London, Terrorism and the World - DPChallenge Forums

07/20/2005 06:39:50 AM · #276

Jason,

I am not goign to respond to every one of your pernickety justifications and criticisms. You entered a discussion at a time when leaders throughout the world were calling for peace and understanding, with some explosive remarks.

Your posts come across as being prejudiced. I have failed in my attempt to explain what prejudice is to you, and why a "fact" can be used to justify any number of statements, some of which uses will be valid, and others not. The invalid expressions of fact can be used to excite prejudice. The semantics are complicated, and I am not prepared to invest further time trying to demonstrate or explain that.

You have spent thousands of words trying to justify your initial sentiments - such extensive justification and explanation should not be necessary. That alone should lead to the conclusion that your initial statements either expressed sentiments that were hard to express neutrally, in which you failed, or expressed statements that were not neutral, and you are taking an unbalanced approach to the matter. Your latest further comments on isolating and treating all Palestinians alike as if they all were mentally diseased for using chidren as human bombs, and your "throw them in prison without a trial" statements, makes me think that it is very much the latter.

Please look up the definition of "imply". My concern, as I have tried, oh so many times to explain, is that your words imply a lot, and that implication is not negatived by saying "some of my best friends are [lesbian/black/Muslim], but...".

I have tried not to rise to your name calling, labelling and swearing at me. Your attempts to label me as an elitist, bigoted, prejudiced, *&!$*" snob, do you little credit. If the best you can do is tell me that I am prejudiced against, or intolerant of, or refuse to bow to, people with your point of view, well, I can live with that. My only response would be that you are a sophist.

Your view of life is naieve. You take some of the most complicated social and political dynamics of our time, a thousand years of jurisprudence, and three thousand years of philosophy on right/wrong. You come up with sweeping generalisations, pretty much all negative, about one of the world's most prevalent religions, the hundreds of millions of adherents, and how natural law should (or should not) apply to them.

Because you are a Christian, I will repeat myself, in the (probably vain) hope that your religion will guide you better than my reasoning:

As I was told by a bishop the other day, "Turning the other cheek" need not mean allowing yourself to be walked all over: it means refusing to sink down to the other person's level.

The terrorists disregard all forms of law and order, have little regard for human life, and use religion as a divisive measure. Will you continue to do so?

07/20/2005 07:05:21 AM · #277

I refused to respond to this bizarre point originally, but you just astonish me! A list of countries, some of which have experienced conflict, with no regard to the reasons for that conflict is *such* a persuasive argument.

Here is a Site with a list of recent conflicts. There are some examples of extremist Muslim/Christian conflicts that you have missed. And a lot of other wars and conflicts that have nothing to do with religion.

You should call the guy who maintains the website with all the extra conflicts that you have found. Oh - and if we are going for "tension", then put down England and Spain, over Gibraltar, Russia and the US for nuclear treaty breach, Texas and the rest of the US on secession etc etc...

Way to make the facts try and fit around your theory. The apparent theory being... Muslim states are warmongers. Nothing like the smell of prejudice in the morning. And bear in mind that the USA and Israel are still at the top of the list, and can both be regarded as aggressors as easily as victims.

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Originally posted by theSaj:
"or wherever you've got your views on islam as a religion"

Might it be from viewing the actions of Islam itself?

Please tell me of a single place where an Islamic populace/nation borders a non-islamic nation and there is not conflict. In fact, the vast majority of conflicts in the world are with Islam

1. USA

2. Israel

3. Yugoslavia

4. Spain

5. Russia

6. India

7. Indonesia

8. Philippines

Nearly every place this religion borders on - there is conflict by the extremists.
.

9: Bosnia
10: Macedonia
11: Cyprus
12: Ethiopia/Eritrea
13: Somalia
14: Sudan
15: Pakistan/India
16: Azerbaijan/Armenia
17: Lebanon
18: Greece/Turkey hostilities
19: Uzbekistan
20: Tajikistan
21: Kyrgizistan

Map here [/quote][

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

07/20/2005 11:52:20 AM · #278

Originally posted by Flash:

I was happy to read that Blair met with Muslim Leaders to seek their support to "rid" their midst of the "bad apples".

I have to stop exceeding my "last post" limit, but thought I would reference this positive report by the BBC on the issue of a fatwa by 500 UK Muslim leaders stating that Islam condemns the use of violence, and that suicide bombings are "vehemently prohibited".

Flash

Nikon D700

07/20/2005 01:24:32 PM · #279

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Flash:
I was happy to read that Blair met with Muslim Leaders to seek their support to "rid" their midst of the "bad apples".

I have to stop exceeding my "last post" limit, but thought I would reference this positive report by the BBC on the issue of a fatwa by 500 UK Muslim leaders stating that Islam condemns the use of violence, and that suicide bombings are "vehemently prohibited".

Reading today (american press), it appears that at least 2 articles are picking up variations on this theme. More disturbing to me. One article was an interview with the father of Mohamed Atta (one of the 9-11 hijacker pilots) where he stated his pleasure and satisfaction with the London Bombings. The other was describing the apparent split within "moderate" muslim leaders on whether suicide bombings was a violation of Isamic Law. Half of the leaders claimed that it was, while the others indicated that suicide bombings were permitted against an occupying force.

The problem for me, when I read these kinds of positions, is that none of the victims in London were part of an occupying force. The bombers in London were not in a country of occupation, nor were they fighting the victims. They simply murdered innocents.

Some may argue, and have argued, that the citizens of an occupying country, whose army is in a position of "occupation", are as "guilty" of occupation as the army itself, and therefore lawful targets for suicide bombings. This, in my opinion, is wrong, and when "moderate" leaders are not clear on specifics, it allows for future mis-interpretations by gullible youths.

To me, a warrior who acts outside the framework of an official army, is a criminal. IOW, if a person chooses to fight against a country's occupation, then they should join the army of a country who opposes that occupation. If they choose instead to "free lance" their war acts, then they should be drawn and quartered, and charged as any murderer within the society. Those that assist or encourage, or incite the murderers, are -in my opinion- accomplices in the crime.

Again, pleased to read of the meeting, saddened that there still appears to be some "moderate" leaders who choose to leave wiggle room for justified suicide bombings, without clearly stating that only uniformed soldiers are permitted targets.

The argument that "our civilians are killed by your army, therefore your civilians are lawful targets" is false. If the occupiers civialians were killed due to collateral fallout of a government army resisting the occupiers, then I would accept that argument. But to simply target civilians due to their easier accessability and thus vulnerability, with the intended purpose of putting pressure on their government to withdraw, is misguided at best. Governments have army's, and army's are the warriors who fight on behalf of the governments. "Free lancers" are merely criminals, awaiting damnation.

07/20/2005 08:35:13 PM · #280

"You entered a discussion at a time when leaders throughout the world were calling for peace and understanding, with some explosive remarks."

No, I entered some comments to bring a balance to what was several anti-Israel statements that were of extreme, and were of an innacurate or one-sided biased nature.

"I have failed in my attempt to explain what prejudice is to you, and why a "fact" can be used to justify any number of statements, some of which uses will be valid, and others not."

I simply disagree with you. I believe a fact is a fact. I believe prejudice is whether you love or give a damn about said individuals and whether you desire good or evil on them. I think what you advocate is simply a politeness. Similar to "southern hospitality" which although often excelling, will often be offered even to one's enemy out of civil politeness. To me....your ways are much more prejudice and in truth, unmanageable. You seek to please all and you will only accomplish the result of insulting all.

For reference "tension" is much different than the "conflict" we referenced. "tensions" over Gibraltar are, at this time, not a "conflict" of constant bloodshed. And yes, the christian based nations of Western Europe have had their share of wars but excepting the Irish-conflict, there have been few "religiously" motivated wars in the past century or more.

"The apparent theory being... Muslim states are warmongers."
No, the apparent theory being that SOME Muslims are Terrorists. And that they are wide-spread in their influences. And they tend to have extremist influences in most nations that are predominantly of Islamic adherants. And because of that, there is further tensions on the borders.

As for your list, it is interesting how many of the conflicts include either "muslim" or "communist" - just found that interesting.
//www.historyguy.com/new_and_recent_conflicts.html#newandrecentcurrent

And the argument was never to state that all conflicts. Just to imply that quite a few, factually one of the largest single common factors.

"And bear in mind that the USA and Israel are still at the top of the list, and can both be regarded as aggressors as easily as victims. "

Yup...and I believe the main point of my first entrance was all the comments simply listing Israel as the aggressor and failing to address the aggressors and victims on both sides.

"The invalid expressions of fact can be used to excite prejudice. The semantics are complicated"

Funny, we agree on this. In fact, it was the point of my first post. To raise such a fuss about the 600,000 displaced Palestinians (fact) and not raise a fuss or even address the 500,000 displaced middle-eastern Jews (fact) both displaced at the same time. Is to me the exact exciting to prejudice which you so adamantly disclaim.

Which is another of my fundemental points. That we are human and therefore biased. Always to our opinion. But those such as you fail to see that that they are biased and prejudiced. And they try to deny it under guise of politeness. But it becomes obvious by who and how they choose to support or attack.

"You have spent thousands of words trying to justify your initial sentiments"
No, I've spent thousands of words in an endeavor to balance out your words. So that others around do not see your fear and hate-mongering and mis-appropriate threats of "prejudice and hate" and feel alone before such. I've spent thousands of words showing how you yourself are bigoted and guilty of your own accusations.

"That alone should lead to the conclusion that your initial statements either expressed sentiments that were hard to express neutrally, in which you failed, or expressed statements that were not neutral, and you are taking an unbalanced approach to the matter."
I never denied that my statements were of a singular focus, they were counterpoint and balance to the singular comments made several times beforehand. Do not, allow single-handed comments to be made for your side and deride another for make a counter-point to them. That - to quote Colonel Potter - is "horse cocky".

"Your latest further comments on isolating and treating all Palestinians alike as if they all were mentally diseased for using chidren as human bombs, and your "throw them in prison without a trial" statements, makes me think that it is very much the latter."

I challenged you to give a method for determination or handling safely. If you cannot do such then you have no right to comment or condemn those actions on the part of Israelis. Pacifism and a perfect world is a noble dream. But the reality that we live in does not allow for it to be practiced in fullness. So when several terrorist suicide bombings occur in Israeli streets, on their buses and at their schools how can you have the balls to condemn them for closing the fences and refuse to allow any Palestinians into the region. Can you provide a better solution? No...you simply like to condemn. In fact, if I believe your own words the endeavoring of coming up with solutions is "naive and pointless". But unless you can tell the Israeli's an alternative way of determining a Palestinian "extremist" from Joe-Palestinian than I think it in very poor criticism to laud about how "judging an entire group is wrong".

imÂ·ply Audio pronunciation of "imply" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pl)
tr.v. imÂ·plied, imÂ·plyÂ·ing, imÂ·plies

1. To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death.
2. To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer.
3. Obsolete. To entangle.

"My concern, as I have tried, oh so many times to explain, is that your words imply a lot, and that implication is not negatived"

People quantify because leftist extremists like you take things constantly in attempts to use threats and fear to further your agendas and your positions. If someone is not with you they are a "racist" "bigot" "sexist" etc.

As I stated before, Bill Cosby as an example, if I were to say his views you'd call me a racist (against african-americans). But you don't have the balls to call him that...because he himself is black.

So no, I'm not going to cower to you making up your own rules that such "statements" should not be necessary. They're not necessary to people like you because your an extremist bigot. They're necessary to Joe average person (not leftist extremist) to understand where I am coming from and that I am not some "white power" or "black power" or "squirrel power" freak.

No, most of what I've said is not even for you....I don't think you could ever look past your own bigoted views and be honest with yourself. I think it is more important to you to be seen as something than to be honest with people as to what you are.

"I have tried not to rise to your name calling, labelling and swearing at me. Your attempts to label me as an elitist, bigoted, prejudiced, *&!$*" snob, do you little credit."

Thank you, do you know how long I've waited to see you make that exact statement. Guess what....you did yourself very little credit way back early in this thread when you started using "extremist" "nazi" and many other labels. So I reached a point where I simply said fine. Let's call it what it is. I'll be the first to admit I've brought little credit to myself in this thread. Though I doubt you'd be able to quite say the same. (Outside of the fact that you probably think you never should have allowed yourself to get so involved - but that's not what I'm referring too, and it only goes to further my point about you.) I've not see you bring anything positive to the table. Nothing but accusation and labelling - no solutions. No alternatives. (Not ones that are viable and ensure safety.) You merely are a sounding brass...

And when push comes to shove, as middle-of-the-road you think you are. You are so far to the left that you are left daily shaking your head in disbelief. How can these people be detained without trial? when it is obvious that common man, the true middle-of-the-road man (not you nor I) is simply saying "these men can't be released until we can ensure safety - once we can do that we'll release them - it's a shame, but we do not have another viable alternative at this time"

"You take some of the most complicated social and political dynamics of our time, a thousand years of jurisprudence, and three thousand years of philosophy on right/wrong."
This is rhetoric if I ever heard. Please, do tell me which 1,000 - 3,000 yr old jurisprudence and philosophy I am casting aside? OMG... are you arguing that because something is three-thousand years old - it's right. I mean, should we allow slavery? or kill homosexuals? I mean, many of those tenants are 3,000 yr old. Please, unless you want me to say "Legalbeagle you are casting aside 8,ooo yrs of tradition and judicial mechanisms used in over 200 civilians"

"You come up with sweeping generalisations, pretty much all negative, about one of the world's most prevalent religions, the hundreds of millions of adherents, and how natural law should (or should not) apply to them."

You mean that there is a problem in Islam at the moment. My God, look around you....do I have to mail you a piece of the World Trade Center? or how about a fleshy limb? if you can deny there is a problem within Islam. And guess what....those extremists...however much you want to re-label them (heck, you couldn't even call them terrorists)....they are within "Islam". They are not all of Islam.

What you really need LB is a course in logic. One of the very basic addressings of logic even.

1) ALL S is P (ALL Muslims are Terrorists) FALSE
2) SOME S is P (SOME Muslims are Terrorists) TRUE
3) SOME S is NOT P (SOME Muslims are NOT Terrorists) TRUE (and hopefully more so than not)
4) NO S is P (NO Muslims are Terrorists) FALSE

Saying, there is a problem in Islam. Is saying "SOME S is P". This is, in our geo-political state a "fact". Now, one might say "well they're not true muslims" but they believe they are, and they are still a part of the claimants of Islam - and thus are still "within Islam".

Now, if I were to say "All of Islam are terrorists" the equivalent of ALL S is P. This would be a mis-application.

You keep trying to force option (4). Your methodology is to establish "NO S is P" by declaring any "S who is P" to not be "S". While a nice thought, and every group would love to be able to do so - it's not sound.

I fall within those individuals who claim to be christians. So does Mother Theresa. So does the man who bombed the abortion clinic. Now, without a doubt, I express that man is not a true christian. But he is still a claimant and viewing the group called "christians" he is within it. And rest assured, gets used often as an example of such by the media and leftists. Which is one reason the common people have such distate for leftist political thought police. Because, they have problems with anyone addressing a protectorate group of theirs in such a way as to not divide all the wrong-doers from right-doers. But they constantly do such to the groups they oppose. (As I've repeatedly pointed out you do.) So the common man decides "why should I adhere to a system that the lauders of do not adhere to themselves but simply use to attack me and to cower me into a corner?")

"The terrorists disregard all forms of law and order, have little regard for human life, and use religion as a divisive measure. Will you continue to do so?"
I will continue to speak the truth, to state the fact - whether that is offensive or not I really do not care. If it is, it is...

As for myself, do I disregard all forms of law and order. Well, truth be told I am a rational anarchist with communistic tendencies. So yes, I dislike laws. But I do appreciate order. I do not believe in laws. But seldom have trouble with them because my morality is higher than most around me. As for regard to human life - I have far more than you. So in that, I am not worried. As for using religion to be a divisive measure. "Religion" by definition is "law". The reason religion is divisive is due largely to the fact that law is divisive. It seperates the abider and the breaker. The issue one has, is with the laws in any given "set of codecs".

Your political correctness to a "T" I find quite divisive. I also believe it has a very high disregard for life. You are more concerned about your pet pieves than the people. That much was clearly obvious when I put a call for some positive ideas and solutions. You balked at the idea. You do not care about people. You do not care about anything other than your leftist agenda. I ask what you are doing for people? I myself sponsor an impoverished child in Thailand! I myself spent much of last year helping to support friend who was a single mom. And if I had need to have people come to my defense and stand for me as to whether I had regard for human life, regard for my neighbors. I have no fear that there would be a fairly great mass if I had such need - standing in my defense.

But you sir, I do find provacative. Insulting. Bigoted. Extreme. You are quite willing to deride anyone whom you disagree with and to prejudge with great prejudice any statement they make. But to actually do anything to improve this world? to offer an idea or a solution? any man who balks at such and scoffs? I see very little need to respect.

It is believed that at least two suitcase sized nuclear bomb devices are currently in the U.S. in the hands of terrorists. With such units 10-50 million lives could be in jeopardy. And if a couple of hundred men have to be detained (And yes, I do believe that they should be treated fairly and not needlessly abused. And that is something I support - and have stated my support. But see, you like to intertwine and state if you accept the one you accept the other - and such is not the case.) with out a public trial until laws and methods can be brought up to the times to handle the necessary judicial hearings rather than risk setting free an individual who could help bring about the death of millions. Yes, I will accept that - but I'll leap at any viable idea that offers a better alternative. But until you can offer me a better alternative I refuse to risk the lives of 50 million people.

Pacifism DOES NOT WORK!

I learned a lot from the "playground"... In second grade, I was chased by a student wielding a wooden brick. I was punished for running. When I exclaimed that another kid was chasing me with a wooden brick the teacher curtly replied "He can't chase you if you don't run." You are that teacher - and that teacher was both wicked and a fool - I was thereafter punished and sent to the office for my next exclamation which was essentially "Duh....he'll hit me with the block." You see, I do not buy your world philosophy. It doesn't fly in the playground. It doesn't stand true. And if such a philosophy cannot even stand at the lowest level of mankind's political structure, that of the school playground, than how am I too trust it on a planetary scale. I simply cannot!

- The Saj

"thought I would reference this positive report by the BBC on the issue of a fatwa by 500 UK Muslim leaders stating that Islam condemns the use of violence, and that suicide bombings are "vehemently prohibited"."
Now that is a positive step...

"The problem for me, when I read these kinds of positions, is that none of the victims in London were part of an occupying force. The bombers in London were not in a country of occupation, nor were they fighting the victims. They simply murdered innocents. "

The problem for me is the "world Islam" concept. And the idea that anywhere that was Muslim must be made so again and are thus occupied by infidels. And that the whole world must one day be muslim which essentially, such a belief (and not an uncommon one) ensure that all non-muslims will either be considered occupiers or "taxed" (under Islamic law the peoples of the books (Jews and Christians) can pay a tribute of sorts to reside.

"Some may argue, and have argued, that the citizens of an occupying country, whose army is in a position of "occupation", are as "guilty" of occupation as the army itself, and therefore lawful targets for suicide bombings."

Furthermore, the bombers were not Iraqi. Thus one could make the argument that an Iraqi could have bombed London. But how could a British citizen or a Muslim of another country. Unless, you want to go to the "Islamic state" that legalbeagle like a blind fool constantly derides the reference too even though it is extremely common within the bounds of Islamic adherants. And if you accept the Islamic state and any Islamic state can call upon the whole of Islam to it's defense. Then if a muslim moves to another nation they are now able to call upon all of Islam to defend. It becomes a judiciary for expansion.

So in my opinion. If they state that no suicide bombing is allowed. Than kudos. And to me, I think calling them moderates is a poor choice. To me - that is the Joe-average Sane guy. ANYONE who says suicide bombing civilians is acceptable is NOT MODERATE. So when they comment on 50/50 discussion. Yes, something is very wrong. If 1% of christian leaders in America were debating the use of suicide bombers against civilian targets something would be horrendously wrong with christianity in America.

This is why I have such a low dis-regard for LB's point of view. He fails repeatedly to address these matters of concern.

"To me, a warrior who acts outside the framework of an official army, is a criminal."
Actually, this is not the case, not in my opinion. A warrior who operates outside a framework but directs his efforts only toward military targets is not a criminal. The targeting of civilian targets with intent - is criminal. (Yes, their is much question on whether the bombing of Japan in WWII was criminal....however, the choices were large arms manufacturing factory cities. So that grays the issue some. But I do question that decision greatly. And yet,there are even Japanese who have commented if not for that Japan would have lost hundreds of thousands more - an entire generation - fighting to the last man. But if I were in that position, I do not htink I could make a similar choice. I likely would have dropped the bomb, but in a sparsley populated zone. Perhaps on a naval fleet.)

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/21/2005 09:32:27 AM · #281

:(

More bombings (or failed attempts at such)...

:(

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

07/21/2005 10:07:05 AM · #282

edited

Message edited by author 2005-07-21 12:02:22.

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/21/2005 11:08:52 AM · #283

Just a couple of itches to be scratched.

I did not call you a Nazi - I said that your rhetoric reflects the rhetoric of one political party only. I then explained who that party was (the BNP, not the Nazi party). I explicitly said that I did not ascribe all their policies to you. I did state that your statements are of an extremist nature, because they reflect those of a fascist party (the BNP) in this regard. My point was to demonstrate that your expressions were from an extreme viewpoint, and were not moderate. And if there is an implication that your politics have a fascist nature, then I have little care: from your statements on prisoners and foreigners, your nationalistic demands for apologies in the case of any perceived slight of your country, to your over defensive "some of my friends are [x], but", you do exhibit very right wing tendencies.

I had forgotten about the anarchy/anti-law thing (from our discussion on intellectual property laws, which you proposed to abolish). It is lucky that we do not suffer anarchy. The breakdown of law and order in Iraq and Afghanistan is responsible for the exceptional growth of regional warlords and consequent factional fighting, and the failure to moderate or control the extremists (including terrorists). Thankfully, we are governed (vote for) and our legal systems operate because of people with my belief, not yours.

And your belief in inalienable "facts" astounds me. It is reflected in your simplistic belief in the applicability of two state "black/white" logic to the situation (much like GWB's "you are either with us, or against us, there is no middle ground" statements). My entire career revolves around two parties disputing the interpretation of the same facts, and the million shades of grey that intervene in any human situation. I will give you an example.

Assume these "facts":

1. Palestinians kill civilian Jews by suicide bombs. Palestinians sometimes use children for this job.

2. Jews kill Palestinians by organised force. The Israeli army sometimes kills unarmed protesters and children.

3. Israel has built a wall around parts of Palestine, to increase its security, but at the cost of Palestinian access to land and jobs.

"I cannot believe the diseased minds of the Jews, who suffer their government to shoot unarmed protesters and children, and who persecute the Palestinian people by walling them into a Ghetto and depriving them of access to work and to their own land, and use their army to kill hundreds of civilians in response to the freedom fighters who give up their lives trying to liberate their land".

"I cannot believe the diseased minds of the Palestinian people, who suffer people within their midst and use children as suicide bombers in deliberate attempts to slaughter innocent civilian Jewish people, people who are forced to react in the strongest terms by increasing security at huge expense with a walled area, and whose army is forced to extreme measures to rid the land of this terrorist threat".

Neither statement refers to the "facts" innaccurately. However, neither is a balanced reflection of the facts. Both are prejudicial.

The million shades of grey are imported by all the other factors, eliminated from the assumed facts, such as the history of the conflict, the beliefs of the parties, the numbers involved, their motives, the types of people killed and who kill, and so on ad infinitum.

You made a statement that was slightly more prejudiced than the second statement (I cannot believe the diseased minds of the Palestinan people...)". I did not see anyone making the other. Even if they had, making your statement does not "balance them out" - it just exacerbates the prejudice and feeling of hatred. You sink to that other person's level.

As for positivity - I regard opposing your prejudicial remarks as being a very positive thing to do in the interests of community relations. We have never needed to improve relations with the Islamic community more than now, and demonstrating that not everyone shares your beliefs or tolerates your language is one of the best ways I can think to do that.

Message edited by author 2005-07-21 13:08:51.

benhur

Canon EOS-40D

07/21/2005 11:28:32 AM · #284

Just to let people outside the uk know -

there have been three more underground evacuations today, but there were only duds.

also the route 26 bus had an explosion on it which injured one person

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/21/2005 11:39:29 AM · #285

Originally posted by benhur:
Just to let people outside the uk know -

there have been three more underground evacuations today, but there were only duds.

also the route 26 bus had an explosion on it which injured one person

Already being discussed and updated on "London explosions-Underground closed" thread.

P

Message edited by author 2005-07-21 11:40:04.

07/21/2005 02:17:06 PM · #286

"I did not call you a Nazi - I said that your rhetoric reflects the rhetoric of one political party only."

Go re-read the definition of "Imply" you had me post. It is full well obvious the implications and accusations you were making.

"I had forgotten about the anarchy/anti-law thing (from our discussion on intellectual property laws, which you proposed to abolish). It is lucky that we do not suffer anarchy."

Yes it is (lucky we do not suffer anarchy). As few people's morality can handle true freedom. Yes, I do believe in the abolishment of intellectual property laws (which are recent establishments and increasing growing - they are to me "extremist capitalism" in the current form).

"Thankfully, we are governed (vote for) and our legal systems operate because of people with my belief, not yours."
You are quite incorrect sir. Well, at least as far as America goes. America's foundations were quite focused in their original intention on endeavoring to establish as much freedom as possible without collapsing into anarchy. Anarchy (the state of no governing rules) and communism are both very noble and good things. Sadly, man's morality is not high enough for either to be done in a fashion that is not evil. But I myself dream of an anarchist communist state. One in which there are no laws, (no need for them) and in which people willingly share according to the need and the bounty at hand. But I am rational enough to know that such is not possible at this time and that we by necessity need governments.

(If you'd like to understand this philosophy a bit more clear might I suggest you read Robert A. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".)

I believe when Israel kills unarmed civilians who are not attacking them that such is diseased behavior. (When being attacked it becomes much more grey.)

One of my points in first commenting was your statement here:

"People of Jewish faith occupied an area much larger than Israel. Demographic shifts occurred in many ways throughout history. However, military expansion to "recover" land left or lost thousands of years ago is not proportionate when those evicted militarily have occupied it for the last few hundred. Otherwise most of the Western world would be in chaos!"

And addressing your failure to realize that immediately before the Palestinian displacement 500,000 Jews were displaced from the surrounding arab nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc. into Israel with the intent that the surrounding Arab countries were going to push all the Jews into the sea. The only problem....they failed. So instead of the local inhabitants being able to return to a Jew-free Palestine and a "final solutioned" middle-east. They found a denser concentration of Jews than they had before. The Jews, after Europe's NAZI extermination attempt. Than followed by a similar attempt 3 yrs later in the middle-east fortified themselves. And have remained such.

Had the Palestinians simply decided to live with their neighbors with the split land and not endeavor to "kill them all" they never would be where they are today. So yes, one always finds themselves a bit discinclined toward sympathy for a bully who picks on a kid smaller then themselves and gets the crap beat out of them.

And whenever I see someone address the case of the displaced Palestinians without addressing the case of the Jews displaced at the same time. I immediately recognize it for the clear bias it is.

"It is hard to defend the way in which the people now called Palestinians were treated, and continue to be treated, I feel. I do not find it strange that an oppressed group of people accept a common label if it assists their struggle. I do deplore their methods, but again, I understand (but do not agree with) the Palestinian expression of their frustration given the lack of respect given to them."

Do you understand the Jewish perspective? (1/3) exterminated in Europe! 3 yrs later an attempt at the same in the middle-east (many of the Jews having lived in those surrounding nations since the Roman era). Surrounded by a people's who refuse any compromise excepting their extermination. You state your understanding for the plight of the Palestinians. Will you state your understanding for the plight of the Israelis?

"Throughout history imposed leadership has often been replaced by extremist leadership when the imposing force leaves: Iran and Zimbabwe/Rhodesia being recent examples."

But not always....

Germany (imposed government)
Japan (imposed government)
S. Korea (imposed government)

"q from 2003 Arab Human Development Report (AHDR).

o Arabs constitute five per cent of the worldâ��s population yet they produce only one per cent of the worldâ��s books; 17% of these are clerical or religious in nature compared to 5% in other countries.

o In 1996, 22 Arab countries with a total population of 280 million produced no more than 1945 literary and artistic books.

o No more than 10,000 books have been translated into Arabic over the past millennium, a number equal to what Spain translates annually."

There is a problem in the Arab world. Your above statement is evidence of that. Great...now I am a racist for stating such. But there is. I am not sure if there is a literacy rate problem or what is the cause...but such statistics clearly show a problem exists in the Arab world. I am not going to define what that problem is - I do not know. But it is obvious "one" does exist.

As for me, I see a fundamental difference in deliberately and with specific intent - attacking civilians with the sole intent of killing civilians (no military objectives). As opposed to attacking a military target or defending yourself from an attack - and civilians dying.

One I understand, though I do not like to see any die. The other I do not understand. You seem to understand it. And that - frightens me. You see, if I was occupied - I would resist. But my targets would be military and government....not farmers, grocery clerks, etc. Now, I do not doubt that some civilians would die. A pizza delivery man at the army barracks. But the intent was not to target such a man. Nor would I be critical and exclaim how wrong opposing party was for killing a child while I was standing behind said child with a rocket launcher.

To me, there is very little below the use of children as bombs and shields. No, I do not want any society that steps to that level near me. And I find it extremely hard to support such a society.

So where as you can understand such behavior...I cannot. You see, to me any act of defense would be in order to protect my children. And what point is there in protecting them if you destroy them all.

And to the fathers (on both sides) that have lost children as collateral damage, who have held their sons as they watch the life bleed out of their eyes. I mourn with these men. I mourn hard and groan in my soul with sorrow. For I believe no man should have to endure such - but I realize so many do.

As for my feelings, I believe that Israel has no possibility of stopping the issue. They can cease all retaliation but such will not stop the bombings. As for the land. Where will they go? Will the Palestinians and surround Arabs give back the lands they took from the Jews in 1940's so that they can leave? Will Europe return to the Jews the lands they stole? No...

Would the Palestinians allow the Jews to live freely within their midst and not cause them harm? unlikely....in most of that reason, even the lands that allow Jews to live - they are often abused, restricted, and periodically killed.

Would Israel allow the Palestinians to live freely if they were not being attacked by them. I do believe they would. I do believe they'd be allowed to be an integral member of the democratic society if they did not seek the destruction of the "Jews".

As such, I believe that the Palestinians side of this struggle could bring a cessation to events but I do not believe Israel has such power. And when I look at the Palestinian side and see that that side's ability to make such a choice and also see their use of children in such heinous ways. And when forced to choose between the support of one over the other. I choose the one who's actions I can understand if not appreciate over the one's who's actions make no sense to me. And although I believe the actions to be perpetrated by a select few it is extremely difficult to distinguish one from the other.

Of course this is all nothing but extremist racist rhetoric I know - you've shown me such Legalbeagle. The fact that you accuse one side without the balance of facts is not extremist - because that fits within the leftist liberal "agenda".

I prefer fair and judicial....and yes, I believe certain killings are more insidious than others...(most people do or we would not punish killers differently, from death in car accidents, to deaths due to negligence, to manslaughter or deaths done by actions known to pose a risk, to passion murder (done in the midst of extreme emotion) to premeditated murder, to serial or gross murder). I think all killing is sad thing. But don't look at them equivalently. I feel you do. And I believe that makes you unfair and far from judicial.

- Jason

07/21/2005 03:24:35 PM · #287

Originally posted by theSaj:

I said that I knew that pointing out your statements as being closely related to the statements made by a fascist party, there is an implication that your statements are fascist in nature. That is a good example of implication. I did imply that, without saying it directly.

Originally posted by theSaj:

One of my points in first commenting was your statement here:

"People of Jewish faith occupied an area much larger than Israel. Demographic shifts occurred in many ways throughout history. However, military expansion to "recover" land left or lost thousands of years ago is not proportionate when those evicted militarily have occupied it for the last few hundred. Otherwise most of the Western world would be in chaos!"

And addressing your failure to realize that immediately before the Palestinian displacement 500,000 Jews were displaced from the surrounding arab nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc. into Israel with the intent that the surrounding Arab countries were going to push all the Jews into the sea. The only problem....they failed. So instead of the local inhabitants being able to return to a Jew-free Palestine and a "final solutioned" middle-east. They found a denser concentration of Jews than they had before. The Jews, after Europe's NAZI extermination attempt. Than followed by a similar attempt 3 yrs later in the middle-east fortified themselves. And have remained such.

Had the Palestinians simply decided to live with their neighbors with the split land and not endeavor to "kill them all" they never would be where they are today. So yes, one always finds themselves a bit discinclined toward sympathy for a bully who picks on a kid smaller then themselves and gets the crap beat out of them.

And whenever I see someone address the case of the displaced Palestinians without addressing the case of the Jews displaced at the same time. I immediately recognize it for the clear bias it is.

"It is hard to defend the way in which the people now called Palestinians were treated, and continue to be treated, I feel. I do not find it strange that an oppressed group of people accept a common label if it assists their struggle. I do deplore their methods, but again, I understand (but do not agree with) the Palestinian expression of their frustration given the lack of respect given to them."

Do you understand the Jewish perspective? (1/3) exterminated in Europe! 3 yrs later an attempt at the same in the middle-east (many of the Jews having lived in those surrounding nations since the Roman era). Surrounded by a people's who refuse any compromise excepting their extermination. You state your understanding for the plight of the Palestinians. Will you state your understanding for the plight of the Israelis?

Of course I understand the plight of the Israelis. Of course I decry the bad treatment of the Jews (throughout history, much more than you have cited). It makes me sad whenever visiting a Synagogue in the Middle East to discover there to be a congregation of less than a dozen, or to be offered silverware that has obviously been stripped from a Synagogue (goodness knows in what circumstances). This has never been an issue. Regardless of their bad treatment, I do still criticise Israeli foreign policy (I still think that the land grabs were not justifiable, however they were provoked). I still understand the Palestinians grouping together using a common label, and I do find it hard to justify their treatment (William Dalrymple's "From the Holy Mountain" provides an excellent report of the treatment of Palestinians from an independent traveller's point of view, and, by way of balance, also includes an excellent section decrying the little known Turkish annihilation of the Christian Kurds - also a thundering good read and extremely informative). I can understand their frustration, and the reasons for their resentment of Israel. That does not mean that I condemn the suicide bombings any less.

What I have not done is used emotive language combined with a negative labelling and implied damnation of one side or the other, with the risk of creating prejudice.

If you had come out with a statement about Jews being murderous, land grabbing, selfish, expansionist pigs who deliberately target children and unarmed protesters with organised force, I would have reacted in exactly the same way - we would have had exactly the same discussion. You could have cited recent criminal prosecution of Israeli soldiers for murder of unarmed protesters, the numbers of children shot, the land grabs, the numbers of Palestinians killed - all of which "facts" would support the initial statement. You could claim to have seen through the politically correct crap, and called Jews for what they are. You would have the "facts" on your side. I would have been an elitist bigot, for consistently resisting your labelling of a religion as being the sole reason for the actions of the child killers, or for resisiting the suggestion that the actions and rhetoric of religious and political leaders damned every adherent to that religion. You would say that you could not identify the child killers from other Jews, and they all deserve to be treated the same. I would have pointed to anti-semitic websites, and pointed out that your language mirrors theirs. You would have called me a left wing zealot, who was accusing you of being an Nazi Anti Semite, and I would have pointed out that I did not know if the rest of your politics were the same, but that your statements and theirs had a certain similarity about them, and by my implication, and based on your statements, it would be a natural inference.

So - the point is that I have not tried to defend Muslims against the rest of the world. I have tried to defend one religion (it matters not which) from being labelled and slandered with a slanted/biased presentation of the "facts". The reason I am defending Islam is because that is the religion you have attacked. I am a little more sensitive than normal, perhaps, because there is an additional factor in the increased antipathy towards Muslims in the wake of the bombings, and the desire to avoid unnecessary provocation of religious hatred.

Originally posted by theSaj:

There is a problem in the Arab world. Your above statement is evidence of that. Great...now I am a racist for stating such. But there is. I am not sure if there is a literacy rate problem or what is the cause...but such statistics clearly show a problem exists in the Arab world.

This is what you do not seem to get. There is nothing racist with taking a statistical analysis and saying "there is something up here - there is something to investigate, consider, draw conclusions from, perhaps take action on". Drawing a conclusion such as "Arab states or Muslim dominated states have an illiteracy and probably an education problem" - fine. The problem arises when you say "Arabs cannot read or write". Or worse, "Arabs cannot read or write, thereby demonstrating their intellectual inferiority". Or even worse, "we should treat all Arabs as being illiterate idiots, because the odd one who is not cannot be distinguished from all the others". The additional problem is that by saying "Arabs cannot read or write", the last two statements may be implied, if not explicit.

Comparing this with your statements on suicide bombings - even if your figures can be taken as authority for this statement (which, I think, remains a little questionable), saying "in some states the support for suicide bombing exceeds 50%" is unproblematic. Taking justification from those figures and a couple of newspaper reports of child bombers to reach the conclusion: "Palestinians have diseased minds for being part of a society that has sunk to the level of sending their children out as human bombs" is problematic. If you cannot see the difference, I genuinely have to give up.

Originally posted by theSaj:

To me, there is very little below the use of children as bombs and shields. No, I do not want any society that steps to that level near me. And I find it extremely hard to support such a society.

And yet you stick at it.

Please remember that you are a citizen of one of just a handful of countries in the world that executes child criminals. It can be criticised, but labelling Americans as "child execution supporters" (after all, how can I tell a US child execution supporter from any other US citizen?) would not be acceptable. Especially if I add the emotive language "In my country, we love and cherish our children. I cannot understand the diseased minds of a society that would steep so low as to execute children, who in almost any other country in the world would be viewed as incapable of forming the necessary intention to be found guilty of their crimes, let alone being mercilessly killed in the electric chair or by being hanged."

Even worse - what if I preceded that statement with the attempted justification: "I am not racist - I have talked to and have friends that are American, but..."

Again - if you cannot see the difference, I must give up.

Message edited by author 2005-07-21 15:48:26.

07/21/2005 03:33:35 PM · #288

weird double post issue...

Message edited by author 2005-07-21 15:35:00.

07/21/2005 06:26:52 PM · #289

"Regardless of their bad treatment, I do still criticise Israeli foreign policy"

As do I criticize aspects of the policy. But you know, when all you ever hear or see people address is Israel's abuse and fail to address the Palestinian abuse or how the abuse got started in the first place. One get's a bit tired of it.

"I still think that the land grabs were not justifiable"
Israel has returned more land than any other country. And when you say land grabs....whom are you speaking of? the Arabs? or the Palestinians who tried to take the Jewish land? or just the Jews?

And your comments lead implication to the latter. And is it any question then that I see you as a hypocritical bigot. Too me, I cannot see how you can condemn the Jews of Israel for a land grab and not condemn the Arabs and Palestinians for grabbing land from the Jews (or in the latter case failing after attempting to do so).

First off, as I understand there are lands that Palestinians have available to them. And that are mostly occupied by them. The truth from what I've seen is that they're not economically viable areas. The Jews have actually converted what hithero was mostly desert into economically functional lands. (Being one of the largest exporters of citrus fruits.)

"If you had come out with a statement about Jews being murderous, land grabbing, selfish, expansionist pigs who deliberately target children and unarmed protesters with organised force, I would have reacted in exactly the same way"

Don't you realize your comments (especially how they addressed and only criticized Israel) feed right into that anti-semitism. Hence, I ammended your statements with a bit of facts on the matter. Which when understood makes it much less of the "invading land thieves" as you portrayed it.

" You would say that you could not identify the child killers from other Jews"

Actually, it usually is very easy to do so. Most are in uniforms (military/police) and usually have given warnings to disperse.

See you try to equate the two situations and simply reverse them - but it doesn't fly because the facts are different in both cases.

"I have tried to defend one religion (it matters not which) from being labelled and slandered with a slanted/biased presentation of the "facts"."

And you have failed, for the fact, that there is clearly a problem within the Islamic world. That problem must be addressed. For all...

I will be the first to admit "there is a problem in Israel" and agree that it needs to be addressed.

""Arab states or Muslim dominated states have an illiteracy and probably an education problem" - fine."

But saying Arab states or Muslim dominated states have a "extremist" problem. That's not fine. At least based on your prior statements.

As I said, you are arguing symantecs. I am arguing facts. There is a problem within the Islamic world. It needs addressing. That does not, as you would have, dictate the entire Islamic world is a problem nor that every member of Islam is a problem - simply that within the realm of what is the Islamic world - there is a problem.

""Palestinians have diseased minds for being part of a society that has sunk to the level of sending their children out as human bombs" is problematic. If you cannot see the difference, I genuinely have to give up."

But I did not say that... I said: "I really have to question much of the Palestinian society as being diseased"
(And if 50% or even 5% of said society acts on, supports, or approves of such methods than yes "I really have to question much of the Palestinian society as being diseased." I don't have to question all of it. Just that chunk of it. Which is what I said. Which is much different than you postulate above.

"To me, there is very little below the use of children as bombs and shields. No, I do not want any society that steps to that level near me. And I find it extremely hard to support such a society."

So let me reverse that.... do you want a society that support using children as bombs and shields. I was being generic on that statement thus I could say it such. Now, the question is determining what portion of Palestine falls into that sort of society. And yes, that portion I want nothing to do with. They are a plague on the planet. Suicide bombers, users of children and human shields, are "plagues" on the race (as are people who kill others for no other reason than their ethnicity - such as post-911/7-7 murderers).

"Please remember that you are a citizen of one of just a handful of countries in the world that executes child criminals."

Define a child? 10yrs? 12 yrs? 16yrs? 18yrs? 20yrs?
There are certain acts that I believe any 16 yr old knows are fully wrong. You say it at it's something horrible. But mind you - said cases went to trial, and were decided as such. They are also uncommon and extreme cases. And the death penalty is another debate in and of itself. In truth, I think it moronic to bring it up as an accusation as I do not see an issue with the death penalty. I believe it should be used sparingly but I believe at times it is necessary. I believe more people would be alive today if it had been used quickly and justly.

"I cannot understand the diseased minds of a society that would steep so low as to execute children"

And they are what we call Juveniles. Not children. Furthermore, they're all of an age that has throughout thousands of years of history been considered adult or young adult. Ones responsible for their actions.

"let alone being mercilessly killed in the electric chair or by being hanged."
THough still technically used, I believe most states first choice is "lethal injection"

"I am not racist - I have talked to and have friends that are American, but..."
First off, "racist" is not the applicable word in this case. Second of all, the analogy doesn't quite fit. Thirdly, I hear this statement for leftist foriegners all the time. So your point?

And in response, I would say this leads to a discussion of the right or wrong of capital punishment. A practice observered for 10,000 yrs of human history. And one can argue or debate it's rightness or wrongness. And if you were a U.S. citizen you'd have the right to vote against such a procedure.

One might also call a parent who spanked a child "a horrible mother" although, from my observance I've known many who were spanked and have been exceptional members of society. And mind you, were referring to spanking and not beatings. There is a difference. One is measured for discipline the other is unmeasured, abusive and harmful.

07/22/2005 02:19:40 PM · #290

Okay - I feel that by responding I am giving too much credence to your arguments. I find it hard to believe that many people are persuaded by you, but...

I am not trying to get into a dispute about Israel and Palestine (we will be here for another 3,000 years). Here is a decent, independent-seeming historical account of the conflict.BBC timeline of Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

The land grabs I referred to were the military expansion and displacement of 3.5m Palestinians in 1948 and 1967 into Sinai, Golan Hights and Gaza strip, and subsequent expansion of settlements. I cannot see the justification for them. I do not need to refer to every slight to Judaism in history to make that statement - it does not make my initial complaint prejudicial against Jews, and I use and used no emotive language in respect of Judaism. I do not blame all Jews for the policies of that country at that time.

As regards your "justification", I don't see lack of commercial exploitation of the land by Palestinians, or the wrongs perpetrated by third parties on Jews (eg WW2 and 3k years of preceding history) as giving Israel the subsequent right to claim land by military aggression.

I am not sure what state organised land grabs (using my term) by Palestinians you are or were referring to. I can see no examples in the timeline of military action, other than to attempts to retake the land captured in 1967 (unsuccessfully). If you are referring to the migration of Jews from other lands - AFAIK, there are far too many reasons to validly describe every migrant as having been "displaced", if that is used to mean the enforced confiscation of property and expulsion from another state - again, let me know if I am wrong. In terms of lands returned, I am aware of none that have been returned that were not parts of the land taken in 1967, and more than that has not been proposed. Again, not justification for taking it in the first place

Unless you let me have some more details of the relevant contrary facts that I have omitted, and it ios clear that by omitting them my statement is distorted, I am not sure how my statements could be regarded as anti-semitic.

In fact, I would have welcomed your arrival into the debate if you had started your first set of posts with an intelligent counterpoint argument, setting out your views on why Israeli confiscation of land was justified, or why my critical reference to Israeli military expansion was not balanced, if there were facts that mitigate Israeli action.

But you seemed more focussed on telling us that much of Palestinian society was diseased and used children as human bombs, and that Islam kills dozens of women every day. These did not act as a counterpoint to any argument. They just inflamed the current discussion.

As for my reverse analogy - it is an example. I did not spend hours devising a cunning exact replica of our debate. I suggested that if you had come out with similar, not "exactly the same", statements about Jews, we could have had an argument on the same topics. Of course the facts are different. But if you had labelled Jews in the same sloppy manner, and attributed them with having the same emotions as the worst of their race (ie, take one soldier, who indiscriminately kills unarmed protesters and children, and say all Jewish soldiers are the same, and all Jews should be treated as supporting their actions, because we cannot tell the supporters from the non-supporters) - then I would have a problem with your statement.

Originally posted by theSaj:

But saying Arab states or Muslim dominated states have a "extremist" problem. That's not fine[?]

Jason - if you had said just that, we would not be having this argument. It would be slightly better expressed by saying "Arab states or Muslim dominated states have a problem with extremists." - the contraction in your phrase within "a "extremist" problem" contains an ambiguity - it could mean that they have a problem with some people being extremists, or it could mean that every Arab or Muslim state is extremist and is problematic. I am sure that even you can see that labelling every Arab state and every Muslim state (and, by implication, all of their citizens) as being extremist would be untrue and inflammatory.

Originally posted by theSaj:

As I said, you are arguing symantecs. I am arguing facts.

And still you persevere. If you have the "facts", undeniable truths, please do go tell someone who can use them to bring about world peace. At last, no more debates on who is right or wrong, or where the fault lies, or what the cause of the world's problems are. You have divined the "facts", and when you utter them, no-one can deny the accuracy of your statements.

Or maybe that is the problem - you know the "facts", but you cannot express yourself clearly enough to ever communicate them. I wonder what you have done to deserve such a heavy burden - ultimate knowledge and comprehension, but the inability to ever express it.

Originally posted by theSaj:

""Palestinians have diseased minds for being part of a society that has sunk to the level of sending their children out as human bombs" is problematic. If you cannot see the difference, I genuinely have to give up."

But I did not say that... I said: "I really have to question much of the Palestinian society as being diseased"
(And if 50% or even 5% of said society acts on, supports, or approves of such methods than yes "I really have to question much of the Palestinian society as being diseased." I don't have to question all of it. Just that chunk of it. Which is what I said. Which is much different than you postulate above.

Jason, I have tried to explain this to you a couple of times now. You did not just say "I question the minds of those in Palestine who use, or support the use of, children as suicide bombers", as you appear to suggest in your last post. If you had said that - I would have no problem.

Here are your quotes:

Originally posted by theSaj:

I know the Israelis love their children....I really have to question much of the Palestinian society as being diseased for sending their children out as bombs. Now, I will iterate I have several friends who are Palestinians. And I will attest that most Palestinians simply want peaceful existance and the right to prosper their families. But sadly, it is very hard to differentiate between a such a Palestinian and a violent Palestinian.

Originally posted by theSaj:

"To me, there is very little below the use of children as bombs and shields. No, I do not want any society that steps to that level near me. And I find it extremely hard to support such a society."

I was going to analyse them line by line, but I do not think it necessary. (besides - I have tried before, and you obstinately refuse to agree that my understanding of your statements is a rational one). The statements stand as testaments in themselves to your views. To me, my summarisation of your quotes more accurately reflects your statements than your extraction from the same. I cannot think of a more negative way of damning the citizens of another country. Genuinely, I cannot think of how to phrase it more prejudicially.

Originally posted by theSaj:

So let me reverse that.... do you want a society that support using children as bombs and shields. I was being generic on that statement thus I could say it such. Now, the question is determining what portion of Palestine falls into that sort of society. And yes, that portion I want nothing to do with. They are a plague on the planet. Suicide bombers, users of children and human shields, are "plagues" on the race (as are people who kill others for no other reason than their ethnicity - such as post-911/7-7 murderers).

You have hit infant school logic once again - the black/white, on/off "with us or against us" logic. Either I damn all Palestinians for child bombings, or I positively want them to continue. An absurd and infantile argument.

Originally posted by theSaj:

"Please remember that you are a citizen of one of just a handful of countries in the world that executes child criminals."

Define a child? 10yrs? 12 yrs? 16yrs? 18yrs? 20yrs?

Hey - you got one of the points in my example of how language can be twisted to be emotive, without departing from the "facts". It is amazing the difference made by using one rather than the other of simple words like "child" and "minor" and "juvenile".

Originally posted by theSaj:

"I cannot understand the diseased minds of a society that would steep so low as to execute children"

And they are what we call Juveniles. Not children. Furthermore, they're all of an age that has throughout thousands of years of history been considered adult or young adult. Ones responsible for their actions.

It is another argument, but legally, and developmentally, people under the age of 18 do not have the same mental capacity as over 18s (in fact, the brain does not stop developing until about the age of 20). So in almost every country in the world, the decision has been taken that they should not be culpable so as to be capable of execution. The US differs. My point was not to argue about whether that was right or wrong, but to demonstrate that simple "facts" can be presented in a twisted and prejudicial manner.

In fact, I do not think US society "diseased", nor would I ever use that language to make a point. Most of my American friends and colleagues do not support such a penalty being applied to minors. And, as I understand it, that policy was reversed by the US in March this year. Only a few hardliners fought to retain the penalty (in which context, I note your defence of the policy).

Originally posted by theSaj:

"let alone being mercilessly killed in the electric chair or by being hanged."
THough still technically used, I believe most states first choice is "lethal injection"

Cool. That makes it okay.

Originally posted by theSaj:

"I am not racist - I have talked to and have friends that are American, but..."
First off, "racist" is not the applicable word in this case. Second of all, the analogy doesn't quite fit. Thirdly, I hear this statement for leftist foriegners all the time. So your point?

As I have mentioned, you constantly refer to "some of my friends are [x]" as supposed evidence of your neutrality or lack of prejudice, or "I do this and that" as supposed evidence that you are a "good" person, but such statements do nothing to justify the subsequent statements (which speak louder than your reported deeds). It is an attempt at sophistry that, luckily, is usually quite transparent.

Originally posted by theSaj:

And in response, I would say this leads to a discussion of the right or wrong of capital punishment. A practice observered for 10,000 yrs of human history. And one can argue or debate it's rightness or wrongness. And if you were a U.S. citizen you'd have the right to vote against such a procedure.

You had a go at me for referring to 1000 years of jurisprudence, and 3000 years of philosophy that you were rough riding through. I made the statement in support of the suggestion that we have a huge body of accumulated knowledge and learning, through which you are blithely wandering around, flailing, and in the process disregarding well trodden ground. You thought that I was trying to say "because it is old, it is right" (which is typical of your simplistic views of the world). You criticised me, and yet here you do exactly what you accused me of doing! (the length of practice of execution does not add up to create a body of knowledge, it adds up toâ�¦ a big pile of dead bodies that are increasingly efficiently slaughtered!).

07/24/2005 04:30:14 AM · #291

Perhaps Legalbeagle you should educate yourself....

600,000+ (minimum) of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

Demographic outcome

About 750,000 Arab Palestinian refugees (See Israeli Map (//www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/IMAGES/REFUGE.JPG), and Israeli Estimate (//www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/refuge.html)), and more than 600,000 Jewish refugees (See Map (//www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/IMAGES/REFS.GIF) and Israeli Estimate (//www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/refs.html)), were created during this conflict. Jewish refugees from Arab lands migrated to Israel, while Arab refugees were prevented from settling in neighboring countries and have remained in refugee camps up to the time of writing. (For more on the flight of Palestinians, see Palestinian exodus.)

//www.papillonsartpalace.com/jewswho.htm

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

//sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/06/INGM2BJH7U1.DTL

//www.iflac.com/jac/jac/THE_FORCED_MIGRATION.htm

//www.answers.com/topic/jewish-exodus-from-arab-lands

//www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_refugees_jews_why.php

//www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_resolutions.php