Avoid Major Oil companies

Certainly not, if that is indeed the case and these civilians had done no harm.

That is subjective. Freedom can be quantified. 'Preferred treatment' cannot. If the 'preferred treatment' includes more freedoms that you can demonstrate, well then there you go, that is discrimination and should be dealt with. But people who are simply whining about others having 'preferred treatment' do not necessarily deserve anything.

They attack civilians because they are too weak to attack the military. My problem with this is that attacking civilians is not justified. Are you deliberately reading around my statements?

I don't sympathize with people who target civilians. Period.

Like I said, all simple minded and backward folk.

It is only 'stolen' from their perspective. They are free to perceive it as 'no longer theirs' and go live on it peacefully. Now if the Israelis are using their military to kill even illegal immigrants, then they are in the wrong.

So why doesn't someone else jump in? Does any non-Islam nation seriously sympathize with Palestinian militants? I don't see anyone else jumping to the aid of Palestine. Is everyone really THAT scared of the US? We're practically bankrupt, been exporting our economy for the last 30-40 years, what could we possibly do?

Possession does not equal ownership. Perhaps that 'thief' was coming to reclaim what he felt to be his property, even though you feel you obtained it legitimately. How would you feel then?

No, it is people who are selecting themselves out of existence because all they will do is fight and refuse to cooperate or budge one inch. It has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. Palestinian militants CHOOSE to kill themselves and civilians instead of to accept their lot and seek influence some other way. Israel CHOOSES to kill and/or imprison Palestinian settlers instead of simply allowing them to stay, inviting more aggression.

Who is 'right' comes from their religion, not from any legal claim. One believes that the holy land belongs to them and the other feels the same way.

Well, apparently there's a big learning curve, because we simply haven't learned yet.

Bygones are bygones. We learn from the past and plan for the future. We don't try to build time machines.

You might note that nearly 50% of the country voted against him. And at any time he could be impeached for war crimes.

Doomsday prophetics are usually those who fear peace because they think they have something to lose. Palestinians could be integrated into Israeli society in the same way African Americans have been integrated as the most significant minority presence in the US. Of course, they would have to choose to do so. Something makes me think they like the current situation just fine, if for no other reason than the amount of sympathy that is poured on them for their plight.

So attack military targets instead of civilians. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. I have NO SYMPATHY for people who target civilians. They deserve to be destroyed.

The PEOPLE do not initiate an impeachment trial. The LEGISLATURE does. We have NO CONTROL over the legislature except through our vote and through referenda.

OK, but it still doesn't excuse murders and human shields where a civilian was knowingly implicated. Collateral damage I'm more than happy to assign responsibility to the US.

Do Palestinians ask civilians who they voted for before blowing them up? NO. And that is what is WRONG. If I were a Palestianian, I would leave that morass of a country instead of bombing civilians in some archaic power struggle. In fact, I know several who did just that and are fine upstanding citizens here, rejecting such approaches as their countrymen undertake.

That does not answer my question. Where is this documented?

That does not excuse random civilian killings! I honestly cannot believe you are trying to make this point.

radical/militant/terrorist I tend to use interchangeably. The different is that a terrorist has already committed terrorism whereas the others are simply a high risk group.

Are they collateral or are they targets? Those are two different things. If the civilians are targets, the soldiers have committed murder and should be tried for it.

I absolutely agree, but I absolutely disagree that civilians are valid targets for militant aggression, for the reasons I have repeatedly outlined. Unless

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:03:59 -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:

Well, what can I say, that's what happened...

Somewhere below you talk about 'learning from the past'. That includes having seen what I described here. Two ethnic groups in one country means rivalry. This rivalry means that if one group has absolute majority and police and armed forces' power over the other, the minority group will suffer treatments like underpresentation in the administration and government positions, public service etc. etc. After that, the whining starts. But no need to wait for that, I'm absolutely sure this will be the 'procedure'.

No, I try not to. Let me also make it clear here that your position is absolutely clear to me. In your opinion the civilians should not be attacked because they (or at least the 'against-voters' among them) are inncocent because they don't (apparently) have had the majority in voting and there's nothing they can do to stop the legislature and executing forces in their country doing their evil deeds. And although I share your vision that the no-voters are absolutely innocent indeed in that respect, I think 'the people' as a whole are still responsible for the government they chose, and can be held accountable for its actions. 'No-voters' don't have to stick to voting alone. There's also 'people power', the possibility to demonstrate, write thousands of letters to congress men, president etc. Causing uproar because they are so fiercely against what their government does, that they just can't stand it and have to express their protests against it. Of this all I've seen very little. During the Vietnam war the protesters sounded a loud voice, but during the US support for the Israelies in their oppression of the Palestinians, or in their presence in Iraq we see very little of that kind. So, while I agree with you that non-voters are in essence innocent, there's more they can do. And for me it indeed is a problem to attack those innocents. But on the other hand, if there's no other means one has to defend oneself, I wouldn't really know what on should do. I feel understanding for the people that see no other possibility than to blow themselves up, if not in a military presence, then be it civil, but preferably among 'yes-voters'. And the more cruel the atrocities, the more probable I'd agree with it. So, there you have my position :)

Yes, I got that.

Yes.

Well, I really am afraid that is the case.

I agree with you that GWB might not carry out the best possible economic policy, but still the US economy is the largest active on the globe, and also the largest exporter of goods, with Germany second, and China soon being the biggest. So there's a lot the US can do against 'rogue' states opposing their policy. But I also think there's not only fear for what the US could do, I think there's also hipocricy and opportunism involved.

Yes, that would require a _impartial_ third party as a mediator to help them solve their quarrel. At this moment, there's none available.

I think it is 'defend' instead of 'kill'. Even groups of apes do it: they commit genocide to wipe out other groups. There's no way one can 'cooperate' with such an attacker. There's only defence possible.

When did the Israelies leave Palestina involuntarily? If you can show me that Israelies have been removed from Israel by force, then I will accept your point. If someone leaves voluntarily he has no right if someone else occupied his lot.

That's what I meant: learning over time is zero :)

I'm looking forward to that :)

I don't agree with you that it's a doomsday prophecy. This case, for me is a matter of your 'learning from the past and planning for the future'.

That would be nice. As far as I know, although the African Americans are a minority in society, they are a very significant majority in prison, and are an ethnic group with not really a high standard of living. If I were a Palestinian I wouldn't be looking forward to such a life.

Yes, I got that point. Please refer to what I've written above on that.

And protests etc. as I've written above.

Ok. See my statements above on that.

If I were a Palestinian, I'd say that I'm at war with Israel, so I'd have the right to attack them, and consider that any 'no-voters' would have the possibility to leave that morass of a country as well as the Palestinians have.

I don't know, I don't assume the conversation has been recorded on tape. So it could be a hoax indeed. Although I myself have heard it personally been mentioned in the news, very shortly after Iraq attacked Kuwait, as well as others have told me that they have.

My position is stated above.

Ok. As long as that doesn't make them 'guilty' on beforehand.

Ok, so they are not 'off limits' if they weren't targeted specifically.

OTOH, if then a Palestinian suicide bomber sees an Israeli soldier in the middle of 100 civilians he can approach him and blow himself up.

Ok, I thank you for the open-mindedness in which you approach your own government and admire you for that. On the other hand I don't share your view of absolute untouchability of 'no-voting' civilians in this kind of conflicts, be it on the Palestinian issue specifically, or on the Arab issue in general. I think we've exchanged enough of our views to make it clear where we stand, but if you have anything new to mention I'd be most happy to respond to it. If not, I thank you for the interesting and frank discussion we had.

Have a good day.

shakiro

But why does a minority group deserve equal representation? Why not representation proportional to their population? We have many minority ethnic groups in the US and for the most part we get along. Even in some situations, the minorities are favored by affirmative action. People have their differences but they generally choose peaceful forums to air those differences and use their vote to change things. Yes, you can pick out problems that happened. But compared to other countries with mixed ethnicity?

How do you hold "the people" accountable without killing innocents?

Certainly we do. Do we still deserve to die because of what the government does?

Then you simply are not looking hard enough. It is all around you if you are here. The population is split down the middle on the Iraq issue, and Bush's approval is below 40% last time I looked. Demonstrations and rallies are held all the time, and LTEs in the newspaper. Just because you don't see it on TV doesn't mean it is not happening. Certainly there is a middle part that is either complacent or unsure or both, but there is just as much or more opposition to interventionist foreign policy than there is support for it.

The Israel issue is a tiny issue compared to Iraq and the repercussions we are going to see for that in the next years.

OK, so how much do they need to do in order for their life to be deemed worthy of being spared from terrorism? Do terrorists check ID before blowing people up?

The PLO are not defending themselves. They are attempting to reclaim property. Different levels of aggression are prescribed for different situations.

I disagree. Go attack the government if you disagree with them. Attacking civilians should be a last resort. They have NOT exhausted all other options, they are just taking the path of least resistance. Some would say it's a cowardly way out.

Let me ask you, am I justified in killing these people should they come to kill me? Or would that be unjust because it interferes with their own judgement that they have come to execute?

Probably. A lot of that does have to do with intertwined economics. Kind of like US being involved in the middle east in the first place...

None available, or none acceptable? There is no way Israel and Palestine would both agree to the same mediator. That is part of the problem.

That all depends on if you see religious property as more important than innocent lives.

If in fact genocide were occurring. All I can see is that Israeli forces are killing militants who are in the disputed area.

Look at it from either Israeli or Palestine perspective. It is the same from either view. Each one sees the other as an aggressor who is trying to take something that rightfully belongs to them.

Assuming that the worst case will occur and not considering alternatives is a doomsday prophecy... Perhaps the Palestinians would withdraw in exchange for signing a treaty that allows them to freely settle and build on the land, for example. Why wouldn't Israel consider such an exchange? They are really not tired of fighting and having their citizens blown up?

Lower income in society tends to be higher prison population, that's an unavoidable fact. And since most were brought over as slaves, they started the race behind from the beginning in education and situation. If you think it's really so bad, compare the life of the average minority in the US to the life of the average African or the average Southeast Asian where they are the majority...

Protests do not control the legislature or the executive branch. They still do what they see fit until they are voted or impeached out of office.

The international rules of war do not include attacking civilians.

Well, that's why I ask whether it might be hearsay. The news makes things up all the time, and the more sensational the news, the more likely it has been made up. To avoid being manipulated, there should be evidence of this claim.

Right, though the damage should be avoided and tempered with judgement. For example, blowing up 100 civilians to kill one soldier is poor judgement and should be dealt with at trial.

Except that is not what they are doing. But yes, I would agree that this is more reasonable than simply blowing up civilians. The civilians can avoid the soldiers if they don't wish to be implicated. And if the soldiers know the civilians are trying to avoid them and use them as human shields anyway, then the blood is on the soldier's hands. Now if a fellow blew up 100 civilians to get to a soldier and lived, there should be a trial. But the sacrifice of his life prevents him from receiving a trial, because there is no further punishment possible.

I agree.

I made a few points above that you can optionally respond to.

It's a rarity on Usenet. Good day to you too.