The saga of the olive trees

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Sadly, that is not the argument tomjoe made.

Sauron,

You. Are. A. Dipshit.

Originally Posted by Sauron

Let's review:

Yes, lets.

Post 5 of this thread

Originally Posted by TomJoe, that's me

I agree that this should not happen, and that if it's not a direct means to kill off a population, it has similar long-term intentions.

And

Post 9 of this thread.

Originally Posted by TomJoe, that's me again

One could very well argue that the destruction of these trees is a long-term attempt at killing off a Palestinian presence in the area.

So, now ... what was my point Sauron? Do you think you can get it right now? Now that my opinion, consistently presented in this thread, is condensed to two soundbytes in one post? It's not hard to do.

Originally Posted by Sauron

1. Tom tried to classify this as "tree vandalism", and then set up a bogus morality-based comparison. By downplaying the severity of this destruction, he wanted to paint a more stark difference between (a) the destruction of the trees and (b) terrorism.

Idjit. I didn't classify it as "tree vandalism". One of the articles you quoted did. That I used a term consistent with your own sources, and that you'd object to it ... is baffling. But this seems to be par for the course with you.

ETA: Also, these are your own words ...

Originally Posted by Sauron, yes that's you

... these acts of vandalism are just as damaging ...

Impressive, that you can sit there and claim you're not talking out of both sides of your mouth ... and maybe you're not. Maybe you're talking out of your mouth and your ass.

Originally Posted by Sauron

Please try to keep up.

Follow your own advice.

[ManM]

If we can justify the targeting of innocents as a necessary military tactic by a less powerful force, can we likewise justify the targeting of innocents as a necessary military tactic by a more powerful force?

Surely, a greater military force could also strike at the "center of gravity" of their enemies through genocide. So, if we are to accept the rationale of terrorists, can we also accept the rationale of folks who want to kill all of the Palestinians?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

The vandals at least are responsible for crimes against the Palestinians. One could very well argue that the destruction of these trees is a long-term attempt at killing off a Palestinian presence in the area.

Not saying it's an ideal solution (it's not), but it's certainly better IMO than running off and killing innocents in bookstores, or restaurants, or buses.

BTW: For the record, I said "shoot at", not "shoot and kill". It's pretty easy to shoot and miss. I would be surprised if many vandals, having been "shot at" would return in the near future to make another attempt.

Yeah... What's the deal with these Palestinians, anyway. Don't they know how to load shotgun shells with rock salt?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by ManM

If we can justify the targeting of innocents as a necessary military tactic by a less powerful force, can we likewise justify the targeting of innocents as a necessary military tactic by a more powerful force?

Yes, we can. And, we do, sadly. Neither is moral, in my book.

Surely, a greater military force could also strike at the "center of gravity" of their enemies through genocide. So, if we are to accept the rationale of terrorists, can we also accept the rationale of folks who want to kill all of the Palestinians?

This is not "genocide", it's a struggle for territorial hegemony through terror and destruction.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Yeah... What's the deal with these Palestinians, anyway. Don't they know how to load shotgun shells with rock salt?

Sarcasm, eh godfry?

Regardless, I think one could reasonably argue that defense of ones livelihood/life, if that meant taking a life which threatened that livelihood/life, is a moral position. Not an ideal* means to an end, especially in that part of the world, but is logical and reasonable position.

*I think scare tactics would prove useful (nevermind a bit more security of the olive tree groves ... possible no?), and would be a better option. The best option is bringing it to the attention of the public and forcing these vandal/settlers out, once and for all.

[Sauron]

Sadly, that is not the argument tomjoe made.

Sauron,

You. Are. A. Dipshit.

Ah. Ad homs so early?

Done here.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by ManM

If we can justify the targeting of innocents as a necessary military tactic by a less powerful force,

No one used the word "justification". You and TomJoe seem to be stuck on that word.

So, if we are to accept the rationale of terrorists, can we also accept the rationale of folks who want to kill all of the Palestinians?

The point of my post was to:

1. explain why attempts by greater military powers to cloak themselves in moral authority when fighting terrorism are ultimately hypocritical;

2. show that such tactics are militarily sound and historically frequent

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Ah. Ad homs so early?

No, just an insult. It would have to be part of a logical argument for it to be an ad hominem fallacy. Sorry if it looks like I'm being pedantic, I just think the common misuse of that term does a real disservice to the goal of educating people on principles of logical argumentation.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Ah. Ad homs so early?

Done here.

Translation: I read the rest of TomJoe's post, saw that he handed me my ass, and I'm taking the most convenient out I can think of.

I pwn you Sauron, you're my bitch. So yes, we're done here.

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Done here.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

So yes, we're done here.

I hope not. I just got the popcorn ready.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

I hope not. I just got the popcorn ready.

Sorry Sock Puppet. It's plainly obvious that Sauron does not read posts carefully. It's also plainly obvious that he sets standards for others that he himself doesn't subscribe to. It's an intellectually bankrupt position to attack someone for referring to something as "vandalism", saying they're trivializing the situation (which I did not do, I specifically called it a longterm attempt at killing off the Palestinian presence in the area ... not what I'd call trivializing in the slightest) when at least one of the articles he quoted used the phrase, and he himself used it too! And it's not as if he used the term "vandalism" in reply to anyone else ... he used it in the OP!

So, either Sauron is an idiot who can't remember what he wrote, or he's a hypocrite. In either case, continuing the discussion with him would be pointless. Now, I realize we all make mistakes from time to time, I've done it myself ... though I'm not sure I've done it to this degree. All he need admit is that he was wrong for attacking me on the "vandalism" comment in an attempt to trivialize the Palestinian plight. He won't do that though, I'm convinced of it.

[Sauron]

Let's review:[/b]

Yes, lets.

Post 5 of this thread

And

Post 9 of this thread.

So, now ... what was my point Sauron? Do you think you can get it right now? Now that my opinion, consistently presented in this thread, is condensed to two soundbytes in one post? It's not hard to do.

1. As I review this thread it appears that I jumped too quickly and didn't read you carefully enough before responding. I didn't connect the dots on your syringe argument. That was my fault for being too hasty.

2. I was not, contrary to your claim, trying to justify terrorism here - a charge that I am particularly sensitive to, since it frequently gets leveled at me since 9/11 whenever I participate in such discussions. I was merely explaining cause & effect; hence the Clausewitz reference. I notice that you did not retract that accusation, however; oh well, what's a little slander here and there?

3. As for the ensuing diarrhea accusing me of holding inconsistent intellectual standards, talking out of both sides, etc. that strikes me as nothing more than a grudge you've been nursing for a long time. Both you and liv ought to know me better than that by now. If not, then you can both put me on ignore for all I care. And if that doesn't give you enough of a thrill, I can suggest other things.

4. Sockpuppet, I'll give you a refund on your popcorn.

[Sauron]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/669210.html

Rolling their eyes
By Haaretz Editorial

It is difficult to know what eventually led the government to discuss the chopping down of Palestinian olive trees by thugs from the settlements. Perhaps it was the media coverage, or the change of guard at the head of the cabinet table. Or maybe it was the complaints filed by the Yesh Din human rights organization on behalf of the Palestinian victims that ended up on the table of the attorney general, or the fact that the chopping down of olive trees - as opposed to other injustices done in the territories - is perceived by the public as an absolute evil, without extenuating circumstances.

On Sunday, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert condemned the action, but added that he was "not familiar with its origins." But on Tuesday, the head of the Shin Bet security service revealed that his organization had handed over a list of tree-choppers from among the settlers to the army and police. However, these two entities were "rolling their eyes" and not doing anything about it.

The chopping down of olive trees by state representatives, just like the appropriation of private agricultural land and the exploitation of every inch of non-private ground for the purpose of expanding the settlements, is a routine matter in the territories. The difference between the injustice caused by the state authorities and the damage done independently by groups of settlers lies in the fact that the latter is an indication of the depth of anarchy and abandonment that characterizes the way of life of the settlers in the territories.
[...]
In most instances in which a settler is caught vandalizing Palestinian property or physically harming a Palestinian, he is released from custody almost immediately, his personal weapon is returned to him, and he goes back to being a threat to his neighbors and proof that filing a police complaint does not pay. And it is not just a matter of the chopping down of trees, but also the vandalizing of property, disturbing farmers who are trying to work their land, and setting fire to agricultural plots, as well as physical attacks.

The Yesha Council is the settler organization:

Settlers have chopped down thousands of olive trees - more than 2,000 according to the defense minister's count - since April, and all the Yesha Council had to say about it was that it could be provocation. A response such as this from an institutionalized settler body is an indication that these are not the actions of a group of renegades or loose cannons, but ideological vandalism backed by the settlers and the authorities. The awakening of the government and attorney general, who said the Palestinian victims should receive compensation, is late and unconvincing. It is difficult to believe that such talk will lead to indictments.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Again: this is why bombs go off in Israel: because this kind of injustice goes on, and the Jewish authorities are complicit.

It's the same anywhere that isn't completely under the gun of a fascist dictatorship. If somebody is fucking with you, like burning down your shit, assaulting your people, and looting your business, and the government doesn't do anything to stop it, then people will fight back.

And if they are in a fascist state where no guns are allowed, it will be bombs.