Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Since this is used over and over again to prove that Hamas is evil incarnate deserving no quarter: Is it simply because they are 'cowardly' or because they are confined in an area 1/10 the size of Rhode Island containing 1.5 million people?
I'm not sure whether part of your point was to highlight that it was the U.S. military who put the spin to the term "collateral" by suggesting that it means "unintended" or "accidental".
But there's nothing about the term "collateral" that means "unintended" or "accidental".
Strictly speaking, intent is not at issue. When something is "collateral", it is an accompaniment to, or a consequence of, something else. But there is a common cause, if you will.
There is nothing about collateral damage that is unexpected.
I wonder whether Mr. Greenwald would conclude that Lincoln was a terrorist for causing the destruction of Atlanta, that Churchill and Roosevelt were terrorists for causing the destruction of Dresden, and that Truman was a terrorist for causing the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.-- Steve from Somerset
I would.
As well as the firebombing of Tokyo, as destructive and pointless as the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But let me put it to you this way: does your proposition imply that you would be ok with an equivalent firebombing of Gaza, to "get" Hamas, of course?
How about just nuking Gaza? Would that be ok, too?
FFS!
http://i44.tinypic.com/2gui1lj.jpg
I'm not a military expert, but this picture from Gaza seems consistent with the description of an airburst of white phosphorous.
"The fact that Tom Friedman is rightly supporting Israel's war on Hamas simply means he isn't a complete and perfect idiot."
Give him time. As you no doubt have learned through painful experience, attaining perfection in the field of idiocy is a long and arduous process that involves daily ritual humiliation. He may need a mentor. Drop him a line.
Then there is no participant, in any war, anywhere, at any time, that is not considered "terrorism" by your definition, rendering it useless and nondescript.
Congrats
Glenn is not making common cause with Hamas. He objects to Iraeli use of American munitions to target the general population of Gaza, and for American support of unjustified Israeli violence.
Oh I get it now. If Israel nuked Gaza with a homegrown bomb it
would be OK. Like it's OK for Palestinians to kill Israelis with
homegrown bombs of their own. Good to know.
Maybe you should check with Glenn on that.
On Friday, The ANSWER coalition is organizing a protest against the Washington Post's ignoring the protest last weekend of the thousands of activists protesting the attack on Gaza. They're going to protest in front of The Post's headquarters.
http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_homepage (link also at signature)
If our elected government were lobbing rockets at Juarez and Tijuna from areas heavily populated with civilians such as El Paso and San Diego the Mexican government would have every right to defend themselves by attacking those areas. Until Hamas renounces its charter and agrees that a two state solution is the answer nothing can be accomplished in this interaction. By your definition Glenn every entity in a war is culpable of war crimes which may be the nature of war but isn't specific to the Israelis.
You offer a perfect defintion of naivete if you believe that civilians are not targets of war. They were in WWII, they were in Vietnam, they were in our Civil War. I suppose we should bring William T Sherman up to the World Court and try him posthumously.
Tom Friedman married into the Bucksbaum Family. His father in law, and uncle in law founded General Growth Partners(GGP), once of the largest commercial real estate REITs in the world. Forbes estimated the Bucksbaum's net worth to be $4 billion a year or two ago.
Since then, GGP has just about gone broke, his brother in law forced out of the ceo position, and the formerly fantastically wealthy Bucksbaums had to cancel their renowned Christmas...err, Holiday Party out in Aspen this year. You'd be angry and bitter too if you married in to huge money, only to watch it get mismanaged away by your incompetent brother in law. Friedman's wife will probably have to get a 2nd job if they are going to keep up with the real estate taxes on the 14,000 square foot insult to the environment they live in.
Will Hamas cave? Eventually.
What will this look like, this "caving?" A statement by a handful of Hamasniks, whatever remnant of the leadership survives, that they forswear violence against Israel?
In that vanishingly unlikely scenario, what do the remaining million and a half Gazans do? Return to their homes and learn Hebrew? Rise up in righteous (but, y'know, kinda hungry) anger to demand a moderate, secular state?
Or do they start building Qassams again?
I was unaware that the bears killed more Israellis than Hamas.I did not realize that many bears resided there.Damm extremist bears!!!Skewed numbers to your warped point my friend.The fact remains we can address the bear problems without killing .More money is stolen with a pen than with a gun,should we then outlaw pens?What about Bernie Madoff?isn't he more dangerous to society than the bank robber?Hmmm,what is your solution?More of the same without resolution?We'll what would you have done if you were Israel?C'mon I could use a good chuckle.
The world has a long history of respecting those who use terror to achieve war objectives. Alexander the Great (note "the Great" part) conquered by terror. He made examples of cities by having his army kill all of the children and rape (before killing) the women. He then went to the next city and said that if they did not surrender peacefully, the same result would occur. Most surrendered peacefully. This strategy clearly works, and has worked throughout history. More recently, we have the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The question is whether we accept this type of strategy (outright and intentional killing of children and noncombatants to cause the surrender of combatants) or condem it. If we accept it, we can't really complain too much about non-state actors attempting to achieve political aims through killing children and non-combatants (i.e. what we call "terrorism"). If we reject this type of strategy, we cannot contiue to support those who engage in it (as is Isreal at the moment). American leadership seems to think it can have it both ways -- it can morally condem those enemies who engage in such tactics, but it can support the same tactics when used by friends. Americans may not see the problem with such hypocracy. The rest of the world, however, does.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
