New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2006 07:50 John Fields wrote: > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:36:59 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> John Fields wrote: > >>> --- >>> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her >>> own laws and in her own way? >> No. >> The right of self defence has to be limited in a civilised society. If >> somebody slaps me I have no right to burn their house down with them and >> their family inside. >> The law recognises 'proportionate response'. > > --- > OK, let's say, in one case, that I slap you for no reason other than > that I hate you. What would you suggest as an appropriate response? > A return slap of equal amplitude and duration or a blow of > sufficient power to make me never want to slap you again? > > In the second case, let's say that I slap you with the intent of > getting slapped back, but my eventual plan is to kill you after you > slap me back, and for justification I'll call your slap back a > disproportionate response. > > An appropriate response, in my view, would be for you to so severely > incapacitate me after I slapped you the first time that it would be > impossible for me to continue. > > In other words, I had no business slapping you in the first place, > so you should make it your business to make sure that I can never > slap you again. > > Do you have a problem with that? The problem in the Middle Eastern context is 'who slapped first'. Your argument can just as well be used to justify the actions of Hezbollah, Hamas and the PLO as Israel. Dirk
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 07:58 John Fields wrote: > In other words, I had no business slapping you in the first place, Slip, slap slop ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip-Slop-Slap Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 07:59 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > John Fields wrote: > > > In other words, I had no business slapping you in the first place, > > so you should make it your business to make sure that I can never > > slap you again. > > > > Do you have a problem with that? > > The problem in the Middle Eastern context is 'who slapped first'. > Your argument can just as well be used to justify the actions of > Hezbollah, Hamas and the PLO as Israel. Ad Nauseam in fact. How many millenia should we go back ? Graham
From: Frank Bemelman on 8 Aug 2006 08:23 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:vtsgd2lfuljv0fc2jnmnftnko8ajaefnum(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:26:14 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" > <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: > >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >>> --- >>> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her >>> own laws and in her own way? >> >>Yes, *defending*, sure, and without the American cheerleaders throwing >>money at it. Thank you very much. > > --- > Us "throwing money" at Israel is part of our way of defending > ourselves under our own laws and in our own way, so if you don't > have a problem with Israel doing the same thing (defending herself > under her own laws and in her own way) why do you have a problem > with us doing the same thing? It's not exactly staying neutral in the conflicts that Israel has, is it? So you can't complain that this money throwing also brings you new enemies, ones that take down a WTC tower or two. In fact, by throwing money at it, you increased Isreals problems, and your own at the same time. And yes, I have a problem with that. I don't enjoy seeing people with problems, regardless where they live. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: Frank Bemelman on 8 Aug 2006 08:26
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:44D875BB.DE97FBA0(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:26:14 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" >> <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >> >> >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >> >> --- >> >> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her >> >> own laws and in her own way? >> > >> >Yes, *defending*, sure, and without the American cheerleaders throwing >> >money at it. Thank you very much. >> >> --- >> Us "throwing money" at Israel is part of our way of defending >> ourselves > > Yourselves ? Sorry, don't quite get that. IMO, it's an offensive action, using a 3rd party. Indirect provocation or something. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email) |