a place to stay I might have a room (depending on if we have an overseas student at the time). only temporary though.
That is kick ass. I like to choose my conferences on the basis of good places to visit, and sadly I've never been to Denmark so I'd like to go... and of course there are plenty of great conferences in Denmark and Germany.
hmmm people proving they are caring and sharingbsocialists by trying to hit random strangers with rocks...
or maybe its just sociopaths joining in, in a mob...
So what is your hypothesis for what he was thinking?it shows that israeli soldiers kill supposed palestinians without much hesitation. they wouldn't do the same in tel aviv because the life of an israeli is worth more. what is there not to understand. even the english courts agree with me. i don't think there's any evidence that this soldier had any good excuse for shooting, not to mention that he changed his account of the story once.
even if someone is your enemy - better to understand how they really think.
maybe that would be because the israelis would be trying to kill them...that isn't my agenda. my point is that one dominant power oppresses another. i'm sure that if the palestinians were backed by the US and the west they would oppress the israelis.
In my mind there is a scenario... i mean one that i often thought of...
So you are being confronted by someone who wants fight - but for some reason you know you can win the fight (reason being you are stronger, more skilled or maybe have somthing on you that can be used as a weapon) for some stupid reason the other guy just doesnt seem to get it... And after pausing as long as you can without either giving up the advantage or getting hurt, you use that advantage on him - likely causing more harm to him than you might otherwise have done.
the thought after this is first "why did you make me do that you idiot!" then "maybe you'll think twice next time eh?" not so much "maybe i should have just let him hit me"
interesting you should point this out because i've often thought about this. my conclusion is mostly that wanting to kill the guardians of the system, politicians, and governments is highly democratic because that's what you're supposed to do according to the theory of democracy when your government does not represent you.
try to think with the mind of somebody who throws rocks and holds anti-establishment opinions. i tried to think as a pro-lifer and thought that if you think that you know that aborting a fetus is the same as murder it is quite legitimate to violently protest abortion. how can you expect compromise? we would also protest inexorably if a majority of the population wanted to kill all the handicapped.
if we thus assume that some of these rock throwers do it because they think they know that the system is unjust and politicians do not represent them, violently protesting against it seems equally legitimate.
that being said, i don't think that all of them do it because of such reasons. i know quite a few who have done it just do it for the thrill of it, though the politically active ones are in the majority. i think if you suggest that it's about sociopathy or another very abnormal dispositional trait i strongly disagree with you.
i think that palestinian lives simply aren't as important to israeli soldiers which is completely in line with everything we know about war and conflict situations. they are dehumanizing. furthermore, the israeli-palestinian conflict has a long history and is fueled by religion and ideology. the soldier simply shot the englishman because he didn't obey israeli arbitrary rules which only count because israel can enforce them due to their military superiority. in other words, he did it because he could.So what is your hypothesis for what he was thinking?
even if someone is your enemy - better to understand how they really think.
i know that you mean but i'm not sure if this applies to the israeli-palestinian situation. perhaps a significant number of palestinians hold self-serving delusions about the conflict, i don't know. but i'm sure that at least politicians are rational enough to see that they're in the clearly inferior position.In my mind there is a scenario... i mean one that i often thought of...
So you are being confronted by someone who wants fight - but for some reason you know you can win the fight (reason being you are stronger, more skilled or maybe have somthing on you that can be used as a weapon) for some stupid reason the other guy just doesnt seem to get it... And after pausing as long as you can without either giving up the advantage or getting hurt, you use that advantage on him - likely causing more harm to him than you might otherwise have done.
Im not sure I agree with your assumption that that is what is supposed to happen in a democracy. And if it is - who said that is what is supposed to happen?
anyway - the system never really represents you - so when do you stop violentlently forcing your position on others?
well I suppose I can understand - to use your israeli example - that they lower the value of the welfare of police officers (dehumanize them) to the point at which they are willing to stone them.try to think with the mind of somebody who throws rocks and holds anti-establishment opinions.
this isn't a thought process - it is just background information that may be true. FWIW also true about almost everyone on earth (ie that they care more about those like them than those not sharing such comonalities). that is no excuse for shooting those people however. id consider you an arsh*le (deserving to be convicted) if you shot a neighbours cat and I genuinely think they are considerably less human than you.i think that palestinian lives simply aren't as important to israeli soldiers which is completely in line with everything we know about war and conflict situations.
again - not much of an explination.the soldier simply shot the englishman because he didn't obey israeli arbitrary rules which only count because israel can enforce them due to their military superiority. in other words, he did it because he could.
This goes to a basic political theory of mine that when there is a conflict - each side explains the actions of the side they support in detail (whatever the reason is) and attribute the other sides actions in the vaguest possible way. that means that their bad actions can be interpreted as part of their nature whilst the favoured sides can be seen as being driven by external forces.
if your government is illegitimate you're supposed to overthrow it. i think this is part of the american constitution amongst others. it also makes a lot of sense. of course, what protesters want isn't another democracy and this is not in line with democratic theory.
i basically agree with you that using violence in ways such as those used in the west mostly isn't very productive politically but philosophically i don't have much of a problem with it, especially because i think you completely overestimate the dangers of throwing stones at heavily armed and equipped soldiers or riot police. i think the ones more often hurt in the end will be protesters. and they don't always being the fight.
the issue is whether people truly believe that a system is unjust. suppose you would. would you not violently protest it? i would if that system would destroy my life (now it only destroys others' lives)r. and that's why i absolutely understand palestinian protesters as the system they suffer under is doubtlessly terrible for them and very unjust. their violent protest makes sense even though i do think it is counter-productive and worsens their situation.
you know, isn't that just the best explanation we have? this does not seem like a random mistake. it would be a heavy coincidence that, when combat in the west bank is actually filmed for once, someone is killed for more or less no reason. i find it hard believe that this doesn't happen when cameras are absent. in fact, as i argued before, it is quite easy to find information on israeli soldiers shooting at palestinians for absurd reasons.this isn't a thought process - it is just background information that may be true. FWIW also true about almost everyone on earth (ie that they care more about those like them than those not sharing such comonalities). that is no excuse for shooting those people however. id consider you an arsh*le (deserving to be convicted) if you shot a neighbours cat and I genuinely think they are considerably less human than you.
that sounds like a mixture of the self-serving bias and fundamental attribution error.again - not much of an explination.
This goes to a basic political theory of mine that when there is a conflict - each side explains the actions of the side they support in detail (whatever the reason is) and attribute the other sides actions in the vaguest possible way. that means that their bad actions can be interpreted as part of their nature whilst the favoured sides can be seen as being driven by external forces.
these are not the reason for my argument because it isn't a simple argument at all. every human being could be the israeli soldier carelessly shooting "the enemy" and this phenomenon is a quite complicated one. dehumanization, moral disengagement, cognitive dissonance, many factors are involved here.
and i don't really see how i am biased in my attribution towards palestinian behavior. point out to me specifically where i'm not being objective. i already argued that if they were in the powerful position they would likely oppress israelis. thus, i am not inferring any dispositional characteristics on either side, only situational factors.
I find it tough to get that being undemocratic in the sense of using your physical force to impose your will on those who might otherwise act according to the votes of the demo (like a despot might) can be an intrinsic part of democracy. it might be contingently useful in the way that the death penalty might be for those sufficiently likely to re-offend - but Im not sure I'd, as a result, go as far as saying that the death penalty is a fundimental part of civil society or that violence is a fundimental part of democracy.
If it is in the US constitution that violence is part of demoracy then I'd put that down to the ramblings of a constitution that seems to think I should be running round with a semi automatic in my home.
I think that in general revolutions are like you might see most wars. they get coopted from what they are 'supposed' to be about by various forces, tend to end up killing more people than they save and tend to just accelerate things that were happening peacefully anyway.
Even many theoretically good revolutions like the american revolution i think were a huge waste of time and lives (ie why be the USA when you could be australia and skip the horrors of a war?).
when you start using that as a way of judging "right". You run into problems. afterall the police probably honestly think the crowd are stupid trouble makers who should be shot if they throw too many rocks at their heads. you might easily end up with a philosophy that says both are perfectly justified in slaughtering eachother..the issue is whether people truly believe that a system is unjust.
that may be - I suspect the people throwing the rocks overestimate it too. I mean... they do it because they intend to seriously hurt someone. And my point thus remains.especially because i think you completely overestimate the dangers of throwing stones at heavily armed and equipped soldiers or riot police.
yes, but the palistinains would definitely report such an incident. you dont just see your son or daughter get killed under a white flag and then ignore it.i find it hard believe that this doesn't happen when cameras are absent. in fact, as i argued before, it is quite easy to find information on israeli soldiers shooting at palestinians for absurd reasons.
We already can get those statistics so that data is 'status quo'.
I guess there is also the possibility that hte palistinians set the news guys up to die, I say that only because they said they did that themselves - and yet - if they did, surely they would be dead by your own logic....
hmm - i wasnt so much calling you biased as observing two approaches to explaining behaviour (that may happen to be biased).and i don't really see how i am biased in my attribution towards palestinian behavior.
I dont think your approach towards the policeman/soldier thought process as stated is equivilent to you approach towards the protester/palistinian as stated. Afterall the policeman and soldier also have a "political perspective" and the violent protester and palestinian are also tools of larger forces making decisions based on dehumanization of their opponents that some subsection of those forces presumably promotes.
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-08-2012 at 12:40 PM.
i think you're supposed to overthrow your government in a democracy when it's no longer a democracy. i.e., when the government changes the system in favor of some other political system, e.g. a totalitarian one. then, it doesn't represent you anymore and that's illegitimate.
you might call this "imposing your will on others" but i don't really have a problem with that when systems are truly wrong. for example, we celebrate dissidents in nazi germany nowadays even though the majority of the population might have possibly disagreed with their activism back then.
i don't know about that. do you think the syrians could peacefully abolish assad's regime? likewise, i find it hard to believe that england would have given up their colonies peacefully at that point in time.I think that in general revolutions are like you might see most wars. they get coopted from what they are 'supposed' to be about by various forces, tend to end up killing more people than they save and tend to just accelerate things that were happening peacefully anyway.
Even many theoretically good revolutions like the american revolution i think were a huge waste of time and lives (ie why be the USA when you could be australia and skip the horrors of a war?).
i agree with that more or less. it's all about belief as that's all we have as long as there's no doubtlessly defined right or wrong. if violent policemen and protesters believe that they're defending something intrinsically good how can we posit that what they're doing is wrong?when you start using that as a way of judging "right". You run into problems. afterall the police probably honestly think the crowd are stupid trouble makers who should be shot if they throw too many rocks at their heads. you might easily end up with a philosophy that says both are perfectly justified in slaughtering eachother..
lol, you have a very conservative view on these rock throwers. some probably really do want to hurt others, palestinians that face israelis with guns for example. others don't. my view of western stone throwers is overwhelmingly that they do it in order to express dissent, discontent, rebellion, and so on. i don't think all of them have in mind doing some kind of serious damage while some probably do.that may be - I suspect the people throwing the rocks overestimate it too. I mean... they do it because they intend to seriously hurt someone. And my point thus remains.
while i probably agree with you that the fact that israelis relatively carelessly kill palestinians is common knowledge i don't think that most people are aware of this. you have to care to look. most people don't. and this image of that english guy dying a palestinian death is powerful by forcing people to look.We already can get those statistics so that data is 'status quo'.
have you seen the incident? if you had you probably wouldn't devise this hypothesis.I guess there is also the possibility that hte palistinians set the news guys up to die, I say that only because they said they did that themselves - and yet - if they did, surely they would be dead by your own logic....
the film team got scared as they realized that they might be in danger in some kind of conflict situation. they were in a house so they secured a white flag and left it approaching israeli soldiers who besieged the house calling "we are english journalists" and the like. then the guy was shot. they did this completely on their own.
surely, both sides are caught up in a situation that dehumanizes but the israelis aren't the ones primarily suffering from it as they are more powerful. this is my whole issue with the conflict. palestinians won't wait in tel aviv street corners to shoot bypassing israelis because they can't. israelis can and they do in the west bank and gaza strip.hmm - i wasnt so much calling you biased as observing two approaches to explaining behaviour (that may happen to be biased).
I dont think your approach towards the policeman/soldier thought process as stated is equivilent to you approach towards the protester/palistinian as stated. Afterall the policeman and soldier also have a "political perspective" and the violent protester and palestinian are also tools of larger forces making decisions based on dehumanization of their opponents that some subsection of those forces presumably promotes.
well Im ok with that a system could be sufficiently bad to justify a war. but that is pretty much the same sort of argument regarding if one should for example invade and engage in nation building in iraq. Ie there is a major danger you will just cause a lot of harm.
In the long run, yes of course. It would have taken time. In the case of england - Australia and NZ didnt see the need to have a revolution - and that worked just fine for us. Im not sure if this was from the starting situation a good idea in syria - assad appears to be fairly benign for a dictator... until you threaten his power - and then he becomes just a little genocidal... From the revolutions point of view maybe it would have been better to just wait a bit, then again i dont dispute that some leaders might be so terrible that it is worth doing some pretty horrible things to your country to get rid of them...do you think the syrians could peacefully abolish assad's regime? likewise, i find it hard to believe that england would have given up their colonies peacefully at that point in time.
well I guess im prefectly fine with the fact that there may be a definition of right that works like that but Im not sure I'm very concerned by when that definition applies or doesnt apply.if violent policemen and protesters believe that they're defending something intrinsically good how can we posit that what they're doing is wrong?
Well I guess a guy in a bar who punches some innocent person in the face probably is expressing somthing too... maybe they have anger management issues... maybe they want to express discontent at some unknown thing by hurting someone...my view of western stone throwers is overwhelmingly that they do it in order to express dissent, discontent, rebellion, and so on. i don't think all of them have in mind doing some kind of serious damage while some probably do.
well I accept the factual aspects of that - that they kill quite a few palistinians, and that they do so in a more agressive manner than a police force in the west might deal with such protests. But at the same time they are dealing with a different situation.that the fact that israelis relatively carelessly kill palestinians is common knowledge i don't think that most people are aware of this. you have to care to look. most people don't. and this image of that english guy dying a palestinian death is powerful by forcing people to look.
I dont know what most people would say in regard to a question like "do more israeli jews or more palistinians arabs die as a result of the conflict in israel/palestine". If they get that wrong then yes that point is worth making to them.
well in reality it seems a little unlikely, that requires a certain level of betrayal that seems unlikely from your average individual.. maybe something you coul get from an organization like a branch of hamas or whatever, it is possible they were effectively talking to hamas.. But it seems a bit odd - still... you seem to have missed the facts that I noted.have you seen the incident? if you had you probably wouldn't devise this hypothesis.
So from what i saw :the film team got scared as they realized that they might be in danger in some kind of conflict situation. they were in a house so they secured a white flag and left it approaching israeli soldiers who besieged the house calling "we are english journalists" and the like. then the guy was shot. they did this completely on their own.
1) the film crew said they were leaving because there was no longer anything to film as the bulldozers had left (or somthing similar to that).
2) they said that they then left under a white flag because they were told by the locals that that is what they did from time to time.
3) they decided it was safer to approach the israelis under that flag to get the ok to leave while shouting at them that they were journalists / tv people - (now that was probably a mistake and a difference between what they do and what the locals do, i guess the locals dont talk to the soldiers, but if I was a local i imagine i'd be thinking/saying .. you're gonna do what?!?)
but that is a different issue. these are individual peopel in individual situations making decisions. the forces that are behind them (eg the israeli state and hamas or whatever), whether it happens in palestine or israel and whether they were able to afford a nice breakfast are a step removed.... and discussions of who suffers and who doesnt are a step removed from discussions about the moral status of those causing the suffering.surely, both sides are caught up in a situation that dehumanizes but the israelis aren't the ones primarily suffering from it as they are more powerful. this is my whole issue with the conflict. palestinians won't wait in tel aviv street corners to shoot bypassing israelis because they can't. israelis can and they do in the west bank and gaza strip.
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-10-2012 at 12:41 PM.
That seems right... given a couple of caveats. The injustice has to violate what you perceive to be absolutely fundamental rights, as opposed to simply being an inconvenient nuisance (as with somewhat high taxes or a prohibition on recreational drugs). And second, the system doesn't allow for reform from within itself. If those two caveats are fulfilled, then violence may be the answer.
Interesting point. Oddly, some liberals absolutely forbid invasion of an oppressive regime, although they sanction revolution. The main difference seems to be one of internal versus external transformation. But if fundamental rights are being abused, and there is no chance of peaceful reform from within the system, I personally don't have a problem if the violent overthrow comes from within or without---especially since dissident powers from within aren't at all likely to have the means to overthrow the tyrants insofar as tyrants don't willingly give weapons to the people they're oppressing!!!
OKC Thunder win the first against the Heat... kind of funny how I'm in Seattle, moving close to OKC where the Seattle Super Sonics left us to become the Thunder and now they may win it all! In Seattle people are bummed that they left, of course. But I'm just happy that another team is on its way to destroying the Heat. If James goes back to 10 more NBA finals and loses them all I'd be a happy guy!!
haha. Exactly the same thought I had with a friend monday night (except about the first win which didn't had occured yet...)! Following your team then...
I had this same kind of frustration when the Nordiques de Québec where sold to Colarado and became the Avalanches and won the Stanley cup the first year they were there.Never once when they were in Quebec City.
Sounds even worse than what happened to Seattle, since your team left for another country. That's just overall really rough....
I don't think I would have necessarly prefered if it would have gone in an other province... Maybe I would have felt even more betrayed. I feel more competition inter-province than inter-country or even more between Montreal and Toronto.Sounds even worse than what happened to Seattle, since your team left for another country. That's just overall really rough....
Back in town. Leaving again in 2 days. Random readings I found interesting today:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/08/living...iref=obnetwork
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....ics-of-energy/
http://www.slashgear.com/mans-10-yea...ture-13233793/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ors_picks=true
Enjoy!
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Assuming you're serious & are willing to answer some probative questions... this has my curiousity as I largely couldn't care who wins one way or the other.
Why? Would you ever consider changing this position? If so, what would influence you to consider changing your position?
thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal
We have some debate on shale gas here. The government has put a break (2 years) on the exploitation until some environmental analysis are done because there was huge protest from the population based on how dirty the fracking technology can be. There is not much incencitive right now to invest in this because the price of gas has dropped crazily because of the mass exploitation Pensilvanya and other states has started. There is no huge profit for the private sector right now because technology is new and almost no gain for the population without even taking in account the cost of environmental damage. I'm not against the exploitation, but right now from what I have read the externalities makes shale gas a really bad investment except with a really tight reglementation.
I laugh for your civ 2 link!
I think they have been looking into fracking here too. As i understand it fracking with modern technology isnt that bad or dangerous - although I guess you would want regulation obviously. Of course for some getting any fossil fuel is an unaceptable environmental damage let alone the sort of fairly unavoidable damage associated with getting stuff out of the ground.
haha imagine playing civ rev for 10 years with the same game
I won with the dutch/iranian/sweedish alliance (4 cities one of which you loose on the first turn) within the WWII timeframe (no restarts or cheats, also with turks and with spanish). so to be so perfectly balanced in skill with the AI that a game could last till 3991.. is impressive indeed. heh... but seriously I admire his persistance.
maybe i will take civ II back up again! Il try to engineer a ai so strong and psychotic
Last edited by ScottieX; 06-14-2012 at 11:04 PM.
It's not very nice of me--I know--to want James to lose. He's probably a nice guy. Mostly, though, I don't want him to win because I like competition. When James decided to take his talents to South Beach, he did so with the desire to dominate the NBA for a good 10 years or so surrounded by two fellow Super Stars, Wade and Bosh.
Now, I know that MJ, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, the Mail Man, Tim Duncan and other greats were also surrounded by great players. But none of them did so to this extent. LeBron teaming up with Wade and Bosh would be equivalent to MJ adding not only Scottie Pippen (the equivalent of Bosh) but also Dr. J or Isaiah Thomas. That's just ridiculous. Or can you imagine Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, instead of facing off in multiple NBA finals, decided to group together, along with Moses Malone, in order to win all the championships of the 80s???
What I don't like about those scenarios is that they would have the intention of killing the competitive dynamic of basketball. I prefer competition because it makes us stronger, and it reveals fortitude of mind and spirit. As it turns out, there has in fact been quite a bit of competition in the last two finals, but that wasn't the intention. The intention was simply to roll over everyone, thereby making the NBA a much less compelling form of entertainment. My guess is that the reason there has in fact been more competition than expected is because the same personality disposition which compelled James to seek out the easy path is the same trait which makes it difficult for him to rise to the occasion.
Would anything change my mind? Not sure. Maybe a few more years of mellowing out on my part...
Edit: There have of course been other teams with as many or more big names as the Heat: the early 80s Lakers, the present day Celtics, and the Lakers with Kobe, Shaq, the Glove, and Karl Malone. But in each of those cases some of the big names were past their prime, as with the Celtics' Garnett or Payton and Malone.
i'm talking about populations, not elites making decisions.
according to common morals that does not excuse or justify israeli behavior towards palestinians.well I accept the factual aspects of that - that they kill quite a few palistinians, and that they do so in a more agressive manner than a police force in the west might deal with such protests. But at the same time they are dealing with a different situation.
and as i said, i don't think it is just about israelis trying to deal with a difficult situation, although i'm sure that's part of the reason behind their behavior, but that it's very important that a huge power gap exists between israel and palestine and other arabs. the israelis know this and do not seriously wish to create a fair situation. as in most or all relationships of unjustified unequal power, the more powerful one abuses its power and increasingly subdues the other. hence, why palestinian lives are worth less than other lives to israeli soldiers.
if power was equal on both sides the palestinians would, magically, receive a much fairer treatment, regardless of the complexity of the situation. i'm even inclined to state that peace would be much nearer if that were the case.
it wouldn't surprise me if many western people thought that more israelis died from the conflict as most western reports show suicide bombers blowing up israeli targets. in the arab world, the opposite might be the case as it may be plausible to assume that israeli violations are more often reported.I dont know what most people would say in regard to a question like "do more israeli jews or more palistinians arabs die as a result of the conflict in israel/palestine". If they get that wrong then yes that point is worth making to them.
you are actually right and i was completely wrong. the incident where the journalists argue that they might be in danger must be from an earlier part of the film or another, similar film. so your point that palestinians might have actually misled them to act like this in order to get them into trouble stands.So from what i saw :
1) the film crew said they were leaving because there was no longer anything to film as the bulldozers had left (or somthing similar to that).
2) they said that they then left under a white flag because they were told by the locals that that is what they did from time to time.
3) they decided it was safer to approach the israelis under that flag to get the ok to leave while shouting at them that they were journalists / tv people - (now that was probably a mistake and a difference between what they do and what the locals do, i guess the locals dont talk to the soldiers, but if I was a local i imagine i'd be thinking/saying .. you're gonna do what?!?)
but do you think it was a lawful killing? even the israeli military didn't think it was.
the dehumanization of both sides and the relative dispersion of suffering is relevant here because it causes significantly more palestinian deaths than israeli deaths. of course, the individual soldier in the individual moment was influences by this dehumanization.but that is a different issue. these are individual peopel in individual situations making decisions. the forces that are behind them (eg the israeli state and hamas or whatever), whether it happens in palestine or israel and whether they were able to afford a nice breakfast are a step removed.... and discussions of who suffers and who doesnt are a step removed from discussions about the moral status of those causing the suffering.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote