Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

[Robert Campbell]

Here's a passage that Pamela Geller didn't make a fuss over:

From the point of view of Islamic theology, Islamic jurisprudence and Islamic history, the vast majority of Islamic history, it has been shaped or defined by a notion of multiculturalism and multireligiosity, if you might use that term. From the very beginning of Islamic history Islam created space for Christians of various persuasions, of Jews and even of Muslims of different schools of thought within the fabric of society.

Many are unaware that the Ottomans, the Ottoman Empire, ruled over a vast multicultural group of societies. The Ottomans ruled over not only Turks but Arabs and Greeks and Kurds and Armenians and a variety of different religions. It was actually the end of the Ottoman Empire and the end of what you might call multiculturalism within our own historical norms of Islam and the adoption of a Nation State paradigm and a nationalism which identified the nation and the national identity with one culture or one ethnicity or one language, and the rise of modern Turkey at the end of the Ottoman caliphate meant there was no more space for Greeks and Kurds and Armenians and Arabs.

Now I wouldn't say that the old multiethnic empires (including the Ottomans' long-time enemy, Austria-Hungary) were horrible in every respect.

However, the Imam surely knows, and is choosing not to mention, that the Ottoman Empire consigned practitioners of Christianity and Judaism to dhimmi status. The Ottoman sultans and their bureaucrats selectively enslaved large numbers of their non-Muslim subjects, on top of importing large numbers of slaves from outside the empire. The empire grew rapidly by waging aggressive war, and continued to wage wars of conquest until its military power declined. The massacres of Armenians were undertaken in the empire's final days, but before the last sultan was deposed—and they were spurred on by jihadi rhetoric.

So the Imam is serving up sanitized history to a wannabe-mulitcultural audience, over half of which had seen Fahrenheit 911.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

4. Regarding the Madrid and London bombings.. I, and many other people including many non Muslim Americans believe that those attacks, as well as 9/11 were false flag operations by elements of the CIA and their creation Al Qaeda to justify war and the big profits it produces for the international bankers, pharmaceutical companies and military industrial complex and to justify removing more and more liberties from the people. I'm not sure if that's what Imam Feisal Rauf believes..

Adonis,

Why do you believe that 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings were the work of the CIA?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

However, it is possible, with the right studies to go through and find which verses were revealed at what time and the context which they were revealed. A really good version of the Qur'an I like does this well. It is called The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an: Explanatory Translation. By Pickthall. This is an excellent one because it explains the context and time that they were revealed as well as any other issues which is very handy.

Adonis,

Other translations supply some of the chronology with footnotes, but a more detailed approach would be helpful. Thanks.

In your opinion, is the passage about there being no compulsion in matters of religion one of those that was subsequently abrogated?

Robert Campbell

[Libertarian Muslim]

(1) A non-Muslim could not have any idea what shari'a consists of.

Not so, there are many well respected scholars on Islam that are not Muslim, who've actually taken the time to do the appropriate research etc.

(2) A Muslim who does not know anything about shari'a couldn't either. (What percentage of Muslims, in your opinion, don't know their rear end from their elbow where shari'a is concerned?)

It's hard to quantify because most know a little about something and others know something about a little.. But in terms of Muslims around the world that have a proper understanding of Islam. I'd say that firstly, most are in the West and are probably some of the biggest Muslim scholars in the West..

(3) Further, it is not necessary to specify what those Muslims who really do understand shari'a think it is.

Well it is necessary, but it's a big big topic.. It's easier if people ask questions about Shariah so that those who do have knowledge on the subject can respond to it.. Unless of course you'd like to get educated as to what Islamic law states, it's a big course.. To be really competent I believe it requires more than 20 years of study, to the status of Mufti for 'Sunnis' and Ayatollah for 'Shia'. These are the only groups that we consider are suitable to make religious edicts on the issues. That's not to say that all Ayatollahs and Muftis are correct, sometimes the name of such is handed out very loosely depending on geographical location and I'd also never trust the opinion of a Mufti from particular schools such as the Wahhabi or Salafi school, also I don't accept religious edicts relating to politics from any Ayatollah that believes in Wilayat al Faqih as being a legitimate system of government.

(4) The possibility that any real Muslim (well, let's say, any Muslim who is not a member of the Taliban or the Sa'udi royal house, or a follower of Osama bin Laden) might subscribe to an "incorrect and unIslamic" interpretation of shari'a is not to be dwelt on.

It should be dwelt on and addressed.. It's an incredibly important issue that the Muslim community needs to deal with. But I don't think demonizing Islam is the way to do it.. A lot of the Muslim world are uneducated as to what Islam says and instead blindly follow what their society, tribe and culture tells them that Islam says.. OR worse still, follow people who are guided by hate..

You frequently speak as though all of the world's Muslims are one big corporate "we"—but how many Muslims actually subscribe to your preferred interpretation of the Qur'an and of Islamic law?

Well, I think a lot of Muslims do, at least the ones I've met.. Not that we agree on all things.. But things are also changing.. I'm coming across more and more Muslims that are Libertarians and believe that Islam and Libertarianism are both very close.. And of course, I've started making my own efforts to educate the community.. I've been doing that with the general community here and I've also been trying to contact the Chechen leadership as well as former fighters to share these ideas with them. I believe they will be well received by the Chechen people.

PS. I've asked a couple of times for your opinions of four ahadith on the subject of homosexuality, which I posted on February 28, 2010. Two are quoted here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8058&view=findpost&p=92083

and two more here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8058&view=findpost&p=92104\

Stating your views on these would help the rest of us understand what you think shari'a is—and what you think it isn't.

Also, I apologize about not getting back to you on that.. I did make a reply and sent it a few weeks ago but my Safari shut down and it didn't save which was right before I went to university that day and I completely forgot about redoing it.

In my opinion, those hadiths firstly come from books that I don't take hadith from because I don't trust the authenticity of them.

Next, in terms of the quotes, I don't believe the punishment of adultery is suitable for homosexual acts between people that are not committing adultery and instead are committing fornication like it describes unmarried men. There are different punishments for adultery than there are to fornication and I believe that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him has made that distinction very clearly.

So within an Islamic State there would be punishments to those who are under accountable to Islamic law (which doesn't include all people within the state) who are convicted of a crime on the testimony of four reliable witnesses who testify to all have seen the same event at the same time as each other.

The next quote about those men who mimic women and vice versa as being cursed is a complex issue. I don't think it's just talking about men who are acting effeminate and women who act masculine, rather I think it also has something to do with men who dress like women (especially to get into places where men have no right to be) and vice versa.

Also, the issue of tansgender people has been addressed by many scholars who've stated that in some cases, it's acceptable for some people to have gender reassignment surgery done. It's a hotly debated topic but it does occur, even in Iran.. In fact, probably only in Iran..

You're using that big corporate "we" again. The 12 Danish cartoons are offensive to all of "us." All of "us" would regard reprinting the cartoons as humiliating. Nonetheless, "we" all believe in freedom of speech. And so on.

It's not hard to see why.. In Islam we believe the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him is the example for all people to follow, that he was the most perfect example of what a person should be and he is loved and revered by all Muslims. So which people who love and revere something would not be offended when that thing is insulted so savagely?

Could the point of reprinting the 12 Danish cartoons just be to distinguish yourself and those who think as you do from those Muslims who believe themselves entitled to kill anyone who portrays the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light?

No.. It couldn't..

I'd never expect an Objectivist who reveres Ayn Rand to do something similar with her.. That would be wrong

By the way, do you believe that any picture or drawing of Muhammad is sacrilegious?

It depends, a lot of scholars say it is, some say it isn't. I'd personally avoid it.. The reason I and many scholars suggest to avoid it is because when you personify a Prophet of God as a picture, it invariably leads to racism like that which was done with the Roman style paintings of Jesus, peace be upon him.

Obviously, one could be mightily offended by a cartoon of Muhammad wearing a turban with a bomb in it, and still consider a portrait of Muhammad that presents him positively to be OK.

Well probably not, due to the reasons above..

But most media coverage of the reaction to the Danish cartoons included the assertion that in Islam any picture of the Prophet is forbidden.

Yes, for some the reaction would have been to that, but the real kick to the testaculars was the inflammatory nature of the cartoons.. They were intended to offend, and offend they did.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1. The US DOES have more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has non Muslim blood, there is no doubt about that.

Adonis,

This is probably one of the silliest comparisons I have ever seen--simply from a cognitive level. That's one of the reasons I didn't comment on it, instead merely presented it.

Rauf knows better, too. That's another reason I presented him saying it without commenting on it.

Al Qaeda is a tiny organization. (Hell, even the Taliban's entire army is only about 50,000 tops, from what I have read and Al Qaeda was counting on them for protection.)

The USA has a population of over 300 million and military presence all over the globe. It has recently been involved in two major wars with Muslim countries. Of course the casualty count is higher.

That's like saying that the entire Wallmart chain of thousands of stores has more defective merchandise than the corner grocery store in a small town and imagine you are making an intelligent comparison..

How about another comparison? Who killed more innocent Muslims? Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein?

Both killed oodles and "there is no doubt about that."

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

Now, Rauf and others are using the clearly false rhetoric to claim moral superiority or at least moral equivalency.

I think people who use the term "moral equivalency" are by definition nationalists. They implicitly disregard any proof of the impropriety of the actions of their side on the grounds that they are the "good guys" and the other side is the "bad guys", instead of taking each action on either side and judging it in context.

That is the difference between you and I Darrell. You are obsessed with defending your nation as a whole; I am interested in judging each act of each individual in context. Undoubtedly a person so concerned would be called "leftist" by you.

It's not that I'm opposed in principle to judging the actions and then rolling them up into an overall appraisal. Indeed, given where I choose to live, I have made such an appraisal already. It's that you want to bypass that rigor and skip to the overall appraisal and then fully back your side regardless of the specific sins it commits, you aren't interested in the crimes that those you choose to designate "good guys" have committed.

In other words, I am in principle opposed to crime as such, whereas you are only opposed to your side losing. It's like a football game, only on a larger scale.

Shayne

Hi Shayne,

Thank you for only labelling me one thing at a time and giving some reasons to support your assertion. However, note that you didn't address my point. Your method of argument, which is actually typical for liberals, is to attack me or my motives in an attempt to discredit my argument. If there is something wrong with the messenger, then there must be something wrong with the message. That is an ad hominem attack in its purest form. It is also a logical fallacy. Whether I am a nationalist or not (and I'm not) is completely irrelevant to the validity of my argument.

Nancy Pelosi, in a recent interview, in response to a question about the protests against the building of the Ground Zero Mosque, said that she supported an investigation into who was funding the protests. That is an ad hominem attack. She completely ignored the possibility that the protesters could have a valid point and chose to focus on the possibility that there might be a sinister motive behind the protests. If you don't like the message, question the motives of the messenger.

Now to your points. You state that people that use the term "moral equivalency" are, by definition, nationalists. That is a non-sequiter. Moreover, it is not generally true, in my experience. People that use the term "moral equivalency" are actually people that are highly cognizant of context and they use it to describe arguments made by people that are guilty of context dropping. That may appear to be cheerleading for one side over the other, but only if the observer is also context dropping.

For example, a protester outside a prison where a man is about to be executed might say that the state is just as bad as the criminal, that the executioner is committing murder by putting the murderer to death. But, that ignores the context. The murderer initiated the use of force against an innocent person. The state is preparing to put a guilty man to death. So, the action of the state is not murder and the protester is guilty of drawing a moral equivalency between two different killings that are not, in fact, equivalent.

As an aside, I personally oppose the death penalty, but not because the murderer doesn't deserve to die. I oppose it because the probability of error is far too high, in my opinion.

I don't have time to give another example right now, but you get the idea.

It is simply false to assert that I always cheerlead for the U.S. or for conservatives or Republicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have often been harshly critical of the government, conservatives and/or Republicans. However, I am fundamentally opposed to the left because the left consciously embraces progressivism/socialism and, in so doing, embraces views that are essentially incompatible with freedom and individual rights.

Darrell

[Martin Radwin]

The Most Terrifying of All Battles: When the Enemy Lies Within Ourselves

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/08/most-terrifying-of-all-battles-when.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Martin,

There goes another bigoted article.

When an article proposes to bash bigotry and shows how bigotry operates on all sides, I will take it seriously. When it goes on and on to show how only the side scapegoated by the author is bigoted, it's just another form of bigotry itself. In an article like that, the side is important, not the issue of bigotry.

Look at the evidence this guy, Arthur Silber, presented of bigotry: opinions of schlubs taken from newspaper articles about one person who is worried about this, and another who is concerned about that.

He did go after Tunku Varadarajan for a good part of the article and called him a racist when I think he actually meant bigot. Then he had to backpedal on the very charges he made against Varadarajan, but snobbishly concluded that "the fact that Varadarajan happens to support the 'mosque' near Ground Zero means less than nothing."

I can't take stuff like this seriously.

Here is the mistake. Silber claims that people who oppose the Ground Zero mosques are as follows: "Such people cannot be reasoned with, and it is futile to try." I claim that people like him "cannot be reasoned with, and it is futile to try." He is in denounce the denouncers at all costs mode. That means it is OK to fudge the evidence by highly selective omissions, mockery, and insinuate that a few people he cherry-picks represent a broad collective.

That's a typical bigoted form of argument. The message is that their bigotry is worse than my bigotry. People who do this rarely use this kind of language because it sounds so ugly, but the message is about as clear as daylight after you get past the moral crusading tone and start seeing it.

What we are doing on this very thread here on OL shows that both supporters and opponents of the mosque "can be reasoned with." We sure can. This is exactly what we are doing. Reasoning with each other.

I judge the article by Silber to be partisan crap.

Geller is way too partisan also--to the point of bigotry, but at least her level of evidence is serious. I quoted her because of her evidence, not because of her hysteria. I notice that Silber bashed her, but stayed a long way away from the evidence she presented (like Rauf's own statements).

Michael

[sjw]

Darrell,

Is that "liberal" epithet supposed to be an insult? I find it hilarious. Not gonna address such silliness, it'll just make it less funny.

Calling something non-sequitur (or non-sequiter) doesn't make it so. My point is that we need to judge individual actions on an individual basis and in context. Do you disagree? For example, I understand that Israel is kicking some Palestinians out of their homes, homes they have had for decades. On its face, this is unjust, and is in fact, an act of war. I am willing to hear the argument on both sides, but so far when I've heard the Israeli side, it seems to amount to "a Zionist theocracy has a right to exist" -- and then they plow down more individual homes.

Shayne

[sjw]

Michael,

I think it is admirable how you are fighting bias, but is "bigotry" really the right word here? Looking it up in the dictionary, technically your usage is fine, but it has always connoted a racial bias to me. That's why I disagreed with you before, but if you are using "bigot" in a more general sense then I see where you are coming from.

Another point is that just because someone is biased does not mean they do not have valid points to bring to the table. So I never dismiss someone on the grounds of bias, I try to sift through what parts are true and what parts are not. I find Objectivists in general as incredibly biased and inculcated with regards to big business, but the principles behind their bias are mostly true (they just tend to misapply them).

Shayne

[sjw]

More Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8vz-2mNO5I

[sjw]

MSNBC on hero Ron Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ6Hzf0x1vk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... is "bigotry" really the right word here?

Shayne,

I use bigotry in rhetoric to mean an epistemological method where you hate something, then knowingly falsify reality to prove to others that the object of your hatred deserves destruction and scorn.

That's different than bias. In fact, there is nothing wrong with bias. Nor is there anything wrong with hatred, destruction and scorn for that matter when they correspond to reality.

Biased people can reason with each other, since reality is their final arbitrator. Reality takes precedence over their evaluations. They have to be shown reality in a clear manner for that to happen, but they are willing to look and unwilling to fake it.

Bigoted people never can reason correctly since reality--to them--is merely a tool you can distort to win an argument and persuade others to destroy something or someone you hate.

Biased people correct any oversimplifications they may use when they catch themselves using them. Bigoted people resort to rhetoric and dishonesty to maintain their oversimplifications and they shove them down other people's throats when they can get away with it.

If you want to see the difference on an anarcho-libertarian level, look at George Smith as a great example of a biased rational person. Look at this article by Silber for a bigoted version of the same kinds of arguments. (I won't judge Silber himself as a whole since I don't know enough of his writing--although I do know enough of it to know he is not emotionally balanced.)

I see the difference between bias and bigotry like between night and day. Bias is a normative choice, but one based on respect for reality and it is filtered through experience and self-reflection. Bigotry is a commitment to raw hatred as a primary and employs experience and self-reflection as tools you can distort to keep the hatred alive.

So, to answer your question, yes, bigotry is the correct word. I cannot find a more precise one. And it comes with the added benefit of exposing the hypocrisy of those who are bigots, but call the objects of their bigotry "bigots."

I generally tend to piss them off on all sides. I can't stand their epistemological method. I am not like them, even when I happen to agree with an argument they promote. I make that as clear as I can and that often gets under their skin on a visceral level.

Michael

[sjw]

Regarding bias, I would put it this way: we all naturally have a certain perspective or vantage point on things, and tend not to see the big picture without effort. It is normal and natural (and unfortunate). People who are unaware of this are ignoramuses, and these are mostly just the young and the mentally-deficient; people who are aware but don't make an effort to be objective are dishonest, but we all can err in this regard.

Regarding your comments on bigotry, I guess I just don't see how you are conclusively deciding that someone is a bigot. E.g. the Lew Rockwell guy, I can see that he is biased against government in any form, I myself don't see that as coming from dishonesty, nor did I think you made a convincing case.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

So you think that someone like Silber can be reasoned with and will respect reality?

Maybe. I don't know. Based on that bigoted article, initially I would say no. I don't feel like going though Silber's article line by line to show the distortions of reality and even shoddy scholarship that made him have to recant (while still spewing his hatred). I mentioned the patterns. You are free to come to your own conclusions.

Here's an acid test.

Show an anarcho bigot a person who is actually kind-hearted and anti-preemptive war, but for reasons of his own clearly calls himself a neocon--and this neocon merely asks the bigot why he does not mention the evil on the other side.

If yelling, falsifying reality and excitedly pointing fingers at the bigot's scapegoat start, you see the acid burn.

You can do this with any bigot. Merely adapt the person's stated beliefs and question to suit the bigotry.

Michael

[sjw]

Michael,

You may just be better at perceiving bigotry than I am. I certainly understand what you are talking about. Certain people are immune to learning anything that doesn't fit with their perspective. I usually only discover that when it becomes brazenly obvious because they've blown a gasket or something. But perhaps it is better to let the person conclusively prove that they are a bigot than to guess that they are one.

On a related point, so far I think I've found that most anarcho-capitalists do seem to be bigots in the sense you're talking about. Not that the ranks of Objectivists are overflowing with great specimens of rationality.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

On a related point, so far I think I've found that most anarcho-capitalists do seem to be bigots in the sense you're talking about. Not that the ranks of Objectivists are overflowing with great specimens of rationality.

Shayne

Ah. You noticed.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

You might notice that I only call the anarcho bigots bigots when I read them calling other people bigots in bigoted articles of their own.

(I have done this with bigoted Objectivists, too.)

Once again, being anarcho is not synonymous to being bigoted. Bigotry is defined by epistemological method, not by the position being advanced.

If they want to play the bigot card against others to advance their position, I think it is only fair to play it against them if that is what they are doing.

On a side note, I believe a person makes a terrible mistake when he allows a bigot or a bigoted argument to advocate for his position. (And look at how many people--ones who are not bigots--do this as they stand silently by, or even make approving grunts and other such noises with their mouths.)

All this does is create tribes and throw reason into the trash pile. It takes a good idea off of the moral high ground and dumps it into a swamp.

Michael

[Darrell Hougen]

Calling something non-sequitur (or non-sequiter) doesn't make it so. My point is that we need to judge individual actions on an individual basis and in context. Do you disagree? For example, I understand that Israel is kicking some Palestinians out of their homes, homes they have had for decades. On its face, this is unjust, and is in fact, an act of war. I am willing to hear the argument on both sides, but so far when I've heard the Israeli side, it seems to amount to "a Zionist theocracy has a right to exist" -- and then they plow down more individual homes.

I agree that, "we need to judge individual actions on an individual basis and in context." If you put up arguments about individual actions and context supported by evidence and reason, I will be perfectly happy to debate you. I may not agree with you, but that is a solid basis for discussion.

I have mixed feelings about the Israeli situation. Israeli actions against Palestinian people and land sometimes seem to be unprovoked and, when they are, they should be condemned.

A talk show host once posed the problem this way. If Israel's neighbors left it alone, do you think that Israel would attack them? No I don't. On the other hand, I see developments on land in the West Bank being built on Palestinian land. Is the West Bank part of Israel or not? Is Israel at war with the Palestinians or not? If not, then they shouldn't be violating the rights of Palestinians to their personal property. On the other hand, the Palestinians continue to refuse to make peace with Israel. So, perhaps they are at war and perhaps the slow attrition is justified. It's a messy situation.

Darrell

[sjw]

A talk show host once posed the problem this way. If Israel's neighbors left it alone, do you think that Israel would attack them? No I don't. On the other hand, I see developments on land in the West Bank being built on Palestinian land. Is the West Bank part of Israel or not? Is Israel at war with the Palestinians or not? If not, then they shouldn't be violating the rights of Palestinians to their personal property. On the other hand, the Palestinians continue to refuse to make peace with Israel. So, perhaps they are at war and perhaps the slow attrition is justified. It's a messy situation.

The problem I have with your description is that you are saying that *this* mother and children need to be kicked out onto the street because "Israel" and "Palestine" are at war. This is why I call you a nationalist: you act as if the nations have primacy over what happens to the individuals, versus the other way around.

I think nations should be held accountable. If *ANY* woman and child is kicked out onto the street, I want to know EXACTLY why that was justified, in each and every case, and the nation is guilty until proven innocent, because the prima facie case is that some individual was harmed. The burden of proof lies upon the apparent attacker to demonstrate that the attack on *this specific individual* was justified. The alternative is totalitarian nationalistic horror.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

A talk show host once posed the problem this way. If Israel's neighbors left it alone, do you think that Israel would attack them? No I don't. On the other hand, I see developments on land in the West Bank being built on Palestinian land. Is the West Bank part of Israel or not? Is Israel at war with the Palestinians or not? If not, then they shouldn't be violating the rights of Palestinians to their personal property. On the other hand, the Palestinians continue to refuse to make peace with Israel. So, perhaps they are at war and perhaps the slow attrition is justified. It's a messy situation.

The problem I have with your description is that you are saying that *this* mother and children need to be kicked out onto the street because "Israel" and "Palestine" are at war. This is why I call you a nationalist: you act as if the nations have primacy over what happens to the individuals, versus the other way around.

I think nations should be held accountable. If *ANY* woman and child is kicked out onto the street, I want to know EXACTLY why that was justified, in each and every case, and the nation is guilty until proven innocent, because the prima facie case is that some individual was harmed. The burden of proof lies upon the apparent attacker to demonstrate that the attack on *this specific individual* was justified. The alternative is totalitarian nationalistic horror.

Logically you will end up in a place where war can't go. In the meantime it won't stop war.

--Brant

Hotfulls & McRoyes only, please

[sjw]

Logically you will end up in a place where war can't go. In the meantime it won't stop war.

A is not A?

They can afford the bulldozers and the blowback? Then they surely can afford the due process.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Logically you will end up in a place where war can't go. In the meantime it won't stop war.

A is not A?

They can afford the bulldozers and the blowback? Then they surely can afford the due process.

I'm referring to war generally, not so much that sorry excuse for it.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

A talk show host once posed the problem this way. If Israel's neighbors left it alone, do you think that Israel would attack them? No I don't. On the other hand, I see developments on land in the West Bank being built on Palestinian land. Is the West Bank part of Israel or not? Is Israel at war with the Palestinians or not? If not, then they shouldn't be violating the rights of Palestinians to their personal property. On the other hand, the Palestinians continue to refuse to make peace with Israel. So, perhaps they are at war and perhaps the slow attrition is justified. It's a messy situation.

The problem I have with your description is that you are saying that *this* mother and children need to be kicked out onto the street because "Israel" and "Palestine" are at war. This is why I call you a nationalist: you act as if the nations have primacy over what happens to the individuals, versus the other way around.

I think nations should be held accountable. If *ANY* woman and child is kicked out onto the street, I want to know EXACTLY why that was justified, in each and every case, and the nation is guilty until proven innocent, because the prima facie case is that some individual was harmed. The burden of proof lies upon the apparent attacker to demonstrate that the attack on *this specific individual* was justified. The alternative is totalitarian nationalistic horror.

Shayne

I liked Brant's response. But let me be clear. If Israel and Palestine were at peace, then Israel shouldn't be doing anything to the people of Palestine. If Israel had a problem with a Palestinian, it should provide evidence of a crime to the Palestinian government and request that it turn the person over to Israel for punishment. Then, the government of Palestine should review the evidence and decide, based on its laws and treaties whether to arrest the person and turn him (or her) over. That is the proper manner for nations at peace to interact with each other and with their respective citizens.

When states are at war, all bets are off. One does not ask why a bomber bombed one person's house and not another. It has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the particular person whose house was bombed.

Now, a state (or country) with an enormous military advantage over another that is attempting to conduct its war in a kind-hearted manner may decide to target military or government installations to minimize civilian suffering. However, that is only likely to be effective if the government is not widely supported by the people. If decapitating the country is likely to cause it to sue for peace, then such a strategy can be effective. However, if the populace of the country continues the war, then there is little choice but to inflict casualties on seemingly innocent civilians. One could argue that Israel is in such a situation. I, for one, think that Israel's strategy has the effect of antagonizing the Palestinians and probably of extending the conflict.

To me, it is a complex situation. You are the one for whom the situation seems very simple -- very cut-and-dried.

Darrell

[sjw]

I liked Brant's response.

Of course your did. As usual he had no reasoning just a bald-faced assertion. But as a football fan cheering is always nice.

When states are at war, all bets are off.

So, there are no such things as war crimes?

Shayne