"Lefty icon" calls cops on WND

[nekokate]

That's not what I'm saying at all. And, by the way, I have been mugged. I was so scared I nearly pissed myself and I didn't want to go outside for a long time afterwards, but are you suggesting I was within my rights to have slaughtered the guy who did it?

Of course you're not, and that's why you've fallen for the same linguistic trick that Luke tried on me. I'm talking about Israel and Palestine, not a mugging. You can't say "oh, well, imagine you were being mugged, and the mugger set up an apartheid wall around your handbag, and had the full support of the British and American governments..." No, forget analogies. Deal with actualities.

Human lives. A world where people are "within their rights" to kill other people is a world I don't want to live in.

[faceless]

I'm sorry to hear you went through that, but you would have been within your rights to have fought back with equal force - enough to stop the attack and subdue the attacker. That could mean knocking ten bells out of them, or as a friend of mine did - take the knife off the attacker and stab them with it.

As I see it, no person or group has the right to take what belongs to other people and fighting back if it does happen is ok within the time-span in which that theft/attack is happening (in the case of Palestine it has been ongoing for 60 years). Moral arguments are worthy, but only intellectual, and while a rapier wit might serve well when the attacker appareciates that level of response, I'd rather have an actual rapier if they didn't.

[Salim201]

isn't this a case of putting forward a perfect solution for an imperfect world?

face is totally right, incidentally the leading international law specialists agree with him!
I get your point though, but it sounds like quasi-pacifism.. and I don't disagree I'm just more inclined to the notion of rights and intent, than outright consequentialism. I think you're judged by intent and circumstances, than purely the isolated consequences of your actions (though clearly important).

Also analogies are extremely important for us, because we're not living in Palestine, we can only relate to the situation by relative experience, thats the only understanding we can gain. Zionism and its protagonists are a lot more ruthless than you think, I recognise resistance by any means necessary is sometimes the only way. I think thats just a pragmatic position, no-ones celebrating IDF casualties, although aside from any political stances, I do commend hamas and hezbollah as grassroots resistance movements, fighting against a military superpower, especially the efficiency and steadfastness in the 34-day war.

[luke]

[Mandy]

[nekokate]

[Salim201]

"Hamas suicide bombers are carrying out legitimate strikes"

If the issue of legitimacy is the one that's uncomfortable, then I think you should read the UN charter, or int'l law specialists. Also every national liberation movement in history have been called terrorist organisations, regardless of the situation, and it isn't surprising, its colonial speak and I would never use the term, other than to say all bombing is terrorism. And it's meaningless, because it's always been a propaganda term. I think this is why George makes the distinction, because any rational person doesn't get into those sort of semantics. The interviewer was keen on talking about Hamas, who are responsible for far less civilian deaths than the Israeli army, so presumably he wants to play a rhetorical game with atrocities, it was a pathetic discussion and I'm glad galloway ended it, also glad he doesn't speak to Israeli media!

[mickyv]

“legitimate” is another subjective term, just like “terrorist”, and will vary according to a person’s POV. A Palestinian may view an IDF soldier as Palestinian killing/Palestinian oppressing enforcer for the Zionist State. It’s very easy to say that all lives are sacred and to object on moral grounds to the targeting of IDF personnel, but a bit harder if IDF soldiers are murdering your children & making your life a daily nightmare just trying to exist. Further, surely we all here agree that targeting civilians is not a legitimate act, yet maybe to some Palestinians, most Israelis are considered legitimate targets, on the rational that virtually all Israeli adults are either active or part time, or reserve members of the Israeli Army, and/or Settlers on their former homes & lands. I repeat just for clarification that I personally do not consider any civilians as legitimate targets under any circumstances, but a soldier who is enforcing State oppression & State terrorism will in my eyes be a legitimate target for those being oppress, and yes, this also applies in Iraq, so all those coalition forces that have been killed by Iraqis, does not make those Iraqis common criminal murderers, but freedom fighters, and they don’t need anybody’s moral approval.

[faceless]

I found this report of the 'incident' and it seems to have an extra bit that's not been on other sites I've seen ... Klein suggests that Galloway's assistant 'stole' his laptop. The article is clearly conjecture and hearsay and I'm sure is the product of little more than a shit editor.

[nekokate]

[t.]

[nekokate]

[t.]