• 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!

Helen Thomas tells Jews to go back to Germany

CaptainCourtesy said:
Read this thread in order to find out what the problem in the ME is. You've got people with absolutist positions from each side doing nothing but making overgeneralized accusations at the other side.
Click to expand...

So I guess that you do not find it hypocritical when Americans are blaming Israel for disproportionality?
Be honest with yourself Captain.
 
Agent Ferris said:
They denied chocolate and coffee to a people who voted for an organization which calls for the extermination of world jewry in their charter? Say it isn't so. :roll:
Click to expand...
Well actually coffee is not being denied.
 
Apocalypse said:
So I guess that you do not find it hypocritical when Americans are blaming Israel for disproportionality?
Be honest with yourself Captain.
Click to expand...

Did I say that? I'm not talking specifics here. I think the "proportionality" argument is idiotic. A good way for Palestinian civiilians to stop getting killed is for Palestinians to stop firing rockets into Israel. But like I said, I'm notlooking at specifics. I'm looking at arguments as a whole.
 
Redress said:
No, it's because Israel, when they fight back, always seem to go further than necessary.
Click to expand...

So you want proportionality then? O.K. gotcha, if Israel responded proportionally and fired katusha rocket for katusha rocket then there would be a whole ****load more dead Palestinian civilians than there are now, because Gaza and the West Bank do not have the same building codes that the Israelis do.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Did I say that? I'm not talking specifics here. I think the "proportionality" argument is idiotic. A good way for Palestinian civiilians to stop getting killed is for Palestinians to stop firing rockets into Israel. But like I said, I'm notlooking at specifics. I'm looking at arguments as a whole.
Click to expand...

Alright, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
 
mpg said:
and ther are those of us who think that proportionality is a joke.
Click to expand...

It's still a basic concept that is used in every legal system.

For example, let's say that you steal underwears in a shop. Do you think it would be fair if it gave the right to the shopkeeper to behead you?
 
Agent Ferris said:
So you want proportionality then? O.K. gotcha, if Israel responded proportionally and fired katusha rocket for katusha rocket then there would be a whole ****load more dead Palestinian civilians than there are now, because Gaza and the West Bank do not have the same building codes that the Israelis do.
Click to expand...

When Israel has responded to the Hamas' constant attacks on its civilians in the 2009 Gaza operation Cast Lead, it has pretty much acted with proportionality.
A bomb for every rocket launcher, a bomb for every underground tunnel, a bomb for every rockets-creating labratory and a bomb for every Hamas HQ.
Certainly that would end up in tens of thousands of bombs, but that's completely fitting the definition of proportionality is it not?
 
Apocalypse said:
When Israel has responded to the Hamas' constant attacks on its civilians in the 2009 Gaza operation Cast Lead, it has pretty much acted with proportionality.
A bomb for every rocket launcher, a bomb for every underground tunnel, a bomb for every rockets-creating labratory and a bomb for every Hamas HQ.
Certainly that would end up in tens of thousands of bombs, but that's completely fitting the definition of proportionality is it not?
Click to expand...

OK, so what do you call "proportionality"? What's your criteria?
 
bub said:
OK, so what do you call "proportionality"? What's your criteria?
Click to expand...

Clearly proportionality is referring to using the level of force required to fulfill your assignment, and nothing beyond it.
You can kill a gunman by shooting at him or bombing him with a smart bomb, not by dropping a nuke on him.
 
bub said:
OK, so what do you call "proportionality"? What's your criteria?
Click to expand...

A proportional response would be to launch 1 Katusha rocket back into Gaza for everyone fired into Israel, is that what you want? Do you know how many more dead Palestinian civilians would result from such a policy?
 
bub said:
OK, so what do you call "proportionality"? What's your criteria?
Click to expand...

I reject proportionality in situations such as these.
 
Apocalypse said:
Clearly proportionality is referring to using the level of force required to fulfill your assignment, and nothing beyond it.
You can kill a gunman by shooting at him or bombing him with a smart bomb, not by dropping a nuke on him.
Click to expand...

Good!

According to international courts, that's proportionality

(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

Things that should enter into account are the "efficiency" of a measure, and also its "necessity".
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I reject proportionality in situations such as these.
Click to expand...

What situations? War?

Let's take an example:

1914, the Germans invade Belgium, our army is quickly defeated and some civilians start shooting at German troops. In order to make it stop, the Germans execute 2000 civilians and burn thousands of houses. Is that OK?
 
bub said:
What situations? War?

Let's take an example:

1914, the Germans invade Belgium, our army is quickly defeated and some civilians start shooting at German troops. In order to make it stop, the Germans execute 2000 civilians and burn thousands of houses. Is that OK?
Click to expand...

In war, yes. The situation that you describe, I would need more information to assess. My first answer would be, no, that is not OK, but since Israel is not doing something like that, you are not making an analogous statement anyway.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
In war, yes. The situation that you describe, I would need more information to assess. My first answer would be, no, that is not OK, but since Israel is not doing something like that, you are not making an analogous statement anyway.
Click to expand...

It's not an analogy with Israel, it's about the principle of proportionality.

You find it (the "rape of Belgium") wrong because

the anticipated civilian damage (2,000 civilians executed) is high
the anticipated military advantage (avoid the death of some German soldiers who could be ambushed by franc-tireurs) is low
and executing 2,000 civilians is clearly excessive in relation to the casualties that would be sustained by the German army

Furthermore, the measure was not effective (murdering civilians does not make such attacks stop: during the WWII there were numerous executions of hostages and resistants, and that has never stopped civilian attacks against the German army. In the case of the "rape of Belgium" the result was a worldwide condemnation of Germany)

Rape of Belgium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
bub said:
It's not an analogy with Israel, it's about the principle of proportionality.

You find it (the "rape of Belgium") wrong because

the anticipated civilian damage (2,000 civilians executed) is high
Click to expand...

Nope.

the anticipated military advantage (avoid the death of some German soldiers who could be ambushed by franc-tireurs) is low
Click to expand...

Nope.
and executing 2,000 civilians is clearly excessive in relation to the casualties that would be sustained by the German army
Click to expand...

And nope. I found it wrong for none of those reasons. Based on just the information you gave, I found it wrong because it was not situationally consistent. If Belgian civiliians had started shooting at German troops from inside a civilian area, and the Germans bombed the area where the fire was coming from, after informing the Belgians that this would happen if they did not cease, killing 2000 civilians in the process, I would not consider that to be situationally consistent and proportionality would not apply.

Furthermore, the measure was not effective (murdering civilians does not make such attacks stop: during the WWII there were numerous executions of hostages and resistants, and that has never stopped civilian attacks against the German army. In the case of the "rape of Belgium" the result was a worldwide condemnation of Germany)

Rape of Belgium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

And again, you are talking about non-analogous situations.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Did you just say it was OK to execute 2,000 civilians?


Nope.
Click to expand...

Well at least that's not what the British population thought in 1914.

And nope. I found it wrong for none of those reasons. Based on just the information you gave, I found it wrong because it was not situationally consistent. If Belgian civiliians had started shooting at German troops from inside a civilian area, and the Germans bombed the area where the fire was coming from, after informing the Belgians that this would happen if they did not cease, killing 2000 civilians in the process, I would not consider that to be situationally consistent and proportionality would not apply.



And again, you are talking about non-analogous situations.
Click to expand...

I'm not making an analogy with what Israel does, I'm talking about the principle of proportionality.
 
bub said:
Did you just say it was OK to execute 2,000 civilians?
Click to expand...

No, I did not.
Well at least that's not what the British population thought in 1914.
Click to expand...

OK.

I'm not making an analogy with what Israel does, I'm talking about the principle of proportionality.
Click to expand...

No, you are doing both. And I am responding to both. I already stated that I do not believe what the Germans did was acceptable and I explained why. I also gave you a situation where I WOULD see their response as acceptable. I reject the notion of proportionality in wartime situations and prefer to view them as either situationally consistent or not.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
prefer to view them as either situationally consistent or not.
Click to expand...

How do you judge if it is situtionally consitent or not? You need criters!

Why would criters such as
- necessity
- consequences
- efficiency
be forgotten?
 
bub said:
How do you judge if it is situtionally consitent or not? You need criters!

Why would criters such as
- necessity
- consequences
- efficiency
be forgotten?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that these "critters" would be forgotten. However, I would not look at them in a vacuum, either. Numbers are meaningless without context. Neither are any of the other things you mention.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I didn't say that these "critters" would be forgotten. However, I would not look at them in a vacuum, either. Numbers are meaningless without context. Neither are any of the other things you mention.
Click to expand...

The three criters I mention have to be evalued from the context (so there is no "vacuum"), not just from numbers. There can be other criters too, but these three ones seem primordial.
 
I think they ought to wet her lips and stick her to a mirror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom