What does modern Israel have in common with 1950's Alabama?

[Asher]

Oh really? Those are all consequences of the fact that the killings happened a little outside of Israeli waters

YES. MANY people have been very upset with how the US & Israel choose to disregard international law where it serves their interest. The fact that YOU lack the world view required to see this is another failing on your part.

Your ignorance of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Any quick google will show TONS of articles online fixating on the legality of what Israel did. The simple presence of ONE of these articles constitutes a BAD CONSEQUENCE of the action.

Therefore your argument that NO BAD CONSEQUENCES came of the action is clearly FALSE.

Now because I know you're pedantic without an ability to see the big picture, PEOPLE ARE ALSO UPSET ABOUT THE PEOPLE MURDERED. They're more upset about that. But to pretend that nobody takes issue with the fact that it was in international waters is to ignore reality. There was a bad consequence to it, whether you're wise enough to recognize it or not.

[Hauldren Collider]

Asher, you are naive if you think that the fact that international law was broken is a reason that anyone (who isn't a tool) cares. That is to say, world leaders etc.

[Asher]

Europe hates on israel whether it breaks so-called international law or not, the law really isn't the issue at hand here, why are you still hung up about this?

You're oversimplifying things.

I was indifferent to the whole thing before, now I'm not. Others in Europe were bound to be in the same position.

Your assertion that everyone's opinions on this were already formed is false.

[Hauldren Collider]

Great, Asher's a tool. Awesome.

I mean COME ON, you really think Sarkozy for instance gives a **** which parallel it was at?

[Asher]

Asher, you are naive if you think that the fact that international law was broken is a reason that anyone (who isn't a tool) cares. That is to say, world leaders etc.

You are naive to think people in the world don't care about international law. Many do.

Americans don't, but you guys are incredibly arrogant and self-centred (see your own posts in recent days). You lack world experience to make these kinds of judgements.

[Hauldren Collider]

Americans are fiercely independent and we (generally speaking) aren't interested in doing what other countries tell us to do. It's a deep-seated cultural thing.

[Kuciwalker]

YES. MANY people have been very upset with how the US & Israel choose to disregard international law where it serves their interest. The fact that YOU lack the world view required to see this is another failing on your part.

Your ignorance of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Any quick google will show TONS of articles online fixating on the legality of what Israel did. The simple presence of ONE of these articles constitutes a BAD CONSEQUENCE of the action.

That doesn't follow, actually. How many of the people complaining about the borders issue wouldn't be complaining otherwise? You don't know, but I'm willing to wager the answer is "the vast majority." And even if you are right, the conclusion is "Israel shouldn't have done it because people would think they shouldn't have done it", which means the only correct position is "it was a little bit bad for Israel, but only because a bunch of people are tools."

Therefore your argument that NO BAD CONSEQUENCES came of the action is clearly FALSE.

You're entirely correct that there is some, small, extra bad PR from the violation, and that my categorical claim was not 100% correct. You're welcome to keep making the kind of meaningless quibbles you consistently accuse me of.

[Hauldren Collider]

Consistently and correctly, Kuci.

[Asher]

Yet another example of the attempt to deflect the issue with pretty but meaningless rhetoric. You had no interest in shades of gray in your claim - VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW IS BAD, THEY ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY VIOLATED THE LAW, BAD BAD BAD - whereas my point actually respected that there are "shades of gray" wrt violations of the law.

You're being superficial again. Yes, on the law point I think laws should be adhered to on principle -- especially when you're dealing with foreign relations. Violating a law, unfortunately, IS binary. You either do or you don't.

You are saying that it's fine to violate laws as long as YOU DON'T PERCEIVE IT TO HAVE A BAD CONSEQUENCE.

And that's fine -- THAT IS YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION.

Where the "shades of grey" comes in is when you start to act like your opinion is a fact and you "own" other people for believing otherwise. That's what I'm talking about. I'm still not sure you can comprehend that. Am I blowing your mind here?

BTW, using your "breaking a law is okay only if there's a bad consequence" stance, I assume you're completely okay with vigilante justice to some degree, like a civilian murdering a convicted serial child murderer or rapist?

[Hauldren Collider]

Asher, international law does not compare to normal law. It really is a lot fuzzier and much more principles-based than rules based.

[Asher]

Americans are fiercely independent

Yes, you are so fiercely independent that you blindly tie yourself to Israel.

and we (generally speaking) aren't interested in doing what other countries tell us to do. It's a deep-seated cultural thing.

I very well understand why, I'm simply of the opinion that it doesn't matter.

Americans put their nose in other people's business and disobey international law and consensus regularly. As a result, people hijack your airliners and fly them into your office towers.

One day, America will realize it's not in their best interest to spend trillions of dollars pissing the rest of the world off.

[OzzyKP]

*slowly backs out of thread*

[Asher]

That doesn't follow, actually.

...

You're entirely correct that there is some, small, extra bad PR from the violation, and that my categorical claim was not 100% correct.

I can't believe you gave Ozzy **** for contradictions earlier.

[C0ckney]

also, it's not just people in europe who are outraged over israel's actions. it's a worldwide thing. this is happening tomorrow. it's in portuguese but basically the social movements of rio de janeiro are having a big demostration against the politics of violence promoted by the israeli state and to show solidarity with the oppressed people of the gaza strip.

[Kuciwalker]

You're being superficial again. Yes, on the law point I think laws should be adhered to on principle -- especially when you're dealing with foreign relations. Violating a law, unfortunately, IS binary. You either do or you don't.

So you're massively ignorant of law, too, and don't realize how open to interpretation it is.

It's not surprising that you can't see shades of gray where they really exist.

You are saying that it's fine to violate laws as long as YOU DON'T PERCEIVE IT TO HAVE A BAD CONSEQUENCE.

And that's fine -- THAT IS YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION.

Where the "shades of grey" comes in is when you start to act like your opinion is a fact and you "own" other people for believing otherwise. That's what I'm talking about. I'm still not sure you can comprehend that. Am I blowing your mind here?

It's also my "subjective opinion" that killing people is bad. But you know what, I feel perfectly justified in calling people who disagree evil.

If your moral sense genuinely values adhering to the law irrespective of consequences, then it is pretty ****ed up.

BTW, using your "breaking a law is okay only if there's a bad consequence" stance, I assume you're completely okay with vigilante justice to some degree, like a civilian murdering a convicted serial child murderer or rapist?

Vigilante justice risks substantial negative consequences for society if permitted, so generally no