Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
LordofHats wrote:Not all warfare/violence precipitated by Muslims in history is terrorism. How does the Battle of Tours even need to be differentiated from the current problem? That should be abundantly self evident.
It's a purely accidental difference. The only reason "terrorism" is less common than outright warfare is because the Mohommedans don't have the manpower, the resources or the training to succeed in so doing.
The mentality behind modern terrorism is essentially the same as that behind historical "jihad" going back even to Mohammad himself.
If I might slightly adjust the lines of good ole Johnny Rebel:
"I like the West the way it is:
I'm sure that you do too...
Ole Mohammad thinks it's his:
I know he's wrong, don't you?"
There's a very big difference between classical state warfare and terrorism, and it's not even remotely accidental.
The ideology behind both is essentially the same. Whether private Mohammedan individuals or organizations commit acts of violence, or whether Mohammedan states commit acts of violence, the underlying reason is the same:
They're Mohammedan. We're not. They think they have some kind of divine entitlement.
Thus the reason I have even LESS sympathy for the stabber.
People love to decry the crusades.
Never mind the fact that it was a direct response to previous Mohammedan aggression.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchWinsAll wrote:Gone grab a few Blacks behind our truck later and wash down the dip with some Busch Light? Disgusting.
Who said anything about black people?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/29 23:23:26
Please explain to me why ISIS is raping and beheading Christians in the middle east.
Then please explain to me why Charles Martel had to repel a horde of angry Muslims from the West.
And then explain why they are different.
Please explain to me how this is remotely on topic. Or better, don't. Because it isn't on topic. So stop it now. This is a thread about an Israeli soldier putting a wounded guy down, that's it. It's not about whether Tours and Lepanto are different to ISIS' deeds.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
motyak wrote:Please explain to me how this is remotely on topic. Or better, don't. Because it isn't on topic. So stop it now. This is a thread about an Israeli soldier putting a wounded guy down, that's it. It's not about whether Tours and Lepanto are different to ISIS' deeds.
Fair enough.
I would, however, like to turn to a different aspect of the issue:
Why, I ask those reading this thread, do you suppose that our Palestinian stabbed the Israeli soldier in the first place?
Having answered that, why should Israelis be upset over the fact that he subsequently was killed (whether legally or otherwise)?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/29 23:53:54
Silent Puffin? wrote:Alienation, poverty, revenge, brainwashing or any number of other reasons
Oh. So there's no chance at all that he attempted to murder an Israeli soldier because he harbors any resentment towards the state of Israel, huh?
Because it was cold blooded murder?
People get murdered in a "cold blooded" way all the time and people generally do not and should not be upset over it (at least, not in the natural order).
If someone murders a drug lord in cold blood, that doesn't upset me (again, in the natural order).
What's so special about Achmed McStabbStabb?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/03/30 00:04:58
Silent Puffin? wrote:Alienation, poverty, revenge, brainwashing or any number of other reasons
Oh. So there's no chance at all that he attempted to murder an Israeli soldier because he harbors any resentment towards the state of Israel, huh?
Its blatantly obvious that he harboured resentment towards Israel but you asked for the reason and that will go far far further than because he was a 'Mohammedan'.
People get murdered in a "cold blooded" way all the time and people generally do not and should not care.
If someone murders a drug lord in cold blood, that doesn't upset me.
Silent Puffin? wrote:Its blatantly obvious that he harboured resentment towards Israel
And was willing to attempt to murder someone because of it.
Yes. If I were an Israeli, I would be weeping over such a tragedy as his death. [/sarcasm]
but you asked for the reason and that will go far far further than because he was a 'Mohammedan'.
Of course, of course! Because Mohammedans historically have had OUTSTANDING relations with the Jews and are vehement supporters of the Jewish state! [/sarcasm]
You are a terrible person.
Again, I qualify my assertion: "In the natural order."
Sorry, but, naturally speaking, I don't really see the death of a dangerous criminal and public menace as particularly tragic.
Does that make me a bad person? Meh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/30 00:09:33
Matt: What's the difference, Jed? Tell me, what's the difference between us and them?
Jed: Because...WE LIVE HERE! (shoots soldier)
From the original, but you get the point.
The original is pretty hypocritically hilarious ("America gets invaded by X" films are in general), but for me the 2012 remake of Red Dawn just steals the freaking cake;
I probably saw the first Red Dawn at too young an age to really appreciate the irony of it all, but the remake sure as hell brought that home All I could think on my first viewing was "there's some guy in a cave in Afghanistan somewhere giving this exact same speech and handing out TNT sweater vests"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/30 00:19:12
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're never going to solve violence with more violence unless you're willing to go full genocide, in which case you're probably more dangerous than whatever you're fighting in the first place.
This statement needs to be a book. Just 500 pages and these 31 words on every single one. It's just that quotable
We solved the problem of Japanese aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of German aggression with violence.
We solved the problem of Mexican aggression with violence.
Actually, we are pretty good at solving things with violence (we being humanity).
We solved the hell out of Bin Laden's aggression with violence.
Well, sort of. Violence was one aspect of the solution in these instances (which would have proven fruitless if not paired with other actions...like the Marshall Plan), .
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
Temporarily stopped/solved. Economic instability and ruination likely would have only fueled future conflict, be it in 10/15/20/30 years. These societies had to be rebuilt and basically recreated with different values. Simply killing lots of people and blowing stuff up didn't do it on its own. Blowing stuff up and killing lots of people certainly hasn't solved anything in Afghanistan in 30 years, it didn't permanently solve anything after WW1 for any of the combatants and they had to do it again, Mexico still arguably exports violence up here (just in different forms), etc.
Vaktathi wrote:Well, sort of. Violence was one aspect of the solution in these instances (which would have proven fruitless if not paired with other actions...like the Marshall Plan), and in a couple of those instances, the fundamental problems aren't solved just morphed into a new form (e.g. Bin Laden is dead...but global islamic terrorism is arguably stronger than ever).
Islamic terrorism has been around for a long time.
...
...
When did Mohammad forge his little book?
Sure, and by the same logic one can talk about "Israelite" aggression going back to antiquity and their massacre of the inhabitants of places like Jericho during their conquests, or "Christian" terrorism where Christianity was spread by the sword under the Romans, and later various other European peoples up through the middle ages and then through the renaissance and through the colonial era around the globe.
But lets not do that. I'm was clearly referencing the modern post-colonial, primarily Arab & central Asian phenomenon we know today borne largely from the ruin and breakup of the Ottoman & British empires.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/30 00:29:10
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Traditio wrote: Having answered that, why should Israelis be upset over the fact that he subsequently was killed (whether legally or otherwise)?
Because it undermines the rule of law and due process
Because it will help recruit and inspire the next wave of terrorists
Because it made Israel less safe
Because it undermines the claim that Israel is the most moral army on the planet
Because it is a propaganda victory for those states who would delegitimatize Israel
Because now the focus is no longer on the attackers, it is on Israel's response to them
Or any one of countless other reasons why shooting a restrained, unarmed detainee who is not actively posing a threat is a Bad Idea
Vaktathi wrote: the ruin and breakup of the Ottoman & British empires.
Terrorism as we know it today was largely born during the wars for Algeria and Lebanon. So lets add the French to that little listeroo Those are the conflicts that taught the guys who taught Bin Laden
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/30 00:27:51
Vaktathi wrote: the ruin and breakup of the Ottoman & British empires.
Terrorism as we know it today was largely born during the wars for Algeria and Lebanon. So lets add the French to that little listeroo Those are the conflicts that taught the guys who taught Bin Laden
That's probably fair
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Because it undermines the rule of law and due process
That's a rather abstract reason to be upset.
As I said in reply to another poster, people get killed all the time and absolutely zero feths are given by most people.
And note, this is even when arrests and convictions are made and sentences are carried out.
You know Lt. Joseph Kenda? One of his cases comes to mind:
A black handyman murders [and rapes, as I recall, but I'm not sure] a woman and murders her children as well. Kenda investigates and gets pretty much irrefutable evidence (physical and otherwise) that the man is guilty. Case goes to trial and the stupid jurors render a "not guilty" verdict.
Later on down the line, our man gets murdered by some other bad guy and thrown out of a window.
Do you know how many feths were given by Kenda?
I'll let you guess.
[Hint: the answer is a non-decimal number less than 1.]
Do you know how many feths were given by me and practically anyone else?
Again: none. Not any. Not a single feth was given.
Because it will help recruit and inspire the next wave of terrorists
Because it made Israel less safe
Because it undermines the claim that Israel is the most moral army on the planet
Because it is a propaganda victory for those states who would delegitimatize Israel
Because now the focus is no longer on the attackers, it is on Israel's response to them
Again, all of this is really abstract and "meta" reasons for being upset.
Or any one of countless other reasons why shooting a restrained, unarmed detainee who is not actively posing a threat is a Bad Idea
As I said: meh.
Should the Israeli soldier be tried? Sure.
Should a single feth be given [in the natural order] by anyone not directly involved with the investigation? Nope.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me make my argument in slightly a different way:
The Israeli soldier has proven himself to be a criminal threat to dangerous detainees.
Achmed McStabbStabb has proven himself to be a criminal threat to representatives of the Israeli State.
Frankly, I think that one poses more of a danger to civil society than the other.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/03/30 00:36:40
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
This is 100% right.
And since then, worrying about the political ramifications of getting hands too dirty has led to the US to not finish off opponents ends up costing far more in the long run.
Finally, I find at least one other person sees the difference between the way we fought in WWII versus Korea, Vietnam. Desert Storm, and even Afghanistan, and the legacy of that.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Because it undermines the rule of law and due process
That's a rather abstract reason to be upset.
As I said in reply to another poster, people get killed all the time and absolutely zero feths are given by most people.
And note, this is even when arrests and convictions are made and sentences are carried out.
You know Lt. Joseph Kenda? One of his cases comes to mind:
A black handyman murders [and rapes, as I recall, but I'm not sure] a woman and murders her children as well. Kenda investigates and gets pretty much irrefutable evidence (physical and otherwise) that the man is guilty. Case goes to trial and the stupid jurors render a "not guilty" verdict.
Later on down the line, our man gets murdered by some other bad guy and thrown out of a window.
Do you know how many feths were given by Kenda?
I'll let you guess.
[Hint: the answer is a non-decimal number less than 1.]
Do you know how many feths were given by me and practically anyone else?
Again: none. Not any. Not a single feth was given.
This is one of the most impressive non sequitors that I have ever read
Because it will help recruit and inspire the next wave of terrorists
Because it made Israel less safe
Because it undermines the claim that Israel is the most moral army on the planet
Because it is a propaganda victory for those states who would delegitimatize Israel
Because now the focus is no longer on the attackers, it is on Israel's response to them
Again, all of this is really abstract and "meta" reasons for being upset.
Or any one of countless other reasons why shooting a restrained, unarmed detainee who is not actively posing a threat is a Bad Idea
As I said: meh.
Those arguments being neither abstract, nor meta. But if you insist on dismissing arguments out of hand because your best articulated rebuttal is "meh" then actual discussion seems an outside possibility.
Traditio wrote: Should a single feth be given [in the natural order] by anyone not directly involved with the investigation? Nope.
And yet here we are both discussing it. Curious
Traditio wrote: Let me make my argument in slightly a different way:
The Israeli soldier has proven himself to be a criminal threat to dangerous detainees.
Achmed McStabbStabb has proven himself to be a criminal threat to representatives of the Israeli State.
Frankly, I think that one poses more of a danger to civil society than the other.
Seeing as the soldier is still alive and has little concern for extra judicial killing you would be correct that one poses more of a danger to civil society than the other, but not the one you think
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
This is 100% right.
Except, again, no it's not. There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions. Again, simply levelling stuff and killing lots of people didn't solve anything in the long run, there was a *whole* lot more to it than that.
And since then, worrying about the political ramifications of getting hands too dirty has led to the US to not finish off opponents ends up costing far more in the long run.
Finally, I find at least one other person sees the difference between the way we fought in WWII versus Korea, Vietnam. Desert Storm, and even Afghanistan, and the legacy of that.
You mean, besides completely different circumstances, goals, and rationales behind the decisions to enter such conflicts in the first place?
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions.
One might propose the world learned something from World War I, where a bunch of countries just killed a bunch of strapping young lads and deciding taking all of Germany and Austria's gak was good enough to call "bygones." (it wasn't). Of course, the Western Allies, and the USSR, went in... slightly different directions with that nation building concept XD
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
This is 100% right.
Except, again, no it's not. There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions. Again, simply levelling stuff and killing lots of people didn't solve anything in the long run, there was a *whole* lot more to it than that.
The key to why my statement is correct is highlighted. Pot-war. Period. The aggression was solved by violence, massive amounts of it. My statement was never about 'long term', it was about what solved the German and Japanese aggression. No reshaping could take place, no long term cultural structures or social norms re-made until the aggression was solved by the violence.
Bluntly, violence was not just an answer, violence was THE answer. Nothing else was gonna work.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:This is one of the most impressive non sequitors that I have ever read
So far as I can tell, your claim is that feths should be given because the killing undermines law and order.
I see no reason why we should restrict the scope of this objection to such killings are done under the color of authority.
Fact is, people illegally get killed all the time and are not causes for us to give a feth.
Essentially, you are claiming no more than: "He broke the law!"
Do you shed a tear every time somebody jaywalks?
Does it wound your heart every time somebody lights a bong?
Those arguments being neither abstract, nor meta. But if you insist on dismissing arguments out of hand because your best articulated rebuttal is "meh" then actual discussion seems an outside possibility.
The reasons you cited essentially boiled down to: "You potentially made us look bad in front of people who could, in principle, use what you did as an excuse to 'get back at us' later on."
You'll have to pardon me if I'm not quite prepared to pull out my torch and pitchfork.
Seeing as the soldier is still alive and has little concern for extra judicial killing you would be correct that one poses more of a danger to civil society than the other, but not the one you think
Given the fact that I'm not in the habit of stabbing Israeli soldiers, I'm not particularly concerned about this danger.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/30 01:46:21
No, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of Japan were not part of the solution. They were applied after massive violence destroyed the will to fight of the Germans and the Japanese. The plans were never held out as a carrot to the stick of violence and used to 'solve' the problem of aggression. The aggression was literally beat out of them, their infrastructures massively damaged, their economies shattered, and their militaries thrashed. That is what solved their aggression. The Marshall Plan and MacArthur's rebuilding of Japan came after the aggression was stopped/solved.
This is 100% right.
Except, again, no it's not. There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions. Again, simply levelling stuff and killing lots of people didn't solve anything in the long run, there was a *whole* lot more to it than that.
The key to why my statement is correct is highlighted. Pot-war. Period. The aggression was solved by violence, massive amounts of it. My statement was never about 'long term', it was about what solved the German and Japanese aggression. No reshaping could take place, no long term cultural structures or social norms re-made until the aggression was solved by the violence.
Bluntly, violence was not just an answer, violence was THE answer. Nothing else was gonna work.
Ok, well, if we want to go off just what is happening at that moment, sure, but that's just addressing the symptoms, not the underlying root issue, and won't necessarily prevent additional violence down the road unless you're going to go the full distance and obliterate the population. One will notice that a starving, economically collapsed, and defeated-in-the-field Germany in WW1 wasn't a recipe for European peace. Violence is a *component* of the solution, not the whole solution (again, unless you're going to extirpate the population, which is another thing altogether).
Vaktathi wrote: There was a *ton* of effort put into reshaping the social and cultural structures of these nations post-war such that the drives which existed before either were not there or were channeled into other directions.
One might propose the world learned something from World War I, where a bunch of countries just killed a bunch of strapping young lads and deciding taking all of Germany and Austria's gak was good enough to call "bygones." (it wasn't). Of course, the Western Allies, and the USSR, went in... slightly different directions with that nation building concept XD
Just a wee bit. They also made the mistake in WW1 of taking the punitive route instead of the cooperative route, ensuring a much greater willingness to dive back into war in 1939, and putting the idea in the heads of the Germans that there wasn't much to be gained by quitting when it was reasonable to do so instead of fighting to the bitter end.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
All I could think on my first viewing was "there's some guy in a cave in Afghanistan somewhere giving this exact same speech and handing out TNT sweater vests" 
