Israel's Next War?

Ahnimus

dayan wrote:

No, it does matter that they are banned. Yes there is always a potential, but that's beside the point. It is not the same sort of "potential" that Iran might make nukes. Iran is making nukes. It is the government that is doing it, with the support of the Iranian people. Kahanists are not the government, and they have no support outside of their own circles, which are exceedingly small and entirely marginal to normal Israeli politics. I don't look at this like it doesn't exist. I look at it as it is, which is a group of crazies who are kept under control by a responsible government. Olmert is not carrying out the Kahanist ideology. If he were he would have killed or deported the Palestinians as well as Israel's Arab citizens, he would have destroyed the Dome of the Rock, and he'd be trying to conquer Jordan so as to create Greater Israel. He is doing none of these (although I wouldn't put it past you to claim he was, or perhaps he has the POTENTIAL to do it? lol) I've never said that Israel is a perfect society. What I am saying is that Israel, unlike its neighbors, is responsible in terms of controling its extremist elements. But perhaps that's too subtle a distinction for you to grasp.

Not a threat eh? They live underground? I think I'll take the word of Israel's former Security Chief instead of you, whoever the hell you are.

"The dream of these extremists"—to blow up the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, one of the most important holy sites in the Muslim world—"should give us sleepless nights," says former Israeli Security Chief Avi Dichter. "Jewish terror is liable to create a serious strategic threat that will turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a conflict between thirteen million Jews and a billion Muslims all over the world."

dayan

Ahnimus wrote:

Not a threat eh? They live underground? I think I'll take the word of Israel's former Security Chief instead of you, whoever the hell you are.

"The dream of these extremists"—to blow up the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, one of the most important holy sites in the Muslim world—"should give us sleepless nights," says former Israeli Security Chief Avi Dichter. "Jewish terror is liable to create a serious strategic threat that will turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a conflict between thirteen million Jews and a billion Muslims all over the world."

Yeah, if they ever manage to carry out an attack. If and when Kahanists ever blow something up then we can talk about this. Until then how about you stop trying to smear Israel with something that is truly not relevent at the moment.

angelica

dayan wrote:

Yeah, if they ever manage to carry out an attack. If and when Kahanists ever blow something up then we can talk about this. Until then how about you stop trying to smear Israel with something that is truly not relevent at the moment.

I understand if you don't think this is relevent at the moment. At the same time, I think putting information out there and allowing each individual to decide for themselves what is relevent to them is appropriate.

shiraz

angelica wrote:

I understand if you don't think this is relevent at the moment. At the same time, I think putting information out there and allowing each individual to decide for themselves what is relevent to them is appropriate.

It is not relevent at all, actually. The point is every state has these kind of groups, but in Israel we have special unites who are able to locate, catch, disarm & dismiss them BEFORE they're becoming a real threat. And when I say real, I mean well orgenized - ready to act groups. What dayan means is: it seems like Ahnimus is doing everything he can to miss the essence of the artical. Instead, he chose to focus on the fact Israel has such groups, a fact that nobody was trying to argue about.

Ahnimus

shiraz wrote:

It is not relevent at all, actually. The point is every state has these kind of groups, but in Israel we have special unites who are able to locate, catch, disarm & dismiss them BEFORE they're becoming a real threat. And when I say real, I mean well orgenized - ready to act groups. What dayan means is: it seems like Ahnimus is doing everything he can to miss the essence of the artical. Instead, he chose to focus on the fact Israel has such groups, a fact that nobody was trying to argue about.

It's just a part of what Israel is. Remember the Munich Massacre? Remember how Israel repsonded? Fight terrorism with terrorism I suppose. You have to know by now that Israel isn't pure and violence doesn't stop violence.

Ahnimus

THE ISRAELI RESPONSE TO THE 1972 MUNICH OLYMPIC MASSACRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENT COVERT ACTION TEAMS

shiraz

Ahnimus wrote:

It's just a part of what Israel is. Remember the Munich Massacre? Remember how Israel repsonded? Fight terrorism with terrorism I suppose. You have to know by now that Israel isn't pure and violence doesn't stop violence.

You are doing it again, we never said Israel is pure, just that at least we are controling etc' these kind of phenomenons. And what Munich has to do with this artical? It's like you're doing everything you can (going way off topic, for example) to see only the bad things around here.

Ahnimus

shiraz wrote:

You are doing it again, we never said Israel is pure, just that at least we are controling etc' these kind of phenomenons. And what Munich has to do with this artical? It's like you're doing everything you can (going way off topic, for example) to see only the bad things around here.

What do you see when you look at Hizbullah or the PA? All bad things? I'm just levelling the playing field.

shiraz

Ahnimus wrote:

What do you see when you look at Hizbullah or the PA? All bad things? I'm just levelling the playing field.

Hizbullah=only bad things. All the talks about some social netwarks of them - it is only for their Shi'ite supporters in southern Lebanon. They took advantage that the Lebanese govt did not do too much for these people, so they got their support via that way. And it is not just me saying this, you can find it also in Hizbullah inverviews. You know what? I think the best thing is to ask ruud, the Lebanese civilian who once said he would heve shot Nasralla in the head if only he had the opportunity to do so.

Amazing, the topic was "Israel is so far controling inner radical groups", and somehow all you could see is Hizbulla's good actions and Israel bad actions in Munich (?!?). Sure, you are only doing some research and don't pick sides. Yeah, right. The minimum you can do is stay on-topic, ok?

Ahnimus

shiraz wrote:

Hizbullah=only bad things. All the talks about some social netwarks of them - it is only for their Shi'ite supporters in southern Lebanon. They took advantage that the Lebanese govt did not do too much for these people, so they got their support via that way. And it is not just me saying this, you can find it also in Hizbullah inverviews. You know what? I think the best thing is to ask ruud, the Lebanese civilian who once said he would heve shot Nasralla in the head if only he had the opportunity to do so.

Amazing, the topic was "Israel is so far controling inner radical groups", and somehow all you could see is Hizbulla's good actions and Israel bad actions in Munich (?!?). Sure, you are only doing some research and don't pick sides. Yeah, right. The minimum you can do is stay on-topic, ok?

Dude, obviously I am not condoning the Munich Massacre. What the PLO did was wrong, really wrong. But Israel's response was no different. It's a good example because it's the same thing happening now. Israel's retaliation to wrong is wrong and we know that doesn't make it right. That's what I am saying. Israel has the right to defend itself, but not this way. This is just rediculous and Mossad and the Munich Massacre should have taught us all a few things, especially Israel. This isn't the way to peace.

angelica

shiraz wrote:

It is not relevent at all, actually. The point is every state has these kind of groups, but in Israel we have special unites who are able to locate, catch, disarm & dismiss them BEFORE they're becoming a real threat. And when I say real, I mean well orgenized - ready to act groups. What dayan means is: it seems like Ahnimus is doing everything he can to miss the essence of the artical. Instead, he chose to focus on the fact Israel has such groups, a fact that nobody was trying to argue about.

And I can see you feel it's not relevent either. We all have our own views and opinions.

We're all reasonably intelligent adults here and we can each read the article and draw our own conclusions.

Regardless of what Ahnimus' agenda is, he's just as entitled to his personal view and agenda as anyone else is to their own.

dayan

angelica wrote:

And I can see you feel it's not relevent either. We all have our own views and opinions.

We're all reasonably intelligent adults here and we can each read the article and draw our own conclusions.

Regardless of what Ahnimus' agenda is, he's just as entitled to his personal view and agenda as anyone else is to their own.

Yes he is, but his argument is flawed, and therefore merits a response. He is saying he simply wants to level the playing field by showing that Israel is also not perfect. First, nobody said to begin with that Israel is perfect. Second, this idea of leveling the playing field is ridiculous. The playing field isn't level. Hezbollah is a terrorist group that kills people. The Kahanists are would-be-terrorists that never get to kill people because Israel keeps them under control. That is a distinction. I'm kinda tired, but I'd recommend reading Leon Wieseltier on The New Republis online (http://www.tnr.com). He writes about the difference between moralism and morality. What Ahnimus is exhibiting is moralism but not morality. To paraphrase Wieseltier's last sentence, morality recognizes reality, whereas moralism seeks to shield morality from the real world. Ahnimus's morals are so pure as to be inapplicable to reality, and that is why I have a problem with him.

angelica

dayan wrote:

Yes he is, but his argument is flawed, and therefore merits a response. He is saying he simply wants to level the playing field by showing that Israel is also not perfect. First, nobody said to begin with that Israel is perfect. Second, this idea of leveling the playing field is ridiculous. The playing field isn't level. Hezbollah is a terrorist group that kills people. The Kahanists are would-be-terrorists that never get to kill people because Israel keeps them under control. That is a distinction. I'm kinda tired, but I'd recommend reading Leon Wieseltier on The New Republis online (http://www.tnr.com). He writes about the difference between moralism and morality. What Ahnimus is exhibiting is moralism but not morality. To paraphrase Wieseltier's last sentence, morality recognizes reality, whereas moralism seeks to shield morality from the real world. Ahnimus's morals are so pure as to be inapplicable to reality, and that is why I have a problem with him.

Oh, of course you're entitled to your opinion. As is the author you cited. As is Ahnimus, or myself of anyone else on this board, is what I'm saying.

I hear that you disagree with Ahnimus. I also know one can back their opinion with any source and yet it remains an opinion, to which we're all entitled.

dayan

angelica wrote:

Oh, of course you're entitled to your opinion. As is the author you cited. As is Ahnimus, or myself of anyone else on this board, is what I'm saying.

I hear that you disagree with Ahnimus. I also know one can back their opinion with any source and yet it remains an opinion, to which we're all entitled.

I'm not saying he can't hold an opinion. I'm saying that he is talking about something real and not theoretical, and about which there are therefore objective facts that can be stated. He has presented these facts on this thread in such a way as to twist the reality of the situation so that it is percieved in a way that suits his opinion rather than the reality. I have endeavored to present the reality as it is, in its proper perspective. I am not claiming that he has lied in any way, but that he has ommited facts that undermine his interpretation. To say that he has his opinion and I have mine and that they are both equally valid is overly simplistic. We are speaking about something concrete. If his "opinion," or more precisely, his interpretation of the facts does not present a complete understanding of reality, or does not make use of all the evidence, or is inconsistent with regards to the data, then his interpretation is actually less valid than one which offers a more complete understanding of reality, which incorporates all the evidence in its analysis and is consistent with regard to the data. To offer a very simple analogy, if someone has a blue piece of paper and asks two people what color the paper is, and one says blue and the other says green, you could say that they have two different and equally valid opinions but that would be kind of crazy. You would probably say that one of their opinions conforms better to reality and is therefore more valid. The same is true here, though the situation is obviously more complicated.

Ahnimus

dayan wrote:

I'm not saying he can't hold an opinion. I'm saying that he is talking about something real and not theoretical, and about which there are therefore objective facts that can be stated. He has presented these facts on this thread in such a way as to twist the reality of the situation so that it is percieved in a way that suits his opinion rather than the reality. I have endeavored to present the reality as it is, in its proper perspective. I am not claiming that he has lied in any way, but that he has ommited facts that undermine his interpretation. To say that he has his opinion and I have mine and that they are both equally valid is overly simplistic. We are speaking about something concrete. If his "opinion," or more precisely, his interpretation of the facts does not present a complete understanding of reality, or does not make use of all the evidence, or is inconsistent with regards to the data, then his interpretation is actually less valid than one which offers a more complete understanding of reality, which incorporates all the evidence in its analysis and is consistent with regard to the data. To offer a very simple analogy, if someone has a blue piece of paper and asks two people what color the paper is, and one says blue and the other says green, you could say that they have two different and equally valid opinions but that would be kind of crazy. You would probably say that one of their opinions conforms better to reality and is therefore more valid. The same is true here, though the situation is obviously more complicated.

What information did I omit?

karma defect

Ahnimus wrote:

Man, a bunch of Kahanists made a massive bomb and intended to blow up a bunch of little girls at a school.

Why do we hear so much about radical Islamic terrorists, when radical Jewish terrorists are bombing schools? Why don't we ever hear about that?

I don't know where you are from but it used to be the same over here. until some years ago the news was showed from the Israeli stand point. In the last ten years that has shifted somewhat to a more balanced coverage. Still I feel that the world is using two standards in this conflict. If a non western orientated country would do what Israel is doing now I think the consequences would be severe.

dayan

Ahnimus wrote:

What information did I omit?

You portray the Kahanists as if they are a well organized terrorist group with significant public support, that might very well become popular enough to take over the government, and that poses a very real threat of carrying out terror attacks that good destabilize the region. None of this is accurate, as I have pointed out, to which your sole response has been that it is possible. Well anything is possible, but in this case you are presenting the exceptionally unlikely as reality of the day, and that is disingenious.

dayan

karma defect wrote:

I don't know where you are from but it used to be the same over here. until some years ago the news was showed from the Israeli stand point. In the last ten years that has shifted somewhat to a more balanced coverage. Still I feel that the world is using two standards in this conflict. If a non western orientated country would do what Israel is doing now I think the consequences would be severe.

I disagree entirely. If a non-western country were to act as Israel is now the world would ignore it. Just look at Sudan, where there is a genocide being committed, and the only thing the West has done is offer words. One would have thought that maybe we'd learned from Rwanda. Or look at Russia. In they're fight against the Chechins they have leveled whole cities, but virtually no one notices. The sad fact is that when violence erupts around the world the West rarely takes notice, or if they do they rarely care.

Jeremy2009

dayan wrote:

I disagree entirely. If a non-western country were to act as Israel is now the world would ignore it. Just look at Sudan, where there is a genocide being committed, and the only thing the West has done is offer words. One would have thought that maybe we'd learned from Rwanda. Or look at Russia. In they're fight against the Chechins they have leveled whole cities, but virtually no one notices. The sad fact is that when violence erupts around the world the West rarely takes notice, or if they do they rarely care.

It's not that we dont take notice or dont care. I think becuase people see Americans right now and associate everything we do with war and carnage and destruction. Regardless if America deploys military members to those other countries for humanitarian aid, some will vew that as were trying to push our way of thinking onto them. I understand that many people dont like us for whatever the reasons, but I truly believe both sides of the table(i.e. republican and democratic) need to come up with some solutions to not just the current problems in the world but how to deal with future ones that will arise.

Ahnimus

dayan wrote:

I disagree entirely. If a non-western country were to act as Israel is now the world would ignore it. Just look at Sudan, where there is a genocide being committed, and the only thing the West has done is offer words. One would have thought that maybe we'd learned from Rwanda. Or look at Russia. In they're fight against the Chechins they have leveled whole cities, but virtually no one notices. The sad fact is that when violence erupts around the world the West rarely takes notice, or if they do they rarely care.

I think I'm still going with the former Israeli Security Chief. He seems to think there is a threat.

"The dream of these extremists"—to blow up the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, one of the most important holy sites in the Muslim world—"should give us sleepless nights," says former Israeli Security Chief Avi Dichter. "Jewish terror is liable to create a serious strategic threat that will turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a conflict between thirteen million Jews and a billion Muslims all over the world."