Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Is collective punishment justified?

I was skimming the incredibly brilliant Becker-Posner blog (they are the two most brilliant legal minds in America), when I came two very interesting takes on collective punishment. MUST READ for those who claim that Israel is "collectively punishing" the Lebanese! Richard Posner:
An important example of collective punishment in law is the rule that all members of a conspiracy are criminally liable for the crimes committed by any member within the scope of the conspiracy, provided it was forseseeable. So if one member of a drug gang beats up a defaulting customer, the other members are apt to be guilty of assault and battery as well even though they had nothing to do with the beating. A related rule, the felony-murder rule, makes a criminal guilty of first-degree murder if a killing occurs in the course of his crime, even if the killing is by someone else and he did not authorize or even expect it--as in the case where a policeman in the course of trying to thwart the crime accidentally kills a bystander. The theory behind these rules--the theory behind collective punishment in general--is that someone other than the actual perpetrator of a wrongful act may have more information that he could, if motivated, use to prevent the act than the government has. The employer may have been faultless in the particular case, but knowing that it is liable anyway will give it a strong incentive to exert control over its employees to prevent accidents--even by such indirect measures as reducing its work force by substituting robots or other mechanical devices for fallible human workers. Similarly, conspirators have an incentive to police their members to avoid getting themselves into unnecessary trouble; and the perpetrators of a bank robbery, for example, have an incentive to avoid being armed or provoking bank guards or police.
Gary Becker:
Parents should often be held responsible for harms to others caused by their younger children. Parents can discourage crimes and other anti-social acts of these children by the upbringing they provide, and also by the punishments they administer to children who engage in such acts. Since after a certain age, perhaps sixteen or eighteen, parents have much less control over children, parental responsibility for children's acts should diminish, and children's responsibility should increase as the children age. At one time, children were responsible after the death of parents for any debts their parents left. Children were also punished for other anti-social behavior of their parents. This type of collective punishment has been eliminated by developed nations, presumably because children do not have the power typically to deter their parents from contracting debts or committing crimes. The only justification for such collective punishment of children in these cases would be that parents care about the children, and that caring parents would be less likely to enter into debts they cannot pay, or engage in anti-social acts, if children were held responsible for parental behavior. But such collective punishment to children would have little effect on selfish parents, and it would increase the suffering of their children who already are harmed by having selfish parents. To take a different political example than the Lebanese one that Posner uses, should the German people have been held collectively responsible for the atrocities committed by Hitler and other Nazis? It was inevitable that many German people suffered from World War II, although bombing of Dresden and some other cities by the Allies was probably unnecessary. Collective punishment of leading Nazis was appropriate, as was the requirement that Germany pay reparations for property taken, for some of the damages caused by German occupations of various countries, and for the murder of millions of Jews, Poles, Russians, and other groups.
I would be interested in what you all think of this! I think I agree with both perspectives - but I don't want it to be misconstrued to think that I don't have sympathies for Christian/Druze/Sunni Lebanese. I do. Becker and Posner don't take into account the fact that it may have caused a civil war for the secular Lebanese to go after Hezbollah. But that said, sometimes I do wonder about the innocence of the non-Shia Lebanese, when I read of the Lebanese politicians saying they would team up with Hezbollah... Anyway, I welcome comments and thoughts from both sides of the political spectrum on this!

28 comments:

Ebal said...

Interesting info. Thanks..

Jason said...

As far as I'm concerned, people are responsible for their own behavior, no one else's. At least not in the way that is being suggested here. At least not legally. If someone incites someone to violence, they aren't responsible for the act itself, but they ARE responsible for inciting it.

The Sphinx said...

"But that said, sometimes I do wonder about the innocence of the non-Shia Lebanese, when I read of the Lebanese politicians saying they would team up with Hezbollah..."

If you ask me, if I were in a country that contains a group like Hezbollah and an Israeli army destroying everything in its path, I'd first take care of the problem with the Israeli army first, then have a chicken to pluck with Hezbollah later. It's pretty obvious who's much more dangerous to the lebanese people than the other at this moment.
And resisting Israel inevitably means teaming up with Hezbollah.

Albion Moonlight said...

What do you think (as if I had to guess)?

The Chahines spent a week moving from house to house in southern Lebanon, staying with relatives, trying to find a way out, the violence getting closer each day.

"I left my clothes in the trunk of the car," says Mr. Chahine, who only wanted to be identified by his last name. "That night it was hit by an Israeli missile where it was parked. Everything burned. That's why I've been wearing the same clothes for the last seven days."

Today, along with 100 others in an eleven-car convoy, the Chahines finally reached the city of Tyre, a waystation in a long journey they all hope will lead back to America. They are all American citizens, either naturalized or born in the U.S., summering in the same village and now desperately trying to escape the violence...



When they reach the hotel, nineteen-year-old Zeinab Chahine, a pharmacy student, is overcome by the stress of the ordeal.

"Make them stop, make them stop, people are dying," she says, beginning to cry. "I'm American. I was born in America. Why do they do this to me, why?"

Zeinab Shahen, from Los Angeles, was also staying in Yaroun for the summer with her husband and four children. She arrived at the Rest House with the others, but says she had a close call when the Israelis fired a rocket near one of the vehicles they were riding in.

"Where the rocket hit it didn't damage the car much, luckily," says Zeinab. "They're using bombs, phosphorous or something. It burns. It melts. They're burning people inside their houses. They're burning cars, they're melting cars. No one can leave. We barely made it."

This will not help your cause.

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs7873

felix said...

The Shiites of Lebanon supported Hezbollah and they are the group in Lebanon that is suffering most. From what I read, the other groups cited--Druse, Christians, Sunni Moslems--were intimidated into going along with Hezbollah.

Red Tulips said...

Jason:

Well, you are wrong legally about the incitement to violence. If someone incites someone else to violence, they are responsible for the underlying act itself, at least according to the law.

Sphinx:

Um...whatever you think of Israel's actions, they have made it very clear that their purpose is rooting out Hezbollah. This is clearly in the interests of the Christians/Sunnis/Druze. The Christian/Sunni/Druze also do not have an adequate army of their own to fight Hezbollah. It is quite clear that they have not chance in HELL of getting Hezbollah, should they fight on their own. Given the fact that Hezbollah is murdering and terrorizing the Lebanese - and has been for decades - one would think that getting rid of Hezbollah would be priority #1. Hezbollah is hateful, anti-progress, anti-thought, and also gets their funding and their backing from FOREIGN nations - Syria and Iran. They are a terrorist group that got elected into public office in Lebanon, that is wholly against Lebanese interests.

If I were a Lebanese, I would be looking to fight the Hezbollah monsters and ensure Lebanon has a better tomorrow. But that's me.

Albion:

How does your story prove anything? It's heart wrenching, for sure. BUT THIS IS A WAR ZONE. The fact that Israel is LETTING civilians leave, and giving advance warning, is itself proof of Israel's humanity!

Is it tragic? Yes. As I have said a million times, war is hell.

But sometimes it is necessary.

Albion Moonlight said...

"They're using bombs, phosphorous or something. It burns. It melts. They're burning people inside their houses. They're burning cars, they're melting cars. No one can leave. We barely made it."

Letting civilians leave eh? Showing their "humanity"? I think it proves a lot. That Israel is blowing up an entire nation, ostensibly because two soldiers were captured. No, I won't use the emotive term "kidnapped". From now on, I consider the IDF no more or less legitimate than any of these other groups. Good day to you all.

Red Tulips said...

Albion:

If Israel wanted to fire at will, they could. They have the fire power basically to wipe Lebanon off the face of the earth, if they so desired to. But alas, Israel HASN'T done that. The harm has been restricted to the infrastructure to prevent Hezbollah from transporting weapons/soldiers, and to particular Hezbollah strongholds.

Sometimes people get caught in the crossfire, and that is tragic. BUT THIS IS WAR. I see no evidence of Israel purposely trying to kill civilians. I only see evidence of civilians dying. But civilians die in war!

And Hezbollah should have thought of that before they kidnapped soldiers and fired thousands of rockets into Israel.

Your moral equivalence of Hezbollah with the IDF is disgusting. There is no "proportionate force" here, because Israel is not firing at will into Lebanon. If Israel did that, then it would be "proportionate." Israel lets civilians leave. Israel only is acting to protect itself. Hezbollah is acting to destroy Israel.

There is a big difference, only you cannot see it.

The Sphinx said...

Red tulips:
"Given the fact that Hezbollah is murdering and terrorizing the Lebanese - and has been for decades - (..) "

No they're not. Hezbollah was created to resist the Israeli occupation in 1983:

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

Where did you get that information? Hezbollah isn't what you think they are. Also the statement "Hezbollah is hateful, anti-progress, anti-thought" is also a cliché. Be a bit more concrete. And just remember: HEZBOLLAH IS NOT TALIBAN. What you said would probably apply to Taliban, but there is a vast difference between both.

"I see no evidence of Israel purposely trying to kill civilians."

You don't? Then why did Israel bomb almost every corner of Lebanon? Especially why did they bomb the North of Lebanon with absolutely NO HEZBOLLAH ELEMENTS whatsoever?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3525/3416/1600/lebanon%20map%20July%2012-24.2.jpg

Why were fleeing civilians killed? Why were humanitarian aid organisations caught in the attack? Why were complete residential areas bombed to the ground? All those houses storing Hezbollah rockets? Come on, we both know that that's not true. Why were wrong buildings and cities bombed though Israel has the highest technologies in guiding their missiles with extremely high precision?

And if "Israel lets civilians leave", why were tourists given no chance to leave? Why did Israel destroy all possible escape routes before the people could leave?

"Israel only is acting to protect itself."

Imagine I kidnapped a son of yours, and you found out where I lived, burnt my house to the ground, but only after murdering my family and destroying all our belongings. Find me one impartial judge or court of law that would pronounce you "not guilty" you because you were just protecting yourself. Just one. I'm not asking for much. Would you find one? If you did I'd have to ask you how much you paid him for that.

Sorry, but IMHO, the IDF has proven itself no better than terrorists.

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx:

Israel left Lebanon in 2000, and yet Hezbollah remains. What exactly is their purpose now? They run a TV station that emits hate - broadcasting Jews as cockroaches the Protocols of Zion as fact. They may provide social services, but they also provide hate. Furthermore, they are tied to Syria and Iran, and ARE anti-progress and anti-thought - believing in Sharia law and strict Islamicisim.

Israel gave advance warning prior to bombing, and let civilians leave. Sometimes people get caught in the crossfire. This is not proof that they aim for civilians. That said, I believe that the only way Israel can win the war is to stop showing restraint. I hate saying that, but that appears to be the reality of the situation.

I wish things were different.

The Sphinx said...

You still didn't answer my other questions. Especially my analogy with the kidnapping of your "son". I'm waiting for that please.

The Sphinx said...

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with Sharia law. It's just that all countries who claimed to implement it did it all wrong. So it's their problem, not the problem in the law itself. I should know because I'm a Muslim. Now:

If I kidnapped your son and you went and burnt down my house and killed my family, WOULD ANY JUDGE PRONOUNCE YOU NOT GUILTY FOR DEFENDING YOURSELF?

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx:

Sharia law seeks to implement a completely unworkable economic system, and it also treats nonMuslims as dhimmis - second class citizens. So yes, there are INHERENT problems with sharia law.

Also, your analogy is false. The correct analogy would be that the house was used as a base of operations to kidnap soldiers and launch rockets. In this case, there is a justification to destroy the house.

Render said...

I'm guessing that AB has always leaned toward the final solution camp.

Nary a word for the hundreds of Israeli children killed over the last fifty plus years. Not a single moments recognition that Hizballah isn't supposed to be in Lebanon, isn't supposed to be armed with long-range rockets, and isn't supposed to exist in the first damn place.

Not one mention of the Israelis hit by Hizballahs rockets, of the Israelis killed outright at the same time(s) the Israelis soldiers were kidnapped.

You wanna spout UN resolutions? Start with UN1559.

Slither back under your rock, AB, I don't care what you may or may not think about the IDF, or for that matter, Hizballah either.

I'd expect the feeling to be mutual.

Adios MFer...

===

"The Sphinx?"...Aren't you a bit too verbose to live up to that name?

Never mind all that, let's get to the meat of the matter...

Referencing your July 26, 12:57pm post:

If my nation’s military was so weak that a two-bit gang of genocidal street thugs could take over a third of that nations land, I would either

A: Leave. Immigrate to a somewhat safer more stable region

Or;

B: Take up arms with whatever local militia and/or national army units were still fighting against said gang of genocidal street thugs.

In the case of B, I would be thrilled to have one of the worlds best trained armies come to the aid of whatever was left the militia I'd joined.

Hizballah would kill me on sight, with or without a chicken to pluck. Again, the feeling is quite mutual.

If HizBallah wasn't in Lebanon (illegally) in the first place, the Israelis would not have come, would they?

You also mentioned, "Resisting Israel..."

Is that what the Moslem world has been doing all these years? Just resisting? 6 million vs. 1.2 Billion and all the 1.2 Billion can manage is a feeble "resistence?"

Why is it so hard to stop killing Jews?

That is, after all, what this is all about and has always been all about.

===

Moving on to your next post, not so aptly named Sphinx…

1983 to 2006 is over two and a half decades. What, pray tell, was Hizballah resisting after the Israeli’s pulled out of Lebanon? What exactly was Hizballah “resisting” when they crossed the UN recognized border into Israel? Long after the Israelis had left Lebanon, Hizballah was still firing rockets and light artillery into Israel. They never stopped. Why did Hizballah kill over two hundred US Marines and forty some odd French paratroopers? Was that more of that “resistance” stuff?

Twenty three years of so called resistance and what has Hizballeh gained for Lebanon? Perhaps all that time could have been better served in other ways? Like building a self-sustaining infrastructure, promoting commerce and trade, and generally bettering the lives of the civil population?

This is the stuff of civilization. You do know what that word means, right?

Maybe if they hadn’t been so busy thinking up new ways to kill Jews, the Israeli army wouldn’t be squashing them like the pathetic carrion beetles they are. And therein lies a lesson and a message for all the followers of the Koran. Stop killing Jews and they will stop killing you. It’s as simple as that…

HizbAllah is exactly what they say they are. Yet another Moslem religious organization dedicated to nothing better than killing Jews, simply because Jews exist. I will grant that HeZballah is not quite as bizarrely anti-progress as the Taliban (yet), and I will quickly admit that the Taliban has killed far less Jews than Hizballah has. But I also feel compelled to point out that there aren’t any Jews left in Afghanistan (where once there were thousands).

Where did Afghanistan’s Jews go, Sphinx? This one question is half of your graded score.

From the point of view of a Jew, Hizballah is EXACTLY the same as the Taliban, (and al Qaeda, and the PLO, and HAMAS, and Fatah, and, al Asqa Martyrs etcetcetc), just another fanatical, dangerous, and truly insane group of dedicated Islamic Jew-killers.

How much more uncivilized can Islam get?

Heh, I haven’t even gotten to your third paragraph yet…

“Then why did Israel bomb almost every corner of Lebanon? Especially why did they bomb the North of Lebanon with absolutely NO HEZBOLLAH ELEMENTS whatsoever?”

So, are you maintaining that Israel has used its entire stockpile of air launched weapons in Lebanon already? Because that’s what it would take to do what your first sentence implies. Precision weaponry is extremely expensive and never wasted on strategic or tactical targets of little or no value, at least not by civilized nations. Especially by civilized nations like Israel, which have a relatively small national budget to begin with.

Given that this is already a two-front war, threatening to add yet another front, I find it impossible to believe that Olmert the Uncommitted would have authorized the expenditure of Israel’s entire inventory of air launched weapons on just one front.

Given that Hizballah has already stated in press releases, (that would be in their own words, Sphinx, their own words), that they operate not just in South Lebanon, but throughout the entire Bekaa Valley, and wherever Lebanon shares it’s border with Syria…

It’s far easier for me to prove that Hizballah operates outside of it’s traditional areas, than it is for you to disprove what has already been publicly stated, and indeed, even testified to in numerous international courts.

Continuing…

“Why did Israel destroy all possible escape routes before people could leave?”

If all the possible escape routes have been destroyed, then how is that people are still leaving even as we type away? The Israelis dropped leaflets; those that stayed, for whatever reason, knew what was coming. Those that were there to begin with, also knew exactly what Hiziballah was doing with all those rockets and what HizBaLlah was really all about in the first place.

“Why were wrong buildings and cities bombed though Israel has the highest technologies in guiding their missiles with extremely high precision?”

Assuming that the wrong buildings were targeted in the first place…It could happen, perfection certainly does not exist, especially in combat. Weapon systems do sometimes fail to operate as designed; targeting lasers do get obscured by smoke, dust, and clouds, men do make mistakes, especially when under high stress.

Regardless, I’d stake my soul that Israel has not fired on an entire city, yet. It is Hyzballah’s rockets that have circular error of probability measured in double digit miles (kilometers). It is Hizballah that targets entire cities and population centers.

“Imagine I kidnapped a son of yours…”

In my case, assuming my son doesn’t kill you first? My daughter is even more dangerous to those who wish to enforce Sharia law upon her…She’s a soccer player.

Exactly where was it you meant to go with that disturbing little analogy anyway?

Tell ya what, you do manage to kidnap any member of my family, (or Red Tulips family for that matter), I’ll make it my business to hunt you down, and see you brought, alive, to justice, in a state or nation with a functioning death penalty. And I will make it my business to personally attend to your grave after justice is duly served.

The IDF is not now, nor has it ever been in the extermination business.

Islam isn’t just in the extermination business, it is the majority extermination business on the planet, and has been for quite some time.

Rebuke Sura 109. Tear the page right out of the Koran, or forever be known to historians as the world’s largest death cult. Nothing more than a death cult with absolutely no value toward improving mankind’s lot in life, an impediment toward the advancement of civilization.

Allah doesn’t know about trains and the light at the end of the tunnel.

USS
NEW
JERSEY,
R

The Sphinx said...

Red Tulips: "Sharia law seeks to implement a completely unworkable economic system, and it also treats nonMuslims as dhimmis - second class citizens. So yes, there are INHERENT problems with sharia law."

What unworkable economic system?? I really have no idea what you're talking about. Please elaborate on that and be constructive.

Second class citizens?? Nowhere is it stated in the sources of Sharia that non Muslims are to be treated badly. If you want to be a believer you have to believe in Christianity and Judaism, Jesus and Moses (along with all the other Prophets), and in their holy books. So much for the acceptance.
If Sharia tells us to mistreat "dhimmis", why were the Muslims living alongside Jews in Madinah at the time of Mohamed and not being mistreated? Why were they allowed to seek their faiths, participate in the trades, and just live on in peace? Let me tell you a little story:

Mohamed once had a Jewish neighbour that used to s*** in front of his door every morning before he goes out to pray. Everytime Mohamed found the crap in front of his door he just brushed it aside and went on, though he knew that it was that man. Then came a day where the Jewish man didn't do it. And the day after and the day after that there was no s*** in front of his door. He went to ask the others where this man was, and they said that he was sick and bed-ridden. So the next day, Mohamed paid him a visit to check on him (as it's a duty in Islam to visit the sick and give them company). The man was stunned and couldn't believe that the same person that had to put up with his crap every morning actually came to visit him while he was sick.

I'm not trying to show you how evil that man was, as there are such people in every race, religion and nationality, but what I'm trying to show you is what example Mohamed set on treating non-Muslims.

At another time Mohamed was sitting around his friends talking to them, and a funeral procession passed by. In respect, Mohamed stood up and remained silent. A friend whispered to him: "Mohamed, that's a Jewish funeral". He replied: "Wasn't it a human being who died?"

Second Class citizens indeed. That's the example we should be following.

"Also, your analogy is false. The correct analogy would be that the house was used as a base of operations to kidnap soldiers and launch rockets. In this case, there is a justification to destroy the house."

No that's not what applies. Tell me, when did they start firing rockets? Straight after they kidnapped the two soldiers? Or was it just after Israel started bombing the border, hm? And you still are ignoring my family members who had nothing to do with it. They were murdered by yourself. WOULD ANY JUDGE CALL THAT SELF DEFENSE AND LET YOU GO? No? Then why did America insist that Israel has a right to defend itself, in the midst of the genocide it's commiting? The analogy isn't false, it's the sad truth you fail to see.

=========

Render:

" 'The Sphinx?'...Aren't you a bit too verbose to live up to that name?"

Sorry mate, just had to break the silence once in a while.

"If HizBallah wasn't in Lebanon (illegally) in the first place, the Israelis would not have come, would they?"

If Israel wasn't in Lebanon (illegaly) in the first place, Hezbollah would not have come, would they?

"You also mentioned, 'Resisting Israel...'

Is that what the Moslem world has been doing all these years? Just resisting? 6 million vs. 1.2 Billion and all the 1.2 Billion can manage is a feeble 'resistence?'"


As if every single Muslim throughout the entire world was fighting every single Israeli person. Sounds a bit too much, right?

"Why is it so hard to stop killing Jews?"

And why is it so hard to stop killing Arabs and making their lives hell? That's what's going on in Israel/Palestine ALL THE TIME, and you know it. Heck, even Israel treats its Arab citizens as 2nd class citizens.

"And therein lies a lesson and a message for all the followers of the Koran. Stop killing Jews and they will stop killing you. It’s as simple as that…"

You're mixing up two totally different things. The Quran never said: Go around killing Jews. And let's look at it at another perspective: Stop killing Arabs and they will not attack you. It's as simple as that. You think they do it out of fun? Or because their lives are turned into living hell because of the Israeli aggression? You're missing that point.

HizbAllah is exactly what they say they are. Yet another Moslem religious organization dedicated to nothing better than killing Jews, simply because Jews exist. I will grant that HeZballah is not quite as bizarrely anti-progress as the Taliban (yet), and I will quickly admit that the Taliban has killed far less Jews than Hizballah has. But I also feel compelled to point out that there aren’t any Jews left in Afghanistan (where once there were thousands)."

Killing Jews, killing Jews, is that all you see? Do you ignore the rest of the picture on purpose or what? What about killing arabs, killing muslims? Innocent people, are they worthless? Some sort of dirty bunch of subhumans not worth caring about? Hm?

"Where did Afghanistan’s Jews go, Sphinx? This one question is half of your graded score."

There are also no Jews left in Egypt, where there were thousands. Where did they go to? ISRAEL.

"From the point of view of a Jew, Hizballah is EXACTLY the same as the Taliban, (and al Qaeda, and the PLO, and HAMAS, and Fatah, and, al Asqa Martyrs etcetcetc), just another fanatical, dangerous, and truly insane group of dedicated Islamic Jew-killers."

Sure, just throw them all into the same basket, after all, it's what you're good at. For you, there's only one true fact in this whole thing, that Muslims want to kill Jews. And judging by the false nature of this statement, I'd suggest you start putting the other facts into consideration.

"How much more uncivilized can Islam get?"

I'll get to the bottom line right here (though I'm not done yet). Refer to the stories about Mohamed I told you up there, and you'll notice that there is a vast difference between true Islam, and the crap that's done nowadays in Islam's name. I won't defend anybody who does it wrong, but you have (and will find) absolutely nothing to prove that Islam is uncivilized. This is about the 49348th time I say this on the net, and I'm already sick of saying it again. I'm a Muslim, I live in a Muslim country and I actually live by this religion. So I should know much, much more about it than you do. And your stereotypes aren't helping either

"Precision weaponry is extremely expensive and never wasted on strategic or tactical targets of little or no value, at least not by civilized nations. Especially by civilized nations like Israel, which have a relatively small national budget to begin with."

Relatively small national budget?? Hahahahahahahahahaha.. Israel is standing on the shoulders of the USA. It's not? What about the billions and billions of dollars USA gives to Israel every year? That, and the weapons and army supplies? The US's arsenal is literally open to israel.

Small national budget, come on, you can do better than that.

"Given that this is already a two-front war, threatening to add yet another front, I find it impossible to believe that Olmert the Uncommitted would have authorized the expenditure of Israel’s entire inventory of air launched weapons on just one front."

I didn't say that Israel used up it's whole stockpile of weapons. Don't put words into my mouth. And you're trying to evade my question of why Israel bombed all those cities. Did you check that map I gave you? Look at it for a second and don't tell me Hezbollah is based in every one of those places.

Face it, History repeats itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane

"Given that Hizballah has already stated in press releases, (that would be in their own words, Sphinx, their own words), that they operate not just in South Lebanon, but throughout the entire Bekaa Valley, and wherever Lebanon shares it’s border with Syria…

It’s far easier for me to prove that Hizballah operates outside of it’s traditional areas, than it is for you to disprove what has already been publicly stated, and indeed, even testified to in numerous international courts."


Operating outside its traditional areas does not mean that Israel has the right to bomb out every possible city it comes by, especially when it is an undeniable fact that lots of them don't harbour any Hezbollah fighters. If they want to root out Hezbollah, they should be a bit more intelligent than that. Allow me to give the mic over to Sandmonkey, who summed it up pretty nicely:

http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/07/15/the-idf-are-morons/

Continuing…

"If all the possible escape routes have been destroyed, then how is that people are still leaving even as we type away? The Israelis dropped leaflets; those that stayed, for whatever reason, knew what was coming. Those that were there to begin with, also knew exactly what Hiziballah was doing with all those rockets and what HizBaLlah was really all about in the first place."

You think it wasn't an ordeal to leave in the first place? Read testimonies of natives and tourists trying to leave Lebanon, and news of some that were killed in the process. And finally, refer again to said Sandmonkey post.

"Assuming that the wrong buildings were targeted in the first place…"

Which is a war crime by the way

.. It could happen, perfection certainly does not exist, especially in combat. Weapon systems do sometimes fail to operate as designed; targeting lasers do get obscured by smoke, dust, and clouds, men do make mistakes, especially when under high stress."

Justifies absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. And it's so easy to say: "Oh that stuff can fail, because of.. uhh.. yeah, dust."
Is it common that you try to counter questions with ridiculous explanations? (sorry)

"Regardless, I’d stake my soul that Israel has not fired on an entire city, yet."

So destroying half a city is ok, but an entire city is not?? Dang..

"It is Hyzballah’s rockets that have circular error of probability measured in double digit miles (kilometers). It is Hizballah that targets entire cities and population centers."

And the entire cities and populations in Lebanon are safe. And Lebanon has lost so much less civilians that Israel (How much again? Almost 20 times as much?). And Lebanon has suffered far less damage than North Israel. And George Bush deserves a Nobel Peace prize. Two words:

YEAH RIGHT

“Imagine I kidnapped a son of yours…”

In my case, assuming my son doesn’t kill you first? My daughter is even more dangerous to those who wish to enforce Sharia law upon her…She’s a soccer player."


I guess you didn't understand my analogy

"Exactly where was it you meant to go with that disturbing little analogy anyway?"

See, I told you. In this case, the son are the two Israeli soldiers, "you" are Israel, "I" am Hezbollah, "my house" is Lebanon, and my "family" are innocent Lebanese people. And despite all common sense, America who's trying to play "the judge" said that "you" have every right to defend yourself. You do of course, but that doesn't give you any right to kill my family and burn down my house. Now look at my story again, and ask yourself if there would be any impartial and fair judge that would say so.

"Tell ya what, you do manage to kidnap any member of my family, (or Red Tulips family for that matter), I’ll make it my business to hunt you down, and see you brought, alive, to justice, in a state or nation with a functioning death penalty. And I will make it my business to personally attend to your grave after justice is duly served."

Aaah, so you DO want "me" to be brought and judged in a court of law, and not do the justice yourself. That's more like it.

"The IDF is not now, nor has it ever been in the extermination business."

Bullcrap.

"Islam isn’t just in the extermination business, it is the majority extermination business on the planet, and has been for quite some time."

I repeat: Bullcrap.

"Rebuke Sura 109. Tear the page right out of the Koran,..

[109:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[109:1] Say, "O you disbelievers.

[109:2] "I do not worship what you worship.

[109:3] "Nor do you worship what I worship.

[109:4] "Nor will I ever worship what you worship.

[109:5] "Nor will you ever worship what I worship.

[109:6] "You have your Religion, and I have mine"

Rebuke what? The tolerant notion that everyone has his own religion? Are you nuts?

"..or forever be known to historians as the world’s largest death cult. Nothing more than a death cult with absolutely no value toward improving mankind’s lot in life, an impediment toward the advancement of civilization.

Allah doesn’t know about trains and the light at the end of the tunnel."


I don't feel obliged to answer to some hatemongering, intolerant and extremely bigoted words. Because that's what they really are. Refer to the Mohamed stories again, read Sura 109 again and think about it, and start getting educated about Islam, because you have proved to know absolutely nothing. And I am sick of tired of educating people from scratch.

Sorry to say you're not much better than those you condemn.

Red Tulips said...

I will let Render go on about his points, but I will speak as to mine.

The system of sharia law seeks to ban interest in all forms. This is completely unworkable economically. It is a system that wholly is designed for failure.

Moreover, the "dhimmi" system involved nonMuslims "of the book" paying very large "dhimmi" taxes that were often crippling. They were also second class citizens, and not secure in their own person. I wrote up a post about this already.

http://cultureforall.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-peace-possible.html

This does not even take into account the sorry treatment of Hindus and others who are not believers of the Abraham, Moses, etc. It is inexcusable and NOT something to aspire to.

Sharia law is to be deplored, not held as a good. Please read more about it, Sphinx, and you will find that all I am saying is documented fact.

As far as your analogy. The point is that the mom, dad, brother, sister who are in the home were given the chance to escape. Israel gave advance warning. Then they bombed the hell out of the places that was used to launch rockets. Your analogy is wholly inapplicable.

Red Tulips said...

P.S.:

To Sphinx and Albion:

I appreciate the dialogue we are having. We wholly disagree on many things, but the point is talking things out only helps matters. It is when the dialogue ends that the problems really come home to roost. So to speak.

The Sphinx said...

Red Tulips:

"The system of sharia law seeks to ban interest in all forms. This is completely unworkable economically. It is a system that wholly is designed for failure."

Is it because you haven't witnessed an economical system

"Moreover, the "dhimmi" system involved nonMuslims "of the book" paying very large "dhimmi" taxes that were often crippling. They were also second class citizens, and not secure in their own person. I wrote up a post about this already."

Sorry but that's not true. The tax you speak about, which is called Jizya by the way, wasn't high. It was actually a pretty low amount of money and was by no means crippling. Also the Muslims obliged themselves to protect the lives and the belongings of those who paid the Jizya. And under a true Sharia system, they are never to be treated as 2nd class citizens.

People accuse Muslims of generally hating non Muslims. That's far from the truth, but let us wildly _ASSUME_ that they do. The Quran says:

"O you who believe, you shall be absolutely equitable, and observe God, when you serve as witnesses. Do not be provoked by your conflicts with some people into committing injustice. You shall be absolutely equitable, for it is more righteous. You shall observe God. God is fully Cognizant of everything you do. God promises those who believe and lead a righteous life forgiveness and a great recompense." (Koran 5:8-9)

What about this:

"God does not forbid you to respect those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice" (Quran 60:8)

"This does not even take into account the sorry treatment of Hindus and others who are not believers of the Abraham, Moses, etc. It is inexcusable and NOT something to aspire to."

Indeed. But refer to above Quranic verses and you will see that the Quran does not advocate such behaviour.

Sharia law is to be deplored, not held as a good. Please read more about it, Sphinx, and you will find that all I am saying is documented fact.

The Quran _is_ the Sharia. And I definitely know more about Sharia than you do, as it's my Religion after all.

I have to bail now, I'll get back to your other points later. It's indeed good that we can talk about it.

Cheers

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx:

First I will go after merely the line from the Koran you have cited. Then I will explain the hows and whys of dhimmi laws, and also why not charging interest is an economic disaster waiting to happen.

God promises those who believe and lead a righteous life forgiveness and a great recompense."

I am fully aware of this quote. Yet, it gives justification for the horrible treatment of Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Historically, that has been born out - and they were treated as lower than second class citizens. I am sorry, but that is inexcusable.

Secondly, you are just simply wholly incorrect about the way dhimmi laws have been born out. In fact, the nonMuslims lacked many of the rights that Muslims took for granted: a) they couldn't be secure in owning their property; b) they couldn't testify in court against a nonMuslim; c) the dhimmi taxes sometimes were in fact crippling; d) they could be relocated at any time by the government; e) no right to protest the dhimmi laws; f) death penalty for blasphemy; g) the value of a dhimmi life was only half that of a Muslim's life.

I could go on. You are simply ignorant of what it means to be a dhimmi. A quick primer to it is found on wikipedia.

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

As far as interest goes.

Economically, it is impossible to ban interest. It has been tried for thousands of years, and never succeeded. Why? Because banning interest only means that people will use loan sharks and get the money illegally - paying much higher interest rates, and increasing criminality. This is a historical fact. Moreover, interest itself makes sense from the perspective of natural law. Here is what I mean. The productivity of the earth has increased exponentially just in the past 100 years - that's forgetting the past thousands of years. We are able to make much more efficient use of our time than ever before. As such, when money is lent to someone, that money is then not going to be invested or used to create something up. It is being tied up. During that time, the earth is getting more and more efficient, and hence the money that is being tied up is being devalued - whether or not interest is charged. Merely to recover the time value of money, some form of interest needs to be charged to give an incentive to loan money.

And it should be noted that most scholars agree that the Industrial Revolution never would have happened without the more ready available of capital. This was only possible through the liberalization of many of the usury laws that existed at the time. In fact, the speed and growth of the Industrial Revolution was greatly hampered by the still existing usury laws.

http://barcelonaeconomics.org/docs/papers/downloads/860.pdf

It is easy to say "wow, charging interest is just haraam," and to not examine what that means.

It should be noted that Islamic banks actually do charge interest, under a different name - because it is wholly impossible to be a bank, not charge interest, and remain in business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economics#Interest

The Sphinx said...

Red Tulips:

"I am fully aware of this quote. Yet, it gives justification for the horrible treatment of Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Historically, that has been born out - and they were treated as lower than second class citizens. I am sorry, but that is inexcusable."

Ok we'll look at this quote one more time:

"God promises those who believe and lead a righteous life forgiveness and a great recompense."

Where are Hindus, Atheists and Buddhists mentioned here? Or did you try to read between the lines and saw this statement pop up in front of you: "As for those non-believers, do what you want with them."? There is absolutely NOTHING in this verse that is against any non-believers, just that the believers will be rewarded in their afterlives. I really don't know where your conclusion came from.

"Secondly, you are just simply wholly incorrect about the way dhimmi laws have been born out. In fact, the nonMuslims lacked many of the rights that Muslims took for granted: a) they couldn't be secure in owning their property.."

And why were the Jizya payers guaranteed protection of their lives and property? Is that not securing their stuff?

"b) they couldn't testify in court against a nonMuslim"

In fact, one of the Caliphs (can't remember which one) had a court case between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, whereas the non Muslim was right, and the Caliph ruled in his favour.

"c) the dhimmi taxes sometimes were in fact crippling"

For the second time they were not. The amount of Jizya paid were fully dependant on the wealth of the person. Women, children, poor and old people were exempted. And the others eligible of paying never had to pay too much.

"d) they could be relocated at any time by the government"

I never heard of such a case

"e) no right to protest the dhimmi laws f) death penalty for blasphemy g) the value of a dhimmi life was only half that of a Muslim's life."

Where'd you get that from? Give me real sources please.

"I could go on. You are simply ignorant of what it means to be a dhimmi. A quick primer to it is found on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi"


If only that article didn't have a notice stating that "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is disputed.", I'd gladly accept it. But I don't trust it.

About the interests: The Bank interest system is disputed here in Egypt. Some religious figures are for it, some are against it. And the system exists here. But what's for sure is, that interests on an individual level aren't to be taken. If you borrow an amount of money from me and I ask for a percentage back in interests, I'm taking money from you that I have no right in having. And interests - in some cases - can be crippling. In the early days of Islam, there weren't banks in the form we have today. There was the beit el mal (house of money), which was used for public benefit and social support. It's where the Jizya and Zakah money and donations went. And that system worked in those days. There were also very rich people, and there were well-off people, and there were poor people, who had an unalienable right of being supported by the wealthy and the community.

Back to my analogy:
Even if you did warn the family and they stayed and got killed, along with the house being burnt down, you will never find a judge that won't condemn you for manslaughter and arson.

You're trying to twist the whole thing around, but you know very well where I want to head with this analogy: I find it sick and twisted of the US to acknowledge the systematic destruction and murder of the people, and call it an act of self defense. Self defense doesn't work that way.

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx:

I gave extensive links re: the status of dhimmis in the new thread I started on this very subject. As far as the economic situation, you just simply do not have any any about how economics work. Please read the economic paper I cited. Think about my words. It is economically unviable to not charge interest.

You are also flat out wrong in your characterization of your analogy. Israel let the civilians leave. Your analogy is wholly inapplicable.

The Sphinx said...

Red Tulips:

Ok, let's assume you called the house and said you'll burn it to the ground, and some managed to escape but others didn't as you burnt the house down because I kidnapped your son. You will STILL be guilty for arson and the death of the people inside the house, as a kidnapped son gives you no right to do that.
Again, WHY is the US saying that it's ok for Israel to defend itself in such a reckless manner? It makes no sense at all.

Why is it that you are the only people who try to evade answering my question about this analogy, saying it's not applicable or flat-out wrong? Everybody else (and I did ask a few) understood straight away what I wanted to say. So I'm still waiting for your explanation.

And about the interests: I only explained why interests shouldn't be taken on an individual level, but I did not give any verdict on the banking system. Because I do not know what applies there. I only said it's a disputed matter. That's all.

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx:

It is called war, and self defense. It's that simple. Israel is doing its best to minimize civilian casualties, but if they did not fight back, they would be dessimated. Their options are kill or be killed. It's a horrible world, but it's the world we live in.

Also, if you read up on economics, you would see that it is simply impossible to sustain a society that does not allow for the charging of interest. Whether or not you find it morally right or wrong on an individual level is not the issue. The issue is that on a broad societal level, sharia law seeks to ban the charging of interest.

The Sphinx said...

"It is called war, and self defense. It's that simple."

Have you forgotten the ethics of war already?

"Israel is doing its best to minimize civilian casualties, but if they did not fight back, they would be dessimated."

I fail to see how Israel, who has lost 20 times less civilians that Lebanon, is trying its best to minimize civilian casualities. Sorry, I will never be convinced of that, because the facts speak against it.

"Their options are kill or be killed."

Those are Hezbollah's options too.

"It's a horrible world, but it's the world we live in."

That we agree on.

"Also, if you read up on economics, you would see that it is simply impossible to sustain a society that does not allow for the charging of interest. Whether or not you find it morally right or wrong on an individual level is not the issue. The issue is that on a broad societal level, sharia law seeks to ban the charging of interest."

As I said before, banks didn't exist at that time. The concept of taking interest was on a fully individual basis. That is why it is NOT clear what applies for banks nowadays because it's a different story. It is still a disputable issue. The fact is, our banks have regular interest systems, so don't worry about us.

Osaid Rasheed said...

First : Sphinx : Good day.

/whatever you think of Israel's actions, they have made it very clear that their purpose is rooting out Hezbollah. This is clearly in the interests of the Christians/Sunnis/Druze../
If I were a christian, suynni,or durzi in lebanon I would still see that fighting Israel is the only right thing to do.

No matter what you say or try to tell others : ther are facts that you cannot manipulate. This is well recognized by the Israeli Government and this is the only hope for peace, especially when dealing with zionist mentalities.

Anyway :
/...
The info you presented seemed quite interesting. I see them supporting for our claim : BLAMING all Israelis and holding them responsible for their IDF massacres.. Thus justifying suicide bombers.../

See, where your logic may lead us ???
I believe you are wrong. And I believe that you wont be convinced of anythging I say as you will simply not listen except for your self.
The logic that you are using is the same one that the Hizb and Hamas is using.

The Sphinx said...

"First : Sphinx : Good day."

Good day to you too.

"Anyway :
/...
The info you presented seemed quite interesting. I see them supporting for our claim : BLAMING all Israelis and holding them responsible for their IDF massacres.. Thus justifying suicide bombers.../"


Please give me a quote from my own comments clearly stating that I:

a) blame all Israelis for this mess
b) justify suicide bombers

Have fun searching.
On a more serious note, I put my blame solely on the IDF, which has proven to be not better than terrorists. And terrorists are terrorists, I didn't praise those either.

"See, where your logic may lead us ???
I believe you are wrong. And I believe that you wont be convinced of anythging I say as you will simply not listen except for your self."


With all due respect to you people on this blog, I am pretty sure that I can say the same to you.

"The logic that you are using is the same one that the Hizb and Hamas is using."

I can either say:

a) You don't know me enough to compare me to Hamas or Hezballah

or I can scratch that and simply say

b) You are using the same logic as the Israeli government and the IDF.

The Sphinx said...

Osaid:

I just see you replied to my post:

http://realmofthesphinx.blogspot.com/2006/07/judaism-not-scum.html

That's my opinion right there. Thanks for passing by.

Red Tulips said...

Sphinx:

Israel is doing what it needs to do to continue to exist, and the damage in Lebanon has been hugely exaggerated. The armed wing of Hizballah has no right to exist - and was told to disband via UN resolution 1559. They have no right to fight. The job of defending Lebanon should fall upon the Lebanese army, and not Hizballah.

Jiyza payers were not guaranteed protection for their property. In fact, if you read the extensive links I showed you, you will see that they were second class citizens without security of their homes or property.

As far as interest goes, I am glad you see this as in dispute. But the fact remains that it is a pillar of Islam, and in "Islamic countries," which Egypt is not fully, interest is not formally charged. (they get around it by calling it something else)