user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Blow the building up, he's made himself a target by his actions
Kill 'em. He has intentionally worked to aid terrorists, he is just as good a target as they are.
This is not as black and white as it first appears, if they were terrorists in the sense that they killed indiscriminantly, then sure, they are valid targets.
If they were terrorists because an oppresive regime tagged them as such, then no.
Voted : Let them get away with it and suffer continued civilian losses
From one point of view it is just plain wrong do that. It just isn't right.
From another point of view the building should not be blown up for another reason. If those civillians are killed, could not the terrorist organisation use that as propaganda? Wouldn't there be a chance that hatred would increase dramatically, and that the terrorism problem would intensify. Wouldn't it then seem that also from an emotionally detached analysis, that it would be in a country's self-interest not to intensify anger against it from that community, and not to cause an international controversy against itself? And wouldn't it also be beneficial to appear to have the higher moral ground?
It seems from both the idealist and realist analysis, it is best not to blow up the building.
Voted : Send in soldiers to extract him, risking their lives to save his
Of course. Just as anyone who funds, serves in the armed forces of, r gives moral support to "israel" is a legitimate target. Pull your head out of your ass, HerZOG. You're a terrorist. In my estimation, this could lead to palestinian terrorists, and their "israeli" terrorist enemies, ALL getting killed. Sounds like a positive strategy.
Wouldn't killing civilians be a tactical and strategic mistake, even ignoring the moral implications? Wouldn't a change in tactics make more sense? Perhaps it would make a good argument for that wall Israelis want to build, for example.
Voted : Blow the building up, he's made himself a target by his actions
Very well said ! Some call it 'aiding and abetting' and is equally punishable.
As I said in the comment that presumably inspired this ballot Herzog, sometimes things just arent as black and white as you (and often I) make them.
A number of poitns to consider here.
1) Is the person they are hiding actually a terrorist by anything other than name? COULD they be considered a guerilla fighter?
2) Could the people be surrounding the house because they believe the man inside is in fact innocent of the crimes levelled against him?
3) Are they being forced?
4) Are they being tricked?
5) Does creating a human shield around a terorist warrant death?
6) Do CHILDREN, with no comprehension of WHY they are crowding around this guys house, deserve to die?
Its this sort of black and white, imperialist thinking that is making Americ unpopular around the world.
I think the point that is being missed is that they are firing in to your country as this is going on, so doing nothing isn't really an option, because your people are dying.
" 1) Is the person they are hiding actually a terrorist by anything other than name? COULD they be considered a guerilla fighter? "
You could call them whatever you like. Right now they're holed up firing indiscriminately in to populated areas with the intent of killing civilians and not military targets. How would you label such a person?
" 2) Could the people be surrounding the house because they believe the man inside is in fact innocent of the crimes levelled against him?"
Do their beliefs matter? Those who defended hitlers regime during the war believed they were in the right, should we have let them live and put an end to the war? Your enemy will always believe his cause is just, yours is wicked and should be destroyed. You can't base your strategy on whether or not your enemies believe they should win.
"3) Are they being forced? "
I clearly stated that he went there willingly.
" 4) Are they being tricked?"
Anyone who supports terrorists is being tricked in some way, they are of course evil people, so no decent person could support them without lies and propaganda.
" 5) Does creating a human shield around a terorist warrant death?"
I never asked if they should be executed for their crimes. I asked if it was fine to ignore their wellbeing and go after the guys killing women and children in your country.
" 6) Do CHILDREN, with no comprehension of WHY they are crowding around this guys house, deserve to die?"
No. Do children in your country deserve to die?
Voted : Blow the building up, he's made himself a target by his actions
I'd like to be a merciful person in this, but if you're dumb enough to step into the path of the bullet...
Voted : Blow the building up, he's made himself a target by his actions
Yes. Plus what Black Lava and Truth said.
Voted : Blow the building up, he's made himself a target by his actions
Since everyone is interpreting this as Israel and Hamas, lets look at it from a different perspective.
Imagine that Mexican terrorists are shooting rockets into San Diego and killing innocent civilians. Would the US government call the residents of that building and tell them to evacuate? Of course not. And if they did and the non-terrorists residents would not leave, would the US decide not to act (especially considering that this group has launched rockets into the US thousands of times and conducted suicide bombings in the US)? Of course not.
Somehow in this world today people seem to think that civilian casualties are completely avoidable in war. They aren't. This is especially true when the other side INTENTIONALLY hides with civilians as human shields. The US and UK see this all the time. The terrorists use this tactic - not civilized people or countries. It is immoral as a soldier, guerrilla, or even a common criminal to use a civilian as a shield. It is also cowardly.
In the world of criminal law, if someone prevents the arrest, capture, etc., of a criminal, they are charged with aiding and abetting the crime. In other words, they are at a minimum partially responsible for the crime. If the prevent the arrest of the person, they are also guilty.
Of course, since we are talking about Israel, all of this is different. Different even though they are the only country that I am aware that actually contacts civilians and asks them to leave - thereby alerting the populace to their plans.
I meant to say "thereby alerting the terrorists to the intended action".
Skylab: evicting them? So serve them with a notice to vacate the building immediately or else . . . nothing?
^I didn't mean evict them while gunmen and civilians are running around mixed together, but a long term policy of creating a clear strip the width of where missiles could be fired might solve the problem without giving a huge PR victory to people who do those things, and without the moral problems involved. Sherman made his point without killing civilians. They got the message.
Herzog
Im dissapointed in your answers to say the least, uncharacteristiclly poor.
1) My point was that if they believe the Israelis are an invading territory in their land, which includes "innocent" civilians, then they have the right to use guerilla warfare against the occupying peoples. If part of America was occupied by a foreign peoples, wouldnt you be justified in throwing rocks at the occupying peopels, whether they were soldiers or not? You say these people are supporting terrorism by acting as a human shield for the "terrorist". If the Israeli government were guilty of war crimes in palestine and Lebanon, couldnt you say the civilian who supported the governments war mongering were just as much to blame?
Anyway, my point is its not as black and white as calling them "terrorists", when in the big picture they may, indeed, be freedom fighters.
^ That was the point that required any depth of lateral thought to answer in all honesty, the rest are the result of you being obtuse, and easily refuted.
2) "Do their beliefs matter?"
You have simply misunderstood my point here, so the rest of the comment was irrelevant. I was saying they could be surrounding the house because they DO NOT KNOW the man is a terrorist, or think the Israeli government may be targeting him for other reasons, in which case they would be innocent civilians, supporting a fellow national who they believe is being unjustly persecuted. So yes, their beliefs do matter somewhat.
3) "I clearly stated that he went there willingly"
Again, you misread/misunderstand my point. Im asking you whetehr you believe the people constituing the human shield were being forced, not the "terrorist". This may seem unlikely, but you dont know what sort of intimidation was going on at the time, and nor would the helicopter pilots. Thus they could be putting a number of innocent people to death.
4) "Anyone who supports terrorists is being tricked in some way, they are of course evil people, so no decent person could support them without lies and propaganda"
AGAIN, you respond with a degree of (deliberate?) obtuseness. These people may have been decieved in a number of ways, for example they may have been told the man in the house is an innocent man, being unjustly persecuted by the Israeli military.
5)
"I never asked if they should be executed for their crimes. I asked if it was fine to ignore their wellbeing and go after the guys killing women and children in your country"
No, you didnt. I did. And by implication you answered yes when you said that they should be considered targets for aiding terrorists, i.e. they should be bombed also. Ans bombing someone normally results in their death, doesnt it? Isnt that the point of a bomb after all?
6) "Do CHILDREN, with no comprehension of WHY they are crowding around this guys house, deserve to die?"
"No. Do children in your country deserve to die?"
So because someone fires missiles that may kill cildren, it makes it ok to go and kill their children back? Preserving the lives of innocents (particularly children) should be valued for its own sake, not as long as your enemies dont do it. That little child is hardly going to appreciate the fact that children in Israel have also died when its a boody mass of stumps and pulp on the floor, is it? That fact doesnt make it any less innocent.
Now, are you going to stop being obtuse/bloody minded, and try to broaden your perspective a little?
^Sorry, that sounded rude. Im just finding your refusal to consider alternative possibilities, particularly where peoples lives are involved, a little dissapointing.
Doctordraw- "My point was that if they believe the Israelis are an invading territory in their land, which includes "innocent" civilians, then they have the right to use guerilla warfare against the occupying peoples."
- Keep in mind the context of the occupation. The reason why it is even occupied is because the Arabs were the aggressors who attempted war against the Israelis. They lost that war, and Israel took that territory for occupation as a defensive measure and to create buffer zones. Since then, Israel has made efforts for peace (the Gaza withdrawl), while Palestinians have done little- they still don't even recognise Israel's right to exist.
"If part of America was occupied by a foreign peoples, wouldnt you be justified in throwing rocks at the occupying peopels, whether they were soldiers or not?"
- No, that is not right. The issue here is not throwing rocks, it is launching missiles at civillians.
"You say these people are supporting terrorism by acting as a human shield for the "terrorist". If the Israeli government were guilty of war crimes in palestine and Lebanon, couldnt you say the civilian who supported the governments war mongering were just as much to blame?"
- The Israeli military does not seem to intentionally target civillians. It targets the terrorists and the terrorists gather in civillian areas. The Palestinians however, do intentionally target civillians. They are indeed terrorists.
"Anyway, my point is its not as black and white as calling them "terrorists", when in the big picture they may, indeed, be freedom fighters."
- A freedom fighter cannot use terrorism to promote their cause? You can call them 'freedom fighters' all you like, but the fact of the matter is that their method fighting is terrorism- intentionally targeting civillians with rocket and bomb attacks. They are terrorists.
As I feared, the above comment (and likely future comments) has focused almost entirely on the first section of my former comment, i.e. question one. Which is of course your right, but is frustrating as that was only one of seven questions that were asked. I knew I was giving the most controversial answer with question one, and knew that it could distract completely from my other answers.
The truth is, I was playing devils advocate with the answer to question one, trying to look outside the box a little.
Having saids that, I will attempt to post a response to your points Socrates, I just wanted to make you aware that I dont want to get too tied up in debating the legitimacy of Israel as a state, and the blurred line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.
"Keep in mind the context of the occupation. The reason why it is even occupied is because the Arabs were the aggressors who attempted war against the Israelis. They lost that war, and Israel took that territory for occupation as a defensive measure and to create buffer zones. Since then, Israel has made efforts for peace (the Gaza withdrawl), while Palestinians have done little- they still don't even recognise Israel's right to exist."
You are concentrating on the Gaza strip, when in fact the legitimacy of Israel as a state in its entirety could be debated. Its sort of the equivalent of the U.N deciding that half of America must be partitioned and given to the native Americans, and considered a different state with different laws, government etc. Now, that example wouyld have more legitimacy than Israels claim, if only because the native Americans were driven from the land a shorter ago time in history. Wouldnt you be slightly annoyed?
"If part of America was occupied by a foreign peoples, wouldnt you be justified in throwing rocks at the occupying peopels, whether they were soldiers or not?"
I was merely trying to illustrate the relatively primitive state of the Arab terrorists weapons, rocks was obviously an extreme example. Lets say shoot at them with your pistol instead.
"Keep in mind the context of the occupation. The reason why it is even occupied is because the Arabs were the aggressors who attempted war against the Israelis. They lost that war, and Israel took that territory for occupation as a defensive measure and to create buffer zones. Since then, Israel has made efforts for peace (the Gaza withdrawl), while Palestinians have done little- they still don't even recognise Israel's right to exist."
You are concentrating on the Gaza strip, when in fact the legitimacy of Israel as a state in its entirety could be debated. Its sort of the equivalent of the U.N deciding that half of America must be partitioned and given to the native Americans, and considered a different state with different laws, government etc. Now, that example wouyld have more legitimacy than Israels claim, if only because the native Americans were driven from the land a shorter ago time in history. Wouldnt you be slightly annoyed?
"If part of America was occupied by a foreign peoples, wouldnt you be justified in throwing rocks at the occupying peopels, whether they were soldiers or not?"
I was merely trying to illustrate the relatively primitive state of the Arab terrorists weapons, rocks was obviously an extreme example. Lets say shoot at them with your pistol instead.
"The Israeli military does not seem to intentionally target civillians. It targets the terrorists and the terrorists gather in civillian areas. The Palestinians however, do intentionally target civillians. They are indeed terrorists."
Israel could be accused of gross disregard for civilian life with its firing of missiles into Lebanon, which is the equivalent of targeting civilians. That matter remains under debate, and beyond my knowledge though. Its hard to know what actually goes on in a war zone after all.
"A freedom fighter cannot use terrorism to promote their cause? You can call them 'freedom fighters' all you like, but the fact of the matter is that their method fighting is terrorism- intentionally targeting civillians with rocket and bomb attacks. They are terrorists."
Refer to my former comment;
"My point was that if they believe the Israelis are an invading territory in their land, which includes "innocent" civilians, then they have the right to use guerilla warfare against the occupying peoples. If part of America was occupied by a foreign peoples, wouldnt you be justified in throwing rocks at the occupying peopels, whether they were soldiers or not? You say these people are supporting terrorism by acting as a human shield for the "terrorist". If the Israeli government were guilty of war crimes in palestine and Lebanon, couldnt you say the civilian who supported the governments war mongering were just as much to blame?"
Its good to look at a problem from every angle, even an acute one.
Doctordraw- "You are concentrating on the Gaza strip, when in fact the legitimacy of Israel as a state in its entirety could be debated. Its sort of the equivalent of the U.N deciding that half of America must be partitioned and given to the native Americans, and considered a different state with different laws, government etc. Now, that example wouyld have more legitimacy than Israels claim, if only because the native Americans were driven from the land a shorter ago time in history. Wouldnt you be slightly annoyed?"
- Good. Let us delve even more so into the reality of the history of the situation. The fact is that many Jews were already living on the land. A lot were immigrants who had gone there long before the state of Israel ws created. The British owned the entire land as a colony. They were on the verge of leaving. What needed to be decided was what should replace the rule of the British? I would have personally have liked to have seen a single state created in which both Arabs and Jews would live together as fellow citizens of one state. And that was definitely an option that was being considered by the British colonials and the international community. However, the Palestinian elite didn't like that idea. They equated the immigrant Jews as being 'invaders' and didn't desire sharing power with them in one state. They were also concernned that in a single state, the Jews would be likely to dominate in many areas because they had more creditentials and experience for high positions. Many Arabs didn't like this at all, as they perceived the Jewish immigrants as invaders (I disagree with them, they were immigrants.) Many Arabs became violent over this, and demographic divisions widened. This increased fears on the Jewish side that a single state might not work. The international community perceived this as well. So it was that a two state solution was drafted. In this, the areas that were majority Arab would be made into 'Palestine', and the areas that were majority Jewish would be made into 'Israel'. The Jews seemed content with the proposal. The Arabs however, once again were antagonistic. Once again they brought up teh false idea that the Jews were invaders and had no right to even be there to create a state- when the fact of the matter was they were not invaders- realisitically many Jews had been there for generations, while the others were immigrants. The Palestinians continued this xenophobia, and opposed the two state solution as well (they seemed opposed to the idea of sharing in a single state too, they didn't like the two-state solution either). So what happened next was that the Palestinians in alliance with a large group of Arab states launched an attack on what was to be Israel. The Israelis defended themselves, and they won the war (what would have happened if the Arabs had of won)? The Israelis indeed took more land, with the desire to create buffer zones, as they feared that that war would not be the last against it- thus the need for more buffer zones as a defensive methodology. The Israelis were correct in predicting that it would not be the last time that they would be attacked by aggressive Arab coalitions- as another invasion was attempted by the Arabs in the 6 Day War, and then later again in the Yom Kippur conflict.
So efforts for both a one state and a two state solution were considered. Israel increasing its land each time was in response to Arab invasions, and was claimed as defensive for the desire for buffer zones. I myself thought the idea of the creation of Israel was a mistake, and that the single state solution should have been tried, but I can see the reasons why the international community were pessimistic of that. Your comparison to Native Americans does not fit, because Native Americans and other Americans are not divided by violent conflict. Anyhow, I do believe that Native American tribes should be entitled to some land rights within the single system. But myn main point is that the creation of Israel happened as the single state idea was doubted by everyone, and each time Israel expanded its influence in response to aggression from the Arabs. And it handed land back when it felt it was no longer threatened (eg, Israeli-Egyptian reconciliation, Israel then returned Sinai to Egypt following this).
"I was merely trying to illustrate the relatively primitive state of the Arab terrorists weapons, rocks was obviously an extreme example. Lets say shoot at them with your pistol instead."
- Well they are not that backward. They use rocket launchers, and bombs. A lot of innocent Israelis are killed.
"Israel could be accused of gross disregard for civilian life with its firing of missiles into Lebanon, which is the equivalent of targeting civilians. That matter remains under debate, and beyond my knowledge though. Its hard to know what actually goes on in a war zone after all."
- 'Gross disregard for civillian life' and intentionally wanting to target civillians is somewhat different. Both are cruel and insensitive. But one is much worst than the other and constitutes terrorism. I do oppose both though.
"My point was that if they believe the Israelis are an invading territory in their land, which includes "innocent" civilians, then they have the right to use guerilla warfare against the occupying peoples. If part of America was occupied by a foreign peoples, wouldnt you be justified in throwing rocks at the occupying peopels, whether they were soldiers or not? You say these people are supporting terrorism by acting as a human shield for the "terrorist". If the Israeli government were guilty of war crimes in palestine and Lebanon, couldnt you say the civilian who supported the governments war mongering were just as much to blame?"
- What you are trying to argue is that there use of violence is just. That is completely beside the point. Regardless of whether their use of terrorism is 'just' or 'unjust' is beside the point- either way it is terrorism that is the method being utilised- making them terrorists. If they seriously want to end the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, perhaps they should return to peace talks and recognise Israel's right to exist. That would be a better methodology of their supposed intentions than that of terrorism.
"As I feared, the above comment (and likely future comments) has focused almost entirely on the first section of my former comment, i.e. question one. Which is of course your right, but is frustrating as that was only one of seven questions that were asked. I knew I was giving the most controversial answer with question one, and knew that it could distract completely from my other answers."
- I have no objections to your points 2-6. Which is why I voted the way I did on this ballot (see my first comment at the top).
Although in regard to 3) , it is indicated in the ballot, that the hypothetical scenario given is that they are voluntarily involving themselves. This ballot is a hypothetical question, and is not necessarily referring to a specific event.
|
|
