Brilliant!

NCfan

The Hezbollah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists can exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option.

There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media, and human rights organizations should stop falling for this gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda. Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of "overreaction," "disproportionality," and "violations of human rights." In doing so, they play into the hands of the terrorists and cause more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides.

If instead this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a win-win situation for the terrorists.

danmac

NCfan wrote:

The Hezbollah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists can exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option.

There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media, and human rights organizations should stop falling for this gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda. Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of "overreaction," "disproportionality," and "violations of human rights." In doing so, they play into the hands of the terrorists and cause more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides.

If instead this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a win-win situation for the terrorists.

Brilliant? No.

Blind. Belligerent. Blinkered. Borderline delusional. Yes.

Perhaps, before posting right wing opinion, which bears no resemblance to history or what is happening on the ground, is it out of the ordinary to ask you to engage brain before logging on around here?

Just a thought.

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

The Hezbollah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists can exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option.

There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media, and human rights organizations should stop falling for this gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda. Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of "overreaction," "disproportionality," and "violations of human rights." In doing so, they play into the hands of the terrorists and cause more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides.

If instead this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a win-win situation for the terrorists.

You use the word 'terrorism' a lot in your post. Can you please define the meaning of the word as you understand it?

Eva7

NCfan wrote:

The Hezbollah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists can exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option.

There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media, and human rights organizations should stop falling for this gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda. Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of "overreaction," "disproportionality," and "violations of human rights." In doing so, they play into the hands of the terrorists and cause more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides.

If instead this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a win-win situation for the terrorists.

excuse me, where is the "Brilliant!" part?

NCfan

danmac wrote:

Brilliant? No.

Blind. Belligerent. Blinkered. Borderline delusional. Yes.

Perhaps, before posting right wing opinion, which bears no resemblance to history or what is happening on the ground, is it out of the ordinary to ask you to engage brain before logging on around here?

Just a thought.

Blind? Belligerent, are you serious? If that post was belligerent, what do you call your own?

You can post left wing opinion, but I'm not allowed to post right wing opinion? What kind of double standard is that? Personally, I don't think this post was any kind of wing it is just the shear truth that....

"By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians.”

How about you try to explain how this paradigm is incorrect instead of leveling personal attacks on me.

LOL, even the lefties on this board think you're a nut job...

NCfan

Eva7 wrote:

excuse me, where is the "Brilliant!" part?

"the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option."

I think this is a great summation of the problem.

Eva7

NCfan wrote:

"the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option."

I think this is a great summation of the problem.

If this is true, then welcome in the new middle ages.

Puck78

NCfan wrote:

"the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option."

I think this is a great summation of the problem.

I don't find the reported part brilliant, but simplicistic. "Islamic radicals" are one part of the problem, but your "brilliant" statement doesn't include "Israeli radicals", international links and trade... I think that the problem is nonlinear and there's some active feedback between the two parts...

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

"the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option."

I think this is a great summation of the problem.

As great as you believe your one-eyed summation of the problem to be. I repeat: can you please define the word 'terrorism' as you understand it?

Eva7

Puck78 wrote:

I don't find the reported part brilliant, but simplicistic. "Islamic radicals" are one part of the problem, but your "brilliant" statement doesn't include "Israeli radicals", international links and trade... I think that the problem is nonlinear and there's some active feedback between the two parts...

I actually would find more brilliant if anyone answered to the question of what "The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media, and human rights organizations" should exactly do not to promote the terroristic agenda... promote the "infinite war" instead?

To put the issue on these terms is not only semplicistic, but a trap for war propaganda. The answers to these problems are outside the logic of "challenge", "terrorism", "exploitation", "war". The independent media (which are not anti-Israel, but pro-geneva convention) and the human rights organizations and, I would add, the civil society, are completely outside this logic. The international community should be also, but unfortunately it is not. and this is the main problem.

NCfan

Puck78 wrote:

I don't find the reported part brilliant, but simplicistic. "Islamic radicals" are one part of the problem, but your "brilliant" statement doesn't include "Israeli radicals", international links and trade... I think that the problem is nonlinear and there's some active feedback between the two parts...

All I was trying to say is that I found this to be a great summation of how terrorist act.

I'm not trying to sum up the entire Middle East here, or even the current conflict with Israel.

But it is so telling how you guys will disagree with this statement, which is entirely 100% true. This is how terrorist operate. We know WHY they do this, because they are not strong enough to fight a conventional war. But that doesn't mean it is right, justified or moral.

Bascially, you have all of the modern world telling groups like Hamas and Hizbollah that we don't accept you or your ideologies. But they refuse to listen, they think it is the rest of the world who is wrong and backwards becuase we don't believe in their radical agenda.

And it is close to immpossible to stamp out this type of human trash becuase they hide behind civillians. Therefore, we must live with their constant terrorist killing and murder of innocent civillians, becuase the international community won't wipe them out once and for all.

Can you blame Israel for trying to keep the power balance in their favor with regard to Palestinians? Why would Israel try to strengthen a country who has one of the most corrupt governments in all of the world. A governement in which evey possible dollar is funneled to their radical sects to continue a relgous fight against Israel in order to "push them into the sea".

danmac

NCfan wrote:

LOL, even the lefties on this board think you're a nut job...

Who, where, when?

Come on, you know the game, fact, proof, things you seem to leave behind before logging on to the Pit.

danmac

Byrnzie wrote:

As great as you believe your one-eyed summation of the problem to be. I repeat: can you please define the word 'terrorism' as you understand it?

what he said.

what is your term of terrorism, or terrorist, or terror activity?

Come on. The loony left await your insightful opinion.

Puck78

NCfan wrote:

And it is close to immpossible to stamp out this type of human trash becuase they hide behind civillians.

oh, now i understand: you're talking about the use of human shields by the israeli army...

(sorry, i couldn't resist)

It seems to me that you miss a bit of knowledge of human rights violations in the area.

NCfan

danmac wrote:

what he said.

what is your term of terrorism, or terrorist, or terror activity?

Come on. The loony left await your insightful opinion.

I don't think the left is looney, only people who peddle their agenda like you do. I think the heart of the left is in the right place, I just disagree with their strategy.

I define terrorism just like anyone else does... crimes commited against a civillian population to intimidate and force them to obey another's will.

Go ahead, and call the US terrorist, and Bush the greatest terrorist of all... etc. etc. etc... I accept all criticism. Some of it is entirely warranted and true.

NCfan

Puck78 wrote:

oh, now i understand: you're talking about the use of human shields by the israeli army...

(sorry, i couldn't resist)

It seems to me that you miss a bit of knowledge of human rights violations in the area.

If the IDF uses human shields, then no I was not aware of that. How do you know this is true?

Eva7

NCfan wrote:

All I was trying to say is that I found this to be a great summation of how terrorist act.

I'm not trying to sum up the entire Middle East here, or even the current conflict with Israel.

But it is so telling how you guys will disagree with this statement, which is entirely 100% true. This is how terrorist operate. We know WHY they do this, because they are not strong enough to fight a conventional war. But that doesn't mean it is right, justified or moral.

Bascially, you have all of the modern world telling groups like Hamas and Hizbollah that we don't accept you or your ideologies. But they refuse to listen, they think it is the rest of the world who is wrong and backwards becuase we don't believe in their radical agenda.

And it is close to immpossible to stamp out this type of human trash becuase they hide behind civillians. Therefore, we must live with their constant terrorist killing and murder of innocent civillians, becuase the international community won't wipe them out once and for all.

Can you blame Israel for trying to keep the power balance in their favor with regard to Palestinians? Why would Israel try to strengthen a country who has one of the most corrupt governments in all of the world. A governement in which evey possible dollar is funneled to their radical sects to continue a relgous fight against Israel in order to "push them into the sea".

Well, if you're trying to say that terrorism operates through propaganda, none can disagree with you.
I don't blame Israel for tryint to keep the power balance, but for committing atrocities that from the eyes of one palestinian family slaugheterd are not different than the bombs in Madrid or London.
then you talk of corruption in the palestinian government... what this has to do with it? if this is a good reason for a massacre of civilians, please wipe also Italy out from the face of earth.

danmac

NCfan wrote:

I don't think the left is looney, only people who peddle their agenda like you do. I think the heart of the left is in the right place, I just disagree with their strategy.

I define terrorism just like anyone else does... crimes commited against a civillian population to intimidate and force them to obey another's will.

Go ahead, and call the US terrorist, and Bush the greatest terrorist of all... etc. etc. etc... I accept all criticism. Some of it is entirely warranted and true.

No, this is not about Bush, for once, this is about Israel and those you slander as 'terrorists'.

"crimes commited against a civillian population to intimidate and force them to obey another's will."

Is Israel not guilty of this, on a scale approaching twenty times that of Hezbollah? (400 civilians dead to 17) Oh and what of the displaced, half a million in the south of Lebanon, is that not a crime against a civilian population?

danmac

Eva7 wrote:

Well, if you're trying to say that terrorism operates through propaganda, none can disagree with you.
I don't blame Israel for tryint to keep the power balance, but for committing atrocities that from the eyes of one palestinian family slaugheterd are not different than the bombs in Madrid or London.
then you talk of corruption in the palestinian government... what this has to do with it? if this is a good reason for a massacre of civilians, please wipe also Italy out from the face of earth.

Yes, which corruption?

The corruption that elected a government your Government did not agree with, per chance? As happened in Lebanon?

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

I define terrorism just like anyone else does... crimes commited against a civillian population to intimidate and force them to obey another's will.

Do yourself a favour. Bite your tongue for as long as it takes you to read this:

Who are the Global Terrorists?
Noam Chomsky
Ken Booth & Tim Dunne (eds.), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, Palgrave Macmillan, May, 2002


http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm

Puck78

NCfan wrote:

If the IDF uses human shields, then no I was not aware of that. How do you know this is true?

It was set as illegal by the israeli constitutional court about 1 or 2 months ago. if you make a research in the newspapers (you might find something in The Guardian) you will find about it. There are some horrifying pictures about this, of israeli soldiers using children and human shields. You might find some old press reports about it by human rights watch and amnesty international. However, journalists reported the persistent use of human shields also after that it was ruled out. being now illegal, it will be interesting to see if there will be trials about it, in the future.
This is not the only human rights violation: destruction of homes, torture in jails... You can't defend any of them in the name of a "war on terror"...

NCfan

Byrnzie wrote:

Do yourself a favour. Bite your tongue for as long as it takes you to read this:

Who are the Global Terrorists?
Noam Chomsky
Ken Booth & Tim Dunne (eds.), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, Palgrave Macmillan, May, 2002


http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm

Do you think you define your position any better by being a dick?

I've read plenty of Noam Chomsky, and I don't agree with it. I have an open mind to anything, and I think he is just plain wrong. I do not see the world as he does, or you for that matter.

It's just laughable how you preach tolerance, yet you turn militant and become an asshole towards anyone who disagrees with you. Grow up.... mature....let you arguements stand for themselves. Most of all, treat others with respect, even if they disagree with you.

NCfan

Puck78 wrote:

It was set as illegal by the israeli constitutional court about 1 or 2 months ago. if you make a research in the newspapers (you might find something in The Guardian) you will find about it. There are some horrifying pictures about this, of israeli soldiers using children and human shields. You might find some old press reports about it by human rights watch and amnesty international. However, journalists reported the persistent use of human shields also after that it was ruled out. being now illegal, it will be interesting to see if there will be trials about it, in the future.
This is not the only human rights violation: destruction of homes, torture in jails... You can't defend any of them in the name of a "war on terror"...

Sorry, I'm not going to believe it unless I hear about from credible sources. I'm not saying you are wrong or this never happened. I'm just saying that untill I hear of these reports from MULTIPLE, CREDIBLE sources - then they are just rumors.

inmytree

NCfan wrote:

Do you think you define your position any better by being a dick?

I've read plenty of Noam Chomsky, and I don't agree with it. I have an open mind to anything, and I think he is just plain wrong. I do not see the world as he does, or you for that matter.

It's just laughable how you preach tolerance, yet you turn militant and become an asshole towards anyone who disagrees with you. Grow up.... mature....let you arguements stand for themselves. Most of all, treat others with respect, even if they disagree with you.

Oh, the irony is just painful....and pitiful...and amusing...

all at the same time...

Eva7

NCfan wrote:

Sorry, I'm not going to believe it unless I hear about from credible sources. I'm not saying you are wrong or this never happened. I'm just saying that untill I hear of these reports from MULTIPLE, CREDIBLE sources - then they are just rumors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314898.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,867343,00.html
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/israel0509.htm
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2465
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2331
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279175,00.html
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList247/4F80230CC25027A1C1256F96003C83B6
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article317787.ece
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/044e49e8-3682-11da-bedc-00000e2511c8.html
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150502005?open&of=ENG-ISR
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=244727&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

.....are these enough MULTIPLE CREDIBLE sources for you?

Puck78

Eva7 wrote:

.....are these enough MULTIPLE CREDIBLE sources for you?

can you believe me that i was going to write you, right now, "Eva, i don't have time to make the internet research, right now, can you please find the sources for me?", ahahahah

Puck78

(but now i really want to see NCfan answer...)

John Budge

NCfan wrote:

"the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option."

I think this is a great summation of the problem.

So you're applauding your own post?

Eva7

Puck78 wrote:

can you believe me that i was going to write you, right now, "Eva, i don't have time to make the internet research, right now, can you please find the sources for me?", ahahahah

Puck, in my country this is called... labour exploitation!!!

Puck78

Eva7 wrote:

Puck, in my country this is called... labour exploitation!!!

come oooooon, i'll send you some cakes for that.
By the way, your country is really strange :P (for the public: we come from the same country)

NCfan

Eva7 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314898.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,867343,00.html
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/05/israel0509.htm
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2465
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2331
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279175,00.html
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList247/4F80230CC25027A1C1256F96003C83B6
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article317787.ece
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/044e49e8-3682-11da-bedc-00000e2511c8.html
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150502005?open&of=ENG-ISR
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=244727&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

.....are these enough MULTIPLE CREDIBLE sources for you?

Yep, that will do. I believe you.