Jimmy Carter's Op-Ed On Gaza War

[Procrustes Stretched]

If they took military control via coup, why are the citizens responsible for their military actions - missile attacks?

Thanks for saying I'm not a racist, I appreciate it.

no problem.


now...

As a whole the people of the GAZA support the attacks. This cannot be disputed or at least it could not have been disputed before Israel said 'enough is enough'.

Israel is not overreacting in my view, but I see how others think the opposite. I see it as a synchronicity of events...elections/domestic concerns/defense policy differences within/public outcry...and this combination has forced the iron fist of defensive military action.

Israel has resisted and I understand where Jimmy Carter is coming from, but Jimmy Carter is a good man who is not being attacked. I don't think Carter would take his holy approach if he were President and we were being attacked.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The majority of the civilians supported the military actions of HAMAS before the Israeli reply...do you deny this?

Lets ask the civilians who are in the crosshairs?

Oh yeah we cant talk to them because the current government of Israel wont let anyone in to talk to them or help them and they are all dirty Palis anyway huh?

enough with the screeching, please.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the civilians wouldnt be in the crosshairs had Hamas not PUT them there

you would have a bit of credibility if you would place the blame on Hamas

toothy-mouthy and credibility? surely you jest?

 

[DiveCon]

toothy-mouthy and credibility? surely you jest?

i know
LOL

 

[pfife]

Israel is not overreacting in my view, but I see how others think the opposite. I see it as a synchronicity of events...elections/domestic concerns/defense policy differences within/public outcry...and this combination has forced the iron fist of defensive military action.

I definitely think they're overreacting, but as I've said I do believe they have the right to defend themselves, but I also believe at some point, the overreaction becomes something other than defense.

Self defense, in the area of criminal law, entitles one to use as much force as necessary to stop the attacks - and no more. Going beyond the amount of force to stop the attack becomes a crime, and is no longer self defense.

Is this much force necessary to stop the missiles? I guess I don't know 100% certainly, and I would contend that none of us probably do know certainly, but it sure seems like overkill (literally) to me. Now I understand this is obviously not in the jurisdiction of criminal law, but my pov is that the principle is applicable.

This is definitely a confluence of a large number of events....

 

[DiveCon]

I definitely think they're overreacting, but as I've said I do believe they have the right to defend themselves, but I also believe at some point, the overreaction becomes something other than defense.

Self defense, in the area of criminal law, entitles one to use as much force as necessary to stop the attacks - and no more. Going beyond the amount of force to stop the attack becomes a crime, and is no longer self defense.

Is this much force necessary to stop the missiles? I guess I don't know 100% certainly, and I would contend that none of us probably do know certainly, but it sure seems like overkill (literally) to me. Now I understand this is obviously not in the jurisdiction of criminal law, but my pov is that the principle is applicable.

This is definitely a confluence of a large number of events....

so, even with the current force Israel is using, it hasnt stopped the attacks, so should Israel now INCREASE that level of force?

 

[pfife]

so, even with the current force Israel is using, it hasnt stopped the attacks, so should Israel now INCREASE that level of force?

I concur with your assessment of how ineffective these incursions are. Clearly they aren't stopping the missiles, but they certainly have the right to try to stop them.

Yes, they clearly should use more force.

 

[DiveCon]

I concur with your assessment of how ineffective these incursions are. Clearly they aren't stopping the missiles, but they certainly have the right to try to stop them.

Yes, they clearly should use more force.

maybe they would if the fools didnt fall for the Hamas propaganda, like you and several others have been spouting on here

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I definitely think they're overreacting, but as I've said I do believe they have the right to defend themselves, but I also believe at some point, the overreaction becomes something other than defense.

Self defense, in the area of criminal law, entitles one to use as much force as necessary to stop the attacks - and no more. Going beyond the amount of force to stop the attack becomes a crime, and is no longer self defense.

you have framed Israel's actions wrongly. Israel is trying to make sure HAMAS is NOT rearmed. Where is your moral argument about the rearming that is what will escalate this next time to maybe horrific proportions?

Israel is not trying to go back to the fragile cease fire unless...

Is this much force necessary to stop the missiles? I guess I don't know 100% certainly, and I would contend that none of us probably do know certainly, but it sure seems like overkill (literally) to me. Now I understand this is obviously not in the jurisdiction of criminal law, but my pov is that the principle is applicable.

This is definitely a confluence of a large number of events....

your principles leave much to be desired on this issue.

I really admire Israel for it's patience and people like Carter count on the morality and ethics of Israeli society to forge any and all agreements. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Carter has written on it.

every thing in context civilized people can disagree on whether Israel's actions are overkill, but there should be no argument that they are within their rights to take it as far as they have,,,and further. Why? because the GAZA is not a state entity and is being armed by others with the sole intent of murderously targeting Israeli civilians.

 

[pfife]

maybe they would if the fools didnt fall for the Hamas propaganda, like you and several others have been spouting on here

My pov is derived from my knowledge of American criminal law, not Hamas propaganda.

 

[DiveCon]

My pov is derived from my knowledge of American criminal law, not Hamas propaganda.

well, no wonder you are so confused
American criminal law has NOTHING to do with this

 

[pfife]

well, no wonder you are so confused
American criminal law has NOTHING to do with this

I already stated that. My POV is DERIVED from criminal law.

www.rif.org

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My pov is derived from my knowledge of American criminal law, not Hamas propaganda.

American law civil or criminal is not relevant here. Not even apples and oranges...more animal and mineral.

 

[pfife]

As a whole the people of the GAZA support the attacks. This cannot be disputed or at least it could not have been disputed before Israel said 'enough is enough'.

In your opinion, does this mean, as a whole, the people of Gaza deserve the attacks from Israel?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I already stated that. My POV is DERIVED from criminal law.

Welcome to Reading Is Fundamental

up to now you've avoided addressing the two major questions I've asked. Why?

 

[DiveCon]

I already stated that. My POV is DERIVED from criminal law.

Welcome to Reading Is Fundamental

you shouldnt have edited your post
you fucked it up

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

taken together:

Is Israel targeting civilians?

Is Israel attacking civilians?

 

[pfife]

American law civil or criminal is not relevant here. Not even apples and oranges...more animal and mineral.

Dude, c'mon. I already said that in a message to you, sheesh!

Now I understand this is obviously not in the jurisdiction of criminal law, but my pov is that the principle is applicable.

 

[pfife]

up to now you've avoided addressing the two major questions I've asked. Why?

which questions?

 

[pfife]

taken together:

Is Israel targeting civilians?

Is Israel attacking civilians?

Are these the questions? I've said this a bunch of times dude!

No, they're not targeting civilians. *You know* I've said the deaths are unintentional many times!

And Yes, they're attacking civilians. They may not intend to do so, but they are. The question is, is it justified? Clearly we disagree!