• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama camp 'prepared to talk to Hamas'

Kandahar said:
Hamas has many members - at all levels of the organization - who aren't particularly interested in destroying Israel.
Click to expand...

Who are they?
 
Tucker Case said:
Has there ever been a missle silo in a school to your knowledge?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the issue.
You're arguing that there's --never-- a legitmate reason to level a school.
He simply wants to see if you're --sure-- that you mean that.
 
Goobieman said:
Irrelevant to the issue.
You're arguing that there's --never-- a legitmate reason to level a school.
He simply wants to see if you're --sure-- that you mean that.
Click to expand...

I've explained that my initial premise that led to the statement is based on that which is possible. If I can be shown that a situation would ever exist that shows that the situation described is indeed plausible, instead of implausible (which my assertion assumes) then the statement would be changed accordingly.

In my opinion, if it is possible that the enemy can create a truly legitimate threat, they would NOT hide this legitimate threat at a school.


Thus, there is never a legitimate reason to level a school because there is no such thing as a "legitimate threat" coming from a school.

If there is evidence to refute my claim that a legitimate, effective threat can come form a school, I will gladly retract my statement with apologies.

That is why the need to give evidence of a legitimate effective threat existing in a school is quite relevant.

Otherwise, we are using implausibilities to justify abhorent behavior, simply becaus etheir could "hypotehtically exist a situation that has never existed before and does not exist today".

Thus, I am "sure" of my statement until my initial premise of implausibility is proven false, which up to now, nobody has done.

So I can repeate, there is no justifiable reason to level a school.
 
Tucker Case said:
I've explained that my initial premise that led to the statement is based on that which is possible. If I can be shown that a situation would ever exist that shows that the situation described is indeed plausible, instead of implausible (which my assertion assumes) then the statement would be changed accordingly.
Click to expand...
Its a hypothetical designed to test your position -- IF someone were to place a missile silo...
Arguing against the given is generally considered a concession of the point.

In my opinion, if it is possible that the enemy can create a truly legitimate threat, they would NOT hide this legitimate threat at a school.
Click to expand...
On what do you base that?
 
Goobieman said:
Its a hypothetical designed to test your position -- IF someone were to place a missile silo...
Arguing against the given is generally considered a concession of the point.
Click to expand...

My comment did not relate to hypotheticals, just reality. If you can show me a legitimate effective threat being housed in a school, then my statement would be false, and I would admit that.

But to my knowledge, there has never been a legitimate threat housed in a school. If I were proven false on this, I would admit as such, but nobody has tried to show that a legitimately effective threat has been housed in a school and thus warrants the leveling of the school.

Hypotheticals don't cut the mustard because hypothetically there could be, but since it has never been done to my knowledge, we have to consider it an extremely unlikely scenario.


On what do you base that?
Click to expand...

The lack of any legitimate threats coming from schools, as displayed by the lack of evidence.

Legitimate threats do not rely on hiding their weapons, because of the fact that they are indeed legitimate threats.

Ineffective weapons are the main reason Hamas acts like cowards. Otehrwise Israel would be able to step in, destroy all of them, and not have to worry about the PR war at all.

The only effective weapon Hamas has is the PR war. That's the primary reason they use human shields. They know they cannot create a legit threat to Israel without gaining international support by goading Israel to act in a fashion that "justifies" Hamas' own illegitimate tactics.




But all that being said, I actually have directly answered teh hypothetical, admitting that it would defeat my logic if it were a reality instead of a hypothetical (Parts in bold are relevant, the underlined bold parts being the most relevant):

Tucker Case said:
You've stated that the Hypothetical is plausible, my contention is that it will never happen. I am willing to change my view if you show me that it is probable by showing a legitimate threat coming from a school.

As far as the hypothetical goes, I honestly don't see it as plausible, so I can't answer it with honesty without defeating my own logic which I based on what I think is plausible.

I truly do not think it is plausible for a legitimate threat to come form a school that cannot be defeated with ground forces instead of blowing up the school.

If such a threat were to exist, I would need to change my logic as then it would have been based on a faulty premise (i.e. that it isn't plausible for a legitimate threat to come from a school).

Perhaps, I overstated things by not clarifying that this is my initial premise. this is an over-heated discussion, and I apologize for any disrespect I may have given.

Let me simply answer the hypothetical that you've described, but please the fact that I don't think that is a plausible scenario in mind:

If a legitimate threat existed, that had a high probability of efficacy, such as a missile silo would, at a school, that school would cease to be a school in my opinion. It would become a legitimate military target specifically because it would become a legitimate military threat.

That being said (conceded, if you will), the hypothetical does NOT apply to this particular situation for a multitude of reasons nor does it have any basis in reality in that it has never been seen to date.
If I am wrong, and such a legitimate threat has ever existed within a school, I will retract my comments that there is never a justification to bomb a school. But as I have not been faced with that, only a hypothetical scenario I find implausible, I cannot in good conscious retract, since the scenario is not based on reality but only what I deem to be an implausible hypothetical that has never been reached to date.
Click to expand...
 
Tucker Case said:
My comment did not relate to hypotheticals, just reality.
Click to expand...
The veracity of a position is often tested by hyoptheticals.

For instance:
Statement:
"I would never kill anyone"
Response:
"If the only way to stop your daughter from being raped was to kill someone, would you kill that someone?"

The "if" in the hypothetcial creates a given, that the situation described has occoured -- that you don't actually have a daughter is irrelevant.

As such, your requirement for an actual example is meaningless.

The lack of any legitimate threats coming from schools, as displayed by the lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
That it hasnt yet happened means that it will never happen?
So... we'll never be visited by aliens. Right?

Legitimate threats do not rely on hiding their weapons, because of the fact that they are indeed legitimate threats.
Click to expand...
Not at all true. Weapons are hidden all the time. Concealment from observation is a standard practice.

But all that being said, I actually have directly answered teh hypothetical, admitting that it would defeat my logic if it were a reality instead of a hypothetical (Parts in bold are relevant, the underlined bold parts being the most relevant):
Click to expand...
So you agree, that if a 'legitimate threat' were emplaced within a school, leveling the school would be justified.
 
Goobieman said:
The veracity of a position is often tested by hyoptheticals.

For instance:
Statement:
"I would never kill anyone"
Response:
"If the only way to stop your daughter from being raped was to kill someone, would you kill that someone?"

The "if" in the hypothetcial creates a given, that the situation described has occoured -- that you don't actually have a daughter is irrelevant.

As such, your requirement for an actual example is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Would is a future tense. I did not say "There could never be....", I said "there is never...".

That means I'm remaining grounded in the present. Thus a requirement for example is not meaningless. Had I said "There CAN/COULD never be" a hypothetical is a proper test, but since I said "There IS never..." I'm remaining grounded in the present, and the logic is NOT subject to hypotheticals, only reality.

As such, I would say that the logic still stands until proven false by reality.


That it hasnt yet happened means that it will never happen?
So... we'll never be visited by aliens. Right?
Click to expand...

I see no evidence to suggest either scenario will happen, so I must base my logic on what is "known" not what can be imagined.


Not at all true. Weapons are hidden all the time. Concealment from observation is a standard practice.
Click to expand...


I should have qualified that, legitimate threats don't hide their weapons in schools.

So you agree, that if a 'legitimate threat' were emplaced within a school, leveling the school would be justified.
Click to expand...

No, I don't agree because the statement isn't specific enough.

I would say that "If a legitimate, effective and imminent threat were housed in a school AND a ground strike was an impossible response to prevent the attack, then leveling the school MAY be justified."

It would depend on the scenario quite specifically.

But since there is no evidence of any of the qualifications being met at any time in history, to my knowledge, I can stand firm on my "is" statement since it was dealing with reality.

If a legitimate, efficient and imminent threat were shown to actually exist at a school where a ground force were an impossiblity to prevent the attack, I would say that the lesser of two evils would likely fall on destroying the school.

There are four qualifications that must be met, not just one.

Simply housing a missle silo on a school is not enough to warrant destroying the school. There must also be an imminent and effective threat in order to justify the choice of blowng it to hell instead of a ground assault.

Since there is nothing to lead me to believe that these qualifications are met anywhere or anytime to date, I must say factually there IS never a justification to blow a school to hell.


Had I said "there could never be" I would retract the statement as incorrect, becuase there COULD hypotethically exist such conditions, but to my knowledge they do not exist in reality therefore, the present tense statement would remain factual and logical.

As I said, the error was on my part for not clarifying this point earlier. It's not simple semantics either. There is a legitimate logical difference between "could be" and "is", and I was cognizant of that when I made the statement.
 
Tucker Case said:
Would is a future tense. I did not say "There could never be....", I said "there is never...".
Click to expand...
So, you SHOULD have said "there has never been".
If so... big deal. All you're stating is hat you believe to have already occoured.

I would say that "If a legitimate, effective and imminent threat were housed in a school AND a ground strike was an impossible response to prevent the attack, then leveling the school MAY be justified."

If a legitimate, efficient and imminent threat were shown to actually exist at a school where a ground force were an impossiblity to prevent the attack, I would say that the lesser of two evils would likely fall on destroying the school.
Click to expand...
Good enough.
 
Goobieman said:
So, you SHOULD have said "there has never been".
If so... big deal. All you're stating is hat you believe to have already occoured.
Click to expand...

My statement also includes "There is currently no Justification" as well as "there has never been a justification". That's why it would be more appropriate than "there has never been".

But if it were shown that there currently is justification, then it would be erroneous to phrase it as I did.

Good enough.
Click to expand...

Glad to know it meets the sniff test. ;)
 
Goobieman said:
Tell us your obtusitivity here is just for fun. Please.
Click to expand...

A bit, but not totally.

The thread is specifically about the Obama camp negotiating with Hamas, not Israel.

Now, I can totaly understand if Israel doesn't want to negotiate with Hamas for the stated reason. If some dude said he wanted me destroyed, I'd be disinclined with trying to reason with him, but I would actually WANT a buddy of mine to make the attempt at it. Especially a very tough buddy of mine who could even kick my ass.

Now, if that dude who wanted me destroyed were only lobbing stones at me, while I had an AK, I'd probably just walk over and smash him in the face a few dozen times with the butt of my gun. So I completely understand Israel going after Hamas as well. In fact, I've never been critical of Israel over going after Hamas, just some specific actions they've taken while doing so (pretty much just the school thing).

I think it is worth the effort of a semi-interested thrid party to try and negotiate. I don't think this means appease them in their desires, and I'm absolutely against continuing the negotiations if the flat-out refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist regardless of any agreements that can be reached.

Like I said earlier in this thread, first and foremost, Hamas must renounce any desire to destroy Israel at the very beginning of any negotiations.
 
Tucker Case said:
A bit, but not totally.
The thread is specifically about the Obama camp negotiating with Hamas, not Israel.
Click to expand...
If I were Israel, I think I would be very skeptcal of this.

Like I said earlier in this thread, first and foremost, Hamas must renounce any desire to destroy Israel at the very beginning of any negotiations.
Click to expand...
Without any such renunciation, negotiations, on anyones' part, are useless.
 
Goobieman said:
If I were Israel, I think I would be very skeptcal of this.
Click to expand...

Why? Just curious, as I would be talking to Israel directly and informing them what our goals for communication are (i.e. start off with getting them to renounce their stated goals in destroying Israel as well as getting them to stop their attacks against Israel.)

I don't think the negotiations should be performed without Israel knowing the score.

Without any such renunciation, negotiations, on anyones' part, are useless.
Click to expand...

Which is why it should be the primary focus of the negotiations, and the discussions should stall out entirely if Hamas is unwilling to make that renunciation.

The negotiations could simply be an exhertion of face-to-face pressure to get them to make that renunciation.

That's pretty much how I would start the thing off, making it clear that they have to do this first and foremost for things to continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom