What Am I Missing? - Israel and Hamas (Palestinians)

[DeusExMachina]

there is a lot of antisemitism that is prevalent at the occupy wal street protests, that has been edited out by the media.

because a lot of the people who are there are very liberal. and generally liberal people are pro palestine rather than israel.

both sides have done good and bad things, but if I had to pick one I'd pick israel.

oh, and what deusex said is absolutely true.

if the revolutionary war had been lost the founding fathers would have been hung as traitors.

if you disagree, then say you disagree. don't have a damn tantrum about it.

Thank you. If the word terrorist had been invented, you bet your ass the British would have called the founding fathers terrorists.

History is written by the victors. That's another statement some people might have issue with.

There is a difference between murder and killing. Killing an enemy in time of war who would otherwise kill you is not murder, killing an innocent person regardless of circumstances is murder. To some extent I guess you could say that the above example relies on perspective, but the perspective should be a function of what is right or wrong determined by natural law, not the other way around.

Al Qaeda can believe whatever they want to believe, but that doesn't make it right just because they believe it. If right and wrong are determined by perspective, than anything can be justified.

So murder is bad, but killing is good?

To the guy you're killing, you're murdering him. Saying his perspective isn't valid sounds kind of evil and selfish. As if you're the only person in the universe.

Because they believe it makes it right to them. Thus, perspective.

And yes, anything can be justified. Usually the justification comes from 1) the winner, or 2) the one who's the most convincing.

[Sharpienads]

So murder is bad, but killing is good?

To the guy you're killing, you're murdering him. Saying his perspective isn't valid sounds kind of evil and selfish. As if you're the only person in the universe.

Because they believe it makes it right to them. Thus, perspective.

And yes, anything can be justified. Usually the justification comes from 1) the winner, or 2) the one who's the most convincing.

Ok, let's try this. Explain to me a situation in which raping a woman is not wrong.

[DeusExMachina]

Ok, let's try this. Explain to me a situation in which raping a woman is not wrong.

To me? No, never. It is always wrong. Well, unless it's her fantasy but I guess that's not really rape.

To some guy in Africa, who wants his tribe's legacy to continue on? Absolutely right to him. But you could argue he doesn't have a concept of "right" and "wrong", or rather, his concepts of right and wrong are totally different to ours.

[Sharpienads]

To me? No, never. It is always wrong. Well, unless it's her fantasy but I guess that's not really rape.

To some guy in Africa, who wants his tribe's legacy to continue on? Absolutely right to him. But you could argue he doesn't have a concept of "right" and "wrong", or rather, his concepts of right and wrong are totally different to ours.

Well it would seem we're at an impasse here. I believe that rape is wrong no matter who you are or where you're at. While you might not agree with it, you believe that it can be justified.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[DeusExMachina]

Well it would seem we're at an impasse here. I believe that rape is wrong no matter who you are or where you're at. While you might not agree with it, you believe that it can be justified.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

To be clear, I'm not saying I can justify it, I'm just saying that it can be justified by someone.

[Sharpienads]

To be clear, I'm not saying I can justify it, I'm just saying that it can be justified by someone.

Yeah I got it. Now about those pre-teen transgenders....

Just joking, we've been unnaturally civil with each I don't want it to change.

[DeusExMachina]

Yeah I got it. Now about those pre-teen transgenders....

Just joking, we've been unnaturally civil with each I don't want it to change.

Now we must kungfu fight!!

[Hoosier]

To me? No, never. It is always wrong. Well, unless it's her fantasy but I guess that's not really rape.

To some guy in Africa, who wants his tribe's legacy to continue on? Absolutely right to him. But you could argue he doesn't have a concept of "right" and "wrong", or rather, his concepts of right and wrong are totally different to ours.

Are you justifying the actions of the guy in Africa, or just explaining how someone else may have a different perspective?

There are some very few universal moral truths, and in my mind they all spring from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule. Outside of self defense or clearly defined war (which is the same thing), it's wrong to murder. In my mind, that includes murder as punishment.

Doing violence to another person against their will is wrong universally. I can imagine someone would believe otherwise, and would act according to their belief -- but I'd never say that justifies it, and I would use all available force to stop it.

H.

[mcantar18c]

Ok, let's try this. Explain to me a situation in which raping a woman is not wrong.

Its not rape if they don't say "no."

[Ronin13]

Thank you. If the word terrorist had been invented, you bet your ass the British would have called the founding fathers terrorists.

History is written by the victors. That's another statement some people might have issue with.



So murder is bad, but killing is good?

To the guy you're killing, you're murdering him. Saying his perspective isn't valid sounds kind of evil and selfish. As if you're the only person in the universe.

Because they believe it makes it right to them. Thus, perspective.

And yes, anything can be justified. Usually the justification comes from 1) the winner, or 2) the one who's the most convincing.

I had to skip a lot because this just got to me... Killing someone in war or conflict or even self-defense (which really sums up war because you kill them before they kill you) is just because both parties know what they're getting into. Murder is taking someone's life who poses no threat to your existence and is not justified, regardless of your point of view.

Perspective and winning is all bunk. The perspective of the world is that killing innocents to gain ground on a political means is wrong. That's what terrorists do, the very definition includes to "incite terror." What the founding fathers of America were doing could never, and will never be classified as terrorist- they never killed innocent civilians to gain some psychological advantage over their enemies. They were fighting an illegal occupation of land that they wanted for their own. Britain wouldn't have that, so they were labeled "traitors." Jesus, if you people owned a damn dictionary you'd know the difference between "traitors to the crown" and "terrorists." It is bold faced ignorance to use that "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." That's flat out, inexcusable stupidity- and no Deus, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm accusing you of spewing stupidity out of your suck hole. A freedom fighter is someone against dictatorship or tyranny, a terrorist is someone who uses acts of violence to incite and inspire terror to achieve a political goal. You can't dispute this, this is not only the definition I learned in my Counter-Terrorism training, it's also what the UN and various other organizations have agreed is a good description of a very troubling word in our common use today. To say that AQ, Hamas, PLO, and other "enemies of various states" are not terrorists when they clearly kill innocent civilians on scales that far exceed accidental or "collateral damage" by the US military, you basically should just check yourself into a home for the mentally challenged because you have a sick twisted view on the world. No person has the right to kill an innocent person for no justified reason- that is murder. No matter what perspective you have, unless you truly are one of these depraved individuals who actually think you're in the right (and you probably cried when OBL was killed- read: NOT MURDERED but justifiably killed), a terrorist is not a good thing to be, regardless of the cause behind it, and I'm pretty sure there is a special spot in whatever punishing afterlife (Hell?) just for terrorists.

Now, got that off my chest, Israel is right, the violent aspect to the Palestinian movement is wrong- sure it's black and white, but really in the big picture here that's really all the matters, the gray area is just background noise.