Jump to content

Israeli Forces attack Aid Flotilla to Gaza


WhiteHaven

Recommended Posts

Pax, you're obviously free to say whatever you like since you still live in something with the trappings of a democracy. Given however that your opinions are both incorrect and not useful, it is also fortunate they are irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pax, you're obviously free to say whatever you like since you still live in something with the trappings of a democracy. Given however that your opinions are both incorrect and not useful, it is also fortunate they are irrelevant.

No doubt so to you. But let me ask you this .............. has all that vigorous internal debates which you participated in with such "degree of viciousness and vitriol" resulted in anything tangible like what the flotilla organizers has accomplished? Oh I don't know, like the removal/weakening of the inhumane blockade?

I don't know who's under the illusion of irrelevancy here, but ten dead Turks sure accomplished a lot what a bunch of talkative Israelis leftists couldn't do in three years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it doesn't mean holy war, I said it not interpreted by most to mean holy war, just like the book of genesis isn't interpreted by most to be literal. It is interpreted that way by a minority but why should we go with their definition over the majority of people and nearly all of the scholars who study it?

When the rest of the Muslims don't go to much effort to defend their interpretation of a term, or their beliefs for that matter, against these radical minorities they are implicitly validating the new interpretations by their apathy (or fear).

Why should non Muslims care that there was another historic meaning to the term when the Muslims themselves don't seem to care that much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt so to you. But let me ask you this .............. has all that vigorous internal debates which you participated in with such "degree of viciousness and vitriol" resulted in anything tangible like what the flotilla organizers has accomplished? Oh I don't know, like the removal/weakening of the inhumane blockade?

I don't know who's under the illusion of irrelevancy here, but ten dead Turks sure accomplished a lot what a bunch of talkative Israelis leftists couldn't do in three years.

What have they achieved? (Your attention, i'm afraid, is not what I consider useful.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said Israel can do no wrong. I'm saying they did no wrong in this instance.

But in general, I would never find myself on the side of misogynist/tribalist/gangster religious fanatics. There is no circumstance where that sort of arrangement would have any moral standing. I imagine it's uncomfortable/shameful for those on this board trying to defend it.

That's one of the most wonderful ad hominem arguments I've ever seen. Classic in form. Bravo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the rest of the Muslims don't go to much effort to defend their interpretation of a term, or their beliefs for that matter, against these radical minorities they are implicitly validating the new interpretations by their apathy (or fear).

Why should non Muslims care that there was another historic meaning to the term when the Muslims themselves don't seem to care that much?

What am I supposed to do? Walk around on the street, shake someone's hand, and say "Did you know that there are 2 jihads in Islam? Jihad is Arabic for struggle, by the way. The greater, and the lesser. The greater jihad, is the struggle one has to maintain Islam, or submission to God's Will. The lesser is the physical jihad against those who oppress you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I supposed to do? Walk around on the street, shake someone's hand, and say "Did you know that there are 2 jihads in Islam? Jihad is Arabic for struggle, by the way. The greater, and the lesser. The greater jihad, is the struggle one has to maintain Islam, or submission to God's Will. The lesser is the physical jihad against those who oppress you."

You mean you don't? :stunned:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the rest of the Muslims don't go to much effort to defend their interpretation of a term, or their beliefs for that matter, against these radical minorities they are implicitly validating the new interpretations by their apathy (or fear).

Why should non Muslims care that there was another historic meaning to the term when the Muslims themselves don't seem to care that much?

Shadowbinding, the rest of the Muslims do defend their interpretation, as it is the widely accepted meaning of the term. But this defense is either ignored or brushed to the side in favor of the sensationalized meaning of the term held by the minority. This allows for one culture to marginalize and assert cultural superiority over the other through barbarizing the religious culture of another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but if I hear that muslims died in a violent clash with the IDF, I know they are the radical kind. Otherwise, there would be no violent clash.

And so we are coming full circle to my original statement:

I think what he's saying is that Salamander is defending the IDF, no matter what. Much like a fanatic football fan who'll defend even the worst fouls of his own team (the other guy dived, the ref is not impartial etc...). That kind of attitude is hardly new though - we've had people defending Guantanamo and Abu Ghuraib, too.

If you send your army out to kick the shit out of innocent civilians, then you need some kind of mental bridge to overcome the gap that opens between your unconditional belief that you belong to the "good" guys and the crimes that your side commits.

QED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it doesn't mean holy war, I said it not interpreted by most to mean holy war, just like the book of genesis isn't interpreted by most to be literal. It is interpreted that way by a minority but why should we go with their definition over the majority of people and nearly all of the scholars who study it?

That isn't the case. The majority of Muslims would describe a holy war as a Jihad, they would simply argue that the word has other and more important meanings as well that are far more applicable in everyday life.

Comically enough, the same is pretty much true for crusade. In modern American usage a Crusade is nothing more then a determined struggle for a worthy cause. I.E "She was a crusader for woman's rights." It is actually pretty rare to run into the term in the context of a war to take back the holy lands.

That however doesn't change the fact that using the word crusade to describe a holy war is still semantically correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I supposed to do? Walk around on the street, shake someone's hand, and say "Did you know that there are 2 jihads in Islam? Jihad is Arabic for struggle, by the way. The greater, and the lesser. The greater jihad, is the struggle one has to maintain Islam, or submission to God's Will. The lesser is the physical jihad against those who oppress you."

Use it in its lesser form in conversations and interviews? Make the distinction between the two meaning? More, make it mandatory to distinguish between them so that misunderstanding cannot occur (terrorists will now be forced to only say Greater Jihad or Violent Jihad)

I think the whole basis of the Politically Correct movement is that when a term becomes tainted with unwanted meanings you find an alternate term that is not similarly tainted. You may not like Political Correctness but that is the accepted sieve through which modern media must run. And Jihad isn't one of those wishy washy terms that somehow ended up banned. It's usage and associations at present in connection with the greater side of it is quite horrific.

Also, shouldn't our language be a transparent thing that allows us to understand each other and not make dangerous mistakes caused by such double edged terms? Make the effort instead of just sighing 'why am I misunderstood?'

Edit to add - hmm, I seem to have mixed the lesser and greater meanings in my post. I went on the assumption that physical force to keep others' faith is a stronger (greater?) act than just keeping your own faith. I can see the alternate logic behind this now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Use it in its lesser form in conversations and interviews? Make the distinction between the two meaning? More, make it mandatory to distinguish between them so that misunderstanding cannot occur (terrorists will now be forced to only say Greater Jihad or Violent Jihad)

uh, you reversed them. Greater is the internal, lesser is the external.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what he's saying is that Salamander is defending the IDF, no matter what. Much like a fanatic football fan who'll defend even the worst fouls of his own team (the other guy dived, the ref is not impartial etc...). That kind of attitude is hardly new though - we've had people defending Guantanamo and Abu Ghuraib, too.

If you send your army out to kick the shit out of innocent civilians, then you need some kind of mental bridge to overcome the gap that opens between your unconditional belief that you belong to the "good" guys and the crimes that your side commits.

I completely agree with this.

Samalander, you might as well give up this argument. You're not going to persuade anyone that Israel is always right every time, which you obviously believe. All you do is spew useless trivia at us, instead of coming out and just admitting that you're a bigoted nationalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's laughable. Imagine if Iran had done this exact same thing.

If Iran was a peaceful democracy, didn't sponsor terrorism, governed with the consent of its people, had a neighboring state that swore to destroy it and was launching rockets into Iran, they would have moral standing to enforce a blockade against that state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you be at war with Hamas but not with Gaza? Either you define the conflict as between two states, thereby recognizing Palestine as a state and Gaza as part of it, or not. The whole interpretation of San Remo hinges on the armed conflict of two nation-states. Not the civil war that Israel is waging against Hamas.

No, it doesnt. San Remo applies to an international armed conflict. Gaza is not part of Israel and it is not an internal conflict. And even if San remo doesnt apply, customary intl-law does:

|The US Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations states, “While the belligerent right of visit and search is designed to interdict the flow of contraband goods, the belligerent right of blockade is intended to prevent vessels and aircraft, regardless of their cargo, from crossing an established and publicized cordon separating the enemy from international waters and/or airspace.”

The handbook further states that an “Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade.”

http://www.prio.no/upload/1117/doc/US%20Navy%20Commander's%20Handbook%201995.pdf

"Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602

"Accordingly, operational law sessions will focus on U.S. treaty obligations, such as those incurred under the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and collected customary international law, such as is reflected in the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations.."

Source: http://198.7.238.201/cnws/ild/documents/CDE%20Block2%20-%20AY%2009-11%20BARKER%20EDITS%20(21%20May%

As for the Geneva convention, destroying the houses of families of suicide bombers is illegal. The blockade itself as collective punishment is illegal.

No, it's not:

"a state, in a time of conflict, can impose an embargo, and while it cannot carry out embargo activities in the territorial waters of a third party, it can carry out embargo activities in international waters. Within this framework it is legal to detain a civilian vessel trying to break an embargo and if in the course of detaining the vessel, force is used against the forces carrying out the detention then that force has every right to act in self defense."[57]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the white phosphorous munitions used in urban areas during the recent flare-up?

No, it was legal, and not forbidden by the GC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement. If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use."

(IMG:http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/0501gazafireP8ES-415x275.jpg)

This link, apart from several videos showing the same munition used in Fallujah, has an Al-Jazeera clip showing children, and even a man holding a baby, playing with those pieces of cloth.

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2...v%3DqxfPCPA2d60

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bringing doom-cement, jihand-spices and terrorist-wheelchairs to Gaza?

More importantly in any run longer than tommorow, strengthened the positions of two hardline governments and reentrenched positions across the board. The blockade won't be lifted, moderating influences wil be delegitimized and the extremist, non compromising, institutionally anti-peace hamas have gained new allies. Mizrach tichon hadash, baby.

But continue to enjoy your armchair activism. I'm not one to criticize things that make people feel good about themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how does the Jewish majority respond? And which meaning of the term should gain precedent for non-Jews?

This is getting a bit too off-topic for me.

QED.

Not so. For, if we get back to my original example, had I heard the IDF killed 9 Buddhists in a violent clash I would be hard pressed to explain it to myself, much less you.

All you do is spew useless trivia at us...

I resent that! :tantrum:

:read: All my trivia is useful and correct!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...