Terrorism of Zionism

[mike435]

ramin that would be true because talking is lot easier than action and plus many times you want to exagerate your objective so you can arrive at good place

but you dont do that with a strong group group like hammas who has capabilities.

i will start responding to our main discussion.

[zubin]

ramin that would be true because talking is lot easier than action and plus many times you want to exagerate your objective so you can arrive at good place

but you dont do that with a strong group group like hammas who has capabilities.

i will start responding to our main discussion.

It's up to you. You don't have to continue the discussion if you don't want to. But please try to read my points carefully or ask me if you're unsure. Mostly what I did was ask you to clarify some assumptions behind your arguments.

But first, can I ask you what your goal is for discussing with me?

[donsaeid]

بر اساس نتايج يك نظرسنجي

اكثريت صهيونيست*ها موافق شكنجه هستند



نتايج يك نظرسنجي نشان داد در حالي كه اكثريت مردم جهان مخالف شكنجه هستند، صهيونيست*ها موافق شكنجه و از اين حيث در رتبه اول قرار دارند.



بر اساس يك نظرسنجي جهاني كه اخيرا انجام شد، صهيونيست ها در نگاه مثبت خود نسبت به مسئله شكنجه در رتبه اول قرار دارند.
اين نظرسنجي كه با حضور 27 هزار سوال شونده از 25 كشور جهان انجام شد، نشان داد كه اكثريت مردم جهان مخالف شكنجه هستند، حتي اگر با هدف دستيابي به اطلاعاتي براي جلوگيري از كشته شدن افراد بي*گناه (غيرنظاميان) در عمليات هاي تروريستي باشد.
در حالي كه 59 درصد مردم جهان مخالف توسل به شكنجه هستند، 53 درصد از صهيونيست*ها مسئله شكنجه را تاييد مي كنند.
بر اساس اين نظرسنجي، 81 درصد از مردم ايتاليا مخالفت خود را با هر گونه اعمال شكنجه اعلام كردند كه با توجه به اين امر روشن مي شود كه مردم ايتاليا در ميان شركت كنندگان 25 كشور، بيشترين مخالفت را با مسئله شكنجه دارند.

جدول زير نتايج نظرسنجي اخير را نشان مي*دهد:

كشور موافق مخالف

رژيم صهيونيستي 53 درصد 39درصد

عراق 42درصد 55درصد

نيجريه 39درصد 49درصد

روسيه 37درصد 43درصد

آمريكا 36 درصد 58درصد

مصر 25درصد 62درصد

انگليس 24درصد 72درصد

آلمان 21 درصد 71درصد

فرانسه 19درصد 75درصد

اسپانيا 16درصد 65درصد

ايتاليا 14درصد 81درصد

[zubin]

ramin that would be true because talking is lot easier than action and plus many times you want to exagerate your objective so you can arrive at good place

but you dont do that with a strong group group like hammas who has capabilities.

What do Hamas "capabilities" have to do with your literal and permanent interpretation of Hamas' mandate?

[mike435]

What do Hamas "capabilities" have to do with your literal and permanent interpretation of Hamas' mandate?

what do you mean you give attention to people who can deliver

if hamas has the capability of being able to deliver what they preach you want to engage theme.

and you morilay and especialy have to do this when this group is going after life.

regardless of what hamas stands for wether good or bad i dont care if they go after life for the sake of taking life away it would be moraliy wrong to stop them.

also going back to the question
hamas's capabilitys means they can say what they want to say.(which isnt nessarliy a bad thing). That is why if they are capable and they have the power they will be less concentration on what they can say.

[zubin]

what do you mean you give attention to people who can deliver

if hamas has the capability of being able to deliver what they preach you want to engage theme.

They have the capability to fully destroy Israel?

and you morilay and especialy have to do this when this group is going after life.

But there are two problems here. One is the issue of double standards. If Israel is no moral saint herself, then how does she justify violence based on moral issues?

Another problem is an assumption. "Going after and stopping" is very vague. I can stop someone from hurting me by taking them into my torture chamber and slowly mutilating every inch of their body. But if there was the prospect of stopping this person with negotiation and understanding their perspective, then clearly this option would have been better.

regardless of what hamas stands for wether good or bad i dont care if they go after life for the sake of taking life away it would be moraliy wrong to stop them.

Any kind of stopping? What about kidnapping Hamas leaders and then bringing them into my torture chamber so we can set their various organs on fire while they scream? How about stopping them by bombing both them and innocent people around them? How is that justified? Why not blow up the how Middle East except for Israel? That would stop them as well wouldn't it?

[mike435]

They have the capability to fully destroy Israel??

No they do not, but they have enogh of power to be able to kill isralis for that it is enogh to take theme seriously. Now i know the avrage drunk also has capibility of murdaring but hamas can do one after another there would be not stop.

But there are two problems here. One is the issue of double standards. If Israel is no moral saint herself, then how does she justify violence based on moral issues??

let me ask do you belive that their is a line were tolarance can no longer be used and to survive you have to unfortanitly assort to violance, maybe this why hamas is doing what it is doing becuase they cant achive what they want to achive throgh non violant ways(and by the way they will never achive their objective of raising the banner of allah all over palstine and se the destruction of israel throgh non violant ways), this is what israel is facing
threat on their life is important of a threat to react violantly to protact and save it.
maybe the question should be is what hamas going after moral?
i was wondering if you had read their charter,
and daboul standards of israel not being a saint, i dont know how to answer you on this, you are right i it might be daboul standared, but if theri wasnt a dabould standard would that all of a suddent make hamas in to gandi? aslo can you tell me were their is daboul standard, i mean i see what you mean i come here and i say hamas should not use violance and yet i defends israel right to violance, this is not hypocrocy, and this is why, if HAMAS were to stop using violance things would stop and israel would also put down its wepon, but if israel were to stop hamas would not put down its wepon, this is the ultra critical important thing.

Another problem is an assumption. "Going after and stopping" is very vague. I can stop someone from hurting me by taking them into my torture chamber and slowly mutilating every inch of their body. But if there was the prospect of stopping this person with negotiation and understanding their perspective, then clearly this option would have been better. ?

look i am talking in general the defeanding can take anyfoarm and that is to be worked out but what i am saying is that it is imoral not to defend your self

Any kind of stopping? What about kidnapping Hamas leaders and then bringing them into my torture chamber so we can set their various organs on fire while they scream? How about stopping them by bombing both them and innocent people around them? How is that justified? Why not blow up the how Middle East except for Israel? That would stop them as well wouldn't it?

I hate defending tourture and justifying the death of innocance i hate it i and hate it alot non the less i will do it in hope that you will especialy write back on what i am aabout to say,

what is the job of a socioty? What do all sociotys have in common?
they are engaged in Utilitarianism.
and that is what israel is doing, it is doing what sociotys job is to be utilitarian,

[zubin]

No they do not, but they have enogh of power to be able to kill isralis for that it is enogh to take theme seriously. Now i know the avrage drunk also has capibility of murdaring but hamas can do one after another there would be not stop.

how does this relate to literal and permanent interpretation of Hamas' mandate?

let me ask do you belive that their is a line were tolarance can no longer be used and to survive you have to unfortanitly assort to violance, maybe this why hamas is doing what it is doing becuase they cant achive what they want to achive throgh non violant ways(and by the way they will never achive their objective of raising the banner of allah all over palstine and se the destruction of israel throgh non violant ways), this is what israel is facing
threat on their life is important of a threat to react violantly to protact and save it.
maybe the question should be is what hamas going after moral?
i was wondering if you had read their charter,
and daboul standards of israel not being a saint, i dont know how to answer you on this, you are right i it might be daboul standared, but if theri wasnt a dabould standard would that all of a suddent make hamas in to gandi? aslo can you tell me were their is daboul standard, i mean i see what you mean i come here and i say hamas should not use violance and yet i defends israel right to violance, this is not hypocrocy, and this is why, if HAMAS were to stop using violance things would stop and israel would also put down its wepon, but if israel were to stop hamas would not put down its wepon, this is the ultra critical important thing.

The point is that Israel doesn't have a very strong moral argument against Palestinians, and not a strong enough one against Hamas. If you're not a moral saint, you can't ask others to be.

So let me ask you again: What is the justification for not recognizing Hamas? Sum up your reasons and argument if you can so we can analyze them. You may have answered this question before, but now you can answer it with either a stronger view about Israel's moral justification, or on some alternative basis which you may have also implied, or regarding a combination of justifications.

look i am talking in general the defeanding can take anyfoarm and that is to be worked out but what i am saying is that it is imoral not to defend your self

But what constitutes "defending yourself"? How about killing every other person on earth? That would be a defense of your life, but it is fully immoral. Therefore, so far your argument is that both defending yourself and not defending yourself is immoral.

I'm not saying you can't clarify to make it all make sense, but just that there are a lot of unexamined assumptions in your argument. At least, you're an honest person. And that's hard to find on this topic because most people would rather mouth off stupid propaganda than actually try to argue logically.

I hate defending tourture and justifying the death of innocance i hate it i and hate it alot non the less i will do it in hope that you will especialy write back on what i am aabout to say,

what is the job of a socioty? What do all sociotys have in common?
they are engaged in Utilitarianism.
and that is what israel is doing, it is doing what sociotys job is to be utilitarian,

When examining pure Utilitarianism, it is exposed as an immoral, unjustified and cold-blooded theory. To kill a few for the sake of a great number is very vague and reletative. The crucial question a utilitarian must respond to is if really there is no other way to save a great number than the path being taken, i.e. both Palestinian numbers and Israelis given the path taken. For instance, if Israel ceded some of its land to Palestinians, then both lives on the Palestinian side and Israeli side would be gained and not lost on that territory. This seems to contradict the notion that Israel's method is actually doing any greater good for anyone.

In general, any utilitarian theory applied to society must ask if their punishments against people work, and whether they are justified. Most societies have shown that the answer to both these questions is a flat-out- No.

Punishment doesn't work to modify behavior. What works is the combination of humanitarianism, including forgiveness, and deterrence. Something else that works is positive reinforcement. But punishment, at least in its current form, including that of the West's and Israel's prediliction, simply does not work.

[zubin]

And neither is it justified. Everyone human being has good and righteousness in them and their immoral behavior comes from uncertainty and strife. Every human being is in a sense innocent. Therefore, though showing people the way is justified, which can include a deterrent aspect among the more humanitarian features, purely punishing people is unjustified.

[mike435]

how does this relate to literal and permanent interpretation of Hamas' mandate?.

look this questio has come up again i dont undarstand it why dont you lead by example. answer it how it does not or does doesnt matter.
or just state what relates to literal andpermanent interpatation of hamas

If you're not a moral saint, you can't ask others to be.

lets not use this kind of an excuse this a a very low point and if you use this you can turn back and say israel is even more justified to go after hamas the way it does because hamas is even more imoral and infact israel can be more brutal because they are not as imoral as hamas.

Also israel is not "after the palastinian". What it is saying to the palastinians is chill put terorisom down and get your land" that is what israel wants of the palastinians. THe israeli sociotey knowes it better than anyone that they need a palastinian state next door. and israelis are willing to give this up.

So let me ask you again: What is the justification for not recognizing Hamas? Sum up your reasons and argument if you can so we can analyze them. You may have answered this question before, but now you can answer it with either a stronger view about Israel's moral justification, or on some alternative basis which you may have also implied, or regarding a combination of justifications..

I cant belive you are asking this of me again? there are somany reasons i can list why dont you lit me the most strongest reasons why israel should and i will debate those this will save us time and uneccessary talk


i gtg i will respond to the rest later

[zubin]

look this questio has come up again i dont undarstand it why dont you lead by example. answer it how it does not or does doesnt matter.
or just state what relates to literal andpermanent interpatation of hamas

My point a few posts ago was that a literal and permanent interpretation of Hamas is full of assumptions. And even stated a variety of these assumptions to you in the form of questions. You responded by saying that Hamas' capability to kill Israelis justifies the literal and permanent interpretation.

But you gave no reason for how the one relates to the other. How does Hamas' capability to kill Israelis relate to a literal interpretation of their mandate? You simply avoided giving any logical reason for why a literal and permanent interpretation of Hamas' mandate is justified, as it in no way follows from the notion of Hamas' capability.

The onus of justification is on you, because you have made a claim. You have stated that Hamas' mandate should be interpreted literally and permanently, and so you have to give a reason. I actually gave scientifically supported reasons why this interpretation is not justified, but I don't need to repeat them because you have made the claim, and you must back up your claim with facts and logic. You used a fact so far, but you made absolutely no logical connection between Hamas' capability and a literal and permanent interpretation. It just looks like a convenient way to escape the issue.

lets not use this kind of an excuse this a a very low point and if you use this you can turn back and say israel is even more justified to go after hamas the way it does because hamas is even more imoral and infact israel can be more brutal because they are not as imoral as hamas.

How is Israel less immoral than Hamas? How is depriving a population of their homeland, stripping a homeland away, exodus, targetting civilians, collateral damage- which are all things in Israel's portfolio- better than what Hamas is doing? Please give an answer to this Mike and don't evade responsibility to back up your pronouncements.

I cant belive you are asking this of me again? there are somany reasons i can list why dont you lit me the most strongest reasons why israel should and i will debate those this will save us time and uneccessary talk.

Your answers are full of undiscussed assumptions. If I say birds can fly because they have wings, it's not enough. Some birds have wings and can't fly. I am simply pointing out how your premises- the foundation to your arguments - do not lead to your conclusions necessarily. You may be right, or you may be wrong. What's clear now is that you sometimes don't care if your argument is full of assumptions and does not follow.

[mike435]

many say one way to avoid alzimers is by excersizing the mined
and you have put my brain on a treadmill and have maximized all the settings
for that i thank you

i am at work on my break

[zubin]

You don't have to answer if this is too much at the moment. At the least, we can agree to discuss this some time in the future. Or ofcourse, we can advance the discussion as we have been doing already.

The real question for me is if anyone is going to give us more rep points! (I think we deserve it)

But ofcourse, I will respond to new comments if there will be any.

Ramin

[mike435]

How does Hamas' capability to kill Israelis relate to a literal interpretation of their mandate? You simply avoided giving any logical reason for why a literal and permanent interpretation of Hamas' mandate is justified, as it in no way follows from the notion of Hamas' capability..

You have stated that Hamas' mandate should be interpreted literally and permanently, and so you have to give a reason. ..

its is simple wether it makes sence or not i dont care, it will be up to you to disprove me, and i welcome it.
hams is an evil terrrorist group as simple as that.
Because they are a terrorist group i dont accept them, and because of that when they preach peace i wont take it seriously and when they preach death and destruction and excersize hate towardes me i will take it very seriouly. call it a daboul standard but thats what a terrorist group is it is not worthy of trust.
Now its interpatarion what do you need to intipet
kidnaping of soldire, intentional killing of civilian, intentional attack of life, intentional blowing up of busses these are all interpetations i use to conclude that hamas is a terrorist group.

i will not talke about this anymore i cant even belive i have been talking about it this long.

HAMAS does some nobal things like take care of the people in palasteine but that is i think just so they can get power and legitamacy in the palastinian and arab circle.


I actually gave scientifically supported reasons why this interpretation is not justified, but I don't need to repeat them because you have made the claim, and you must back up your claim with facts and logic. You used a fact so far, but you made absolutely no logical connection between Hamas' capability and a literal and permanent interpretation. It just looks like a convenient way to escape the issue. ..[/QUOTE]

How is Israel less immoral than Hamas? How is depriving a population of their homeland, stripping a homeland away, exodus, targetting civilians, collateral damage- which are all things in Israel's portfolio- better than what Hamas is doing? Please give an answer to this Mike and don't evade responsibility to back up your pronouncements. .

it wont make a diffrance wether i say it or not but here it goes

israel does not intentioaly kill civilians
israel does occupy palastinian teretory but it is willing to give it back in exchange for peace you dont see that on the other side
israel gives right to all its citizens with in her

Your answers are full of undiscussed assumptions. If I say birds can fly because they have wings, it's not enough. Some birds have wings and can't fly. I am simply pointing out how your premises- the foundation to your arguments - do not lead to your conclusions necessarily. You may be right, or you may be wrong. What's clear now is that you sometimes don't care if your argument is full of assumptions and does not follow.

considering the above

Ramin what do you see HAMAS as? i dont care about anyone else i want to know what you see hamas as?

[zubin]

it will be up to you to disprove me, and i welcome it.

I'm not here to disprove you. I've shown that your argument is one-sided and does not follow from the facts your bring up however.

hams is an evil terrrorist group as simple as that.

That's not an argument. That's called propaganda. Anyone can say everyone else is a terrorist. But you have to give coherent reasons for why one group should be singled out while another not included. And you have continuously contradicted yourself in doing just that.

Because they are a terrorist group i dont accept them, and because of that when they preach peace i wont take it seriously and when they preach death and destruction and excersize hate towardes me i will take it very seriouly. call it a daboul standard but thats what a terrorist group is it is not worthy of trust.

Your only reasoning is that Hamas is a terrorist group. But you have not established that Hamas is any more of a terrorist group than Israel.

Now its interpatarion what do you need to intipet
kidnaping of soldire, intentional killing of civilian, intentional attack of life, intentional blowing up of busses these are all interpetations i use to conclude that hamas is a terrorist group.

Ramin what do you see HAMAS as? i dont care about anyone else i want to know what you see hamas as?

Israel had done these actions in the past and continues to do them. To come into power, some founders of Israel intentionally killed Palestinian civilians. For a long time now, Israel has intentionally used disproportionate force for the sake of deterrence, which is tantamout to the targeting of civilians while also targetting Palestinian officials.

Also, I admitted that Hamas has at times targetted civilians a little more explicitly than Israel. But this does not make Hamas a terrorist and get Israel off the hook. Israel's past is terrorist, it has continuously used disproportionate force that is tantamount to the inclusion of civilians in its targets. Plus, Israel does many other acts that are terrorizing, such as occupation and oppression. The people that have experienced these actions of Israel call Israel's actions terrorist and there is no reason why their definition is worse than yours.

There's honestly no benefit in denying the extent of Israel's past and current terrorizing actions. Right when a person stops denying these truths, the whole definition of terrorism falls apart.

There are other reasons why the term 'terrorist' should be discarded. One reason is that the definition you provided would make Israel, Ireland, and the US, among other countries, terrorist countries. Another reason is that there is no need to use the term terrorism. It takes away from objectivity. Objectively, what you call a terrorist is actually a human being that feels subjectively oppressed, responsible, righteous, while making plans of strategic violence against a country, including its civilians, that they feel is illegitimate, abusive and untrustworthy. Though many of their actions may be wrong, they are what they are, not 'terrorists'. There is no need to add anything extra to what they are.

In other words, be objective. Say Hamas is an organization that X, Y, Z, and include all its elements in its definition. Hamas can not be solely a terrorist group while also being a humanitarian group. That's simply contradictory, illogical and unnecessary.

HAMAS does some nobal things like take care of the people in palasteine but that is i think just so they can get power and legitamacy in the palastinian and arab circle.

Whatever the reason, this makes the definition of Hamas more complex than simply a terrorist group.

wether it makes sence or not i dont care