|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 06/08/2010 : 16:31:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I can't speak for them, but I'd hazard a guess that they thought sailing in a flotilla with many nationalities and several other relief-organizations (IHH was just the biggest one) would make a difference. |
If that is the case, why did they post a newsitem saying that they bought extra boats, since Israel threatened to bomb them? Seems to me that they were fully aware and acting on the threat.
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 16:32:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Gorgo seem to think most of us are. But I can't figure out how he can come to such a conclusion.
|
As far as I can tell, because he uses a definition of provoke that nobody else uses. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 16:34:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Israel is the criminal here. No one else is responsible for their crimes, especially not their victims. Please give me some evidence to show that that is not true, otherwise, we're just going around and around. You cannot in any way blame the victims of these attacks. |
You keep on saying this, without providing any evidence, yourself.| The amount of risk that they took and that they knew about is irrelevant to this point. |
Utter nonsense. It's completely relevant because Israel kept telling them about the risks, and the IHH kept announcing their intentions to defy them. The IHH accepted the risks, so they accepted part of the responsibility for what occurred.| If Israel committed a crime, there is no way that this ship provoked that crime. If Israel committed a crime, there is no way that anyone else is to blame for that crime. If Israel committed a crime, there is no way that saying otherwise is not smearing the victim, and supporting Israel by at least mitigating their crimes. |
You keep saying these things as if repetition will make them come true. Your dogmatism isn't evidence. You ask others to provide evidence that you're wrong, but you're not providing any evidence that you're right.| If Israel committed a crime and you know about it and you are not against that crime, then you are supporting that crime. |
Red herring. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 16:45:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
So the Cop-show analogy is missing some crucial elements. Now, countrymen of the injured party can chime in, in sympathy for the Palestinian cause and in outrage against the criminal acts of Israel. This is where there is a point in adding the charges. |
People of all countries should have been "chiming in" for years already. Nobody else should have had to die for people to get upset about Israel's activities regarding Gaza.| It's a PR nightmare for Israel. |
As it should have been without the deaths.| What part of this does not conform with piracy? The Israelis didn't say "Argh! Argh! Pass me the grog!" and they didn't force non-violent crews to walk the plant. But they did murder in order to secure the boats and the cargo. |
I wasn't saying it wasn't piracy, I was saying that adding a charge of piracy to the already-long list of Israel's criminal acts shouldn't need to be done. It's sorta like sentencing a serial killer to 148 consecutive life sentences. Only one is really necessary.| For the record, I'm not willing to take Israel's word that the IHH supports Hamas. |
How about your own Department of State?
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/06/142591.htm Has not been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States/Cannot validate ties to Al-Qaida |
Actually, the relevant part to quote was this: US knows IHH (Humanitarian Relief Foundation) representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years and of great concern Still doesn't say that the IHH are "Hamas supporters" as you and Israel assert.| Nobody here in this thread is trying to defend Israel in any way by saying that the IHH provoked Israel's criminal response. |
Gorgo seem to think most of us are. But I can't figure out how he can come to such a conclusion. |
Neither can I. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 17:20:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
This would seem like the moral of the story is to not start a fight unless you're willing to go to extremes necessary to win, but how could this be less blameworthy? This would inevitably lead to some degree of extra damage to innocent persons, which would be even more blameworthy (I prefer Ghandi to Che). |
No. The moral is to not do anything with the slightest amount of risk unless you're willing to take personal responsibility for the outcome. Ghandi certainly didn't whine about the British committing crimes against him. He knew what he was getting into and accepted that his own actions would have negative consequences for him.
And hell, even if the guy taunting the rabid dog gets away with it without a scratch, he's still an idiot.| Of course, one could just allow injustice to continue without doing anything, but that certainly isn't blameless either, probably more so than risking yourself. |
If you see a rabid dog, you should probably call animal control rather than try to do anything yourself. In the case of Israel and Gaza, the animal control department is being hamstrung by the United States of America. It's hard to see how any amount or level of outraged protests will do anything to counteract that sort of tyranny, so it's likely that some other government, with a larger or better military than Israel's, is going to have to unilaterally break the blockade. And I mean break it. And then, because this is what Israel fears, they're going to have to stick around and defend Israel from attack. 'Cause if they don't, and even a single Israeli is hurt due to an attack from Gaza, Israel is going to go around screaming that that's why they had the blockade in the first place and feeling that their crimes were vindicated.| What, then, could be the best path? |
There isn't one. Israel, its neighbors, the U.S. and the U.N. have all together created a really horrible situation. Israel has historically been very aggressive and very paranoid, its neighbors make it feel justified, the U.S. enables its behavior, and the U.N. stands by, tut-tutting occasionally.| But how do we define which situations are the norm so that we know when someone is "breaking out"? If we suppose injustice is the norm, then any form of fighting it would be "breaking out" of the situation, and therefore be blameworthy. |
It's blameworthy if it goes wrong, and credit-worthy if the risk is avoided and the goal achieved (at least, if we're talking about "breaking out" to correct injustices - "breaking out" by robbing a bank, perhaps not so credit worthy). No risk, no blame, but no credit, either. This isn't a difficult calculus. People don't get to be "brave" without taking a personal stake in their own activities.| Why would we say aggression the norm? |
Because human nature is brutish and cowardly? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 17:24:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
My point is that anyone can refute the statements that I made that people take as an insult. I'm not sure what they're insulted about, but they can refute them. Kil is an example. He showed that one can end his part of the discussion, or he can continue. He didn't just stop and say that I was a jackass, or irrational, which would have added nothing to the discussion. That kind of thing stops the conversation, it doesn't add to it. None of us, especially me, does this perfectly, but we can at least attempt to be civil, even though the discussion may be heated. Calling me on it when I'm out of line is fine, and if I added something only for the purpose of insult in this thread, let me know, and I'll try not to do that in the future. Otherwise, show me with reason, and show me with facts, or as Kil did, give up. |
You're a fine one to lecture on civility. Are you serious in that you telling me that I was repeating right-wing smears was not intended to be an insult and that it was intended to somehow move the conversation forward? Honestly, Gorgo, you need to do a more vigorous assessment of your own posts before you go criticizing others along these lines. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 17:27:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Some people actually delivered goods to Gaza in the past. |
That was prior to the 2007/2008 attacks on Israel from Gaza. Israel hasn't allowed any aid ships through since then. Israel considers them all to be potentially loaded with military supplies for Hamas. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 17:41:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
When I first started reading this I pretty mush sided with most everyone that:
1) Israel was wrong and over-reacted.
2) The activists did provoke a response from Israel.....maybe not the one they got.....but provoked none the less.
But.....after reading all of Gorgo's replies I have decided:
To take Israel's Side!
Jesus Gorgo.....have you been this obtuse all along?
|
Yes, he has. He is incapable of rational thought.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 19:17:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
No. The moral is to not do anything with the slightest amount of risk unless you're willing to take personal responsibility for the outcome. Ghandi certainly didn't whine about the British committing crimes against him. He knew what he was getting into and accepted that his own actions would have negative consequences for him. |
What is the meaning of the word responsibility here? How does it matter if there is no amount of wrongdoing?
I thought the very purpose of civil disobedience was to allow harm to come to oneself in hopes the enemy would realize what it's doing is wrong and recant or be swayed by economic campaigns, but then we're back to requiring the oppressor to be rational in order to be capable of understanding the wrongness of their actions or understand that cooperating is better economically, which you discounted previously regarding Israel.
| If you see a rabid dog, you should probably call animal control rather than try to do anything yourself. In the case of Israel and Gaza, the animal control department is being hamstrung by the United States of America. It's hard to see how any amount or level of outraged protests will do anything to counteract that sort of tyranny, so it's likely that some other government, with a larger or better military than Israel's, is going to have to unilaterally break the blockade. And I mean break it. And then, because this is what Israel fears, they're going to have to stick around and defend Israel from attack. |
That isn't realistic, the Israelis and their allies have a monopoly on power, this opponent, by attempting such a thing, would be pursuing a hopeless course, and would, by your calculus, be blameworthy for trying something so pointless and suicidal. Plus, it would seem this is the sort of thing that could, even worse, cause escalation into a large war.
I don't (edit, left out word) think one can be expected to rely on some large power to correct injustice. This hopelessness for individuals I think is what leads to forming reactionary groups to hurt the oppressor by any means possible -- e.g. shooting rockets into their population centers, beheading aristocrats for being aristocrats, etc.
| It's blameworthy if it goes wrong, and credit-worthy if the risk is avoided and the goal achieved. No risk, no blame, but no credit, either. This isn't a difficult calculus. People don't get to be "brave" without taking a personal stake in their own activities. |
I don't agree that taking risk necessarily entails "blame."
As above, I think you would blame someone for doing just what you suggested since it would be useless (I'm sure you'll reply there, but pushing my argument where it goes with that assumption). This leaves choosing not to take the risk would be doing nothing in the face of injustice, which I think is blameworthy, perhaps more so than risking and failing (I don't think you addressed that). This would seem you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
| Why would we say aggression the norm? |
Because human nature is brutish and cowardly? |
I mean why the preferential treatment of the status quo regardless of its goodness or badness? You conservative!  |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 06/09/2010 23:41:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 20:53:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
What is the meaning of the word responsibility here? |
It means accepting that one's actions can lead, through a cause-and-effect chain of events, to certain consequences. In Gorgo's case, it means accepting that such cause-and-effects chains include things like human emotion, human error and even human criminality.| How does it matter if there is no amount of wrongdoing? |
If there's no wrongdoing and no "rightdoing," then one's actions had no substantial effects whatsoever, and so who cares who's responsible?| I thought the very purpose of civil disobedience was to allow harm to come to oneself in hopes the enemy would realize what it's doing is wrong and recant or be swayed by economic campaigns, but then we're back to requiring the oppressor to be rational in order to be capable of understanding the wrongness of their actions or understand that cooperating is better economically, which you discounted previously regarding Israel. |
Whoa, whoa, whoa. In the particular case of Israel, Gaza and the IHH, it is the IHH who has asserted that Israel is acting irrationally, a fact which needs to be taken into account and which Gorgo has studiously avoided. The idea that that could or should be generalized into "all oppressors are irrational" is not one that I agree with. One can be a completely rational embodiment of evil. Every moral culpability question must be analyzed independently.
(I heard an interesting reminder of the past on NPR tonight. Bush the Younger once said publicly to Al Qaeda, "Bring it on!" According to Gorgo's position in this thread, any increase in attacks on our troops or our country by Al Qaeda in response to Bush's stupid challenge would be totally Al Qaeda's fault. Gorgo would find himself in the uncomfortable position of defending Bush, saying that his statement wasn't provocative. Unless, of course, Gorgo insisted on following the chain of events back in time to see who was doing what to whom, which he refuses to do in the case of the Gaza protesters.)| That isn't realistic, the Israelis and their allies have a monopoly on power, this opponent, by attempting such a thing, would be pursuing a hopeless course, and would, by your calculus, be blameworthy for trying something so pointless and suicidal. |
No, I was suggesting an opponent who would win. A coalition, if need be. England, France and Spain together could probably amass an armada large enough to make Israel think two or three times about firing a shot at them, or even just flying helicopters over their boats.| Plus, it would seem this is the sort of thing that could, even worse, cause escalation into a large war. |
Perhaps a war is required to unseat Israel from its position of privilege.| I think one can be expected to rely on some large power to correct injustice. This hopelessness for individuals I think is what leads to forming reactionary groups to hurt the oppressor by any means possible -- e.g. shooting rockets into their population centers, beheading aristocrats for being aristocrats, etc. |
I'm saying that that hopelessness doesn't in any way diminish one's personal responsibility for one's own actions.| I don't agree that taking risk necessarily entails "blame." |
If the action fails, and the risky consequences occur, then it's blame. If the action succeeds, and the risky consequences are avoided, then it's "credit."| As above, I think you would blame someone for doing just what you suggested since it would be useless (I'm sure you'll reply there, but pushing my argument where it goes with that assumption). This leaves choosing not to take the risk would be doing nothing in the face of injustice, which I think is blameworthy, perhaps more so than risking and failing (I don't think you addressed that). |
Yes, people who go on suicide missions are partly responsible for their own deaths. They knew they would be dying, and accepted it.
And yes, sometimes doing nothing is more morally repugnant than trying and failing. The reason that we have "Good Samaritan" laws in some places is that the community thinks that the risk of "getting involved" is always less than the consequences of doing nothing. But these things really do need to be weighed individually.| This would seem you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. |
What can I say? Life is not and cannot be expected to be fair. How "damned" a person is depends on a lot of factors, so even though one may be damned no matter what one does (or doesn't do), one might be damned less if one chooses the lesser of two evils. I am not of the opinion that spitting gum on the sidewalk should be met with the same punishment as child rape.| I mean why the preferential treatment of the status quo regardless of its goodness or badness? |
Because breaking away from the status quo always entails a risk of some sort. Maintaining the status quo may suck, but it's a known quantity of suckitude, because it's being lived. Change not only entails risk, but risk of unknown and unintended consequences.| You conservative! |
The irony that I'm arguing for a rather strict view on personal responsibility isn't lost on me. Go ahead and ask me how I reconcile it with my bleeding-heart-liberal position that basic necessities should be accessible by everyone, regardless of circumstances. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/08/2010 : 21:13:13 [Permalink]
|
This is a good read, but unfortunately, the author "smears" the victims by claiming they had an ulterior motive:Israel also claimed, almost laughably, that because the stated goal of the Free Gaza Movement was to break the blockade, the Mavi Marmara's voyage somehow wasn't really a humanitarian act. In fact, there is an exact parallel in the actions of the early lunch counter sit-ins of the U.S. civil rights movement: while the freedom workers may well have been hungry when they sat down, their goal was not to be served coffee but to end segregation. Of course the ship's voyage was a political act, repeated by the Rachel Corrie a few days later: to respond to Israel's politically-driven humanitarian catastrophe and to achieve a humanitarian goal - ending the crippling blockade of Gaza. Bolding mine. I expect Gorgo to complain that Phyllis Bennis is just repeating right-wing propaganda. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2010 : 12:07:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
They opened fire on the Isrealis. Opening fire on a military ship is inviting return fire.
|
This is news to me. What ordonance did the IHH-ship carry? Where does this information come from?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2010 : 12:36:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| For the record, I'm not willing to take Israel's word that the IHH supports Hamas. |
How about your own Department of State?
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/06/142591.htm Has not been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States/Cannot validate ties to Al-Qaida |
Actually, the relevant part to quote was this: US knows IHH (Humanitarian Relief Foundation) representatives have met with senior Hamas officials in Turkey, Syria, and Gaza over the past three years and of great concern Still doesn't say that the IHH are "Hamas supporters" as you and Israel assert. |
I didn't express myself clearly enough: I don't think IHH support Hamas, I haven't seen any evidence either way, yet.
I don't see how the fact that IHH representatives have met with senior Hamas somehow makes them terrorists, or even suspected terrorists. IHH was founded as a relief organization, and they want to operate in Gaza. Hamas is the democratically elected officials of Gaza. If IHH wants to do their thing there, Hamas-people are the ones to talk to, to get permission to set up shop. This isn't rocket science, but Israel is too busy seeing terrorists everywhere, and what American government intelligence* thinks is anybody's guess... (but their track-record sucks)
Again: Hamas is the democratically elected officials of Gaza.
Being the self-proclaimed Champions Of Democracy in the World, I don't understand why USA is bitching so much about Hamas. Just because they don't share Hamas ideology doesn't make then any less democratically elected. The American presidential election of 2000 was just as suspect, probably even more so. But hey, that's my own opinion coloured by American aggression in Iraq...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2010 : 16:42:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I didn't express myself clearly enough: I don't think IHH support Hamas, I haven't seen any evidence either way, yet. |
Ah, okay. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2010 : 23:37:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
If there's no wrongdoing and no "rightdoing," then one's actions had no substantial effects whatsoever, and so who cares who's responsible? |
I meant from the flotilla's perspective. I don't see what the humanitarians were doing that was either wrong or right by trying to sail to Gaza. This, I think is independent of the fact that they were bringing humanitarian aid, but we could substitute a flotilla for a self-interested boat (not trying to make a political point) going to Gaza to sell things and 9 merchants were killed, this would have substantial effects. I would still care who was responsible.
| No, I was suggesting an opponent who would win. A coalition, if need be. England, France and Spain together could probably amass an armada large enough to make Israel think two or three times about firing a shot at them, or even just flying helicopters over their boats. |
Oh, you want the larger powers to escort ships through the blockade and hold the Israelis off without actually harming the Israelis? That could conceivably happen some time in the future.
| Perhaps a war is required to unseat Israel from its position of privilege. |
Right, how much harm can knocking off Franz Ferdinand possibly cause?
| What can I say? Life is not and cannot be expected to be fair. How "damned" a person is depends on a lot of factors, so even though one may be damned no matter what one does (or doesn't do), one might be damned less if one chooses the lesser of two evils. I am not of the opinion that spitting gum on the sidewalk should be met with the same punishment as child rape. |
So essentially you're choosing the least of some evils and I'm subtracting the amount of evil you attribute to the least evil one from all options to give me a zero evil option, or vice versa (you adding that value). The difference becomes is trivial regarding blame, credit, etc, I suppose. We would come out on the same side in choosing the "best path." The only disagreement appears to be where to put the baseline.
| The irony that I'm arguing for a rather strict view on personal responsibility isn't lost on me. Go ahead and ask me how I reconcile it with my bleeding-heart-liberal position that basic necessities should be accessible by everyone, regardless of circumstances. |
No, no, I'm quite content to allow you to let your true conservative colors shine through. You're also arguing for a strong standard for changing the present state of things.  |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 06/10/2010 01:15:39 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Israeli blockade incident
