551. We of little faith

Comment #48993 by Rtambree on June 10, 2007 at 12:10 am

>35. Comment #48951 by Déjà Fu on June 9, 2007 at 5:51 pm

>[Sam Harris is]

only "crazy" there in the sense that he seems to accept a religious king (The Deli Llama) as some form of authority. The Deli Llama is only interested in the Return of The King, and Tolkein stories don't seem to be helping - he (the Llama) remains enthralled by his superstitious position and need for lots of money to keep him and his minions afloat.

552. Americans believe in both evolution, creationism: poll

Comment #48991 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Actually these poll results are a lot better than some of the previous ones being quoted during the ID Dover Trial a few years ago.

It shows that the state of scientific ignorance is not completely hopeless. Over half of respondants were accepting of evolution and one-third saying Creationism is false. That's good for the USA! The country is not as medieval as many thought.

It's either an indication of improvement after all that science campaigning (e.g. Krauss, Dawkins, etc) or a sign the original polls were misleading.

Still a long way to go though until the USA makes it into the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

553. In U.S., faith is never far from politics

Comment #48931 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Any discussion of actual policies that the electorate might or might not want have been removed from American politics.

It's all about personality, style, "vision", and other irrelevancies, etc.

And now they're outcompeting with each other about religion - a race to the bottom. Every four years, the American electorate get to choose between Dumb and Dumber.

554. We of little faith

Comment #48889 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 10:59 am

25. Comment #48888 by Bonzai

> a completely rational society would probably be very boring.

Spock: That is illogical Captain

555. We of little faith

Comment #48864 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 8:32 am

>'Without religion you would have clever people saying clever things and stupid people saying stupid things, but for (apparently) clever people to say totally, braindead, off the wall, stupid things, it takes religion

Good one - you're churning them out pewkatchoo. Compile them into another atheist book and with sales the way they are, you won't have to work again.

556. We of little faith

Comment #48849 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 7:25 am

9. Comment #48780 by pewkatchoo

>Blair is searching for his legacy

Looks like his legacy is searching for him. This latest Saudi weapons sale corruption with Blair shutting down the investigation due to "national interest" stinks. The whole cabinet should be in the slammer. It reminds me of the ending to the 'Lord of War' movie.

So much for Blair having Christian values.

557. Dobson and John MacArthur fantasize about the downfall of America

Comment #48833 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 6:46 am

It seems the most perverse religious beliefs are simply manifestations of male sexual insecurity.

I suppose it's too much to ask that viagra and DNA testing of offspring will soon negate the need for all this (In China it manifests itself as a callous trade in exotic and endangered wildife with 'potency' attributes).

The God that created hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars cares what consenting adults do for fun in private - yeah, makes perfect sense.

558. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #48762 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 2:26 am

9. Comment #48720 by Dr Benway

>Clearly CS Lewis is right out, as is Tolkien

Yes, that Balrog in Moria is pretty demonic.
Many mainstream western movies and TV shows contain supernatural elements in them - ghosts, psychic powers, ESP, etc. Surely this is unchristian too and must be avoided.

559. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48761 by Rtambree on June 9, 2007 at 2:17 am

In / out group divisions are flexible.

Why is it that when you're on holidays in an exotic location and meet someone from your own country, you become friendlier with each other than you would otherwise be?

If humanity was threatened by a common enemy (e.g. an apocalyptic meteor heading for Earth), then surely we'd all unify as one large ingroup. Look at the USSR-USA alliance versus Nazism.

Jared Diamond called the invention of agriculture less than 10,000 years ago the most tumultuous change of all - farming allows population densities that far exceed what our species was used to for most of it's 150,000 year history. Our brains can only monitor reciprocity with about 150 people, and we live in cities of millions.

There are already enough obvious in/out group divisions to overcome: skin colour, class, gender, ethno-linguistic groups, sexual orientation, etc. Religion is such an unnecessary, arbitrary in/group division - just another way to carve society up into groups, one that comes from thousands of years ago.

Peter Singer's concept of the "expanding circle" is relevant here. I would hope that when knowledge of our 99.9% genetic similarity and common ancestery becomes universally accepted, this will further break down the in/out group divisions.

560. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #48659 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Is this another Onion article? Enough already.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1199/potter.html

561. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48585 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 1:16 pm

38. Comment #48582 by Bonzai
>Me think the Pope should be made to pay child support for millions of children.

Now there's a class action in every sense of the word.

562. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48583 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 1:13 pm

23. Comment #48580 by devolved

:) Good one! The things you can do with language. It's one of homo sapien's best inventions but it's not perfect - it doesn't quite map onto reality (e.g. dichotomies versus continuums, counterintuitive thinking arising out of probabilities and statistics), allowing for these semantic convolutions.

563. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48576 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 12:38 pm

>He also wrote that we should imagine a world where human females did "show" in the same way as chimps

We're almost at the stage where an off-the-shelf DNA kit purchased by a suspicious father can confirm or deny his paternity. The courts can't compel child support payments from a cuckolded man, and resources are abundent, so the dynamics of the African savannah couldn't be more different.

However, we've got this hardwired in our brains after thousands of generations. Men are still going to be jealous even if paternity of children can be known with 100% accuracy. The rational can't usurp the emotional - perhaps understanding this gives us an inkling as to what it's like for faithheads to give up their invisible friend.

564. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48553 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 11:12 am

"I believe there is no god. What am I?"

I concur with Ben. Non-theist.

All new born babies don't believe in x but one can't say they believe there is no x, so "atheist" is not strictly the answer to The Great Teapot's question.

565. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #48547 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 10:36 am

If humans were rational, these clowns would be in an asylum for sociopathy. Instead they're running for office with a 50% chance of getting elected to the most powerful position in the world.

We get the politicians we deserve. All an American politician has to do is keep chanting "God Bless America" and "I believe we're fighting for the freedom that is America's God-given Right" or variations on that theme, and the zombie voters will do the rest.

Democracy - tyranny by the majority.

566. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48543 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 10:27 am

30. Comment #48539 by Disturbance

>I'm convinced that at the root of all of this isn't religion per se, but more the desire to contol women' reproductive rights.

Yes, good point, and what motivates this is concealed ovulation. For some reason not well understood by anthropologists, female homo sapiens have their fertile time of the month concealed, unlike most other species.

Studies of evolutionary psychology and comparative religion then suggest that in DESERT environments, where resources are particularly scarce (where Abraham was), it was particularly important to a man that he knew he was the father of the children he's investing in, to avoid cuckolding. Hence the repression of women in those environments.

Just think - if ovulation were obvious, then gender politics and religious taboos might be about something entirely different!!

Abrahamic theists think they're following God's laws, but it's just an accident of nature that the actions of the pituitary gland has no discernible outward manifestation.

567. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #48512 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 8:11 am

Interesting how all the Christian Republicans conveniently ignore all the passages about helping the poor in the New Testament.

568. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48507 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 8:04 am

An example of Scandinavians pushing the social boundaries.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article824116.ece

I wonder how this would have gone down in Saudi Arabia

569. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48497 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 7:35 am

19. Comment #48493 by Bonzai

Thanks Bonzai - that's good to hear. I still remember when breastfeeding in public was a big debate - that seems to have settled down now, so slowly we're moving forward.

Then there's always news like this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4249831.stm

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/02/10/virginia_bill/index.html

570. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48466 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 3:48 am

14. Comment #48440 by Enlightenme.

>the time from the enlightenment to full liberation in the west is depressingly long isn't it.

Yes, it is, and we in the west still haven't quite achieved complete female equality yet. There's still a pay gap, underrepresentation of women in positions of power, women have to cover their tops in public while men can be barechested, nudity is still heavily censored in TV/films while violence is much less so, the sale of non-violent erotica is still illegal even to adults (e.g. Australia), and the traditional wedding ceremony where the father of the bride symbolically hands over the bride (dressed in virginal white) to the groom is still a vestige of our common Abrahamic ancestery, and the bride still adopts the husband's surname.

Also, gay's can't get married in a lot of western countries.

So people in the year 2200 will be looking back at us in our time with "look at how primitive they were".

We have far more progressive social morals than Muslim countries, but we still have a little way to go ourselves.

571. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48328 by Rtambree on June 7, 2007 at 1:13 pm

>3. Comment #48325 by NJS o

Yes, you're right. There was a time when it was formally illegal in Europe.

572. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48324 by Rtambree on June 7, 2007 at 1:03 pm

>Some blamed all manner of Western ills, from gun violence to alcoholism, on women's liberation.

Fascinating how throughout history, the moral fabric of society is always about to be torn asunder if:

1. Women obtain equal rights
2. Gays have equal rights
3. Slavery is abolished
4. Nudity in films and on TV is not censored.
5. Alcohol is legalised.
6. Marijuana is legalised.
7. Swimsuits get skimpier.
8. The lesser classes get the vote.
9. Contraception is made available.
10. Firearms are regulated.

A good idea for a book is a listing of all the rationales used by "intellectuals" throughout the ages against any social change. I'm sure you'd see a pattern emerging.

573. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #48313 by Rtambree on June 7, 2007 at 11:49 am

>I apologize to everyone who is not American for our idiotic leaders.

Many non-Americans can't understand why these leaders keep getting elected. Reagan and Dubya got four terms between them and they were both obviously retarded. So to what extent is it the leaders' fault? The system? The media? The people? Groupthink? Everything?

To be fair, it's not just the USA. What's the difference with Republicans and Tony Blair or John Howard or any of the Democrats? It might be more obvious that "somebody's home" upstairs, but the policies are the same.

Another way of looking at it is.... with the Republicans at least, what you see is what you get, while what passes for the "left" are more dishonest. At least the Republicans don't pretend to stand for progressive issues.

574. Republican candidates range from ignorant to dishonest, part 2

Comment #48307 by Rtambree on June 7, 2007 at 11:35 am

Funny & sad at the same time.

And still about 50% of the voting electorate will vote for one of these clowns. All they have to do is preface every sentence with the magic two words "I believe..."

"I believe..." reverses human history almost 2,500 years to the time before Socrates - you no longer have to justify any position.

So what IS the difference between the candidates? Bush only has a 30% approval rating, and they still can't distance themselves or critisise the Iraq war. That's just counter-intuitive.

Some of them didn't even make sense.

Good joke about 20/20 hindblindness, or 20/20 blindsight.

Hitchens, Chomsky, Harris and Nader should been asking the questions. That would wake them up.

575. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48273 by Rtambree on June 7, 2007 at 9:15 am

161. Comment #48049 by pewkatchoo

>Rtambree, you invoked godwin's law. Mentioning the nazis is a no-no so you lost the argument

I think you'll find it was HunterZolomon back in post #131 that first mentioned the Nazis. He was arguing on your side, so by your own rules, you lost the argument. I accept your admission of defeat. :)

576. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48056 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 12:22 pm

An interesting question is who is the best pro-God or pro-religion debater we've encountered on this site or others?

Obviously not this guy. And Alister McGrath is too unintelligible, but can anyone nominate the least worst, or the most articulate, of the God-botherers?

I'm struggling to think of anyone.

577. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48054 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 12:15 pm

>Sorry but that is an absolute

Protesting against Godwin's Law is Nazi Fascist Totalitarianism. Hitler would have been proud of Godwin's Law. Your absolutism is just like Hitler. Godwin is probably a closet Nazi. Nazis loved absolute laws. Goebbels could have written Godwin's Law. Debate is stifled in invoking Godwin's Law, just like debate was stifled in Nazi Germany.

578. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48047 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 11:54 am

158. Comment #48044 by pewkatchoo

>Their condemnation, based on their half-arsed understanding of the real situation, smacks of anti-semitism at worst and simple-mindedness at best.

Damn - we got to over 150 posts without someone calling a critic of Israel an antisemite, and pewkatchoo spoilt it all.

Cheers to the rest of you: Benjamin, Brian, Bonzai, Howtoplayalone, etc. Well done.

>side with the Palestinians

Who here has sided with the Palestinians? Codemnation of Israel doesn't automatically mean you condone everything (or indeed anything) the Palestianians do. This black & white view of the world is rather "simple-minded".

All participants are responsible for their actions and their (forseeble) atrocities.

579. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48033 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 10:58 am

>That is easy, if they were to revoke the position that they want to destroy totally the state of Israel and that they made it clear that they wanted to find a peaceful solution to the problem

It's a little unfair to impose the condition that all Palestinians speak with one voice of peace before you commence negotiations. You make the threshold impossibly and impractically high. Does ALL of Israel speak with one voice of peace? Does ALL of the USA speak with one voice? This is like a country saying "we won't speak to the USA because Pat Robertson and other xtian fundies spew forth hatred".

580. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48019 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 9:59 am

138. Comment #47996 by pewkatchoo

> bearing in mind that Israel is a mostly secular (or at least scientific) society, they surely should be the ones receiving your support.

No, you judge by actions, not whether one society is more scientific. The Nazis were ahead of western europe in rocket technology, jet engines and some fields of chemistry, but does that mean they deserved support?

581. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48012 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 9:14 am

>146. Comment #48009 by briancoughlanwo

Good points, Brian.

The forseeable fatalities when Israel fires Hellfire rockets into a town square should count together with the more overtly intentional declarations of Hamas.

Even if you discount/excuse all Israeli-caused deaths by 50% (and that's generous given the forseeable consequences of firing into civilian areas), the figures still have Israel's body count stats on top.

It's due to their superior weaponry. The USA defense contractors supplying the arms and the Iranian arms suppliers must be hoping the "peace process" goes on indefinitely. I wonder how the arms dealers live with themselves.

582. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48008 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 9:05 am

>Israel did actually *win* those lands in a defensive war

Might is right, huh?

>they have committed to give the lands back to those that lost those wars in an effort to reach a negotiated peace.

Link? Is there any evidence of this? I've read no announcements by Olmert that Israel will withdraw from the West Bank behind the Green Line and disband the settlements. All the evidence points to an ongoing expansion of settlement building. You claim it "was a mistake" as if it's just one isolated incident, but settlement building is ongoing official government policy, month after month, year after year, decade after decade.

The aim should be obvious - the ensure the occupation is irreversible.

>You are mistaken about Israel thinking the land is a god-given right

I didn't say Israel, I said adult settlers. Just like not all Palestinians think like the boys in the video, not all Israelis think like the ultra-zionist settlers.

583. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48004 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 8:41 am

>It certainly won't as long as the palestinians think that teaching infants to hate and kill their neighbours is the right thing to do.

I agree. That's right. And it won't come from ADULT settlers claiming they have a god-given right to steal land.

You don't get my point? It's simply that both sides are to blame and are trapped in a short-sighted cycle of tit-for-tat violence.

584. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #48002 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 8:37 am

> Israel is seeking am autonomous palestinian state side by side with Israel living in peaceful harmony.

Oh my, am I debating with the ministry of Zionist propaganda here? So the hundreds of expanding settlements in occupied land are just temporary are they?

585. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47999 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 8:30 am

>There is no way to stop it, or to persuade against it.

Are all Muslims suicide bombers? In fact, are all suicide bombers muslim? Sir Lanka?

Why is it that this despicable phenomenon exists in places where there are invasions & occupations? Understanding context and listening to grievances (e.g. dispossessed of a homeland) might help if you genuinely want to get rid of it.

The building of settlements in occupied territory and the invasion of a Middle Eastern country under false pretenses seem to be two particularly sore points and gives the fundamentalist clerics some traction in their recruitment and propaganda drive.

Understanding this doesn't excuse them. There's no argument between all of the parties here about the culpability of Muslim extremists. The argument seems to be how much share of the blame should USA/Israel get for exercabating the situation?

The debates ranges from none of the blame (unconditional Israel apologist) to ALL of the blame (unconditional Muslim apologist).

I'm somewhere along this spectrum and I figure you are too. It's a quantitative difference not a a qualitative one.

I weight actual body counts more than professed intentions to assist me in dividing the cake of blame, as declarations of noble intent are less trustworthy.

All parties are responsible for their actions. No one should be let off the hook for committing atrocities, particularly towards innocent bystanders. Is this so irrational?

586. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47991 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 8:06 am

Prisoners swaps happen all the time. They're happening now...

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004624160

Think of all the Israeli and Lebanese lives that could have been saved. Some moral compass you have Benjamin - consigning more than a thousand to death.

Peace is achieved by negotiations. Ireland is at peace now because talks were entered into, after years of "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

Violent retaliation just provokes more violent retaliation. Haven't we learnt that yet after 10,000 years of "civilisation"?

Obviously, I'm more pro-Israeli than you are, as I support commonsensical ideas the limit the loss of Israeli life, indeed all human life.

587. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47981 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 7:38 am

>if you can't honestly see the difference between (i) sending missiles into civilian cities with intent to murder innocents and (ii) the precision targeting of the launch sites of these missiles

Yes, I can see the difference. The actual statistics speak for themselves. Example (i) killed less than 50 people. Example (ii) killed over a thousand people (real precise huh?).

That's 20X the pain, suffering, and deaths. Add to that the cluster bombs which are still killing people today. Also ask on who's territory the majority of these atrocities occured? Inside Israel or another country (undermining the self-defence principle). Who rejected the offer for a prisoner exchange?

>Most rational observers will apportion blame to Hizbollah who used them as human shields.

Looks like the majority consensus of international opinion condemning the use of excessive force is not rational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2006_Qana_airstrike

588. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47967 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 6:44 am

>So the violence that saved Europe from the nazis was all bad?

Interesting you should mention the Nazis who were tried at Nuremberg for the act of aggression - i.e. one sovereign power invading another sovereign power. Ironic huh? So who is invading and occupying who at present? Are you saying any violence is justified to repel an aggressor?

Violence has to be justified and proportional to the threat. But generally I don't feel that civilian targets are a legitimate threat, under any circumstances. You'd have to have a strong case to argue otherwise, and the onus would be on you to justify it as a last resort.

Dresden clearly wasn't a legitimate military target. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the firebombing of the wooden cities is debatable, but I'd lean to no, that was unjustified too.

So the answer to your question is that yes, some of it was bad, and unjustified. It's not a black and white world.

>you feel that the west/Israel should take the brunt of the blame for muslim terrorism, and that is what I took issue with.

No, I never said that. Israel should bear the brunt of the blame of ITS OWN violence, and muslim fundamentalists should bear the brunt of the blame for THEIR OWN violence.

It's a quite a simple proposition. It's not rocket science, but a lot of people are having unecessary difficulties with the concept of all participants being responsible for their own actions.

589. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47952 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 5:54 am

Suicide...

It's an interesting observation to note the visceral reaction in the mainstream media to death-by-suicide-bomber as opposed all the other ways one can die prematurely.

Death by B52 in Laos? Agent Orange in Vietnam? Hellfire Missile? Soviet helicopter gunships in Afghanistan? Stoning in Saudia Arabia? Firearms based homicide? Aboriginal deaths in custody in Australia? Torture in Egypt? Kurds by conventional fire in Turkey? Chechnyans by artillery fire in Grozney.

Why single out suicide bombers as the great evil? Yes, they're deplorable, but there are much more virulent sources of violence in the world. The five largest weapons exporters in the world are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Ironic huh?

Obviously with a suicide bomber, there's a direct cause-and-effect between the act and the casualities. It's immediate, and it's not difficult for our puny ape brains to link the two together.

But when some four-star General in a starched suit behind a desk in the Pentagon orders a military action, which is passed down through the chain of command, with stiff formality and dehumanising jargon, and eventually some grunt presses a button in his jetfighter or tank that causes a family to be wiped out, then our ape brains struggle to see the same cause-and-effect, and the reaction is not as visceral.

The geographic and temporal stretching of the chain of causality disengages the limbic system, even if the carnage is greater.

590. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47930 by Rtambree on June 6, 2007 at 4:13 am

>Not many because Saddam's regime ruled with an iron fist. How does your statement refute my claim that blame should be subscribed to the people actually doing the car bombing. Are you really going to throw logic aside to the point where George Bush is to blame when a Sunni group blows up a Shia market place ?

So there's no connection between the invasion and the current carnage? It just happened in vacuum? The timing is pure coincidence?

All course, all participants are responsible for their violence. All I'm saying is that blame should be proportional to the suffering and death inflicted.

If you condemn muslim terrorists for killing thousands of innocents (as I do), then to be consistent, you must also condemn western powers and Israel that also do kill thousands of innocents.

>Saddam in the months before the war when Iraq was under intense international scrutiny with many weapons inspectors, was not committing atrocities? Why is this a ridiculous statement? The violence is a lot worse now.

JesusH, you say you support democracy, but poll after poll is consistent revealing that majority of Iraqis think the USA presence is making things WORSE, and that they should either withdraw immediately or set a timetable for withdrawal.

>the West/Israel is portrayed not only as bad as the muslim fundies, but worse!

If you look at the bodycounts that muslim fundies notched up over the last decades, and you compare that to the body counts that western powers notch up, then yes, it is worse, unfortunate.

Intentions of the west may be better, PR may be better, and the declaration of "noble" motivations, but the fact that there's a gigantic military deployed around the world, intervening in other countries, killing thousands, if not tens of thousands, of innocent lives, torturing, imprisoning without charge, etc, makes them culpable too.

It's strange that you (rightly) detest the fundies for their declared intent of violence (e.g. the video), but when another power actually commits violence, invades countries, build settlements, support, fund, arm, and train dictators, they're not responsible. That doesn't make sense.

The fact that I condemn Israel/USA doesn't mean I let off the Muslim fundamentalists. Both are guilty. Both are to blame. It's not either/or. If you deplore violence, then it should be all violence, especially when innocent lives are destroyed.

Western actions aimed to counter Muslim extremism (ignoring the training of Al Qaeda in the 1980s and ignoring support of Saudi Arabia) actually exacerbate the radical Muslims. It's counter-productive. Blowback... and an aid to Muslim propaganda and recruitment etc.

I'm actually being pro-western, because I don't want to see a perpetuation of current policies that increase the threat to the west. Most mainstream western security analysts agree that current policies are making things worst - Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are getting more recruits due to western policies: Iraq, Gitmo, West Bank, unconditional support of Israel, etc

>Legal definitions of intentional versus unintentional:

What's your legal opinion on the 8 bystanders killed when Israel fired Hellfire (great name btw) rockets into a crowd in 2004?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Yassin

Is it "negligence" or a foreseeable consequence in respect to the bystanders? Collective punishment? Collateral damage? Excusable necessity?

591. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47853 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 6:13 pm

>the Israeli army was ambushed and slaughtered

Strong language for very few casualities.

>For Israel to do nothing, the innocent of Haifa and the townships of the north were massacred

Were they? If that's a massacre, then what's southern Lebanon?

>It may not sit right in your ethical view (and maybe not in mine either) but in a strictly legal view

Is this the lawyer's "when the facts are against you, stress the law" argument? Just like Iraq was legal and Guantanamo Bay is legal, by inventing new categories.

>No common law system equates the two ever. Criminal negligence, reckless indifference to life, negligent manslaughter... these are very serious crimes, but intentional murder with malice aforethought trumps them. Always

Maybe not one for one, but what about hundreds of "negligent forseeable" murders versus a few "intentional" murders?

Don't some jurisdictions sentence on the basis on quantity? e.g. mass killers get a life sentence for each victim, etc. 100 x 5 year sentences would be higher than 10 x 20 year sentences.

As a lawyer, you'd know more than I would about how sentencing is carried out. What if you intend, but are ineffective? Is this still worse that gross negligence e.g. say an alcoholic airline pilot that kills all his 300 passengers versus a hitman that misses his target?

>My view may be controversial, but I am not alone in saying that every Lebanese who died as a result of human shields by Hezbollah should be on the body count of Hezbollah NOT Israel. If 100 civilians acquiesce to having Hezbollah fire missiles from inside their apartment complex, then their blood is on the hands of Hezbollah not Israel.

Aah - the collective responsibility argument. Every Bush voter is a legitimate target to Iraqi insurgents? No, I don't buy that one either. Sorry.

I don't believe in collective guilt. Sounds too Old Testament for me.

592. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47833 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Sorry - I'm on the phone. Typing with one hand. Don't you ever go to sleep? It's almost 1:00am here. :)

593. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47827 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 4:24 pm

>perhaps due to a reluctance to oppose popular/consensus opinion.

It's interesting that you claim that consensus opinon on Israel in general is against Israel. All the mainstream American press can't touch Israel.

That's another attribute of power - it inverts the aggressor - victim relationship. Hamas and Hezbollah are the big powerful enemies that come within a hair's breath of wiping Israel off the map, while poor Israel has no options.

594. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47820 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 3:36 pm

>Well, the common law doesn't agree with you, and neither do most legal thinkers over time. Negligence is not worse than malice, whatever the magnitutes.

I think you'll find that the majority international consensus was condemnation of Israeli's excessive (and forseeable) carnage in its little spat with Hezbollah last year, despite the professed "intentions" of Israel. This is analogous to the USA's noble intention in respect to Iraq.

Actions that repeatedly and forseeably cause suffering and death to innocent bystanders might has well be "intentional".

Any cursory knowledge of 20th century warfare will reveal that there will always be "collateral damage". It's a pretty reliable, foreseeable consequence of armed conflict with explosive weapons. One can't hide behind "oh, I didn't know the missile was going to demolish the whole building".

595. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47814 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 3:19 pm

What say I?

I say judge from actions, not declared intents. Anyone can claim anything e.g. the USA is bringing democracy to the Middle East, the moral fabric of society is rent asunder if gays were to marry, the Spanish are bringing Christianity to the Indians, etc.

Power will always attempt to legitimise itself by saying "self defence" and our cause is "noble".

If Israel doesn't target civilians, it surely doesn't care if there happen to be a few dozen in the same house as their target. In any case, what happened to trial by jury and fair hearing by a secular democracy? Let's set an example, not stoop to the level of your enemy by saying "they do it too" like an infant.

It goes to demonstrate how impotent the Palestinians are if their intention is to maximise civilian deaths and Israel's are to minimise civilian deaths, AND STILL Israel kills 4:1 since 2000.

A negligent big bomb that kills hundreds is still worse than a deliberate small bomb that kills dozens.

>the civilian casualties can clearly be evidenced as unintended casualties.

Using explosive weapons in civilian areas will always endanger civilians and usually does kill or main. It's a foreseeable consequence. One can't claim, "I didn't intend" for his wife and kids to be killed just because they were sitting at the same dining table as the terrorist.

Strangely, the world's government outlawed gas as a weapon after WWI because it couldn't be targeted (and often backfired) but explosives were left unregulated. But perhaps explosives should be banned too for all parties, just like gas was. There's already talk that cluster bombs should be illegal, as should land mines. If conflicts were only fought with bullets, there'd be less "collateral damage".

596. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47805 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 2:54 pm

>I think this oversimplifies the situation and would factor in things such as culpability

Culpability is difficult to gauge when both parties are stuck in a cycle of tit-for-tat violence. Neurologically the notion of free will and responsibility is nebulous. Then there are are legitimate grievances, irrational superstitions, exascerbating actions, external supporters, etc.

>intent

Ditto. Actions speak louder than words. Body counts are relatively objective and quantifiable statistics, much better to assess blame, than all these other notions that depends on perspecive, interpretation, opinion, what journals you read, where you draw the chronological line, etc.

Obviously I can see that if someone wants to unconditionally support Israel then one needs to ignore body counts as they're too inconvenient for one's argument about "threats" and "self defence".

>and willingness to abide by the rule-of-law.

There are law-breakers on both sides. The occupation, settlements, demolition of homes, reckless firing of missiles into civilian areas, kidnapping civilians, deploying cluster bombs, stockpiling nuclear weapons, etc.

>These things are factored in by all common law legal systems, and I see no reason to ignore them in this conflict.

That's right. No argument from me.

597. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47795 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 2:34 pm

>Cheers that no one called critics of Israel antisemities, and that no one compared Israel to Nazis either.

Cheers all round, although Brian did call us ALL fascists :)

I've been to Auschwitz and it's sad reflection on humanity that a people can go from concentration camp victims to armed aggressor/occupier in a little over two decades.

The Americans were once the oppressed subjects of George III. Germans under the Habsburgs. The French under the Germans. The Christians were once victims of the Romans - after 330AD the shoe was on the other foot and the Inquisition followed.

So memories are short, self-preservation errs on the side of over-attributing threats, and as Hitchens says "our adrenalin glands are too large, and our frontal cortex is too small".

598. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47790 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 2:27 pm

1. do you think Isr seeks to destroy the palestinian state or the creation of one?

Israel can't destroy what doesn't exist. And certainly it is preventing the possibility of a viable one being established in the future by the encouragement of settlements and the fragmentation of what remains into small isolated regions that have no prospect of self-sufficiency. The settlements make the occupation effectively irreversible, hence their illegality.

2. do you think Isr is actually destroying the palestinian people?

Nope. A defunct state (political entity) is different from a people. It's a pretty pathetic existence though. I thought the Jews, of all people, would empathise with a homeless people that revere Abraham.

3. do you consider this "destruction" to be a genocide?

Nope. See above.

As I kept saying, blame is on both sides (surely you agree?). It seems my unique and unreasoned position is to claim that condemnation should be proportionate to the violence and suffering inflicted. That is all.

599. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47778 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 1:49 pm

>Comment #47774 by Benjamin Michael

Rtambree, now you are saying that Israel calls for the destruction of Palestine.

For all intents and purposes, there is no political state of Palestine and hasn't been since 1967, so you can't really call for the destruction of something that doesn't really exist.

>Next you will accuse Israel of genocide.

Did I say anything remotely close to this? Is this fanciful and false speculation of my position on Israel, ignoring the last page of comments, the "rational thinking and pursuit of knowledge" you're championing?

600. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47772 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 1:21 pm

>Most of the leaders of every country that surrounds Israel on three sides has called for it's destruction

You mean, like the destruction of Palestine? Yes, I agree, it is despicable when one nation says it wants to destroy another. It's just as despicable when one nation ACTUALLY carries it out.

>hiding amongst civilians so Israel can't retaliate

Can't retaliate? What newspapers have you been reading. Israel has done nothing but retaliate.