To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 17402
17401  |  17403
Subject: 
Re: "Peace" can be dangerous (was: Re: Peruvian Indians [Re: ..)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:04:01 GMT
Viewed: 
2363 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:

> > Hamas, for instance, has publically declared their desire to not end their
> > fight until Israel is no longer.  Peace is dangerous when one side's idea of
> > it is the elimination of the other side.

> There are those in Israel who want to do the same to the Palestinians. You
> are using the views of extremists to condemn a whole nation.

Wanting and doing are two very different things.  Besides, I have tried to make
distinctions between Palestinian extremists and the GP all the time.  It is my
criticism of them that *they* aren't making that distinction more.

> In the post you responded to I cited two articles. You chose to criticise
> the one backing dialogue and mutual respect. This is despite the unpalatable
> nature of the second text:
> 
> "I am sure that Jews kill Arabs only for self-defence and justice, but Arabs
> do it because they like to kill."
> 
> "The Arab has the instinct of murder and killing like all gentiles, and only
> Jews do not have that instinct - that is a genetic fact."
> 
> So why label peace as "dangerous" and let racism off the hook? Do you not
> view the comments in the second text as "dangerous" also?

Those views are wacky as well, but I reject your attempt to establish some sort
of moral equivalency here.  Murdering civilians the way Palestinian terrorists
do is WAY wrong-- it doesn't matter what their grievances are-- it is *never*
justified.  They become instantly as guilty as those who oppress them.  Do you
agree?

For the most part, the IDF violence upon the Palestinians is in retaliation for
terrorist attacks.  They *have* to respond lest they embolden the terrorists.
That is a simple fact.  I know you don't agree, and I'm not willing to debate
it.  The *worst* thing one can do in response to terrorism is to do nothing--
it is like a big green light to these people.  There is no "cycle of violence".
Even if Israel stopped responding in force to terrorist attacks, they would
continue.

-John



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: "Peace" can be dangerous (was: Re: Peruvian Indians [Re: ..)
 
(...) Are you saying Israeli extremists do not murder Palestinians out of pure hate? Are you saying Israeli extremists did not wreck Oslo and Oslo II? (...) I agree they are oppressed. I agree murdering civilians is wrong. I reject the notion that (...) (24 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: "Peace" can be dangerous (was: Re: Peruvian Indians [Re: ..)
 
(...) There are those in Israel who want to do the same to the Palestinians. You are using the views of extremists to condemn a whole nation. In the post you responded to I cited two articles. You chose to criticise the one backing dialogue and (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

44 Messages in This Thread:














Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR