Sad, but quite true for the most part, Dianne.
It's quite absured the UN tries so hard to issue such meaningless statements as calling for a cease fire, when they aren't prepared to actually do
anything about them.
Consider the case of the UN decision to create a Jewish homeland in Israel 58 years ago. Great, so there's a vote in favor of that.
Within hours after the vote was cast and the decision rectified, the combined armies of 7 arab countries started attacking Israeli settlements.
Did the UN do anything to back their decision? Not in the least bit.
We had to fight a bloody war to save our skins.
But back then it was okay, we were the good guys, why?
Because we didn't have tanks or planes or missiles.
Today we have the strongest airforce in the middle east and one of the best armies in the world. The situation hasn't changed considerably - we're still under attack, but now we're the bad guys.
I see the following logical pattern:
A) You are attacked, you hardly have any weapons, you use whatever you can ==> You're the good guy.
B) You are attacked, you have a lot of weapons, you use less than 10% of what you have ==> You're the bad guy.
1)The amount of weapons you have determines whether you're good or bad.
2)China, USA, Russia, India, Britain, France must be the most evil countries in the world.
3)Being attacked has nothing to do with morality :roll:
Yes, it doesn't matter. If I open fire against innocent people, this act is not less wrong simply because I say I'm going to do that. The decision of opening fire is unilateral and voluntary, and the victims cannot be blamed saying "it's your fault for being in the trajectory of our bullets and bombs". The victims were innocent and it was the army who dropped the bombs. They simply took cover in their building to try to get some protection. And to get out... where? Many people just cannot 'get out' (old people, children, ill people...), and where should they go to be safe?
I'm sorry, but you're totally distorting things.
We don't fire at civilians for the sake of firing at civilians. It's not a case of "move or I'll shoot you" rather "move because I don't want you to get in harms way". There's a huge difference.
Murder demands intention. Israel doesn't
target civilians. How can you not see that? If Israel were targeting civilians, believe me, the amount of fire power we've been using would have killed thousands if not tens of thousands.
If they aren't trying to harm civilians, why they have dropped the invasion by land and instead have increased attacks from the air, hence increasing the probability of "collateral damages"? Because the israely army was suffering "too much deceasings". This shows that they're not trying not to harm civilians, but the main target is not suffering to much deaths of their own soldiers (BTW, that's a sensible policy from a militaristic point of view, but it shows that innocent civilians really don't care much). And, if civilians do care, why they killed the UN observers despite they did at least ten communications telling they were there and asking to stop the attack?
So what you're basically saying is, that from a humaniterian point of view, one should sacrifice himself just so that someone else doesn't get hurt.
I'd like to ask you a question: If you had a child, and your neighbour had a child, and god forbid, you had to choose which of the 2 children you had to sacrifice, would the moral decision be for you to sacrifice your own?
Israel has exactly the same decision to make, only worse:
We have to choose between sacrificing Israeli civilians, or Israli soldiers or Lebanese civilians. None of these choices are preferable. I would prefer it if no one got hurt. But Hezbollah won't have it.
I'll remind you again: Hezbollah is the one who started the attacks. Hezbollah is the one who killed 8 soldiers, kidnapped 2 and then proceeded to bomb Israeli border towns killing and wounding several civilians before we fired a single shot.
I haven't been able to find it yet, but there's a UN security council resolution that says that if you fire from within a civilian populated area, and someone gets hurt in a retaliatory action, you
are to blame. It can't work any other way, and frankly, I'm quite surprised the UN has passed such a resolution to begin with. Maybe there's some hope after all.
An unjust agression doesn't justify an unjust response; I already said this lots of times. Perhaps the most important teaching of Plato and Socrates was that it's worse to make an injustice than suffering an injustice, and that's why Socrates accepted the death penalty the judges imposed to him despite he considered it terribly unfair and he could have prevented it simply levaing the polis. If the victims reacts to an unjust agression with another unjust agression, they simply put themselves at the same level.
Question: Are you a pacifist? Because if you are, I guess there's no sense in continuing this debate.
There's nothing moral in accepting death when you have other choices, especially when it is unjust. Would you take the same course of action if you were in his place?
If they would do so, then surely they won't be called "terrorists". But I can refer again to the previous comment.
Well, you'd think they should be called terrorists, but your friends in the UE don't call them that, and Kofi Annan likes to call them a "melitia", and quite a few in the UN call them "freedom fighters". What freedom are they fighting for in the last 6 years since Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon, is beyond me. :roll:
Why do you have to endorse all your government's decisions? If my government would make something simmilar, I would consider it liable for war crimes. Just before Iraq's invasion, millions of people occupied the streets of Spain claiming for peace and against government's support to the invasion.
What you don't seem to understand, is that this isn't a decision by my government. This was a mistake, and if I learn otherwise, my country and I will have the head of the person who ordered an attack on civilians, but as this is still being investigated, I refuse to convict my country of murder.
I am sorry lives were lost, Israel has appologized for the mistake and for the killings, but this is not
our intention. The day it becomes our intention, Israel will fall into civil war.
If your aim is to life without constant fear and threat, this violent attitude won't help at all, because it's overly proved that violence generates violence, and it's nearly impossible (for not saying totally impossible) to win over terrorism using a military strategy.
Both my grandparents were injuried in the civil war; other members of my familiy were killed or suffered imprisonment during the war and/or during the subsequent dictatorship. If something has to be learnt of this experience, is that violence never helps to peace and forgiveness, and serves a lot to resentment and more violence. No one could wish the peace in your country more than me, but I honestly think that things are going seriously wrong, in both strategic and moral terms.
I'm sorry you're family and the rest of Spain had to endure so much suffering for so long, but I think you're wrong. You're lucky Franco's heir decided to end dictatorship and that his heir King, Juan Carlos decided to abandon dictatorship, but if he didn't, you'd still be suffering the same problems as your grandparents.
WWII proved that violence can put an end to violence and that refraining from violence at all costs actually causes an increase in violence by the side that started it. If not for the US, the USSR and Britain's "acts of violence" , Europe would still be under Nazi occupation. If not for the Romanian people's "acts of violence", Romania would still be under Chouchescu's iron fist and not where it is today.
Sometimes violence is necissary.
I would very much suggest you check out the link
I posted a few days ago.