@mendax ... Sure, the Israeli forces do more damage, because they're better equipped, better trained, and better funded. The Palestinians throw rocks, the Israelis shoot guns. Disagree if you want, but there's no reason for Israel to throw rocks back if they don't have to throw rocks back. Why this makes the Israelis the enemy and the Palestinians the good guys to you rather than making both sides little immature children that each need to be contained is beyond me.

Bravo Bo -- you seem to be one of the few around here that actually exercises logic in the manner in which Israel defends themselves, as if the concept of war is that you can only use the same equipment as the enemy. lol Ludicrous.

That is clearly not the point I'm making. If in a conflict one side kills 10 people and the other kills 10,000, there is clearly not equal moral culpability.

What is Netanyahus favourite dessert?
One full of homeless Palestinians (boom! boom!)

Those numbers are bogus. Stop making them up

@mendax - Even though your numbers are childishly fictional - please do tell us what *is* the Mendax-Acceptable Kill Ratio?

Nigee, let's change your diaper now. All that shit down there is distracting your brain and you can't think straight.

Mendax, have you ever thought about criticizing the Arab nations for the things that you criticize Israel? I think you'd be surprised to find that they all do the same things! But one has to be a victim and one has to be the perpetrator, that makes it simple enough that you can delude yourself into believing you understand it.

What a load of shit. 10,000 to 10. Give me a fucking break. The first number may be higher than the second number but I was in Tel Aviv when a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 16 in eastern Jerusalem. Good try though.

Sorry, I was off. 17 were killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidka_Square_bus_bombing

yes, those numbers were entirely fictional. They were outrageously ridiculous to make a point. They were not intended to represent the actual numbers killed, but more to show that you don't have equal moral culpability in a situation where you vast inequality of results.

Actually, if they were *outrageously fictional* they completely fail to make a point, because every thing you said after your blatant lie is now untrustworthy and meaningless.

"Peanuts killled a billion kids last year!!!! Peanut farmers should all be executed"

Still waiting for my answer, or God of Morality -- what is the acceptable kill ratio when Israel responds to unprovoked terrorist bombings? If the terrorists kill 17, is Israel limited to 17? Or if Israel kills 18, does that mean the terrorists that the moral obligation to come back and kill another Israeli citizen?

Exactly how does Mendax's Law work?

In a conflict where one side kills vastly more than the other, there isn't equality in moral culpability. This is literally all I've been trying to say. I don't quite understand how this is so incomprehensible for you. Call it the Bleeps vs the Bloops if it makes it easier for you, the central point remains.

Better check your WW II history, pal. Better check your history of any war, for that matter. In your book, the UNited States, no matter what war it has fought, must be a terribly, terribly immoral actor, including the First Gulf War that the entire world supported.

Thank God you aren't a General, because a General's job is to kill as many enemies as possible while saving the lives of his own men. No good military equates victory to "we died in equal numbers to the enemy".

You are utterly ridiculous.

Why don't you place the blame *squarely* on the leaders of the Palestinians, who *know for certain* that when they kill 17, the consequential deaths of their own people will be swift and lop-sided. Clearly this is a *massive* failure of moral leadership on the part of the Palestinians, who **Use the deaths of their people** as a bargaining tool with the world. The Palestinians Leaders don't care about how many of their people die...in fact, they do nothing to prevent it, they continue to attack Israel, knowing there will be retaliations, and then they wave their death count on banners and flags seeking sympathy.

mendax, if you intentionally walk in front of a car and get run over, you will get *zero* sympathy from me. Palestine constantly walks in front of cars - they deserve no sympathy.

"mendax, if you intentionally walk in front of a car and get run over, you will get *zero* sympathy from me"

Why not? You spent so long talking about conservative ideals it sounds like you lost your humanity. I feel bad for people who commit suicide. I feel pity for people who die in war, even if they're the enemy. What the hell's wrong with you?

SYnapse - do you understand hyperbole?

Fine - I will have sympathy for him because he is sick in the head and his mental illness caused him to behave stupidly. But if he seeks sympathy for his *intentional* bad behavior – walking in front of a car – and thus receives sympathy for his intentional bad behavior, then you are reinforcing that bad behavior.

You, Mr Big Shot Sociobiology whatever, ought to understand the very basic principle of not *enabling* bad behavior.

You sympathize with the mental illness that causes the bad behavior, nor with the behavior itself.

Good lord, SYnner – are you really that narrow-minded you can’t grasp what I was getting at? Or is it just your constant need to attack and find fault?

Mendax, you intentionally misrepresented the numbers in order to make a false point. Don't bother defending that.

"In a conflict where one side kills vastly more than the other, there isn't equality in moral culpability."

Is it a contest to you? Would you rather them both kill the same amount of people? Is that peace?

Likewise, I sympathize with the Palestinians that die at the hands of Israeli counter-strikes…and I lay the blame for those counter-strikes *clearly* in the hands of the Palestinian leadership – who are sick in the head, and keep willingly walking in front of the car. I don’t’ sympathize with the leaders or their actions – I sympathize with their victims – which include BOTH the Israeli people and the Palestinian civilians who are siply pawns in the Palestinian leadership’s sick games.

Why don't you sympathise with the leaders?

I think it's a key issue, because lack of sympathy is the cause behind most violent acts in the world, dehumanising the enemy etc.

I think you actually believe that Palestinians are attacking Israelis because of boredom or religious fanaticism.

If your homes were being bulldozed by a foreign invasion force and your children being killed, the international community ignoring you, sure you'd put a vest on and blow up whoever you could on the other side. What do you expect them to do, get busy digging their own graves so the IDF don't have to do it?

Why, though, SYnapse, are we supposed to sympathize?

Hamas is literally pushing Israel's patience like a child pushes a parent. Eventually the parent is going to break and tell their kid to go to their room or whatever the hell you want to put in there. How Israel has restrained from blowing the roof off of Hamas over all these years is far beyond me.

That said, what Israel is doing, specifically through settlement construction (who wants to live there anyway?), is largely persecutive, and frankly sick. The fact that the Palestinians are visibly upset by this along with their general lack of rights in Israel is more than understandable.

Put that in perspective. There are two kids getting in a slap fight. Do you, as a potential parent, side with one of them over the other? Do you fall for it when one says "he started it" until his lungs give out? No, you punish them both for being stupid children and then they don't fight anymore because they AREN'T getting your sympathy.

I said before that this conflict is like little children fighting. It literally is. There are so many solutions but none of them will work if you sympathize with one of them and demonize the other.

Bo - you will note that whenever discussion of real numbers are brought up - like what he thinks is acceptable, historical records of kill ratios in war, etc, Mendax is silent.

Dishonest operator, he is. The Force is not with him.

"dehumanising the enemy"

The Palestinian leaders not only dehumanize Israel as an entire people and nation, they also dehumanize their *own* citizens, whom they simply use as cannon fodder.

"I think you actually believe that Palestinians are attacking Israelis because of boredom or religious fanaticism."
I **never** said this, SYnapse, and if you are going to be as dishonest as mendax, then the conversation is over.

The Palestinian Leadership completely lacks moral integrity.

Actually, rather than specifically trying to avoid this topic I just wandered off for a few minutes to play some FIFA. It was far more fun.

Returning to the topic at hand, this isn't an equal situation. Only one people has their land occupied by another military force. You write "Hamas is literally pushing Israel's patience like a child pushes a parent." when Hamas is the democratically elected government of Palestine in elections that were rated by Carter as freer and fairer than those of the USA. So instead of being like two little children in a slap fight, it's like one child complaining about some minor bruising obtained whilst in the process of breaking the other's arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_militant_groups_suicide_attacks#2006_.283_bombings.29

Does this look to you like "some minor bruising?"

If it does, please bring Nadav back. I'd love to see him again.

Minor bruises my ass.

Bo - it's obvious that mendax thinks that Israeli lives are of no consequence. His apparent racism so shadows his thought processes it probably isn't worth discussing - he *literally* can't see anything wrong with Hammas lobbing rockets into Israel and blowing up vehicles in front of night clubs

With such a sociopath, there is no logic.

It's a point of comparison. The Israeli deaths are terrible, yes. I would have thought this went without saying, but apparently I have to spell this out for you. I do not condone actions that lead to the deaths of Israeli civilians.

However, even with all these horrific actions, the IDF has still done an obscenely huge amount more damage. At literally no point have I been saying that the rocket firings are good, noble, righteous or whatever. All I have done is repeated that, in comparison, the attacks from Palestine have been less destructive than the attacks against Palestine.

For the sake of an analogy, I would not want someone to get punched in the face, and would not condone that action. But if the person who was punched in the fight pulled out a gun and killed the other person, that would be an overreaction and is something that can be criticized.

But mendax, your argument hasn't ever been that the Israeli deaths are bad - your singular complaint is that the number of deaths are unequal, and that is what bothers you.

And you refuse to consider even for a moment that *all* the deaths would stop of Palestine would stop firing rockets and blowing up vehicles, to which you admit Israel is *retaliating* --- therefore, a logical person would say, "What are they retaliating against?" and then come to the conclusion that if Palestine stopping killing Israelis, Israel would stop disproportionately killing Palestinians.

Therefore the moral imperative here is upon the *initial* aggressor: Palestine:


You can not honestly tell me that Palestine is justifiable in launching rockets because a house got bulldozed, or Israel builds a new neighborhood.

You can not tell me that Israel is at fault for retaliating (though you argue that extent of retaliation)

Therefore it is clear, even by your arguments, that Palestine is the First Bad Actor...and therefore bears the burden of fault **even for** the deaths of their own people, whom they **know for certain** will be killed every time they attack Israel.

I don't know what arguments you think I've made. I have made absolutely no comment about the origins of the conflict; indeed I have stayed well clear of that. I have not commented on who the initial aggressor was, largely because it's a long and complex situation that dates back at least a century. So I don't quite know how you think you are justified in drawing such conclusions.

So you have no position on anything, other than the only immoral actor is Israel because you don't like the kill ration.

You have ignored comments regardign kill ration in other wars.
You ignore comments regarding the retaliatory nature of Israel's strike....and thus how you stop being retaliated against
You ignore comments about how Palestine uses their people as cannon fodder

Sorry mendax,becuase you ignore everything people say, we have to assume one of two things:
1. You agree with the statements, which is why you did not protest them, or
2. You are disingenuous and don't care about the whole story, but want to pull one issue out of context and paint Israel in a bad light with it, without acknowledging any bad behavior by anyone else.

Maybe exactly *because* it is such a complex issue you should either:
1. Not talk about it unless you are willing to talk about all of it
2. Not be naive enough to take issues out of context and try to analyze them alone....and calling you naive is being *very* generous...