Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

In case there was any doubt: Israel's story full of holes

This post has 212 Replies | 16 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 266
Points 4,040

bloomj31:

"I hope that Iran starts nuking Israel."

I think that's exactly what Iran intends to do so you might just get your wish.

 

 

They are no less irrational then the israeli state. Iran will not nuke Israel because then Israel will probably nuke Iran and maybe the entire middle east. Iran is getting a nuke to act as a deterrent against aggressive U.S and Israeli intervention in all its forms. 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 2:31 PM

Yes. This is funny. It is never even bantered whether nations are acquiring nukes for defensive purposes. But of course, that's why we have them.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 2:45 PM

Rulers with nuclear weapons and particular beliefs about the afterlife should perhaps be a concern...

But rulers with nuclear weapons and permanently on a war path should probably be a greater concern.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 2:49 PM

They are no less irrational then the israeli state. Iran will not nuke Israel because then Israel will probably nuke Iran and maybe the entire middle east. Iran is getting a nuke to act as a deterrent against aggressive U.S and Israeli intervention in all its forms.

Take it easy on the Bill O'Reilly Factor. There is no evidence Iran is getting nukes. Unless you know something we don't.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 266
Points 4,040

XD 

I don't profess to know anything about Iran's nuclear capability that you don't. I was merely pointing out what is likely to happen should Iran acquire Nuclear Weapons (imo). 

 

 

Marko:
But rulers with nuclear weapons and permanently on a war path should probably be a greater concern.

So I take it Marko that you are quite concerned about the U.S and Israel? 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 3:41 PM

The US is floating the idea of using tactical nukes against Iran and going on about how it is "not taking the nuclear option off the table". I don't think they are actually going to do it, but there is certainly a bigger possibility of the US throwing atomic bombs around than anyone else.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 266
Points 4,040

Agreed. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 6:35 PM

Lol, of course I'm biased.  So what?

I know who the enemy is and I know that in war  there are no rules, you've just gotta win.  

I'm a trained Jiu Jitsu fighter, the first rule in a fight is don't lose the second rule is win.

In this case, Hamas and Iran are the enemy.  They must be defeated I don't really give a damn how.

The rest of you guys can worry about right and wrong, I'll worry about the rules of the game and what they say Israel and everyone else is allowed to do.  In this case, Israel is allowed to stop and search ships outside of its waters and kill anyone who tries to stop them.  Until someone with bigger authority than the US says otherwise, them's the rules.  The UN also has the authority to sanction Iran.  Iran will probably refuse the sanctions at which point it's entirely possible the UN Security Council will give the green light to attack Iran.  I don't really know yet.

"Btw, with regards to what is legal, wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say, might makes right? Do you really care what is legal? What would be your verdict when law in one country is  in conflict with another? I think you just happen to being using what is legal in this instance because you know you can't justify what israel did on any other grounds."

I have said might makes legal right, read the thread.  Yes I do.  Which country has more power?  There is no other required justification.  Moral justification is an afterthought.  It's the reason there's a thread about dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the bombs got dropped anyways.  

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 6:45 PM

bloomj31:
The rest of you guys can worry about right and wrong, I'll worry about the rules of the game
So... is winning "right"? Your-rules-of the-game is a semantic ploy to try and worm your way out of ethics.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 6:50 PM

bloomj31:

"The only reasonable explanation is that the Israelis killed a few civilians to get the rest to surrender;"

So why is it that only 9 people were killed and all those nine people were on board the one ship where the "peaceful activists" attacked the IDF while the five other ships were searched first without incident?  Clearly, these idiots provoked the IDF and so they got shot.  No one on any of the other five ships were harmed at all.  If the IDF had to kill a few "activists" on the ship where they were attacked to get the rest to calm down, who says they're not allowed to do that?

"It's difficult to imagine a plea of "self-defense" working in any standard murder trial where the alleged attacker was shot in the back."

When did you become an expert on criminal trials?  What legal standard are you going on that describes an optimal number of bullets to be used when eliminating an aggressive criminal or the optimal place to shoot said criminal?  

You've gotta put these things in context instead of cherry picking out facts and you need to show what the legal standards are here before you make assertions about what is and what is not an example of necessary force.

EDIT: The other thing that needs to be pointed out here is that the "activist" story doesn't add up.  They say they were shot at first but why didn't the IDF fire on any of the other ships?  I mean why did they suddenly become violent once they reached the last ship?  

Christ, you make me sick.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 6:52 PM

Snowflake:
bloomj31:
The rest of you guys can worry about right and wrong, I'll worry about the rules of the game
So... is winning "right"? Your-rules-of the-game is a semantic ploy to try and worm your way out of ethics.

[AD HOMINEM DELETED]

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 6:54 PM

No we've been over this before. [AD HOMINEM DELETED] He claims he's not interested in justifying himself. Fine. But he just tried to. Its funny because he can't do so without introducing moral vocabulary.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 7:34 PM

Snowflake:
No we've been over this before. He's a psychopath. He claims he's not interested in justifying himself. Fine. But he just tried to. Its funny because he can't do so without introducing moral vocabulary.

[AD HOMINEMS DELETED]

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 7:56 PM

So ignore me.  

You can call me any names you want, it means very little to me.  You can find me detestable, I don't give a damn.

"Is winning "right?"

Winning is what matters.  

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 8:03 PM

[AD HOMINEM DELETED]

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 8:07 PM

[LET'S NOT DREDGE UP OLD STUFF]

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 743
Points 11,795

Yeah I think you guys need to stop taking what bloom says so personally. I have the complete opposite views on him, I don't believe "might makes right" is the right thing to do for many reasons(since it makes things more dangerous for both sides involved). But I see where he's coming from in that currently thats how the world has been operating for a long time in a lot of different places.  

No reason to act like he's gonna bust into your house and take all of your belongings with Jiu Jutsu or something.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 8:19 PM

ationguy10:
No reason to act like he's gonna bust into your house and take all of your belongings with Jiu Jutsu or something.
he would if he could get away with it :)

And i dont like that all this anti-bloom emotion derailed what I said initially...

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 8:40 PM

auctionguy10:
No reason to act like he's gonna bust into your house and take all of your belongings with Jiu Jutsu or something.

No reason?  Are you sure?

And even if he doesn't, he'll laugh and cheer on the one who does.

auctionguy10:
But I see where he's coming from in that currently thats how the world has been operating for a long time in a lot of different places.

Yeah, we all see that point.  It's not under dispute.  But the rest of us deplore it, while bloomj31 thinks it's awesome.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 458
Points 6,985
gocrew replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 8:42 PM

bloomj31:
Winning is what matters.

[INSULT DELETED] Morality matters to people like us.

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 8:48 PM

"Morality matters to people like us."

Lol ok.  Good.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 167
Points 2,585

@ bloom

If winning is all that matters what is your purpose for aguing ethics?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 10:18 PM

"what is your purpose for aguing ethics?"

I'm not.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 167
Points 2,585

Maybe not this thread but their have been other threads where you claim some things are immoral at least in your eyes. Yet if winning is all that matters to you that's basically throwing any type of ethics out the window.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 10:31 PM

I have always said that morality is a secondary consideration for me.  But I have values. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 167
Points 2,585

But you had just said that winning is all that matters. If you say that, then your values must not affect your choices since your only goal is "winning".

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 10:37 PM

That doesn't make sense.  My values determine my desired ends.  The means I choose to pursue those ends are based primarily on what I think I have to do to achieve those ends and secondarily what I think the moral consequences may or may not be.  

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 10:42 PM

bloomj31:
"what is your purpose for aguing ethics?"

bloomj31:
I'm not.
You totally are. You say we can worry about whats moral but you play to win. I pointed out that to you, winning is in itself moral, and you are merely playing semantics trying to seperate, for example, "non aggression" from "being the last man standing".

Please don't pretend that you don't have ethics, no matter how distasteful to others they might be. And especially don't turn around and try to justify yourself, when we know you don't need to.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 10:43 PM

"I pointed out that to you, winning is in itself moral"

I place value on winning, yeah. 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,649
Points 28,420

I place value on winning, yeah.

Not responding to my post is a lose.

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 167
Points 2,585

I don't see why you just don't admit that your a stirinite.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 167
Points 2,585

Edit: "stirnerite"
 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jun 10 2010 11:17 PM

I don't even know what that means.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 167
Points 2,585

an egoist.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,649
Points 28,420

That's giving him too much credit. Liberte and Jackson LaRose are a cut above.

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,255
Points 36,010
Moderator
William replied on Fri, Jun 11 2010 12:42 AM

I don't even know what that means.

The philosophy of Max Stirner.  Names he may be compared to that you may know: Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Nietzsche.  Don't make them think you are an idiot for not knowing his name, he is pretty obscure.  If you have time and desire to read though, check out his work "The Ego and His Own", it is one of my favorite works (as my sig shows).

@Capitalist Pig:

You can just edit your post via the "more" key on the upper right hand corner of your post.

"I am not an ego along with other egos, but the sole ego: I am unique. Hence my wants too are unique, and my deeds; in short, everything about me is unique" Max Stirner
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Fri, Jun 11 2010 1:25 AM

DD5:

How exactly do you figure that?  Have you heard of underground bunkers? 

Also, those sitting in submarines with nuclear war heads ready to launch won't be signing off their lives either.

Well, apart from the possibility of surviving a direct multi-megatonic warhead hit in a bunker (I doubt it), our dear surviving ruling caste would find itself in a radioactive, EMP-ed, totally destroyed nation and that could turn up to be a little difficult to tax. So personal interest runs against a wide nuclear exchange.

Now it is true that this does not give one 100% security that a nuclear war just won’t happen, but I say that the more nations have nukes, the lower is the probability of nuclear exchange.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 167
Points 2,585

"That's giving him too much credit. Liberte and Jackson LaRose are a cut above."

True dat.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 471
Points 9,105

And you will still lose, bloom.

 

 

The future is with the Palestinians. Your women don't produce enough babies to compete with them. The days of zionists are numbered. That's why you've become increasingly violent over the years. It's a losing battle, you'd be better served trying to go elsewhere. Like Europe or the US. Youve created too much bad blood in Palestine and the end result won't be pretty.

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Fri, Jun 11 2010 9:49 AM

 

Wilmot of Rochester: you'd be better served trying to go elsewhere. Like Europe or the US.

 

That's a very ignorant or hateful remark.  Which one of the two are you?

Do you know what happen to Jews in Europe?  Or are you just regretting that the job wasn't complete?  The US by the way didn't do crap, so they might as well be considered collaborators (From a statist point of view, of course)

Now, so there is no misunderstanding, I don't support the ideology of Zionism or the "Jewish State" as a solution to any alleged historical (or current) problem.   It's a misguided and disastrous ideology.    But that's not a problem of Jews per se, but a problem of the entire world.  Zionism is nothing but Statism with it's unique brand of nationalism.  

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 4 of 6 (213 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > | RSS