Call me a bully if you like. It has no bearing on the subject under discussion.

Since we're giving reading assignments to each other, your assignment is to read the entire set of Geneva Conventions.

While I don't mean to suggest that there was moral equivalence between sides in World War II, there were lots of things done by both sides that were not especially honorable. I have said before, and I say again, I think the firebombing of Dresden was wrong, because as I understand it, it was primarily a cultural center with little or no industrial impact on the German war effort. On the other hand, it seems to me that the ball bearing factories, fuel depots, and munitions factories of other German cities were legitimate military targets.

I don't know enough about Tokyo to venture an opinion about that city specifically, but I do know that the industries which supported the Japanese war effort were spread out in their cities generally.

I don't think the delivery mechanism matters. My position is that whatever means is used, people should try to minimize civilian casualties, and that trying to maximize them is both wrong and ineffective.

You might as well just resign yourself to the fact that I am one of those indecent people who thinks that trying to maximize civilian casualties is both wrong and an ineffective strategy.

I'm glad to see that the Israelis allow people the freedom to dissent from their government's policies.

Do you happen to know if the Palestinian Authority allows their people the same freedom to dissent? This is not a rhetorical question - I really want to know.

I would think that someone who supports the right of people to kill anyone they want any time they please would be more likely to fit that description.

There is nothing in the Geneva Conventions to guarantee equality of military power. Your rationale seems to be that any atrocity whatever is justified if one side is losing.

Funny, I don't see anything in the Geneva Conventions about voting making you a legitimate military target.

I classify anyone who prefers civilian targets as "your" people because you spend so much time defending them.

More on Al Jazeera in English:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1226/p01s04-wome.html

Is this the "freedom" that your people are fighting for?

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=663050

I see that Al Jazeera has come out with English language subtitles.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,865406,00.html

Thanks for the info on Geneva Convention signatory status.

"These are humanitarian rules that must be obeyed by all humanity."

I looked up the Geneva Convention on protecting civilians, and it says that parties to the convention are bound it, but it does not say that powers who are not parties to it are bound by it. Of course, one could argue that they are morally bound, even if they are not legally bound.

Incidentally, it also says that parties to the convention are bound by it when dealing with powers who are not parties to it if the latter accept and apply its provisions. (See Article 2.) Since the Palestinians clearly do not do so, if Israel became convinced of Sylvester's point of view that seeking to maximize civilian casualties is justified, it would apparently not be a violation of the Geneva Conventions for them to do so.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDo...

Nice summary. Thanks for posting it.

Oddly enough, I actually am a little in the black on my own version of the Dow Gambit. I couldn't bring myself to execute the stop losses, because I couldn't see the rationale for taking losses on Dow components when your outlook for the market as a whole was still bullish, and there were no big negative surprises in the fundamentals for the companies or industries concerned. I have unwound all of the positions now except Intel, which I am attempting to mitigate through a covered call which, if executed, will get me out in the black. I probably will institute a stop loss policy on that one, now that the overall outlook has become bearish.

Zeev, do you happen to know whether either Israel or the Palestinian Authority are signatories to the Geneva Conventions?

According to you, Israel was justified in killing those Palestinians, because deliberately killing civilians is OK.

You don't know the first thing about fighting for freedom. You're fighting for the right of an Egyptian dictator to keep the Palestinian people under his thumb. A lying scumbag who obviously has something other than the welfare of the Palestinian people on his mind.

Thanks to 9/11, Americans know what it's like to have their country and people attacked. This generates much sympathy for the desire of the Israelis to protect their citizens from the Palestinian murderers.

"Force Israel into peace with the Palestinians"

In other words, force Israel to just lie down and take it while the Palestinians murder their civilians. Sorry, no dice.

As I said... you can't even read: "at least military technology was equivalent""

In other words, if your side is losing, then war crimes are justified.

This doesn't justify attacks on civilians, but if the army cancelled elections, then they clearly bear responsibility for the situation in Algeria.

If the palestinian murderers are freedom fighters, how come there hasn't been an election in the past two years? It's because your Egyptian dictator Yassir Arafat won't allow it, that's why.

By the way, you seem to be escalating demands. Apparently it's no longer freedom from occupation, but acquisition of territory, via the "right of return." Why don't you just be honest, and demand the elimination of Israel?

"The Israelis seem to have one and and only one aim as they control all the cards (they control the land and the military superiority). Extermination of all Palestinians. Last time someone tried to do the same was called Hitler and Nazi Germany."

Is there no end to your lies?

According to Zeev, the Israelis do their best to minimize deaths of innocent people. He certainly has a lot more credibility than you do, although that's not saying much. Your credibility is just about zero, because of the way you make up any old BS if you think it will help your Jew-hating cause.

According to you, trying to maximize civilian casualties is justified. If so, then if the Israelis did want to exterminate all Palestinians, that would be justified too.

You can't have it both ways. Either trying to maximize civilian casualties is an acceptable tactic, or it isn't. If it's acceptable for the Palestinians, then it's acceptable for the Istraelis.

The Palestinians started the killing, so they have no justification for whining about it.

By the way, you still haven't answered my question: were the 9/11 attacks justified?

There is no right of return anywhere in the world. Governments decide who they are going to let in, and it is their right to do so.

By the way, after all these morbid hypotheticals, I want to make it perfectly clear that I do NOT want to see any harm come to you!

Amen to that!

"So how do you justify it from this side?"

Our side tries to minimize innocent casualties. The other side tries to maximize innocent casualties. That fact alone deprives the other side of any claim of justification.

"How little you understand of human nature... BC or AD.... Unfortunately history has a funny way of keep repeating"

That doesn't make it right.

"I said "they would be justified" as every freedom fighter is justified in ending occupation, suppression and murder in their own land."

First you said American Indians would be justified in killing you because their land is occupied by people of European descent. Then you implied that it would only be justified if you were killing them. Now you're apparently saying that it would be justified if they were being occupied, suppressed, and murdered. Which is it? What is the minimum condition necessary to justify their killing you?

"How did you justified the killing of innocent people in Afghanistan?"

The war in Afghanistan was justified by our right of self-defense, because Afghanistan was harboring and protecting the people behind the 9/11 attacks. We do our best to conduct war in such a way as to minimize deaths of innocent people. The Palestinians do their best to MAXIMIZE deaths of innocent people. That fact alone deprives them of the moral high ground.

"How about in Kosovo, Serbia?"

I don't know whether the war in Serbia was justified.

"Palestine?"

The war in Palestine was started by the Palestinians in the year 2000. The killing of Palestinians is justified by Israel's right of self-defense.

"How about the American Indian killings that took place here?"

Some of it was probably justified, but most was probably not.

"I wish you were right, but the Israelis (unlike the suiciders) are not terrorists and therefore will not strike first."

Terrorism is not determined by who strikes first. It is determined by the type of targets chosen.

"If I kept killing them, yes."

OK, so if you haven't killed anyone then killing you is not justified?

And so, if your father or grandfather, or even someone of your race, committed a wrong against someone, they have the right to kill YOU. Is that the way it works?

What total, absolute, lunacy. You're going to have a really tough time convincing most Americans to share your point of view that centuries-old wrongs justify killing us NOW.

In your philosophy, Mexican-Americans would be justified in killing other Americans because America "occupies" their land. (Can they kill anyone they want, or would it have to be only people with less than 50% Mexican DNA? Would they have to do a DNA test first?) Oh but wait, the Indians would be justified in killing them in turn, because the Spanish occupied the land when it belonged to the Incas. I wonder if there used to be a different group of Indians living there, who therefore had a case to kill the second group of Indians? Can we maybe find someone who has a little more Neanderthal DNA than most of us, and therefore has a case to kill everyone else because Homo Sapiens "occupied" Europe when the Neanderthals were dominant there? Where does it all end?

How about the 9/11 hijackers? Were they justified? Were they "freedom fighters"? If you learned of a similar plan to attack the U.S. now, would you support it?

"And BTW, the vast majority of western culture is christian culture"

True, but there's a reason why freedom of religion is the FIRST one mentioned in the Bill of Rights. When they start allowing freedom of religion in Muslim countries, THEN maybe they can lecture us on right and wrong.

"So Muslims have a reason to be suspicious of our motives and hypocrisy."

Americans don't have to go back centuries to find reason to be suspicious of Muslim motives and hypocrisy. We need only remember 9/11/01, and the Muslim governments that pretend to be our friends while providing financial support to the murderers, and telling us it was our own fault.

"I think we have some fairly wide consensus on the thread with the exception a very vocal minority on the thread that Israel is the promised land for the Jewish people which is beyond debate and entails them of our strongest support when attacked."

I don't know what the majority on this thread is, but I most strenuously disagree with that premise. I don't care who thinks what land was promised to them by whom, or who lived there "first" in ancient times. What I say is that the people who are there NOW should stop trying to punish each other for the sins of their parents, and should start looking for PRACTICAL solutions that haven't been tried yet. What entitles the Jewish people to our support is that no one should have to put up with being murdered or driven out of their homes. The same thing goes for the Palestinians.

Speaking of American Indians, if they started a terrorism campaign against us European "occupiers" and blew YOU up, would that be justified? Would you support the one who killed YOU as a "freedom fighter"?

The evidence shows that the Palestinian "freedom" fighters are adapting badly, because they have less freedom now than they did when they began their campaign of terrorism in 2000. And what happens if the Israelis "adapt" and start using the tactics of the Palestinians?

You don't have to quote a lot of ancient history to make that point.

Most freedom fighters throughout history have not adopted unarmed civilians as their preferred targets. There's a good reason for this: it's an ineffective strategy. To see this you need only look at the results in Palestine, where there is far less freedom now than when the terrorist attacks began.

Here are a couple of articles on the outlook for Palestinian elections.

http://www.ceip.org/files/events/events.asp?EventID=515
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2599293.stm