This is really disturbing

[Joe DeFuria]

she left the safe shores of our country to enter a war zone;

Correct. And as I said, to presume she did so having not completely thought things through is, well, presumptuous.

as i said "i belive" as in i find it most likely, to say i have no justification is a mockery of logic.

Did I say it was a mockery of logic? I said it was PRESUMPTUOUS.

also, why do you presume she had a taken a "side" when, you do not that we do not always have to pick a "side" don't you?

Is this a serious question? In big, bold letters from the ISM web-site and their mission:

"A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE ,
AND FOR A JUST AND VIABLE PEACE "

Firthermore:

"Although Israel points to the occasional acts of Palestinian violence as a grave problem, it is clear that the Occupation itself is the overwhelming, and continuous act of collective violence in the area. "

The Palestinian response over the years has been some attempts at armed struggle (as is their right), but mostly peaceful protests, demonstrations, and appeals to Israeli courts.

It's clear which "side" she is on. No? She is not on the side that the occupation is needed ensure Israeli protection. Is that not clear?

I presume she has taken a side because I cannot find any reference in her groups's web-site that shows any mention of doing similar protestations "against" palestinians. She also burns American flags, which I take as a clear sign that she does not support American policy. And the non support of Bush and American policy is prominently plastered throughout the ISM web-site.

Please, let's NOT turn this thread into a "which side is right". That is not the point. The point is, ISM, the organization she's representing, is clearly on ONE side.

but as long as you are not sure then anything goes?

YES. When it comes to military action. You apparently fail to realize, despite what MrsSkywlaker and I are saying, is that a Military Operation is a while new ballgame.

We are about to impose on a miltary operaion in Iraq. We will do our best to minimize civilian loss. We are ENCOURAGING civilians to leave. Why? Because we will not comprimise our ability to successfully complete the mission.

That's what it means to be at war. That is the nature of war and military operations.

You obviously do not realize this, which gives me little confidence that she realized it either.

i am speaking of the evidence we have; you are the one venturing into assumption there.

Name me one thing that I assumed. I do NOT assume she wants anyone killed or not killed. The point is, NEITHER CAN THE MILITARY.

And THE MILITARY'S JOB is not to guess one way or the other. the military's job is to complete the mission. She should not assume that military CARES what her beliefs or motives are. All she should assume is that the military WILL CARE that she is an obstacle to completing a mission. And she will have to deal with the possibility that you know, the military might just have the same strong convictions of completing their mission, as she has strong convictions from preventing its completion.

so as long as it is your goal to save some people, killing others is acceptable?

In a military operation? Yes. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A MILITARY OPERATION.

You keep on trying to get on some moral high-horse which is not relevant to this discussion.

You can be absolutely, 100% certain that THE MILITARY believes that the fact that some people will be killed is acceptable.

do you think he found the bullhorn or the bright colored jacket more threatening?

Do you read one damn thing that I wrote? GO BACK and read that part again where I said it's reasonable to assume that AT THAT MOMENT, SHE did not pose a direct threat?

so it is all right to kill as fair as your concerned, assuming the killer is concerned as well? were does concern for life come in on this? just on the life you care to concern yourself with?

I can see it's impossible to have a pointed discussion with you. Not only do you not feel the need to address the actual issue (whether or not she should expect that she may be killed accidentally or purposely by protesting in a military setting), but you continually distort my statements, and otherwise make implications that I have not made.

You have made it quite clear, Kyle, that you either do not understand the nature of military operations.

Think of the military as a machine that will regard completing the mission above all else, with ZERO regard to any human life that gets in the way of completing that mission. That's not entirely true, but that is a more accurate representation than whatever dream-world military you believe in.

Military action is justified by those who use it, by saying the end result of a successful use of the military, outweighs the destruction of property and lives that it causes. That is what one should expect the leaders who order the war believe, that is what one should expect the commanders who orchestrate the missions believe, that is what one should expect the soliders who carry out the missions to believe.

And we know very well that you disagree with this philospohy entirely Kyle. That is not the point. The point is, this philosophy is in fact what guides military action. And anyone getting in the way of a military operation, and doesn't perceive the military in that way, is just fooling himself, or herself.

so seeing as you say they are entirely different situations. does that mean that protestors are not people, or military are not people? or are the situations not actually so different as you claimed?

See above "machine" analogy.

To be perfectly clear, one should EXPECT that the military is made up of people who believe that killing and destruction of property is a justifiable means to and end.

Whether or not YOU believe it is justifiable is not relevant. If you do not assume that the people carrying out a mission think this way, then you are setting yourself up for death.

she said what his job was not, she said what his job was; and by definition of job, pay is a part of the situation no matter how much you refuse to admit it.

I don't really know how to respond to that, because I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say.

Please don't tell me that you are trying to argue the idea that a military person "doing his job" does so for the same reason that a contractor does his job...."because he's getting paid." Please, please tell me you are not saying that...

 

[kyleb]

"pay" refers to more than just money you know, and job refers directly to that which we are "paid" to do. please tell how you cast a blind eye to this? also, how to you take and idea like "military" and separate it from concepts of humanity? your arguments appear to be based on some sort of verbal-alchemy from what i can tell.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

"pay" refers to more than just money you know, and job refers directly to that which we are "paid" to do.please tell how you cast a blind eye to this?

Please tell me what your point is? I really have no idea. Is your point that military soldiers get paid? Uh, I agree.

(EDIT: Oh, I see now. In another thread you now conveniently mention your "good friend" just going to war just because he's getting paid, not because he believes in the cause. Again, that is irrelevent. As I said, one should EXPECT / ASSUME that the soldiers in a military operation are there to complete the objective. You keep on trying to interject some morality judgement into the question at hand where it doesn't exists.)

, how to you take and idea like "military" and separate it from concepts of humanity?

Sigh. First read my last post.

Second, the quick summation should you get confused by my tactics of providing several pointed responses to your last post: Military, as perceived by those who support its use, is a tool to preserve and protect humanity.

your arguments appear to be based on some sort of verbal-alchemy from what i can tell.

What can I say? I'll take that as a copmliment, I'm doing my best to take the crap statements and implications you make, and transform it into something valuable, like education.

 

[MrsSkywalker]

I am in no way implying that getting cash is either an incentive or a license to kill. Not one person joins the military for the pay or benefits...in fact, in the US soldiers get less money than they would working a regular 9-5, and I can't imagine that it's too different in other countries. Being a soldier isn't a job, it's a position born of a passion for defending and keeping sacred what you believe in: putting your life on the line for what you believe is a just and noble cause. Now, the girl put her life on the line for what she believed to be a just and noble cause. If you want to believe that made her noble and a "soldier" in her own right, fine, believe that. However, she had absolutely no training in combat, obviously little training in local politics, and no real comprehension of the differences between Olympia, WA, and the Gaza Strip.

Being a cruisader who was willing to die for a cause does not qualify her as an idiot. Not being fully prepared before jumping into the situation does.

If you take offense at that, that's fine by me. This is after all my opinion. Consider this, though, before you flame me back (which I am sure you will....I know, you just can't help it. I'm fine with that): She was an untrained civillian stepping into a situation that even the trained Palestinian military is staying out of.

 

[kyleb]

Not one person joins the military for the pay or benefits.

my father did, he was 17 and had moved out of the house two years prior to that because he was tired of getting beat by his drunken father. just after finishing highschool, the pay or benefits offered by the military sounded like a much better deal my dad than the dirt poor life he had lead up until then. this is not uncommon and i can sight many such cases of very similar situations as i have been around the military for the majority of my life. also, besides the pay; what do you think warriors kill for if not the benefits have been led to belive they will receive? the issue of when it is justified to kill and when one should show respect for life often gets very blurry when you start justifying it with terms like "military" and "duty", but the act is still the same and there are at least as many wrong reasons to do it as there are right ones. this holds true regardless of the words we use.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

my father did, he was 17 and had moved out of the house two years prior to that because he was tired of getting beat by his drunken father. just after finishing highschool, the pay or benefits offered by the military sounded like a much better deal my dad than the dirt poor life he had lead up until then.

I do agree that some people join the military for monetary reasons. However, that does not impact the way one should assume that military action is being carried out.

Incidentally, training one self for, and acquiring a civilian job, while probably harder and less immediately gratifying road to take, also seems to me to be a much better than your dad lving the dirt poor life he had lead up until then. What your saying is, your dad chose what seemed to be the easier road.

Not blaming your dad at all. Just that at least in this country, there are more options than joining the military for making money and supporting oneself.

also, besides the pay; what do you think warriors kill for if not the benefits have been led to belive they will receive?

By "benefits lead to believe they will receive", I presume you mean the benefits of preserving and protecting humanity that they are lead to beleive, or believe all on their own without being "lead" to them?

You'll have to ask them. How should we know? I also don't know what makes serial killers do their thing either.

the issue of when it is justified to kill and when one should show respect for life often gets very blurry when you start justifying it with terms like "military" and "duty",

The issue of when it's justified to kill is very blurry, regardless of whether the military is involved in it or not.

but the act is still the same and there are at least as many wrong reasons to do it as there are right ones. this holds true regardless of the words we use.

True. Though I'm still trying to figure out your point in releveance to the topic at hand.

Are you just trying to say that the bulldozer driver may not believe in the "humanitarian cause" as stated by Israel? And because of this unknown, and the girl could not know how he viewed it, so the girl is not responsible for her own death? Are you trying to say this was not a military operation when "you get down to it?" just a guy in a bulldozer and a girl with a blowhorn?

 

[kyleb]

I do agree that some people join the military for monetary reasons. However, that does not impact the way one should assume that military action is being carried out.

Incidentally, training one self for, and acquiring a civilian job, while probably harder and less immediately gratifying road to take, also seems to me to be a much better than your dad lving the dirt poor life he had lead up until then. What your saying is, your dad chose what seemed to be the easier road.

Not blaming your dad at all. Just that at least in this country, there are more options than joining the military for making money and supporting oneself.

sure enough, my father is spend a few years in the marines before giving it up for civilian life. however, eventually he turned to the army for a collage education and had a long carrier with that. now he owns, or rather the bank owns, a few how cleaning services that along with his retirement pay allow him to live a comfortable lifestyle. but the man has been far from happy for the majority of his life that i have seen, and he always seems to have to keep himself occupied on a specific task to get there when he does. i love my father very much, but even though i belive his is a good man i do know that he has done more than his fair share of wrong. i know that he knows it too, even though he does not like to talk about it; but we all do that, it is part of being human. however, i still cannot find it in myself to encourage such behavior in myself or anyone else for that matter. i hope that does well to make my position more clear.

By "benefits lead to believe they will receive", I presume you mean the benefits of preserving and protecting humanity that they are lead to beleive, or believe all on their own without being "lead" to them?

those are the promises i am talking about.

You'll have to ask them. How should we know? I also don't know what makes serial killers do their thing either.

i will work to find some good information on the net for you if you might be willing to look into those subjects, such things have been a topic of much research and the opinions i hold are based on that information.

The issue of when it's justified to kill is very blurry, regardless of whether the military is involved in it or not.

well you can make anything look blurry if you squint hard enough; but that does not mean it is anything but clear.

True. Though I'm still trying to figure out your point in releveance to the topic at hand.

Are you just trying to say that the bulldozer driver may not believe in the "humanitarian cause" as stated by Israel?

if i am to belive a man's cause is one of humanitarian origin, i must see that he behaves in a human manor. i understand that he might belive otherwise, but his actions prove that he was confused, and the persevation of humanity was obviously not his cause.

And because of this unknown, and the girl could not know how he viewed it, so the girl is not responsible for her own death?

no, that is not what i am saying, i see many parties who deserve a share of the respectability in this matter, including myself. are you saying that from what you have seen you belive that no one is to blame but herself?

Are you trying to say this was not a military operation when "you get down to it?" just a guy in a bulldozer and a girl with a blowhorn?

well "just" is going way to far; i am saying that putting a label on something does not change what it is, at least not for me.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

i hope that does well to make my position more clear.

Unfortunately, not really. Your position seems to be that you encourage others to try not and do wrong, which is a rather ambiguos position that anyone would take.

i will work to find some good information on the net for you if you might be willing to look into those subjects, such things have been a topic of much research and the opinions i hold are based on that information.

Could be an interesting exercise, but I'm not sure of the point. What makes people kill? I'm sure there are lots and lots of reasons, some good (at least IMO), some bad. And each individual case probably has a separate set of circumstances.

well you can make anything look blurry if you squint hard enough; but that does not mean it is anything but clear.

You can cover everything with a "blanket philosophy", but that does not make the real situation clear.

if i am to belive a man's cause is one of humanitarian origin, i must see that he behaves in a human manor. i understand that he might belive otherwise, but his actions prove that he was confused, and the persevation of humanity was obviously not his cause.

Can you restate? Don't know what you mean.

no, that is not what i am saying, i see many parties who deserve a share of the respectability in this matter, including myself. are you saying that from what you have seen you belive that no one is to blame but herself?

No, I'm not saying that. I'll repeat what I said from my very first two posts in this thread:

Certainly tragic.

However, not unexpected that something like this was bound to happen.

However, she willingly and purposefully put herself in circumstances that are highly dangerous. And to that extent, she bears some responsibility for her own death.

well "just" is going way to far; i am saying that putting a label on something does not change what it is, at least not for me.

The problem is, you are apparently narrow minded enough to believe I am applying the label, and not yourself.

You are saying there is a label of a "Miltary Action" being put on a man running a piece of construction equipment / bulldozer.

Why are you not the one putting a label of "just man in a bulldozer" on what is a military mission?

 

[kyleb]

Unfortunately, not really. Your position seems to be that you encourage others to try not and do wrong, which is a rather ambiguos position that anyone would take.

i understand. trust me it is not an easy goal to live up to but i still like to try.

Could be an interesting exercise, but I'm not sure of the point. What makes people kill? I'm sure there are lots and lots of reasons, some good (at least IMO), some bad. And each individual case probably has a separate set of circumstances.

it comes from this age old philosophy that while the circumstances are often different, that which drives them is very much the same. granted, you would have find value in the concept for it to do you any good; i was just hoping you might.

You can cover everything with a "blanket philosophy", but that does not make the real situation clear.

agreed. however i still argue that such techniques do have their own share of value.

if i am to belive a man's cause is one of humanitarian origin, i must see that he behaves in a humane manor. i understand that he might belive otherwise, but his actions prove that he was confused, and the persevation of humanity was obviously not his cause.

Can you restate? Don't know what you mean.

sorry, left out an "e" there.
i edited in the quote but more directly; if what is done is not humane, then i cannot consider the cause humanitarian.

No, I'm not saying that. I'll repeat what I said from my very first two posts in this thread:

Certainly tragic.

fair enough, i was just taken by your question that i fogot about the prior comment.

However, not unexpected that something like this was bound to happen.

i agree that things like this should be expected, however i am still dissapointed at the way they are tollerated.

However, she willingly and purposefully put herself in circumstances that are highly dangerous. And to that extent, she bears some responsibility for her own death.

agreed, i think that applies to nearly everyone though.

The problem is, you are apparently narrow minded enough to believe I am applying the label, and not yourself.

blanket statements and narrow-mindedness are often illusions of perspective, and we all faultier to such conditions. i could say the same thing about some of your arguments, but i don't care to insult you with matters of my opinion.

You are saying there is a label of a "Miltary Action" being put on a man running a piece of construction equipment / bulldozer.

are you saying that i am wrong on this?

Why are you not the one putting a label of "just man in a bulldozer" on what is a military mission?

well sure i would not be able to have this conversation with you if i did not use words, my point is that the words chosen do not chance the nature of what is being expressed. so you might call it military action or call it howdy-dudey time; but what happened is the same either way.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

i understand. trust me it is not an easy goal to live up to but i still like to try.

So do I.

it comes from this age old philosophy that while the circumstances are often different, that which drives them is very much the same. granted, you would have find value in the concept for it to do you any good; i was just hoping you might.

Not really. Perhaps what drives people to murder might be similar, but that's not the same as what drives people to kill, IMO.

agreed. however i still argue that such techniques do have their own share of value.

As does evaluating each situation on its own merit.

i edited in the quote but more directly; if what is done is not humane, then i cannot consider the cause humanitarian.

Sorry, that's just rhetorical.

i agree that things like this should be expected, however i am still dissapointed at the way they are tollerated.

Fair enough.

blanket statements and narrow-mindedness are often illusions of perspective,

Right...

and we all faultier to such conditions. i could say the same thing about some of your arguments, but i don't care to insult you with matters of my opinion.

Quite the contrary, you insult me regularly with matters of your own opinion.

are you saying that i am wrong on this?

You are saying there is a label of a "Miltary Action" being put on a man running a piece of construction equipment / bulldozer.

No, I'm saying that the fact that you asked the question is the problem. You do not seem to even consider that the situation could or should be looked at another way.

In other words, your accusing me of labeling the situation as a "military action", is NO MORE INHERENTLY RIGHT OR WRONG than me asserting that you are labeling the situation as a "man in a bulldozer."

You don't think a "man in a bulldozer" is a label, but simply "reality." I say the reality is, it's a military operation.

I really don't think that you appreciate "my reality" at all.

Why are you not the one putting a label of "just man in a bulldozer" on what is a military mission?

well sure i would not be able to have this conversation with you if i did not use words, my point is that the words chosen do not chance the nature of what is being expressed.

Of course words chosen change the nature of what is being expressed.

so you might call it military action or call it howdy-dudey time; but what happened is the same either way.

You might call it a man in a bull-dozer, or you might call it howdy-doody time, what's your point?

"What happend?" A girl died because she was crushed by a heavy piece of machinery. Using "other words" to describing it as ANYTHING ELSE, is precisely expressing what happened as something of a different nature.

Be it a "military operation", a "horrific accident", or "murder".

 

[Joe DeFuria]

just after finishing highschool, the pay or benefits offered by the military sounded like a much better deal my dad than the dirt poor life he had lead up until then...

Speaking of "monetary incentive":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81765,00.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Saddam Hussein has decreed that any Iraqi who kills an enemy soldier will get a reward equivalent to $14,000.

And $28,000 will go to anyone who captures an enemy soldier alive, the decree said, according to the official Iraqi News Agency.

Shooting down an enemy fighter plane is worth $55,500, a helicopter, $28,000, and a missile, $5,500. Killing the pilot will bring $14,000; capturing the pilot alive is worth twice as much.

 

[kyleb]

as for the your previous post, at this point i am just going to accept that you do not understand my perspective and it is far too unlikely that you will for me to rebut your comments. as for the latter, i want to point out that my arugments stand for our millitary as well as theres, i do not support such things regardless of who is behind them.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

as for the your previous post, at this point i am just going to accept that you do not understand my perspective and it is far too unlikely that you will for me to rebut your comments.

I would prefer that you accept that I do understand your perspective, and I simply don't agree with it. It seems to me that you can't fathom a possibility where one could understand your perspective, and at the same time disagree with it.

as for the latter, i want to point out that my arugments stand for our millitary as well as theres, i do not support such things regardless of who is behind them.

Agreed.

Though last time I checked, OUR military forces weren't paid on "commission."

 

[kyleb]

ya but commission is a detail and i am talking about the general principles regardless of such details. this is a great example of what i am referring to as not being able to understand my perspective. granted i understand that it is because your opinion is that the details can overcome to principles, but i must insist that as long as you do that you are not understanding my perspective. also not that i am not trying to insult your intelligence by this, in the same sense i do not understand the perspective of someone who claims the Pope is god's representative on earth. i dissagree with them but i do not understand why the disagree with me.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

ya but commission is a detail and i am talking about the general principles regardless of such details.

Commission vs. "flat wage" is not a detail. It changes the very basis for the fundamentals of motivation.

 

[Sharkfood]

I can't believe there is actually some form of "debate" going on with this story!! How braindead HAS the population become?

By the very link given in this thread from the original post- it clearly dictates this woman was hellbent to have a "stand-off" with a bulldozer with direct orders to demolish the home of a terrorist... as in someone convicted of killing multiple people in cold blood. Then there is this looney LEAPING in front of the bulldozer? Run the dumbo over.. one less whacko in the world. Darwinism in it's finest hour.

We have the same problem in my area right now. I've almost ran over several of these so-called "peaceful" demostrators that are hell-bent on preventing ME, a resident of this area, from conducting my business in the city. There is nothing "peaceful" about it- they are breaking in windows of parked cars, slamming the hood of my car with their fists (with dents) and generally trying to taunt and engage motorists- regardless of their beliefs. Anyone that was anti-war may just flip sides to avoid being associated with this kind of extremism, especially if it means losing your job, revenue or damages to your personal property.

I'm waiting for a few of these psycho jobs to get run down on the city streets of San Francisco and for the same bleeding heart, one-sided, blind to the reality viewpoints being "debated" on this thread here to crop up. People were born with a brain... when they fail to use it, expect the worst.

Now pardon me while I go fling myself off a 50-story building and some left-winged psycho labels it "murder" by high-rise design engineers.

 

[kyleb]

ya but commission is a detail and i am talking about the general principles regardless of such details.

Commission vs. "flat wage" is not a detail. It changes the very basis for the fundamentals of motivation.

not for me.


also Sharkfood, could you please tell me what source you are using for your arguments? i read a few reports on the incident but they never mentioned anything about the owner of the home being convicted terrorist.

 

[Sharkfood]

Right on the links on the first page.

An IDF statement said Saafin has "perpetrated shooting attacks, recruited terrorist cells and launched mortars toward Israeli communities and IDF posts in the Gaza Strip."

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad operates out of Gaza and carries out attacks in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. The group has carried out military operations against Israeli soldiers and Israeli civilians. It introduced suicide bombings to Israel in 1992.

The IDF said the soldiers came under fire as they approached Saafin's house, in an attempt to arrest him. They returned fire, killing the suspect.

Followed by-

Witnesses reported about 40 Israeli tanks, accompanied by bulldozers and two Apache helicopters, in the refugee camp, which they said were targeting houses.

This is called a military incursion into Palestinian lands against terrorists. As clearly described in the above, a brigade of tanks with bulldozers were entering the refugee camp, going after the homes of known terrorists in Gaza. The article also describes they did destroy the home of Saafin, and likely many others.

 

[Sharkfood]

usnewslink.com also clearly explains this behavior from Israel. It's nothing new and has been publicized on international television from IDF itself as well.

Since June 2002, the Israeli army has destroyed more than 150 houses belonging to Palestinians allegedly involved in attacks

 

[kyleb]

so where was the "convicted" part?