Israil oversteps the mark

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Syria has nice little missiles which they give to Hezbulla, attacking Israel indirectly.

Israel holding on to the Territories defends against this how?

And have you never heard of "rockets"?

Israel holding on to the Territories defends against this how?

They have rockets dear friend.

Israel holding on to the Territories defends against this how?

Egypt is a very serious threat.
Iraq & Syria & the rest can send rockets all over Israel, as they did on occasions.

Israel holding on to the Territories defends against this how?

[Guardian]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Maybe you should tell your parents your ideas of right and wrong... Hopefully they can sit down with you and explain that Hitler was bad man.

Why was Hitler a bad man?

Because he took land?
Well, much of the land he took in the early phases of the war was land that had been German once and where a large portion of the population where ethnic Germans. So, according to you, it should be perfectly okay for Hitler to take that land, since he was merely taking back what rightfully belonged to him. This is the exact same argument that Hitler himself used. (-And yes, he would have been proud...)

So, if taking land wasn't a problem, then why was Hitler bad?

Because he killed millions??

Well, according to you, that is perfectly acceptable as well, as long as you have a "legitimate" reason - which Hitler believed he had.

So... if all of these things are morally justifiable, then could you please explain the following:[list=1][*] Exactly why was Hitler a bad man?
[*] Who decides who is a bad man and who is not?
[*] Exactly how do you determine who is bad and who is not.
[*] Would you agree to my killing your sister because "Hitler was a bad man"?
-Or because "Sharon won't listen to me"?[/list=1]

[Jules]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Syria has nice little missiles which they give to Hezbulla, attacking Israel indirectly.

Israel holding on to the Territories defends against this how?

And have you never heard of "rockets"?

Israel holding on to the Territories defends against this how?

They have rockets dear friend.

Israel holding on to the Territories defends against this how?

Egypt is a very serious threat.
Iraq & Syria & the rest can send rockets all over Israel, as they did on occasions.

Israel holding on to the Territories defends against this how?

Hmmm...I'm noticing a pattern here.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

It's the knowledge that for 5,000 years of jewish history, we lived here, saw Jerusalem as our capital for 3,000 years, and always mentioned Israel and Jerusalem in our prayer, literature and culture.

There is in no way 5000 years of Jewish history. Can you show me even one document or inscription in Hebrew that is that old? If the Jews existed as a distinct tribe that long ago (which I doubt), they certainly didn't exist as a literate people.

[Az]

yes. Sikander you're correct. I feel it something around 3,500-4000 , Siro.

[Eli]

A bus exploded in Jerusalem, near the Mahne Yehuda market. No more information.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
yes. Sikander you're correct. I feel it something around 3,500-4000 , Siro.

The esodus was 3300 years ago. Add to that 400 years of slavery in Egypt, it's 3700. The patriarchs period is another 300-500 years, so you're right. 4000 years, plus-minus couple centuries.

[CyberGnu]

Those are your words. My point is that the Arab stated were not trying to hold on to anything that belonged to them, they were trying to grab more land.

Not relevant. And quite frankly, not lucid, either... How is taking back what is yours considered 'grabbing more land'?

But anyway, the question is whether the palestinians are to blame for what their arab neighbours did, and I think the answer is obvious.

Your claim is that any number of civillian casualties are acceptable, whether inflicted accidentally or intentionally, and that is not a claim many people acknowledge as just. For example, most people believe that NATO in Kosovo had an obligation to try to keep Serbian civillian casualties down.

And you still have a problem separating what I'm saying from your odd interpretations. Maybe the problem is mine, for assuming you are an intelligent adult...


Try to see it this way: Police have a mandate to shoot people in attempts to stop crime. This is uncontested. Does this in any imply that police can shoot people indiscriminately, or even that we'd PREFER police to shoot people instead of arresting them? Of course not.

And yet, this is your conclusion of my remark that the world has accepted that civilian casulties are acceptable in order to stop aggression.

Sad.


Would I be happier if Israel left the ME tomorrow without any kind of bloodshed than I would if all Israelis were killed? Of course I would. That has NOTHING to to do with the justification to kill all israelis as an occuying presence.

But I guess that doesn't fit in your preconcieved view of the world... where, if I have understood things correcly, anyone who disagrees that jews have the right to kill anyone weaker then them and steal their land is an anti-semite.

There’s a big middle ground between saying that you can kill as many people as convenient in the course of a war and saying that “dictatorships [have] carte blanche to do whatever they please.”

So where is this middle ground? how many millions of civilians are justified? 30 million civilians died in WW2, 15 of them german. That was apparently justified. Or is it a percentage?

Or could it be that you are again confusing morality with practicality?

So I guess America isn’t mine either; it’s the indians. If you’re going to extend this simplistic analogy accross generations, I think you’ll have to get to work on that. And on expelling the Russian populations of the baltic states and Kazakhstan.

no, America is mine because my middlke initial is 'I'. oh, that doessn't make sense? So? Neither does your example. We've been through it about sixty billion times.

Now it is your further claim that invasion is worse than genocide.

I get the feeling that these arguemnts are constructed thus:

Gnu: i think green is the prettiest color
N
atan: aha, so you think genocide is OK.

Gnu: no, the color green doesn;t have antyhing to do with genocide.

Natan: but the color green supports suicide bombings.

Gnu: I don't know how you came up with that conclusion. all I said was that I think green is the prettiest color.

Natan: so you think genocide is OK.

Repeat until Gnu runs out of time.


Would you mind telling me, in detail how you came up with the previous conclusion? What statements of mine supports the idea that invasion is 'worse' than genocide?

If you are referring to this statement:

Now, a different question from this is whether genocide is worse than invasion followed by genocide. I think it is, and I think most of the world would agree with me. the difference might be slight, as they are both abhorrent, but there is still a difference.

The reason is the events leading up to the genocide. If internal, the citizens of that country does have some kind of responsibility in letting the siutation deteriorate to this point. In external, the citizens had absolutely no influence over the matter.

Now, I'm pretty sure you are going to willfully ignore one of the above sencetences, so I'm going to highlight it: they are both abhorrent. Keep that in mind. No one here, with the exceptions of some Israeli aplogists, claim that genocide is defensible.

As anyone even moderatly literate can see, I make no value judgement about genocide vs aggression. But they are DIFFERENT crimes.

Now, up to this point, we've been dealing with the people in a neighbouring country, and what they are justified in doing.

Perhaps this is what you haven't understood. We haven't dealt at all with what the citizens if a country carrying out genocide on its own citizens would be justified in doing. I think the same rule goes here. Genocide is a crime of aggression. The victims of aggression are justified in doing whatever it takes to stop aggression.

IT IS NEVER THE VICTIMS TASK TO WORRY ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF RESISTING AGGRESSION.




BTW, you are getting predictable. this is a quote from my previous post:

so, you really don't think there is a difference between violating an agreement to give two weeks vacation and genocide? Huh, and this from the same man who screams like a stuck pig every time someone points out that Israel is a fascist state...

So how do you want it? Is there a gradual scale for violations of human rights or not?

Now, in line with your argumentative style, your next post would probably be about genocide, and why I consider genocide to fine and dandy or something equally pointless. By learning from experience, I surmise that I will have to remind you that we are currently referring to this particular post by you:

Note the Now, in line with your argumentative style, your next post would probably be about genocide, and why I consider genocide to fine and dandy or something equally pointless. part.


so, would you mind addressing my question: So how do you want it? Is there a gradual scale for violations of human rights or not?



Maybe I should declare from the beginning that if you don't answer my questions, I shoiuld just repost it and ignore the non-sequiteurs... would save me a lot of time...

I don’t recall this criticism.

You should try reading the news. the last UN attempt was before christmas, but the chinese managed to shut it down. Of course, most attention was on the Israeli-US screaming about how the arabs wanted the UN to condemn Israel...

I recall a visit to China by the American president, and I recall letting China into the WTO.

well, since Bush calls sharon 'an honorable man', i don't think he is the best of examples... and the WTO is not a political body, it is an economic one.

If there are no set borders, there’s no way to say whose land is whose.

OK, I see what you mean, but your basic premise is still absurd.

If border changes are allowed (as you say they were prior to the end of WWII)

Hey, I made no such statement. i said that after WW2, the world leaders finally sat down to hammer out an agreement that aggression is not an acceptable means to change borders. (the 'finaly' part isn;t exaclty true, they did sit down after WW1 as well, but they failed that time.)

Prior to the end of WW2, there were still treaties bweteen nations, and a treaty is legally binding. Germany, for example, signed a treaty that they gave up all claims on lands outside the 1919 german borders in order to recieve loans and end occupation of the rhineland. Consequently, the german invasion of Poland and the resulting events were very much acts of aggression.

Interestingly, many of the german generals in the nurnberg trials were tried not for warcrimes (i.e. genocide) but for breaking the treaties (i.e. acts of aggression).


[/quote]I don’t see how what you are so lauding makes one any less likely.
[/quote]

Well, we haven't had one since WW2. Furthermore, take a look at regions like Africa and south america. Despite a multitude of similar strength countries, no wars...

Thank you, that’s what I think about all borders.

Well, the problem is that borders ARE clear cut. The ONLY acceptable ways for borders to change is either if a country is split in smaller parts, if two legitimate goverments decide to join or if a goverment ceedes territory as part of a deal (non-coerced).

Obviously, neither WW2 nor Israels occupation of palestine is included under any of those conditions.

Firstly, the position of the US government is not that of the UN or the international community. Secondly, if that were the US position, we would not recognize the government of Syria, or China, or many other countries. Even when the US is at war with a country, it usually acknowledges that the government is in fact the government. We even fought to defend the non-Democratic Kuwaiti government, without securing any reassurances of democracy. In fact, I don’t know of any calls for democratization in Kuwait, or in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, or any of the other dozens of dictatorships the US has supported.

Well, the first part was intended as further illustration. Take that as you will.

As for the second, it was covered in the statement below.

Do you think the US really wants to have free elections in say, Algeria or Kuwait or Yemen or even Brunei? It’s not like we have some great obligation or pressing need for these countries friendships. It’s our doctrine that democratic governments are preferable, but I don’t think we say that non-democratic governments are puppets or pretenders; we only say that as part of the propaganda which accompanies our wars against governments which happen to be non-democratic.

What has that got to do with things? Try telling yourself 'ideology vs. practicality, which one was I asking about' a few times, and you might understand my original post.

Tell me, does the US consider occupied Kashmir to be a part of India or Pakistan and not China?

Well, considering that Kashmir joined with India by free will, and the world considers is part of India, I fail to see the point.

Whether Kashmir should get independece is another question, fit for another thread.

Vilnius? Poland? Que?

So tell me, who was the legitimate government of Germany? Clearly, it was the allied occupation administration.

No, the allied occupation administration was an occupation administration. Kind of obvious, don't you think?

Germany did not have a legitimate goverment until the first free elections after the war.

Not true, because a democratic country may not allow parts of it to leave without the permission of the whole. For example, when the Freemen of Montana tried this, the federal government had a different take. On a larger scale, there was the American civil war, Basque separatists, and Chechneya.

umm, a democratic country being democartic assumes that the goverment rules on the mandate of the whole. if the goiverment grants cessation, it is legal.

regarding the Basques and the Checenyans, I support their bid for freedom.

regarding the freemen and the south, it is a different situation. Members of an ethinc group (or a selfdeclared group, such as the freemen or 'southerners'), who move into a land already established, obviously has no right to demand their own country. If you move somewhere, you assume the responsibilites of your new country. Likewise, no matter how many jews moved into palestine, they still don';t have the right to declare a jewish state...

Both are crimes, but they are different from each other.
the first one would entail a resistance movement, who is more than justified doing whatever it can to eliminate the occupying power.

The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.

So we learn that:
Fighting against a border change can move directly to the nuclear weapons phase, but but fighting genocide should use non-violent means. You must understand that non-violent methods will give the killers more time to conduct genocide than violent methods. The state which changes borders however, can be fought violently and immediately, even though there may not be any risk to life or limb.

ah, true to Natan style. Ignore the explanations, and keep insisting on your absurd represetnation of things.


well, just on the miniscule chance that still didn't actually understand what I previously wrote, let me highlight pertient parts:

The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.

Now, try to guess when non-vionet means are nor possible. could it be when time is of the essence, such as in a genocide situation? Not to mention if the number of people killed would be less than the military casualty due to military intervention? hopefully you feel chagrin that I had to explain the obvious for you, yet again... Or you feel elated that I was forced to waste time..

Regarding the nuclear means, I've been through it roughly eighty times by now.

A) An aggressor should be fought with whatever it takes to end the aggression.

B) Any act minimizing casualties among the victims are inherently justified.

C) Minimizing casulaties on the aggressors side is the responsibility of the aggressor, NOT THE VICTIM.


If this means nuclear annihilation, so be it. This is an extreme even, however, as an aggressor, even an insane one, would capitulate before his country is gone.

You respond to things I post in response to the statements of others, so I think it’s a bit silly to ask me not to speak unless spoken to.

Well, i admitted that I made a mistake. Are you saying that you responded to my statement to Siro by mistake?

Whether it’s morally justifiable depends on the circumstances, so I can’t “check one” any more than you can check one to the question “should a man have his money taken from him,” just as in the latter has a different answer depending on how the man got his money, who the taker is and what the taker intends to do with it, so in the former the question depends on a number of factors. Certainly though, I’m not arguing that it was unjust of Egypt and Jordan to grab Kfar Darom and Kfar Etzion from Israel in the 1948 war. I can’t answer your question any more than I can answer “would it be right for Israel to invade and dissolve an Arab nation,” in both cases it depends on exactly what is dissolved, how it is dissolved, and what is put in to replace it.

so, I'm taking this as 'It is OK for jews to invade and occupy land, but not OK for non-jews to invade and occupy Israel'. Kind of figured.

[CyberGnu]

Guardian, becuase he

A) instigated genocide (i.e. killing people for no other reason than ethnicity). Believing you have a good cause can only be true if the cause is deeds. Ethnicity is not one of them. Killing all pedophiles, for example, would not be a crime against humanity.

B) resorted to violence to get what he wanted. Hey, if he had acquired all the lands he wanted through peaceful means, he would have been hailed as the greatest statesman of all times. It is not the land par se, but the way he did it.

As I';ve told Natan a few hundred times:
AGGRESSION IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE

[Sirotnikov]

Hi honey

Wouldn't you like to join the moral debate on my "military training" thread?

I wonder what do you think.

[Sirotnikov]

A) instigated genocide (i.e. killing people for no other reason than ethnicity). Believing you have a good cause can only be true if the cause is deeds. Ethnicity is not one of them. Killing all pedophiles, for example, would not be a crime against humanity

1. Killing all pedophiles, would be a crime against humanity. Even if we assume pedophile = child molestor.
2. If the Jews did act against Germany, killing all Jews would not be a crime against humanity?
3. Arafat and the PLO preach for the killing of Jews. Read memri.org edume.org pmw.org.il

B) resorted to violence to get what he wanted. Hey, if he had acquired all the lands he wanted through peaceful means, he would have been hailed as the greatest statesman of all times. It is not the land par se, but the way he did it.

1. Arafat did exactly that in the Intifada 2000.

[Natan]

Not relevant. And quite frankly, not lucid, either... How is taking back what is yours considered 'grabbing more land'?

That’s the whole point - Mandatory Palestine was not Syria’s or Egypt’s to “take back.”

But anyway, the question is whether the palestinians are to blame for what their arab neighbours did, and I think the answer is obvious.

No, the question is were the Arabs justified in trying to destroy Israel and grab the land. You seem to be saying that they were.

And you still have a problem separating what I'm saying from your odd interpretations. Maybe the problem is mine, for assuming you are an intelligent adult...

Try to see it this way: Police have a mandate to shoot people in attempts to stop crime. This is uncontested. Does this in any imply that police can shoot people indiscriminately, or even that we'd PREFER police to shoot people instead of arresting them? Of course not.
And yet, this is your conclusion of my remark that the world has accepted that civilian casulties are acceptable in order to stop aggression.

I don’t see how you can possibly interpret the application of the principle that “Minimizing casulaties on the aggressors side is the responsibility of the aggressor, NOT THE VICTIM” to the Kosovo conflict as having anything to do with whether police would prefer to shoot people instead of arresting them. I don’t see how you got from point A to point B at all. Complete non-sequiter. This is not about whether NATO would prefer not to kill Serbian civillians, this is about whether NATO, once it is forced to take military action, has an obligation to keep Serbian civillian casualties down. In short, the question is, once the police are forced to shoot at the armed owner of the drug den, can they kill as many of the customers as they want while they’re at it?

Would I be happier if Israel left the ME tomorrow without any kind of bloodshed than I would if all Israelis were killed? Of course I would. That has NOTHING to to do with the justification to kill all israelis as an occuying presence.

Genocide includes killing people on the basis of nationality. But aside from that technical aspect, I just don’t think it makes it less horrifying that you want to kill innocent people that you’d let them go if they didn’t interfere with your political goals.

But I guess that doesn't fit in your preconcieved view of the world... where, if I have understood things correcly, anyone who disagrees that jews have the right to kill anyone weaker then them and steal their land is an anti-semite.

That’s just absurd. Do I call che and ramo anti-semites? Do I call Imran an anti-semite? No, I don’t. Do I even call you an anti-semite?

So where is this middle ground? how many millions of civilians are justified? 30 million civilians died in WW2, 15 of them german. That was apparently justified. Or is it a percentage?

Germany was a special case because of the genocide, which meant that even if we killed millions of German civillians, we probably made a net savings of human life by preventing them from exterminating Slavs and others. Japan was a similar case, what with what they were doing in China. But of course, there are grey areas. People argue about whether bombing Dresden and dropping the nuclear bomb were morally acceptable acts.

no, America is mine because my middlke initial is 'I'. oh, that doessn't make sense? So? Neither does your example. We've been through it about sixty billion times.

So tell me, at how many different times do I have to sell your car before it becomes no longer yours? You’re the one who’s using this poor analogy to describe how borders change.

Would you mind telling me, in detail how you came up with the previous conclusion? What statements of mine supports the idea that invasion is 'worse' than genocide?

As anyone even moderatly literate can see, I make no value judgement about genocide vs aggression. But they are DIFFERENT crimes.

Comparing robbery to robbery followed by murder is very different from comparing robbery to murder. Similarly, comparing genocide to aggression followed by genocide is not the same thing as comparing genocide and aggression. When you said that aggression should be fought by “all means necessary” but that genocide should be fought by peaceful means “If possible” (note that the phrase “all means necessary” was ommitted from the discussion of genocide, and the phrase “peaceful means if possible” ommitted from the discussion of aggression) I assumed that you thought aggression was worse than genocide. Generally, if one crime is fought with more serious means, it is a more serious crime. However, you have sinced either clarified or changed your position, so the issue is moot.

Now, up to this point, we've been dealing with the people in a neighbouring country, and what they are justified in doing.

Perhaps this is what you haven't understood. We haven't dealt at all with what the citizens if a country carrying out genocide on its own citizens would be justified in doing. I think the same rule goes here. Genocide is a crime of aggression.

Here’s what I don’t understand:
“The reason is the events leading up to the genocide. If internal, the citizens of that country does have some kind of responsibility in letting the siutation deteriorate to this point. In external, the citizens had absolutely no influence over the matter.“
Which citizens are we reffering to who have a responsibility in the first case? The perpetrators of the genocide or the victims?

The victims of aggression are justified in doing whatever it takes to stop aggression.

IT IS NEVER THE VICTIMS TASK TO WORRY ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF RESISTING AGGRESSION.

Now is it your claim that murdering all the citizens of an enemy country is not genocide or that that would be an exception to the rule “The victims of aggression are justified in doing whatever it takes to stop aggression?”

so, would you mind addressing my question: So how do you want it? Is there a gradual scale for violations of human rights or not?

If by that you mean that some violations of human rights are worse than others (I think that’s what you mean) then I whole-heartedly agree. I hope you do too.

You should try reading the news. the last UN attempt was before christmas, but the chinese managed to shut it down. Of course, most attention was on the Israeli-US screaming about how the arabs wanted the UN to condemn Israel...

So in short, the UN has not criticized China but merely “attempted” to do so. That’s meaningless. That’s like saying that the US congress attempted to pass a bill but failed because the Republicans managed to shut it down. If a body has a procedure for passing bills/resolutions, and a resolution does not pass, then the body did not endorse the resolution. You already said that “Actually, the international community DOES critise China. Unfortunately, the UN doesn;t because China has veto power” Maybe you could give me an example of the international community criticizing China then?

well, since Bush calls sharon 'an honorable man', i don't think he is the best of examples...

It was Clinton who made the visit.

and the WTO is not a political body, it is an economic one.

So what you’re saying is that it’s okay to have economic dealings with aggressors, as long as you make a half-hearted effort to get the UN to issue a meaningless condemnation of them afterwards? We can have increased economic dealings with China while fully supporting the right of the Tibetans to do whatever necessary to end Chinese aggression? That doesn’t sound right to me.

Hey, I made no such statement. i said that after WW2, the world leaders finally sat down to hammer out an agreement that aggression is not an acceptable means to change borders. (the 'finaly' part isn;t exaclty true, they did sit down after WW1 as well, but they failed that time.)

Prior to the end of WW2, there were still treaties bweteen nations, and a treaty is legally binding. Germany, for example, signed a treaty that they gave up all claims on lands outside the 1919 german borders in order to recieve loans and end occupation of the rhineland.

Is it meaningful to say that you “recieved loans” when at the same time you are ordered to pay vast reparations? And is a treaty made under durress binding?

Interestingly, many of the german generals in the nurnberg trials were tried not for warcrimes (i.e. genocide) but for breaking the treaties (i.e. acts of aggression).

Yes but IIRC, no one was punished solely for “waging aggressive war.” It was the weakest charge, because the allies were guilty of it too in several cases.

Well, we haven't had one since WW2.

I think that has a lot to do with the fact that one side was clearly defeated. It also has a lot to do with the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. If you really think this proves that the UN charter ban on aggression has been effective, I think we should also discuss the control of other countries without official annexation, a practice which technically worked around changing attitudes without changing the underlying imperialist policy. Stalin annexed Poland in 1945 just as surely as if he’d made it the “Polish SSR,” but maintained the illusion of independence. So nothing really changed; nations still fought each other and grabbed land, but now, they often made the grabbing unofficial.

Furthermore, take a look at regions like Africa and south america. Despite a multitude of similar strength countries, no wars...

Ah, yes . . . no wars in Rwanda-Burundi lately, peaceful Ethiopian-Eritrean border for the last decade, Zaire enjoying peace and prosperity. Meanwhile, in South America, the peaceful soccer war, the conflict in Nicaragua, and numerous other peaceful events. Really, where did you get this idea? Conflicts are not stopped by UN decree. Of course, most of these examples I’ve used are not-interestate conflicts, but most of them are also nastier than many interstate conflicts. It should also be noted that those two areas had also been relatively quiet before WWII.

Well, the problem is that borders ARE clear cut.

They’re clear in the sense that you can usually point to a very specific line on the map and say it’s a border. But morally speaking, I don’t attach great signifigance to those lines.

The ONLY acceptable ways for borders to change is either if a country is split in smaller parts, if two legitimate goverments decide to join or if a goverment ceedes territory as part of a deal (non-coerced).

So if the deal has to be non-coerced, how can Versailles possibly count?

Obviously, neither WW2 nor Israels occupation of palestine is included under any of those conditions.

And as I see it, nor is Germany’s ceding of land at Versailles. I’d hardly call that treaty “non-coerced.”

Well, the first part was intended as further illustration. Take that as you will.

As for the second, it was covered in the statement below.

Okay, but is there any government anywhere which says that the current regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Kuwait are not the legitimate governments of their respective countries because they are not democratically elected?

What has that got to do with things? Try telling yourself 'ideology vs. practicality, which one was I asking about' a few times, and you might understand my original post.

Here’s what it’s got to do with things:
I’m arguing that our support for dictatorial regimes is not a case of practicality winning out over ideology, but rather that we simply do not consider dictatorships illegitimate governments.

Well, considering that Kashmir joined with India by free will, and the world considers is part of India, I fail to see the point.

I see that you are not aware that part of Kashmir (called Aksai Chin) is occupied by China and has been since 1959. Yet I have never seen any condemnation of this ilegal occupation.

Vilnius? Poland? Que?

Vilnius was part of Poland from independence after WWI until Stalin annexed it to the USSR after WWII, so isn’t it occupied territory?

No, the allied occupation administration was an occupation administration. Kind of obvious, don't you think?

Germany did not have a legitimate goverment until the first free elections after the war.

I don’t see why occupation is synonymous with illegitimate. Our occupation was completely justified by the preceding war and genocide, therefore, we and the other allied powers were the legitimate government.

umm, a democratic country being democartic assumes that the goverment rules on the mandate of the whole. if the goiverment grants cessation, it is legal.

Did you read what I wrote? It was: “a democratic country may [/i]not[/i] allow parts of it to leave without the permission of the whole.” (emphasis added) That is, the issue is not when the democratic government grants cessation, but when it does not.
[QUOTE]
regarding the Basques and the Checenyans, I support their bid for freedom. [/QUO
Even though they are both fighting against democratic governments? Just want to be sure on this.

regarding the freemen and the south, it is a different situation. Members of an ethinc group (or a selfdeclared group, such as the freemen or 'southerners'), who move into a land already established, obviously has no right to demand their own country.

Cyber, I’ve never seen anyone argue that the southerners of 1860 were different from the southerners of 1787 or 1776. They were the same people; no migration was involved. It’s just that in 1860 they decided they wanted out of what they had joined three quarters of a century before.

If you move somewhere, you assume the responsibilites of your new country. Likewise, no matter how many jews moved into palestine, they still don';t have the right to declare a jewish state...

So how far back does a migration have to go before it becomes legitimate? For example, the Turks in Cyprus came there in Ottoman times. Also, wouldn’t this make Texan independence, and thus the resulting annexation, completely illegitimate?

ah, true to Natan style. Ignore the explanations, and keep insisting on your absurd represetnation of things.


well, just on the miniscule chance that still didn't actually understand what I previously wrote, let me highlight pertient parts:

The second is a crime against humanity, and the international community is morally obliged to stop it. Most likely by military intervention, but if possibly through non-violent means, such as the blockade of South Africa.

Now, try to guess when non-vionet means are nor possible. could it be when time is of the essence, such as in a genocide situation? Not to mention if the number of people killed would be less than the military casualty due to military intervention? hopefully you feel chagrin that I had to explain the obvious for you, yet again... Or you feel elated that I was forced to waste time..

Once you start arguing for nuclear extermination as a means of preventing border adjustment, I feel the need to make absolutely sure we’re on the same page on what would be trivial topics in a discussion with someone who thinks civillian casualties should be avoided. Once you base your ideas on the rights of states rather than on saving human life, I have no further basis for assuming you will allow a state to take action against another state to save human lives rather than to save the state or its territorial integrity.
Furthermore, it seemed blatantly obvious to me that if genocide is taking place, taking more time to stop the genocide means (more or less by definition) that more people will be killed. It also seemed blatantly obvious to me that peaceful means will not stop the genocide as quickly as violent ones. Hence, the need to request clarification when you say genocide should first be fought with non-violent means.

Regarding the nuclear means, I've been through it roughly eighty times by now.

A) An aggressor should be fought with whatever it takes to end the aggression.

B) Any act minimizing casualties among the victims are inherently justified.

C) Minimizing casulaties on the aggressors side is the responsibility of the aggressor, NOT THE VICTIM.

Yes, those are all the things I find abhorent. You may have noticed substantial concern about civillian casualties in Serbia, Iraq, and other places, in which case you’ll see that there are other people who agree with me. If I criticize your opinion, repeating it again so that I can see again what I’m disagreeing with doesn’t really accomplish anything.

If this means nuclear annihilation, so be it. This is an extreme even, however, as an aggressor, even an insane one, would capitulate before his country is gone.

Would the liberators even be obliged to make sure the aggressors know about the threat before carrying it out? And wouldn’t there be in many cases a threat of nuclear retaliation if the first strike is not utterly devestating?

so, I'm taking this as 'It is OK for jews to invade and occupy land, but not OK for non-jews to invade and occupy Israel'. Kind of figured.

I don’t see how “depending on the circumstances” can be taken as a yes or a no, since it means both.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
The victims of aggression are justified in doing whatever it takes to stop aggression.

How is warfare against the non-combatant population ever justified, regardless of the side resorting to such measures?

[Imran Siddiqui]

How is warfare against the non-combatant population ever justified, regardless of the side resorting to such measures?

Ask the US... or UK... or ah forget it.

[DinoDoc]

Then, on what objective basis do you condemn the behavior of the Isaelis? If you even mention the words oppressor or victim, I will have to throttle you because that isn't an objective basis for an answer and will be considered a nonresponse.