Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:21 am

Sara, the whole left media are on my side, explain that?

A thought experiment: Some LA gang members go into a parking lot of a Circle K. They spot a cop cruiser and go over to the officers, who are drinking coffee and eating twinkies. The gang members shoot both cops in the face and take off with their police car for a joy ride.

Later, in retaliation, the entire LA police force burn down South Central LA. Sure, the gang bangers struck first, but who was the real aggressors?

Now Sara, if you don't side with the cops, you cannot side with Israel.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:26 am

Note the position of the flag.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:02 am

FrankChurch wrote:Sara, the whole left media are on my side, explain that?


Um. No they aren't. The Post, the NY Times and the LA Times are all usually considered "leftist" media, and all of them are more middle of the road on this than you are. (Much closer to my position, in fact.)

New York Times wrote:Israel must defend itself. And Hamas must bear responsibility for ending a six-month cease-fire this month with a barrage of rocket attacks into Israeli territory. Still we fear that Israel’s response — devastating airstrikes that represent the largest military operation in Gaza since 1967 — is unlikely to weaken the militant Palestinian group substantially or move things any closer to what all Israelis and all Palestinians need: a durable peace agreement and a two-state solution.


Los Angeles Times wrote:In launching airstrikes on the Gaza Strip, Israel has exercised its right to self-defense. Since the collapse Dec. 19 of a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian movement that controls the territory, residents of southern Israel have been terrorized by cross-border rocket attacks. When the Bush administration sympathized with Israel's response to that provocation, it wasn't simply catering to pro-Israel sentiments in this country; it was placing blame where it belongs.


The Washington Post wrote:LIKE THE Lebanon war of 2006, Israel's battle with Hamas in Gaza is producing a schism among Muslim states. Iran and its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon have joined Hamas's Damascus-based leadership in calling for a new intifada, or uprising, against Israel -- and also against the governments of Egypt and Jordan, which are accused of silently supporting Israel's air attacks. Those governments, along with the West Bank Palestinian administration of President Mahmoud Abbas, have issued rote condemnations of Israel. But they have also accused Hamas of triggering the conflict by ending a ceasefire -- and they have responded harshly to the Iranian camp, which has "practically declared war on Egypt," as Cairo's foreign minister angrily put it yesterday. Far from encouraging an uprising, Mr. Abbas's police broke up demonstrations by West Bank Palestinians on Sunday. Egyptian security forces have forcibly prevented Palestinians from crossing the border from Gaza.


In short, Israel has a right to defend itself, and Hamas is mis-serving its constituents by having launched the attack.

Frank Church wrote: A thought experiment: Some LA gang members go into a parking lot of a Circle K. They spot a cop cruiser and go over to the officers, who are drinking coffee and eating twinkies. The gang members shoot both cops in the face and take off with their police car for a joy ride.

Later, in retaliation, the entire LA police force burn down South Central LA. Sure, the gang bangers struck first, but who was the real aggressors?

Now Sara, if you don't side with the cops, you cannot side with Israel.


Bad analogy. Very bad analogy. The two don't equate at all. (For one thing, the gangbangers aren't the recognized and elected government in South Central.)

You've already said you don't care what Hamas does, whcih ends the debate for me. It's a very profound taking of sides when you assert only one side needs to take action. That's abdicating responsibility and is a position I can't understand well enough to debate.

This article, however, is a good one: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_lebanon_hezbollah

It explains why when a terrorist organization becomes part of a de-facto governing body they are held to different standards by the people they represent. In this case, Hamas acted like a terrorist organization, at the expense -- and a growing expense every day -- of their citizenry. On the other hand, if Hezbollah enters the fight Hamas will have a much more difficult time playing the victim.

Love you Frank, but refusing to hold terrorist groups accountable because you don't control them is indefensible.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:59 am

Steve propels the propaganda of the mainstream media and I'm the bad guy.

I am not defending Hamas. I have no power over Hamas. I care about what Hamas is doing, but it is in retaliation to what Israel is doing. This is all just basic ethics. I am on the side of the underdog--in this conflict that is the Palestinians.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:00 am

Israel is targeting civilians, do you get that!! sheesh.

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:04 am

FrankChurch wrote:This is all just basic ethics. I am on the side of the underdog--in this conflict that is the Palestinians.



"Basic ethics" says that not only do the ends rarely justify the means, but that position does not confer virtue.

Underdogs also commit crimes, sins, and ethical lapses.
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:09 am

FrankChurch wrote:As I stated before, I don't care what Hamas does, only what my country does.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:12 am

Barber, you know what I meant.

I only have power over our country. This is how you get Hamas to play nice--ask Israel to stop targeting civilians, just as a ploy to get the labor party elected.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:14 am

Fattah is so corrupt Palestinians cling to Hamas for aid. This is more complex then you guys make it.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/3 ... 54211.html

Agree with lots of this. Good to see Scarborough act like the girly boy that he is.

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:16 pm

Jan, what are they saying about the Israel mess on German tv, newspapers? I know how pc that country is on such matters.

Overview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 86,00.html
'Hamas Stupidity No Excuse for Israeli Overreaction'

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:00 pm

One of the many reasons Palestinians are not happy with Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01hqVzViFTw

User avatar
The Dreaded Slaymaker
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:10 pm
Location: Stowe, Vermont

Postby The Dreaded Slaymaker » Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:43 pm

Frank, your analogy would work if you were talking about Israel bombing the shit out of Palestine because a suicide bomber took out a couple of people at a bus stop. I would say it looks more like this: if South Central was a separate city, and the mayor and the entire police force declared that they were going to wipe out LA, wipe it off the face of the earth, and then the mayor and his police force goons started throwing hand grenades into people's backyards in LA, and THEN the LA police force bombed South Central, THEN you would have an appropriate analogy.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:54 am

The context is how to use force and why it should be limited, especially when states do it. States have a load of responsibility when acting on violent urges. This is why we have international law and the Nuremburg standards, not even mentioning Just War Theory.

States should avoid violence unless they have no choice. Israel has many choices. This is my main concern.

--------------

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:08 pm

I'm watching the late Harold Pinter on a Charlie Rose video. Talk about frustrating. It's like debating my friend Barber. Pinter would have selective outrage as well.

We all use selective outrage--nobody has clean hands. Can somebody say 9/11?


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests