Poll of Middle East reveals new attitudes toward extremism (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/

Bullet points/topic headings:

Middle East Concerns about Islamic Extremism Grow

Negative Views of al Qaeda Common

Boko Haram Reviled in Nigeria

Pakistanis Have No Love for Taliban

Hezbollah Disliked in Middle East

Hamas Viewed Negatively, Even in Palestinian Territories

Interesting data.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

I thought they were all trying to kill me.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Funny how being affected by terrorism makes them a little more opposed to it.

 

[avoiding injuries]

The support of suicide bombings being justified by Muslims is a little high for my liking, but at least it's trending down.

 

[timschochet]

This is great news. But terrorism doesn't need a lot of people to be threatening, only a few.

What we need to figure out is a way to present alternatives to these people, without appearing to be imperialistic as we did in Iraq. Countries like Egypt have huge unemployment problems. Saudis Arabia, which should be one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, is controlled by a tiny percentage of the population while the majority lives in utter destitute poverty. These conditions are the breeding ground for radicalism, extremism, fundamentalist religious beliefs and everything that goes with it.

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

This is great news. But terrorism doesn't need a lot of people to be threatening, only a few.

What we need to figure out is a way to present alternatives to these people, without appearing to be imperialistic as we did in Iraq. Countries like Egypt have huge unemployment problems. Saudis Arabia, which should be one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, is controlled by a tiny percentage of the population while the majority lives in utter destitute poverty. These conditions are the breeding ground for radicalism, extremism, fundamentalist religious beliefs and everything that goes with it.

I don't think that's correct. According to World Bank Saudi has the tenth lowest poverty rate in the world, and even the poor there probably aren't "destitute."

 

[Greggity]

This is great news. But terrorism doesn't need a lot of people to be threatening, only a few.

What we need to figure out is a way to present alternatives to these people, without appearing to be imperialistic as we did in Iraq. Countries like Egypt have huge unemployment problems. Saudis Arabia, which should be one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, is controlled by a tiny percentage of the population while the majority lives in utter destitute poverty. These conditions are the breeding ground for radicalism, extremism, fundamentalist religious beliefs and everything that goes with it.

We can just call them names like "racist" and "homophobes". That seems to hurt people now a days.....

 

[timschochet]

This is great news. But terrorism doesn't need a lot of people to be threatening, only a few.

What we need to figure out is a way to present alternatives to these people, without appearing to be imperialistic as we did in Iraq. Countries like Egypt have huge unemployment problems. Saudis Arabia, which should be one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, is controlled by a tiny percentage of the population while the majority lives in utter destitute poverty. These conditions are the breeding ground for radicalism, extremism, fundamentalist religious beliefs and everything that goes with it.

I don't think that's correct. According to World Bank Saudi has the tenth lowest poverty rate in the world, and even the poor there probably aren't "destitute."

You may be correct. I haven't checked it recently. It's still true that in much of that part of the world, the poverty is horrible. But maybe not in Saudi anymore...

 

[timschochet]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

 

[rascal]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Why would Israel do that? That just moves the rockets closer.

 

[3C's]

Oh boy, here we go again.

 

[timschochet]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Why would Israel do that? That just moves the rockets closer.

The rockets are already too close. Israel needs to have peace with the Palestinians.

 

[josefrees]

It is Islams job to police Islam. When we do it or Israel retaliates it only legitimates the terrorists to unintended victims. Why extremists are just let run wild by others I do not understand

 

[RCon]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Why would Israel do that? That just moves the rockets closer.

The rockets are already too close. Israel needs to have peace with the Palestinians.

Appeasement always works well.

 

[Greggity]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Why would Israel do that? That just moves the rockets closer.

The rockets are already too close. Israel needs to have peace with the Palestinians.

Appeasement always works well.

The only way Isreal is making peace with that nutty outfit is if they die....

 

[bostonfred]

This is great news. But terrorism doesn't need a lot of people to be threatening, only a few.

What we need to figure out is a way to present alternatives to these people, without appearing to be imperialistic as we did in Iraq. Countries like Egypt have huge unemployment problems. Saudis Arabia, which should be one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, is controlled by a tiny percentage of the population while the majority lives in utter destitute poverty. These conditions are the breeding ground for radicalism, extremism, fundamentalist religious beliefs and everything that goes with it.

What kind of monsters would allow the vast majority of the wealth of one of the richest nations on earth to be controlled by 1% of their population?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Color me :shuked:

I am surprised at this coming from Tim - I agree with it, particularly with the trade agreement, and recognition of a Palestinian state. If you want long-term peace in the region - make it where peace is financially more rewarding than war. If you have nothing to lose, its nothing to go to war - but if you create a stable community, with a thriving economy, it becomes more costly for the average person to support the fringe groups...

 

[timschochet]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Color me :shuked:

I am surprised at this coming from Tim - I agree with it, particularly with the trade agreement, and recognition of a Palestinian state. If you want long-term peace in the region - make it where peace is financially more rewarding than war. If you have nothing to lose, its nothing to go to war - but if you create a stable community, with a thriving economy, it becomes more costly for the average person to support the fringe groups...

You shouldn't be surprised by this coming from me. It's been my position for a number of years. I am a huge supporter of Israel and I believe that most of their actions over their history have been morally justified. But that doesn't change the reality. Israel will only have peace when there is a Palestinian state alongside it.

 

[timschochet]

This is great news. But terrorism doesn't need a lot of people to be threatening, only a few.

What we need to figure out is a way to present alternatives to these people, without appearing to be imperialistic as we did in Iraq. Countries like Egypt have huge unemployment problems. Saudis Arabia, which should be one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, is controlled by a tiny percentage of the population while the majority lives in utter destitute poverty. These conditions are the breeding ground for radicalism, extremism, fundamentalist religious beliefs and everything that goes with it.

What kind of monsters would allow the vast majority of the wealth of one of the richest nations on earth to be controlled by 1% of their population?

It's not a good analogy, ever, to compare poor people in this country, or anywhere in the western world, to poor people in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia and Latin America. That's a whole different level of poor.

 

[timschochet]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Why would Israel do that? That just moves the rockets closer.

The rockets are already too close. Israel needs to have peace with the Palestinians.

Appeasement always works well.

The only way Isreal is making peace with that nutty outfit is if they die....

What "nutty outfit" are you talking about? Hamas? Hezbollah? I'm speaking of the Palestinian Authority. Do you know the difference between the 3 groups?

 

[timschochet]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Why would Israel do that? That just moves the rockets closer.

The rockets are already too close. Israel needs to have peace with the Palestinians.

Appeasement always works well.

How is anything I just proposed appeasement?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Color me :shuked:

I am surprised at this coming from Tim - I agree with it, particularly with the trade agreement, and recognition of a Palestinian state. If you want long-term peace in the region - make it where peace is financially more rewarding than war. If you have nothing to lose, its nothing to go to war - but if you create a stable community, with a thriving economy, it becomes more costly for the average person to support the fringe groups...

You shouldn't be surprised by this coming from me. It's been my position for a number of years. I am a huge supporter of Israel and I believe that most of their actions over their history have been morally justified. But that doesn't change the reality. Israel will only have peace when there is a Palestinian state alongside it.

Well you normally tend to color it as Israel needs to do nothing unless and until Hamas or other groups change their stance on Israel's right to exist.

Hamas is probably never going to change that stance, but you can marginalize Hamas, and its support, by giving Palestinians a good reason to stop supporting Hamas - give them a viable economy, support, infrastructure, etc. It won't happen over night, but every long-term plan has to have a first step.

 

[timschochet]

You guys that want Israel to be all tough forever and ever- you need to recognize the realities of the situation. Maintaining these settlements is bleeding the Israeli government dry. Trying to govern a completely hostile group of people on it's borders is draining Israel dry. And it's draining us too because we give them foreign aid, and we give the Palestinians foreign aid, and plenty of that is wasted with them fighting each other.

Plus Israel has got demographic problems. Palestinians, including those who are currently living inside Israel, are rapidly reproducing at a much higher percentage than the Jewish population. Sooner or later there will be a point where Israel is forced into an untenable situation: either give up its claim of a free democratic republic, and impose an Apartheid like regime, or give up the idea of a Jewish state altogether. To avoid this choice, Israel HAS to make peace now.

 

[timschochet]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Color me :shuked:

I am surprised at this coming from Tim - I agree with it, particularly with the trade agreement, and recognition of a Palestinian state. If you want long-term peace in the region - make it where peace is financially more rewarding than war. If you have nothing to lose, its nothing to go to war - but if you create a stable community, with a thriving economy, it becomes more costly for the average person to support the fringe groups...

You shouldn't be surprised by this coming from me. It's been my position for a number of years. I am a huge supporter of Israel and I believe that most of their actions over their history have been morally justified. But that doesn't change the reality. Israel will only have peace when there is a Palestinian state alongside it.

Well you normally tend to color it as Israel needs to do nothing unless and until Hamas or other groups change their stance on Israel's right to exist.

Hamas is probably never going to change that stance, but you can marginalize Hamas, and its support, by giving Palestinians a good reason to stop supporting Hamas - give them a viable economy, support, infrastructure, etc. It won't happen over night, but every long-term plan has to have a first step.

Agreed. And who knows about Hamas anyhow? It's just a name. The future leaders of Hamas might be very different from the current ones.

The bolded does represent the common thinking of American Jews that support Israel. But now I'm of the opinion that we have to think outside the box.

 

[RCon]

Why maintain settlements? Why not simply forbid enemy combatants from occupying them? Leave them as a DMZ, if you will.

Why govern hostile people? Tell hostile people to piss off and manage themselves, with the warning that any violence will be met with significantly greater force.

 

[[icon]]

The rockets are already too close. Israel needs to have peace with the Palestinians.

Oh...well if tim says so, I'm sure the Israelis and Palestinians will comply.

 

[Greggity]

Israel can help. They need to announce a 10 year phased withdrawal from the occupied territorities, and then negotiate a trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Then the United Nations needs to recognize a State of Palestine. It's time to end this mess.

Why would Israel do that? That just moves the rockets closer.

The rockets are already too close. Israel needs to have peace with the Palestinians.

Appeasement always works well.

The only way Isreal is making peace with that nutty outfit is if they die....

What "nutty outfit" are you talking about? Hamas? Hezbollah? I'm speaking of the Palestinian Authority. Do you know the difference between the 3 groups?

same smell to me.....

 

[NCCommish]

Why maintain settlements? Why not simply forbid enemy combatants from occupying them? Leave them as a DMZ, if you will.

Why govern hostile people? Tell hostile people to piss off and manage themselves, with the warning that any violence will be met with significantly greater force.

How's that been working so far?

 

[RCon]

Why maintain settlements? Why not simply forbid enemy combatants from occupying them? Leave them as a DMZ, if you will.

Why govern hostile people? Tell hostile people to piss off and manage themselves, with the warning that any violence will be met with significantly greater force.

How's that been working so far?

I'll let you know as soon as it's tried.

 

[timschochet]

Why maintain settlements? Why not simply forbid enemy combatants from occupying them? Leave them as a DMZ, if you will.

Why govern hostile people? Tell hostile people to piss off and manage themselves, with the warning that any violence will be met with significantly greater force.

How's that been working so far?

I'll let you know as soon as it's tried.

What are you talking about? It's been tried for decades.

 

[RCon]

Why maintain settlements? Why not simply forbid enemy combatants from occupying them? Leave them as a DMZ, if you will.

Why govern hostile people? Tell hostile people to piss off and manage themselves, with the warning that any violence will be met with significantly greater force.

How's that been working so far?

I'll let you know as soon as it's tried.

What are you talking about? It's been tried for decades.

Not IMO. It's been a constant attempt to have it both ways; half-### retaliation as deterrence with overwrought efforts to avoid collateral damage. If you're going to be heavy-handed, then actually be heavy-handed.

 

[Henry Ford]

It is Islams job to police Islam. When we do it or Israel retaliates it only legitimates the terrorists to unintended victims. Why extremists are just let run wild by others I do not understand

That's certainly my theory. When we stop giving them a common enemy, the people generally turn away from the extremists.

 

[timschochet]

Why maintain settlements? Why not simply forbid enemy combatants from occupying them? Leave them as a DMZ, if you will.

Why govern hostile people? Tell hostile people to piss off and manage themselves, with the warning that any violence will be met with significantly greater force.

How's that been working so far?

I'll let you know as soon as it's tried.

What are you talking about? It's been tried for decades.

Not IMO. It's been a constant attempt to have it both ways; half-### retaliation as deterrence with overwrought efforts to avoid collateral damage. If you're going to be heavy-handed, then actually be heavy-handed.

Can you be specific as to exactly what "heavy handed" means?

 

[Greggity]

Why maintain settlements? Why not simply forbid enemy combatants from occupying them? Leave them as a DMZ, if you will.

Why govern hostile people? Tell hostile people to piss off and manage themselves, with the warning that any violence will be met with significantly greater force.

How's that been working so far?

I'll let you know as soon as it's tried.

What are you talking about? It's been tried for decades.

Not IMO. It's been a constant attempt to have it both ways; half-### retaliation as deterrence with overwrought efforts to avoid collateral damage. If you're going to be heavy-handed, then actually be heavy-handed.

Can you be specific as to exactly what "heavy handed" means?

Laying the pipe...

 

[NCCommish]

Why maintain settlements? Why not simply forbid enemy combatants from occupying them? Leave them as a DMZ, if you will.

Why govern hostile people? Tell hostile people to piss off and manage themselves, with the warning that any violence will be met with significantly greater force.

How's that been working so far?

I'll let you know as soon as it's tried.

What are you talking about? It's been tried for decades.

Not IMO. It's been a constant attempt to have it both ways; half-### retaliation as deterrence with overwrought efforts to avoid collateral damage. If you're going to be heavy-handed, then actually be heavy-handed.

Ridiculous. Launch a missile that hits nothing? Launch several bombing runs that absolutely hit.

 

[RCon]

Can you be specific as to exactly what "heavy handed" means?

I am attempting to suggest that Israel has been overly cautious in avoiding collateral damage in its (futile) attempts to play the good guys in the international community. The "international community" is going to think the worst of Israel anyway, so stop trying to please them.

If the point is to deter violence, don't "negotiate", but instead retaliate regardless. Rockets get launched from a school? Blow up the school. Rockets get launched from a hospital? Blow it up. Won't take more than once or twice before rockets stop getting launched from those places.

 

[Henry Ford]

Why maintain settlements? Why not simply forbid enemy combatants from occupying them? Leave them as a DMZ, if you will.

Why govern hostile people? Tell hostile people to piss off and manage themselves, with the warning that any violence will be met with significantly greater force.

How's that been working so far?

I'll let you know as soon as it's tried.

What are you talking about? It's been tried for decades.

Not IMO. It's been a constant attempt to have it both ways; half-### retaliation as deterrence with overwrought efforts to avoid collateral damage. If you're going to be heavy-handed, then actually be heavy-handed.

Ridiculous. Launch a missile that hits nothing? Launch several bombing runs that absolutely hit.

Once that ship-mounted rail gun gets fully developed, I think we're rockin'.

 

[timschochet]

Can you be specific as to exactly what "heavy handed" means?

I am attempting to suggest that Israel has been overly cautious in avoiding collateral damage in its (futile) attempts to play the good guys in the international community. The "international community" is going to think the worst of Israel anyway, so stop trying to please them.

If the point is to deter violence, don't "negotiate", but instead retaliate regardless. Rockets get launched from a school? Blow up the school. Rockets get launched from a hospital? Blow it up. Won't take more than once or twice before rockets stop getting launched from those places.

First off, Israel isn't cautious because it wants to "play the good guys in the international community." Israel is cautious, just as we are cautious, because they ARE the good guys. And the good guys don't blow up schools or hospitals.

Are there rogue members of Israel's government, and OUR government for that matter, who are going to do evil things as retaliation? Yes. Are mistakes made, and do innocent people die as a result of those mistakes? Of course. But the day that Israel does what you're recommending as a matter of state policy is the day I will stop supporting them. That's the day I will consider them morally no better than their enemies. The same goes with this country. It's hard to be the good guys. It's supposed to be hard.

 

[RCon]

Can you be specific as to exactly what "heavy handed" means?

I am attempting to suggest that Israel has been overly cautious in avoiding collateral damage in its (futile) attempts to play the good guys in the international community. The "international community" is going to think the worst of Israel anyway, so stop trying to please them.

If the point is to deter violence, don't "negotiate", but instead retaliate regardless. Rockets get launched from a school? Blow up the school. Rockets get launched from a hospital? Blow it up. Won't take more than once or twice before rockets stop getting launched from those places.

First off, Israel isn't cautious because it wants to "play the good guys in the international community." Israel is cautious, just as we are cautious, because they ARE the good guys. And the good guys don't blow up schools or hospitals.

Are there rogue members of Israel's government, and OUR government for that matter, who are going to do evil things as retaliation? Yes. Are mistakes made, and do innocent people die as a result of those mistakes? Of course. But the day that Israel does what you're recommending as a matter of state policy is the day I will stop supporting them. That's the day I will consider them morally no better than their enemies. The same goes with this country. It's hard to be the good guys. It's supposed to be hard.

In the long run, I suspect fewer innocent people would die if Israel were to retaliate indiscriminately. And yeah, it's an "ends justify the means" policy.

 

[timschochet]

Can you be specific as to exactly what "heavy handed" means?

I am attempting to suggest that Israel has been overly cautious in avoiding collateral damage in its (futile) attempts to play the good guys in the international community. The "international community" is going to think the worst of Israel anyway, so stop trying to please them.

If the point is to deter violence, don't "negotiate", but instead retaliate regardless. Rockets get launched from a school? Blow up the school. Rockets get launched from a hospital? Blow it up. Won't take more than once or twice before rockets stop getting launched from those places.

First off, Israel isn't cautious because it wants to "play the good guys in the international community." Israel is cautious, just as we are cautious, because they ARE the good guys. And the good guys don't blow up schools or hospitals.

Are there rogue members of Israel's government, and OUR government for that matter, who are going to do evil things as retaliation? Yes. Are mistakes made, and do innocent people die as a result of those mistakes? Of course. But the day that Israel does what you're recommending as a matter of state policy is the day I will stop supporting them. That's the day I will consider them morally no better than their enemies. The same goes with this country. It's hard to be the good guys. It's supposed to be hard.

In the long run, I suspect fewer innocent people would die if Israel were to retaliate indiscriminately. And yeah, it's an "ends justify the means" policy.

Perhaps. And I'm not blaming you for making a theoretical argument in a discussion forum. But I can't go there.

 

[NCCommish]

Can you be specific as to exactly what "heavy handed" means?

I am attempting to suggest that Israel has been overly cautious in avoiding collateral damage in its (futile) attempts to play the good guys in the international community. The "international community" is going to think the worst of Israel anyway, so stop trying to please them.

If the point is to deter violence, don't "negotiate", but instead retaliate regardless. Rockets get launched from a school? Blow up the school. Rockets get launched from a hospital? Blow it up. Won't take more than once or twice before rockets stop getting launched from those places.

First off, Israel isn't cautious because it wants to "play the good guys in the international community." Israel is cautious, just as we are cautious, because they ARE the good guys. And the good guys don't blow up schools or hospitals.

Are there rogue members of Israel's government, and OUR government for that matter, who are going to do evil things as retaliation? Yes. Are mistakes made, and do innocent people die as a result of those mistakes? Of course. But the day that Israel does what you're recommending as a matter of state policy is the day I will stop supporting them. That's the day I will consider them morally no better than their enemies. The same goes with this country. It's hard to be the good guys. It's supposed to be hard.

In the long run, I suspect fewer innocent people would die if Israel were to retaliate indiscriminately. And yeah, it's an "ends justify the means" policy.

Are you completely insane? Every woman killed you create an enemy. Every child killed you create an enemy. You can't kill your way out of this and what you are suggesting is a war crime.

 

[RCon]

In the long run, I suspect fewer innocent people would die if Israel were to retaliate indiscriminately. And yeah, it's an "ends justify the means" policy.

Perhaps. And I'm not blaming you for making a theoretical argument in a discussion forum. But I can't go there.

Let's suppose for a moment that you knew for a fact that Israel could have lasting peace by virtue of six months of indiscriminate retaliation. For the sake of argument, ignore that it's impossible to know such a thing. Would you sign up for it?

 

[RCon]

Are you completely insane? Every woman killed you create an enemy. Every child killed you create an enemy. You can't kill your way out of this and what you are suggesting is a war crime.

They are already your enemy. And no, a retaliatory strike against an enemy military target is not a war crime, and neither is defining "enemy military target" as "place that just launched a rocket strike against us".

 

[Greggity]

Can you be specific as to exactly what "heavy handed" means?

I am attempting to suggest that Israel has been overly cautious in avoiding collateral damage in its (futile) attempts to play the good guys in the international community. The "international community" is going to think the worst of Israel anyway, so stop trying to please them.

If the point is to deter violence, don't "negotiate", but instead retaliate regardless. Rockets get launched from a school? Blow up the school. Rockets get launched from a hospital? Blow it up. Won't take more than once or twice before rockets stop getting launched from those places.

First off, Israel isn't cautious because it wants to "play the good guys in the international community." Israel is cautious, just as we are cautious, because they ARE the good guys. And the good guys don't blow up schools or hospitals.

Are there rogue members of Israel's government, and OUR government for that matter, who are going to do evil things as retaliation? Yes. Are mistakes made, and do innocent people die as a result of those mistakes? Of course. But the day that Israel does what you're recommending as a matter of state policy is the day I will stop supporting them. That's the day I will consider them morally no better than their enemies. The same goes with this country. It's hard to be the good guys. It's supposed to be hard.

In the long run, I suspect fewer innocent people would die if Israel were to retaliate indiscriminately. And yeah, it's an "ends justify the means" policy.

Are you completely insane? Every woman killed you create an enemy. Every child killed you create an enemy. You can't kill your way out of this and what you are suggesting is a war crime.

I'll always remember what grandpa Bud said to me when i was young. "Its a tough ol world out there, you kill them before they kill you. Blouses....."

 

[timschochet]

In the long run, I suspect fewer innocent people would die if Israel were to retaliate indiscriminately. And yeah, it's an "ends justify the means" policy.

Perhaps. And I'm not blaming you for making a theoretical argument in a discussion forum. But I can't go there.

Let's suppose for a moment that you knew for a fact that Israel could have lasting peace by virtue of six months of indiscriminate retaliation. For the sake of argument, ignore that it's impossible to know such a thing. Would you sign up for it?

No.

 

[timschochet]

Can you be specific as to exactly what "heavy handed" means?

I am attempting to suggest that Israel has been overly cautious in avoiding collateral damage in its (futile) attempts to play the good guys in the international community. The "international community" is going to think the worst of Israel anyway, so stop trying to please them.

If the point is to deter violence, don't "negotiate", but instead retaliate regardless. Rockets get launched from a school? Blow up the school. Rockets get launched from a hospital? Blow it up. Won't take more than once or twice before rockets stop getting launched from those places.

First off, Israel isn't cautious because it wants to "play the good guys in the international community." Israel is cautious, just as we are cautious, because they ARE the good guys. And the good guys don't blow up schools or hospitals.

Are there rogue members of Israel's government, and OUR government for that matter, who are going to do evil things as retaliation? Yes. Are mistakes made, and do innocent people die as a result of those mistakes? Of course. But the day that Israel does what you're recommending as a matter of state policy is the day I will stop supporting them. That's the day I will consider them morally no better than their enemies. The same goes with this country. It's hard to be the good guys. It's supposed to be hard.

In the long run, I suspect fewer innocent people would die if Israel were to retaliate indiscriminately. And yeah, it's an "ends justify the means" policy.

Are you completely insane? Every woman killed you create an enemy. Every child killed you create an enemy. You can't kill your way out of this and what you are suggesting is a war crime.

I'll always remember what grandpa Bud said to me when i was young. "Its a tough ol world out there, you kill them before they kill you. Blouses....."

Did Grandpa Bud really say "Blouses"?

 

[RCon]

In the long run, I suspect fewer innocent people would die if Israel were to retaliate indiscriminately. And yeah, it's an "ends justify the means" policy.

Perhaps. And I'm not blaming you for making a theoretical argument in a discussion forum. But I can't go there.

Let's suppose for a moment that you knew for a fact that Israel could have lasting peace by virtue of six months of indiscriminate retaliation. For the sake of argument, ignore that it's impossible to know such a thing. Would you sign up for it?

No.

I would in a heartbeat. Of course, you and I have the same fundamental short-term view versus long-term view disagreement about lots of topics.

 

[NCCommish]

Are you completely insane? Every woman killed you create an enemy. Every child killed you create an enemy. You can't kill your way out of this and what you are suggesting is a war crime.

They are already your enemy. And no, a retaliatory strike against an enemy military target is not a war crime, and neither is defining "enemy military target" as "place that just launched a rocket strike against us".

Which part of the Gaza strip is a military base?

Oh and they aren't all your enemy. it's that kind of thinking that let's you indiscriminately kill civilians without blinking an eye.

 

[msommer]

Isn't retaliation against Hamas essentially the kind of situation that predator drones were built for?

 

[RCon]

Are you completely insane? Every woman killed you create an enemy. Every child killed you create an enemy. You can't kill your way out of this and what you are suggesting is a war crime.

They are already your enemy. And no, a retaliatory strike against an enemy military target is not a war crime, and neither is defining "enemy military target" as "place that just launched a rocket strike against us".

Which part of the Gaza strip is a military base?

Oh and they aren't all your enemy. it's that kind of thinking that let's you indiscriminately kill civilians without blinking an eye.

Like I said, defining "military target" as "location from which a military attack was just launched" is entirely rational and certainly not a war crime.