[excon]

1) What gives any nation state the right to exist?

2) What gives any ethnic/cultural group the right to have a nation state of its own?

Hello again, ordinary:

I'll give you my two cents. They DON'T!!

But, I've never said they did - no more than we have a right to exist - and we DON'T. If you think I have said that, please show me where.

Here's a short course on history. The people who hold the land, hold it because they're strong enough to hold it. “Rights” be damned. Might is right. Nothing else. That’s the way the world works, and always has.

Let the UN debate about the purported rights you talk about. I couldn't care less. What? You’ll give your house back to the Indians because they have “rights” to it? I don’t think you would.

Israel is a Democracy who's holding on to their land because they can. We should support them because we said we would, and for no other reason.

None of my arguments have been based upon any perceived rights. Argue with what I say, not with what you make up.

excon

[ScottGem]

Now let me ask you to answer these questions:

1) What gives any nation state the right to exist?

2) What gives any ethnic/cultural group the right to have a nation state of its own?

First, my questions were directed at the OP not you. Second, your quote from the Geneva Convention refers to an "active part" in the hostilities. Harboring combatants, permitting attacks to be launched from your lands and homes can be considered an active part.

As for the rest, when the OP answers my questions I will deal with them.

[ordinaryguy]

Hello again, ordinary:

I'll give you my two cents. They DON'T!!!

But, I've never said they did - no more than we have a right to exist - and we DON'T. If you think I have said that, please show me where.

Here's a short course on history. The people who hold the land, hold it because they're strong enough to hold it. “Rights” be damned. Might is right. Nothing else. That's the way the world works, and always has.

Let the UN debate about the purported rights you talk about. I could care less. What? You'll give your house back to the Indians because they have “rights” to it? I don't think you would.

Israel is a Democracy who's holding on to their land because they can. We should support them because we said we would, and for no other reason.

None of my arguments have been based upon any perceived rights. Argue with what I say, not with what you make up.

excon

I know you didn't say anything about rights, but Scott did, and I was responding to his post. I happen to agree with you that nation states exist by virtue of might, not rights. As I understand it, the rules of war are designed to protect the rights of persons, not nations. In your view, do people have rights, or is the whole idea bogus?

[ordinaryguy]

First, my questions were directed at the OP not you.

Are you saying that I am forbidden (or at least unwelcome) to answer any question not directed specifically to me?

Second, your quote from the Geneva Convention refers to an "active part" in the hostilities. Harboring combatants, permitting attacks to be launched from your lands and homes can be considered an active part.

Are you saying that because of the nature of the enemy they face that Israel's armed forces are not and should not be subject to the laws of war? Or are you saying that the civilian population of the occupied territories or Lebanon is not covered by Article 3?

As for the rest, when the OP answers my questions I will deal with them.

Of course, you're under no obligation, but I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions about the rights of nations.

[Fr_Chuck]

Rights are a "idea" and only valid in war if and when both sides agree to it.

In the Revolutionary War, the US broke every rule of war by not standing in a open field and shooting at each other, they did not wear uniforms and hide behind trees and other places, they were considered barbarions and terrorists for their methods of fighting.


And in Isreal for example, if you are fighting an enemy that hides its weapons around family apartments, will launch missles from behind schools, and use moblie missles shooting from family living parts of town.

So when you attack these areas, non military people will die, it is to be expected, And does other nations really have a right to hold aonother free nation to their standards, and can you blame one side for protecting it, if you don't condemn the nation using non military as basic shields.

A enemy that is not fighting by any rules, can they really ask for and expect the other side to have to follow those rules, since doing so, will mean they will have to lose

This is a good example of what is happening in Iraq today also

[ScottGem]

Are you saying that I am forbidden (or at least unwelcome) to answer any question not directed specifically to me?

Not at all. But the question was not a general one posed to anyone who wants to respond. I was looking for a response from a specific person because I want to see how that person will respond. I don't want to deal with other people's responses until I get the OP's response.

I have often said that once something is posted it is open for anyone who wants to to comment. But there is some discretion to be exercised. In a case like this, it was clear that I wanted the answers from a specific person.

Are you saying that because of the nature of the enemy they face that Israel's armed forces are not and should not be subject to the laws of war?

No, I'm saying that the laws of war are subject to interpretation. When your enemy is not the army of a country, but a people who assume many guises, then the line between what is a combatant and what isn't is very blurred. That is the main point that has to be taken into account when judging Israel's actions.

Of course, you're under no obligation, but I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions about the rights of nations.

I didn't say I wouldn't answer, only that I wanted to see if the OP will respond and what that response is before I answer your questions.

[ScottGem]

can you blame one side for protecting it, if you don't condemn the nation using non miliary as basic shields.

That is the crux of the argument I have been making. To condemn one side without condemning the opposing side when the opposition is committing much greater atrocities is one sided and prejudicial.

[ordinaryguy]

Rights are a "idea" and only valid in war if and when both sides agree to it.
In the Revolutionary War, the US broke every rule of war by not standing in a open field and shooting at each other, they did not wear uniforms and hide behind trees and other places, they were considered barbarions and terrorists for thier methods of fighting.

Don't you think there's an important difference between rights, as in "...all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...", and rules, such as the laws of warfare?

And in Isreal for example, if you are fighting an enemy that hides its weapons around family apartments, will launch missles from behind schools, and use moblie missles shooting from family living parts of town.

So when you attack these areas, non military people will die, it is to be expected, And does other nations really have a right to hold aonother free nation to thier standards, and can you blame one side for protecting it, if you don't condemn the nation using non miliary as basic shields.

A enemy that is not fighting by any rules, can they really ask for and expect the other side to have to follow those rules, since doing so, will mean they will have to lose

Refusing to adopt an enemy's standards of conduct doesn't necessarily mean you lose. Remember WWII? And Israel hasn't resorted to suicide bombing of civilian targets, and they haven't lost yet, even though their enemies use it routinely. By this logic, though, there would be no reason to abstain from it if they really thought it was necessary to win.

This is a good example of what is happening in Iraq today also

Yes, what's happening in Iraq is a tragically good example isn't it? Wasn't it John McCain who said that the rules of warfare and treatment of prisoners that we follow are about who WE are, not who THEY are? If we accept for ourselves no limits to inhumanity beyond whatever is accepted by our enemy, then don't we allow them to define us? If there is no level to which we will not stoop in our quest for "victory", can we still claim to be worthy of it?

[talaniman]

Israel is not sbject to our rules. They can defend themselves any way they see fit. So if they say area so-and so will be destroyed you'd be a zip damn fool to stay there, just my humble opinion. What idiot allows a bully to throw rocks at the local tough guy and then stands there and lets the bully hide behind him? If the lebanese are that dumb why should I care if they get here butts blown up with the terrorist. Again just my humble opinion. Rules ae only as good as the ones who enforce them.

[ordinaryguy]

Not at all. But the question was not a general one posed to anyone who wants to respond. I was looking for a response from a specific person because I want to see how that person will respond. I don't want to deal with other people's responses until I get the OP's response.

I have often said that once something is posted it is open for anyone who wants to to comment. But there is some discretion to be exercised. In a case like this, it was clear that I wanted the answers from a specific person.

Please excuse my indiscretion. It wasn't clear to me that no one else was supposed to respond.

No, I'm saying that the laws of war are subject to interpretation. When your enemy is not the army of a country, but a people who assume many guises, then the line between what is a combatant and what isn't is very blurred. That is the main point that has to be taken into account when judging Israel's actions.

Are you saying that because of the presence of guerrilla fighters among them, the civilian population of the occupied territories or Lebanon is not covered by Article 3?

I didn't say I wouldn't answer, only that I wanted to see if the OP will respond and what that response is before I answer your questions.

I don't see what his response has to do with it, but I'm in no hurry, so take your time.

To condemn one side without condemning the opposing side when the opposition is committing much greater atrocities is one sided and prejudicial.

I certainly agree that greater atrocities deserve greater condemnation than lesser atrocities, but don't you think even very small atrocities deserve at least a teeny tiny condemnation?

[ordinaryguy]

Israel is not sbject to our rules. They can defend themselves any way they see fit. So if they say area so-and so will be destroyed you'd be a zip damn fool to stay there, just my humble opinion. What idiot allows a bully to throw rocks at the local tough guy and then stands there and lets the bully hide behind him? If the lebanese are that dumb why should I care if they get here butts blown up with the terrorist. Again just my humble opinion. Rules ae only as good as the ones who enforce them.

So if you were a Lebanese family man, how, exactly, would you force the bully to stop hiding behind you?

[talaniman]

1-Get behind him and knock hell out of him with a big stick
2-Get a couple of other family guys and knock hell out of him with a big stick
3-See him coming with a rock and knock hell out of him with a big stick
4-catch him in the john and knock hell out of him with big stick
5-Burn his house down, and when he ran to escape the fire, knock hell out of him with a big stick
6-Tell the local bad boys that there's a bully with a rock talking about his mama and he lives over thar!
7-Get all my buddies together and round up all the bullies and knock the hell out of them with a big stick
8-knock the hell out of any one in my villagewith a rock in his hand.
Not only does this work on bullies ,but terrorists and young boys who sell dope in my neighborhood.

[ScottGem]

Please excuse my indiscretion. It wasn't clear to me that no one else was supposed to respond.

Again, I didn't say no else could respond, only that I was looking for an answer from a specific person.

Are you saying that because of the presence of guerrilla fighters among them, the civilian population of the occupied territories or Lebanon is not covered by Article 3?

No, I'm saying that the line between civilan and combatant is extremely blurry.

I don't see what his response has to do with it, but I'm in no hurry, so take your time.

I have my reasons for waiting for a response.

I certainly agree that greater atrocities deserve greater condemnation than lesser atrocities, but don't you think even very small atrocities deserve at least a teeny tiny condemnation?

And you make the same mistaken assumption that they have not and are not being criticized.

[excon]

Hello again:

While we work on that, I want to project our discussion into the near future.

In the declared global jihad, Africa is now fully involved. China is lining up with Iran. Europe is appeasing the jihadists in the hopes that they won't be attacked. Venezuela has guaranteed Iran its supply of refined fuel, because Iran doesn't refine its own. South America is now fully in the jihadist camp. The UN is helpless. Indeed, in the face of sanctions from the UN, Iran INCREASED is production of nuke fuel.

What I'm saying, is that in a year or two, it's going to be the jihadists against the world. The US and its ally Israel, are the ONLY ones who are going to be standing up. Maybe Australia would help. Roogirl?

What are you going to think of Israel then?

By the way, in my view, the scenario I allude to, is GOING to happen.

excon

[NeedKarma]

<adjusts tinfoil hat>

[excon]

<adjusts tinfoil hat>

Hello again, Need:

So sayeth Nevill Chamberlain, too. "The Nazi's are kiddin........."

excon

[NeedKarma]

In a year or two if it's the jihadists against the world I'll buy you a beer... or a bag of weed. :)

[excon]

Hello again, Need:

Cool. Canada is going to be the only safe place. I'll be a knocking...

excon

[tomder55]

I think we should all go to school on how the Ethiopians handled the jihadist in Sudan this week . http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...345844,00.html

The funny thing is I hear no one belly aching about disproportionate force. ( rumors abound about US forces in the region supplying "support" by the way ).This brief and successful military operation should send a message to the 'realists' of the Baker/ Hamilton Iraq Surrender Group and our State Department that appeasement doesn't pay.

The irony is that Israel with its advanced military equipment and highly trained forces could accomplish another similar victory in the war against Jihadistan by re-entering Gaza and rooting out the Hamas and al Qaeda terrorists killing Israelis daily with the unabated rain of Qassem rockets.

Now that I think about it ;isn't Ethiopia the purported location of the lost tribes of Israel ?

[excon]

The irony is that Israel with its advanced military equipment and highly trained forces could accomplish another similar victory in the war against Jihadistan by re-entering Gaza and rooting out the Hamas and al Qaeda terrorists killing Israelis daily with the unabated rain of Qassem rockets.

Now that I think about it ;isn't Ethiopia the purported location of the lost tribes of Israel ?

Hello again, tom:

Instead, Olmert is giving money and weapons to Fattah - a terrorist organization who's been at war with Israel since the beginning. Isn't that crazy??

Yes, Ethiopia IS where the last tribe came from. There was a black police chief named Greenburg in Charleston, SC. He's not a convert.

I think Sammy Davis Jr. was from there, too... Ok, maybe not.

excon