You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Liberal MSM strangely silent about Israel acts of agression
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
So, when the Palis believe all else has failed and their survival is at stake, you support whatever they do in the name of survival...
Quote from saxon:
Back to the tiger. It is self-evident natural law that all creatures have been endowed by their creator with some means of self defense. It therefore does not follow that to defend oneself and one's children is morally wrong.
I do agree that we humans have not made good use of that other faculty that we are possessed of; our ability to imagine a better way, a better future, and reason out a way to achieve that. We might call that "diplomacy". But when diplomacy fails...what is left except "natural law"?
We can talk about ideals and utopia all day; but the bottom line is that all creatures will defend themselves (or flee) when attacked.
Unless I miss my guess, it has been over 2000 years according to the Pope's calendar since anyone was without blame or sin...
So is it really cultural relativism to find that both sides are sinful in this conflict?
So is it really cultural relativism to find that both sides are sinful in this conflict?
Quote from jem:
don't worry zzz - I know you are a cultural relativist - so when you say both are wrong its the same as saying both are right.
You have no moral compass - therefore your opinion has no point. You are free to waste electronic space.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
So, when the Palis believe all else has failed and their survival is at stake, you support whatever they do in the name of survival...
If that were truly the case...yes. I don't believe that it is, and I don't believe that shooting missiles and mortars at Israel for eight years is advancing their chances of survival one bit.
There is a difference between pure survival and quality of life, no?
People in prisons survive, but is that a quality of life that someone reasonably wants?
Did the American Indians really enjoy being forced to survive on the reservations?
People in prisons survive, but is that a quality of life that someone reasonably wants?
Did the American Indians really enjoy being forced to survive on the reservations?
Quote from saxon:
If that were truly the case...yes. I don't believe that it is, and I don't believe that shooting missiles and mortars at Israel for eight years is advancing their chances of survival one bit.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
There is a difference between pure survival and quality of life, no?
People in prisons survive, but is that a quality of life that someone reasonably wants?
Did the American Indians really enjoy being forced to survive on the reservations?
Shooting missiles and mortars at innocent civilians is not a legitimate way to express one's grievances about quality of life issues. It is an act of war.
I see, so when the American Indians rebelled against the invasion of their land they started the war...
Sure thing.
Sure thing.
Quote from saxon:
Shooting missiles and mortars at innocent civilians is not a legitimate way to express one's grievances about quality of life issues. It is an act of war.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
I see, so when the American Indians rebelled against the invasion of their land they started the war...
Sure thing.
No...they were INVADED. They were defending themselves.
Not to mentioned the fact that diplomacy failed mostly because the white-eye couldn't seem to stop breaking treaties with them.
But it might also be said that Palestine was "invaded" by the jewish immigration of 1880-1950. So, yes...it is a murky question of who is the aggressor and who is the defender in a broader historical sense.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Both are wrong, what is easier than that...
How so?
Clearly, the Palis have decided that they have no problem with intentionally targeting civilians. The evidence is the rocket attacks that aren't targeted at military forces, and the suicide jackasses.
Israel's targeting of fighting forces result in civilain casualties, granted. But are you saying that are also intentionally targeting civilians?
Does intent ever enter the equation? Do the Palis get a Mulligan because they feel like they have no other way to protest their situation?
It's the same as comparing manslaughter vs murder - one is intentional, the other is a circumstance.
So the Palis have such sophisticated technology that they can target civilians, but Israel's weapons of mass destruction have no technology behind them to avoid civilians.
Sure, that argument washes...
Manslaughter happens when you don't have a choice.
Israel has a choice, and no, their survival is not at stake here...
I believe they intend to kill civilians, of course.
Oh by the way, intentional manslaughter is still a crime.
Sure, that argument washes...
Manslaughter happens when you don't have a choice.
Israel has a choice, and no, their survival is not at stake here...
I believe they intend to kill civilians, of course.
Oh by the way, intentional manslaughter is still a crime.
Quote from Haroki:
How so?
Clearly, the Palis have decided that they have no problem with intentionally targeting civilians. The evidence is the rocket attacks that aren't targeted at military forces, and the suicide jackasses.
Israel's targeting of fighting forces result in civilain casualties, granted. But are you saying that are also intentionally targeting civilians?
Does intent ever enter the equation? Do the Palis get a Mulligan because they feel like they have no other way to protest their situation?
It's the same as comparing manslaughter vs murder - one is intentional, the other is a circumstance.