Well that worked out well!

[jockscott]

Anyway, we have our 'peace envoy' to sort these things out.

And how I for one wish he'd go out there right now and try to stop it. With a bit of luck he might not survive.

 

[JBR]

who, on the one hand, bleats on incessantly about there being a god, and on the other completely disregards any concept of morality

I'd like to point out that, as a committed atheist, I have no need of an imaginary supernatural being to encourage or even ensure my possession of morality.

 

[Dextraneous]

I'd like to point out that, as a committed atheist, I have no need of an imaginary supernatural being to encourage or even ensure my possession of morality.

Ironically, I reckon that you'd have a better chance of being accepted through the pearly gates than Norcon and his ilk

 

[collisioni]

Only if you believe.

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

You'll also note that the blockade was because Hamas was elected and for no other reason, at the time. That's justified?

You must be rouge hamsters brother, inane arguments that have nothing to do with fact.

Hamas was firing rockets before they were elected, why, I can't possibly imagine why isreal would blockade the country when an organization that wishes to destroy isreal is elected.

Jews gonna jew.

Sorry, perhaps I should have been more precise;
"the blockade was tightened because Hamas was elected".

The reason was contained in that same article:

Israeli government officials now acknowledge the food restrictions were partly intended to put pressure on Hamas by making the lives of people in Gaza difficult, says the BBC's Jon Donnison in Gaza City

To punish the people was the reason for tightening the blockade when Hamas was elected.
If you collectively punish a people, that's tantamount to a humanitarian crime. It's probably also counter-productive and encourages further emnity.

It is obvious that the two sides are both warring factions and nothing short of a real and lasting settlement will end the contiuous circle of violence.

The 'inherent' hatred of each other is surely born of their shared history and continuous violence breeds more violence. I suspect that only by going back into the historical situation and resolving those historical problems, possibly beginning with the original Balfour Declaration, will any possible real peace be found.

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

Your name of course is of no consequence because you have no valid argument along with all your ilk

How can you claim I have no valid argument, when your argument is even more invalid than mine? Hamas are firing rockets, not in defence of their land, but as an aggressive act. It's not like they even know nor care where these rockets land is it? Hamas operatives must be the stupidest people in the world. They constantly tease the Israelis then can't understand their reaction. They dig tunnels then wonder why the Israelis blow the tunnels up.. For followers of the ROP, they're not exactly peaceable. Even now they've broken the ceasefire they declared earlier today.

Just as a clarification:
This is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict over territory and control. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion, even if each side has a slightly different religious ideology. It is just an historical accident that one side is mainly Islamic and the other side is predominately Jewish.
Although sadly, of course, part of that territorial dispute is about the birthplace of Jesus, who was supposed to bring peace and goodwill to all men. (and women and children, I assume)

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

This country has a recnt history of blundering into things that don't concern it.

Trouble is that this country has a long term history of blundering into things that didn't concern it, the result being that there are huge swathes of ongoing problems that "we" caused and therefore really ought to try to resolve.

Your argument is akin to causing a pile up behind you on a motorway and just driving on saying "nowt to do with me". I like to think we're better than that.

The Israeli/Palestinian problem wasn't directly caused by us any more than the war in The Congo. We can't solve it and should stay out. Futile and completely thankless.

Anyway, we have our 'peace envoy' to sort these things out.

I'm not so sure about us not being to blame for the current situation. Many historians, in general, accept that the Balfour Declaration was ill-conceived and poorly executed. The Palestinian greivances still go back to that displacement of their families to create the state of Israel. Displacement, I might add, that was not compensated at the time, and is continuously enforced to this day by Israel. The Israelis make it worse by more settlements and further displacement of Palestinians.

 

[AronSearle]

To punish the people was the reason for tightening the blockade when Hamas was elected.

Because the people elected a terrorist organization.

Any other arguments you want me to rip apart?

If you collectively punish a people, that's tantamount to a humanitarian crime.

Affirming the consequent

 

[JBR]

I'd like to point out that, as a committed atheist, I have no need of an imaginary supernatural being to encourage or even ensure my possession of morality.

Ironically, I reckon that you'd have a better chance of being accepted through the pearly gates than Norcon and his ilk

But there aren't any pearly gates.

Granted, though, it is a very attractive concept. Almost encourages one to want to die, doesn't it?

Mind you, I'm not sure whether I'd prefer associating with angels constantly singing praises to the Lord, or 72 virgins (presumably clad in burkas).

 

[Dextraneous]

Mind you, I'm not sure whether I'd prefer associating with angels constantly singing praises to the Lord, or 72 virgins (presumably clad in burkas).

Eternal "Songs of Praise" or a heck of a long episode of "Take Me Out"

Hmm, you're not selling this very well

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

To punish the people was the reason for tightening the blockade when Hamas was elected.

Because the people elected a terrorist organization.

Any other arguments you want me to rip apart?

If you collectively punish a people, that's tantamount to a humanitarian crime.

Affirming the consequent

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Just words that determine the viewpoint of the observer.

It's a democratic process and any nation has a fundamental right to elect who it wants. It's only termed a terrorist organisation because half a dozen countries have labelled it as such.

That's no reason to punish a whole nation of people.
Hamas have a political wing and a military wing, similar to IRA and Sinn Fein, except they both have the same name, unlike IRA/Sinn Fein.
UK recognises the political wing of the IRA and negotiates with it. Why can't Israel, etc do likewise?
Why were the Palestinians driven to elect a "terrorist/freedom fighter" government?

 

[AronSearle]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Just words that determine the viewpoint of the observer.

So do you believe an organisation that deliberatly targets civillians, and is commited to the destruction of isreal is not a terrorist organization?

That's no reason to punish a whole nation of people.

Affirming the consequent, again.

Hamas have a political wing and a military wing, similar to IRA and Sinn Fein, except they both have the same name, unlike IRA/Sinn Fein.
UK recognises the political wing of the IRA and negotiates with it. Why can't Israel, etc do likewise?

Did you even read what you wrote?

You have answered your own question.

 

[LanceCorpralJones]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Just words that determine the viewpoint of the observer.

So do you believe an organisation that deliberatly targets civillians, and is commited to the destruction of isreal is not a terrorist organization?

That's no reason to punish a whole nation of people.

Affirming the consequent, again.

Hamas have a political wing and a military wing, similar to IRA and Sinn Fein, except they both have the same name, unlike IRA/Sinn Fein.
UK recognises the political wing of the IRA and negotiates with it. Why can't Israel, etc do likewise?

Did you even read what you wrote?

You have answered your own question.

Does IDF intentionally destroy houses, irrespective of who occupies them?
Therefore by your definiton, except that IDF is not of course committed to the destruction of Israel, it is a terrorist organisation.
So, is the destruction of Israel the deciding factor in whether an organisation is a terrorist organisation, or not?
Is targeting civilians with cruelty inclusive of your "deliberately targetting civilians"? Or is that acceptable?

Affriming the consequent? Intitally, I quoted an Israeli spokesperson admitting that they are intentionally making life difficult for the Palestinian people, because they elected a government that the Israelis did not want elected. I suggest that it is tantamount to a humanitarian crime, and you claim it's "affirming the consequent." Please provide a suitable counter argument, not a simple claim to some abstract concept, which needs three statements to meet the criteria of "affirming the consequent".

You also use the "affirming the consequent" claim again when I suggest that the election of a government is not sufficient or acceptable reason to punish a whole nation. Where is the assumption that because x causes y, and y causes z, that x must also cause z?

Of course, I read it, I wrote it. Was that meant to be a daft question?
I assume, that because you have no counter argument, yolu claim that I have answered my own question. Excuse me for my confusion, please point out the answer for me.
Surely all governments have a political wing and a military wing. You don't normally negotiate with the military wing, but you do with the political wing. There aren't many countries that have different names for their political and military wings.

 

[Whitespirit66]

I'm getting an overpowering sense of déjà vu.

 

[AronSearle]

Therefore by your definition

I never defined anything.

I asked you, do you consider hamas to be a terrorist organisation.

Yes/No.

I await with baited breath reams of inconsequential arguments and wriggling, then you'll just disappear (again).

You also use the "affirming the consequent" claim again when I suggest that the election of a government is not sufficient or acceptable reason to punish a whole nation.

If you collectively punish a people, that's tantamount to a humanitarian crime.

You are correct, you are instead begging the question, with a dash of affirming the consequent.

Looks like RH's argumentative formulas have received a software upgrade.