I don't know enough about the situation in Palestine, or what kinds of laws are imposed from outside there, but just hypothetically, I wonder: what if they renounced all initiation of violence altogether, and just dropped the push to set up their own state? What if, instead they declared their territories to be "state-free" and "tax free havens?" Maybe they could open some casinos a la Native Americans; and provide some tax-free banking; let tech giants set up tax-free research centers there without all of the immigration restrictions that seem to impose so many unnecessary challenges.. And what if, instead of waging war or attacking Israel, they simply used any military capabilities they had to set up private security firms, and secure their banking system, maybe provide some safe gold depositories? In a generation or two, the Israelis would see that they are the ones living in a prison/tax farm, not the Palestinians. I wonder if they could get away with it...


It's interesting to me how some folks tend to (more or less) "take sides" in defense of states (or would-be states) in conflicts like this one. As if states somehow had "rights" or as if states somehow represented "the people" within each state. That is simply, prima facie, false: For one thing, I think armed conflict on any sort of large scale inflicts violence against innocent parties on both sides; who, in their own rights, have reason to see the other side's violent acts as aggression (or at least as material threats to their human rights).

So I certainly agree that Israelis have a right not to have rockets coming at them, but it also seems to me that individual Palestinians have a right not to be collateral damage in Israel's bombings. Surely the hundreds who've lost family in Gaza have reason to be angry at Hamas, but you could see why they too would want to defend themselves.

The logic of war often leads to a situation where if you can defend one side fighting, you have to see why the other side would fight as well. And so we can condemn both sides, or sympathize with the innocent victims of both sides, but I don't see any simple formulation that shows why people who happen to live on one side of an arbitrary line have more of a "right" to respond violently to attacks that threaten their lives than the other side has.

The United States commits many forms of aggression quite frequently. In revenge, terrorists murdered innocent Americans on 9/11. Those Americans had a right not to be attacked and as Americans, we have a right to defend ourselves. But if tactics our government employs hurt third parties, doesn't it seem that the logic of collective self defense could easily be used to justify perpetual war?

None of what I say relies on any assumption that Hamas is any less criminal than the Israeli state. Even if it's much more criminal than the Israeli state, it seems to me that collective defense = perpetual war, because of the innocents on both sides who seem to have no way of striking against belligerents without violence that itself puts innocent people in harm's way.

Too high a standard you are setting, meboyo. Not all feminists are interested in making it easy on the fellas, or care about them being equal to them. They are clawing their way up. Or so they think.

We could take a poll of avowed feminists and ask them. Those who are interested in the issues of feminism and see if they say she is fake or not.

She thinks she is a warrior, doing battle on behalf of women. (I haven't watched what went on before, but I can imagine, based on what I saw here.)

And like ALL warriors, there is bloodshed and collateral damage and swinging swords that aren't always perfectly controlled.

Personally, I don't like warriors. They are helmeted and hence somewhat blinded by their armor. Not good for rational discourse.

As I see it, the anger about 'chemical weapons' is based on the idea that they do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Of course, it's also true that conventional bombs don't discriminate either, so that argument is a weak one at best.
When collateral damage is greater than the damage to the intended target, your methods are usually deemed immoral. (let's just not think about Japan right now)
I would agree, this idea of 'drawing a line that must not be crossed' is stupid and limiting. I also agree, distinguishing between differing non-targeted attacks on a population seems silly, if the method ends in civilian death, it ends in civilian death. If it ends in more non-combatant civilian deaths than combatant deaths, it makes the attacker immoral.
The means seem far less important to me than the ends. (not intended to suggest that ends justify any means)

There will never be an easy solution, but in discussing drones there are points that deserve deliberation;
The Pakistani government cannot be seen, publicly, to condone drone strikes. However, given the carnage being done by the taliban, which they are finding difficult to contain, behind the scenes they actually do.
Terrorists existed long before drones and to believe that ceasing their use would reduce terrorism is naive and dangerous.
Manned or unmanned - and no matter what care is taken - weapons cause collateral damage. But these weapons can be highly effective, as was demonstrated in the "taking out" of the pakistani taliban leader last week.
If the terrorists had the same technology they would, certainly, use it. At the moment they are restricted to suicide bombers and maniacs with AK's who massacre innocents in schools or shopping malls etc. If/when they acquire chemical, biological, or atomic weapons you will see just how "restrained" in there use they truly are.
All weapons can be used for evil. The difference is, who controls them and how they are used. You just have to ask yourself, who would you prefer to hold the military advantage?

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

The right answer is noninterventionism, in my opinion. And sanctions aren't diplomatic solutions. They are acts of war on a sovereign country, which usually results in starving its people, which creates resentment.

Here's some reasons why noninterventionism is so important. First, bombing campaigns usually create collateral damage, and the funny thing about people, they tend to hate you when you kill their moms or sons or wives or friends. For reference, please refer to 9/11 in the U.S.

Secondly, Syria is having a civil war. How'd the U.S. like it if Britain supported the Confederacy during its civil war?

Thirdly, supporting the rebels is essentially being al-Qaeda's air force. Yeah, remember those guys? The guys who flew planes into our buildings? I don't think we should support them.

Fourth, our sudden pious indignation is misplaced, and worse, selective. I didn't hear one person in the U.S. calling to bomb Israel when they used white phosphorous on Palestinian women and children.

Fifth, you know exactly what is really fueling the march into Syria. It's not a humanitarian intervention, it's about oil. Syria doesn't want to trade their oil in U.S. dollars. Neither does Iran. If we allow the U.S. to bomb Syria, we will soon be marching into Tehran.

Sixth, who made us world police?

Lastly, it's not like we couldn't be spending that money at home fixing our infrastructure and taking care of our people. I think feeding the homeless here is way more important than making people homeless in other countries from bomb campaigns.

The slingshot does "hit harder" i.e. impart more momentum into the target and thus more likely to knock you down.
Intuitively this seems like it would therefore cause the most damage and for several 100 years this was the prevailing logic with muskets and cannonballs.

So much so in fact that when Charles Whitworth first introduced his rifle it was dismissed by the British army partly for having too small of a bullet. Whitworth used a smaller more stable round for its increased range and accuracy/stability (though there were also concerns about "muzzle fouling" and slower reload time).
It was believed at the time that the larger (slower) much less accurate bullets from the Enfield were more effective at actually injuring enemy soldiers, but history later demonstrated that speed and penetration can have just as much (if not more) effect on soft bodies than sheer mass and momentum.

Simply put, that large slingshot round would likely knock you to the floor in the same was as an MMA fighter landing a roundhouse square in your guts would. It might even penetrate the skin a bit and embed itself in you. What it won't do however is travel through your soft tissues at high velocity and create a large "temporary cavity" which is how most firearms do their real damage.

The 9mm etc. don't carry as much overall energy as the slingshot, but they do deliver it to a soft target much more effectively (that is to say lethally). A much more informative test would have been to fire them into ballistic clay, this would have highlighted the differences between speed, momentum and penetration much more clearly. The slingshot would leave a massive dint, the bullets would leave tunnels.

That said, the point they are making does stand to some extent. If you used that slingshot on someone that was trying to shoot you there is a good chance you'd knock them down (or at least stop them taking an aimed shot back for a few seconds). Hell you might even hospitalise them with a good shot!

It's not fair to say that the slingshot is a more "powerful" weapon but I think they did clearly demonstrate that it's a viable alternative under some circumstances. In fact for defending yourself in your own home etc. it might even be better!

Little/no risk of collateral damage (unless you miss really badly)
Very cheap
Would put most people on the floor with one good hit
No firearms licence or background checks needed
More difficult for a child to misuse (Most kids would lack the strength)
Enemy wouldn't expect it
Much less likely to kill
etc. etc.

Hell I'd get one myself if UK law wouldn't fk me over for using it.
It's illegal here to use a weapon specifically intended or kept for defense. i.e. if you grab a random object like a chair and beat up an intruder that's ok, if you have a baseball bat etc. by your bedside for expressly this purpose then it's not.
Handy then that one of my broken computer chairs happens to contain a loose 1ft long iron bar. Naturally I'd never even consider using such a thing violently, but who knows what might come to hand when faced with an intruder

(Seriously though, as broken furniture its a viable means of defence, if I kept it by my bedside as a "weapon" I'd be breaking the letter of the law by using it. Fucking stupid!)

Drone strikes in northern Pakistan are not indiscriminate. Count how many of the Taliban and Al Qaida's top leadership has been killed off by them. That's some pretty impossibly lucky indiscriminate fire to so frequently end up taking out major jihadist leaders.

Do you have an alternative proposal for dealing with militant jihadists in Pakistan? They are killing civilians, and in particular women, children and students daily. During Pakistan's elections, the Taliban killed multiple candidates, including candidates lobbying extremely hard for an end to drone strikes, an end to military action in the tribal regions, and for talks with the Taliban. Even those candidates were declared enemies by the Taliban for taking part in elections and were killed by them. This isn't about protecting white christians from muslims, it's about jihadists killing off muslims and trying to stop them.

America can't take more precise policed action to arrest or capture militant leaders in Pakistan either. Killing Bin Laden led to even greater outrage than the drone strikes, but boots on the ground are the only method left with less risk of collateral damage. Even if Pakistan's military is finally persuaded to do so instead, it is guaranteed that it will again increase civilian deaths over the short term as any campaign to retake control of the tribal areas is put into action.

It's a mess and simply saying leave them alone is naive and stupid. The Taliban are actively working to topple a nuclear powered state that is particularly vulnerable to them. More over, we are not even sure just how removed from each other key leaders in Pakistan's ISI and military leaders are from jihadist leaders. This instability doesn't play out with a nuke thrown our way in the opening, it comes as jihadists getting enough influence to instigate sending one into India.

If all you pay attention is the idiotically simplistic, war is bad lets not fight pseudo commentators you miss the entire picture.

Yes those are good points, however one thing I've found in my studies (in part, sitting through an ethics class every week for the past 2 years) and elsewhere is that the Nazi regime is used as a way of objectively describing what 'bad' is and contemporary examples are overlooked. The main examples of this 'bad' are the way in which they conducted human research, the genocide they committed and the fear they instilled in their own population to be obedient through the SS, propaganda etc. Of course there are many other examples but those are a few of the main ones. The issue I always have sitting there listening to these lectures is that we are turning a blind eye to what is happening in the world today, it's easy to understand why if you do a bit of thinking on the matter, but most people don't seem to be able to do that, or they are simply too scared to talk about it for fear of reproach.

So to start with, I could name countless things that America (and other countries such as the UK/France etc) has done over the past 50 years that would make any rational person cringe if they hadn't known about it previously, however you can find those things out yourself with a little research on the internet, so there's no point listing them here (and I'm sure you know many of them already anyway). I think what is important is why these things don't seem as objectively bad to you as what's been done in the past. The answer would have to be pretty complex, however I think one reason is that things are not done as overtly these days. Wars are often waged by proxy, or people are led to 'buy in' to the excuses that are often given to begin wars, change leaderships etc.

I mean, it's easy to think, ,OK so the Nazi's sent around death squads to ensure people were obedient and that's objectively bad, but how does one quantify how immoral or unethical it is to watch/listen to and record almost the entire world's digital communication exchange between individuals and groups and then have the ability to send drones with bombs on them to kill anyone they feel like (with an unknown amount of collateral damage) without fear of reproach. No reproach being literal, the US has ~half the worlds military expenditure after all.

Now you might say, well nobody is knocking on my door making sure I'm pro-Obama and killing my entire family if I'm not, however I think the thing people often overlook, and it comes back to my previous two points. These things are happening in other countries and they are often by proxy, so to fully comprehend the level of immorality the US has sunk to, one first has to educate oneself on all these events, then one has to have enough empathy to care about the events and people involved, then one has to be educated enough in morals and ethics to be able to make some measurement as to how bad they are.

In my opinion it's a tall order to get most people to understand/learn all these things, most people are too worried about keeping their jobs, looking after their families or friends etc. Even those that meet all those requirements won't all agree that these things are bad, and even if they know they are bad, they are too fearful to speak their mind about it, or perhaps they have a specific agenda (i.e. someone like Jay Carney who is paid to spout BS for the president all day). There are lots of ways things can be justified, and lots of angles that can be taken in arguments.

So I guess my point is that despite the fact things are not as bad for you as they would have been under the Nazi regime, that doesn't mean millions of people in dozens of countries are not being oppressed in similar ways to what they would have been back then. the US doesn't precisely meet Emilio Gentile's definition of a Fascist state, however it meets many of the criteria, and I think if you look at the big picture (primarily what's happening in countries that the US wants resources from) you can see that @Fusionaut's remark wasn't too far off the mark.

"You know things are bad when someone on the terror watch list...." Please Xiaelao, spare us the insulting terminology, no such fucking thing as terror.

No, you know things are bad when you have such a completely bullshit phraseology as "Terror Watch List", "terror alert level (insert color here), "no fly list", etc. The term "gun control" is being replaced in the U.S. media with the psycho-cyberdine phraseology, "gun safety", because these cunts are helpless to conceal their own fuck-ups.

...a few more that have become entrenched in the lexicon of acceptable terminology for verbal camouflage, friendly fire, collateral damage, and other euphemistic language designed to conceal reality....
It killed Carlin to watch it-"Poor people used to live in slums, now the economically disadvantaged occupy sub-standard housing in the inner cities."

Wool + Eyes = Pull

Those bunker bombs are designed to penetrate then explode, not a lotta collateral damage but some (EPW) use a small nuclear detonation focused toward the ground for penetration with conventional explosives in the main warhead. Radiation residuals could be a problem.

You know, I have often wondered what the death toll from our old Bush/Clinton era bunker busters or cruise missiles would have been. Surely a high yield explosive would have cause more collateral damage, as well as being less precise on targeting.

sorry man.the distinction argument is bullshit as well.
that somehow one evil is less evil than the other.

one of the problems i have with the distinction argument is that it attempts to discern...or worse..rationalize.. the intent.
that when the terrorists kill,maim and torture it is for nefarious and evil reasons but when WE do it,the cause is just and noble and that any collateral damage is purely a misjudgement or a mistake.

this is the epitome of hypocrisy.

i am in no way defending the horrors perpetrated upon innocent civilians in the name of god by the taliban.i am,however,pointing out that what we do in the name of (fill in whatever propagandist literature you wish) is just as heinous and evil.

which brings me back to my main point:governments lie.

What's with your inappropriate sarcasm? It didn't add to the discussion.

It may be semantics in your opinion but it's not like there is any confusion between the word "design" and "use". It's engineering. A firearm is designed to do something - and that something is not killing. We designed it to propel a projectile at high speed. We use it for multiple purposes - but mostly we use it for punching holes in paper or shooting clay pigeons. Yes, it is fantastic at killing animals/humans. We use it for that too. Yes, when it was first designed that was its primary purpose of use. But that does not mean it does not have secondary purposes. I'd guess that more rounds are fired at paper targets and for hunting animals than at people each year in the USA (and probably by several orders of magnitude).

Knives are fantastic at killing. A sword (which is a long knife) does a lot more vascular damage than a 7.62 mm NATO round (i.e. it is better at killing). Knives were superseded because they are not a ranged weapon.

You are suggesting that the tens of millions of sporting firearm users in the USA do not constitute a legitimate use of firearms. That is short sighted.

We accept the premature deaths of car crashs because it is a convenience we are not willing to live without. The collateral damage of people dying in vehicles is a cost we are happy to accept to continue using this convenience (we don't need cars to get around - they just make travelling easier). You'll find that the huge amount of legislation surrounding vehicles is to reduce deaths and the cost that crashes impose on the economy (which is billions).

The same for knives (humankind's most used murder weapon). We aren't giving it up as a kitchen tool just because someone used it for murder.

The same should of course apply to firearms.

America should have better legislation surrounding firearms (something I fully support). That's a no brainer. A full registration scheme for all firearms should be enacted. Firearm safes should be mandatory. Criminal and mental health background checks should be mandatory. For ownership of semi-automatic/automatic military style weapons you should need to be in a firearms club. This would both legitimise its ownership and use - so you can't just own one for the hell of it but it doesn't stop you from owning it in total (preserving the 2nd amendment). It would also force social contact - so other club members will recognise if a person should not be a club member and therefore a non-owner of these firearm types.

America could also implement a nationwide free mental health system. It basically has none. This is probably the most important thing it could do.

What are your suggestions for legislation?

(btw I'm not American - but I've closely followed this topic for years).

Absolutely, if we could target only those responsible for such atrocities as attacks on Afghan and Pakistani school girls, that would improve the world. My point is that the willfully negligent killing of children from "collateral damage" is every bit as reprehensible as the deliberate targeting of children. The Taliban and Al Qaeda deserve all the criticism in the world. But lets not add to the problem.