Terrorists take 40% of the vote in Palestinian elections

who would be the terrorist in that case? the great US of A or the terrorists that they murdered?

 

How is your pending retirement going?

 

I can't wait for the congratulatory phone call from Bush.

 

LOL! Won't quiet happen.

I think so far the administration has been saying all the right things and walking that fine thin line between denouncing freely held elections (which was what they wanted all along, and I give them strong credit on that front) and declaring support for a militant organization like Hamas.

Rice and President Bush have said that a pre-condition to dealing with Hamas is that they at least recognize Israel's right to exist, which I believe is a necessary first step. Denouncing terrorism would be the next logical step; we must be careful here not to demand full renounciation of 'armed violence', because that will never happen as long as the Israelis continue to occupy Palestinian territories with illegal settlements and the such.

Some middle ground has to be reached here, you can't shun a democratically-elected government forever, you must deal with the people whom the Palestinian masses have empowered on their behalf, but only after they at least agree to renounce some of their declared policies (i.e. support for the destruction of Israel in their charter, and terrorism).

 

funding fatah is doing the right thing? saying they wont recognize the PA if hamas wins is the right thing? so much for democracy...

 

They didn't say it's not a legitimate outcome, just that they won't deal with a government that has "Destruction of Israel" at the top of the To Do list.

Democracy isn't agreeing with everything another country does but recognizing that it's the wish of the people. Hitler was "democratically elected" and dealing with him proved to be real useful, eh?

 

actually hamas says the top of its to do list is to incorporate the other factions of the palestinians into the gov't.

and as far as wont deal with the gov't...thats an OBVIOUS attempt to de-legitimize the party. of course ironically saying anti-hamas things in the middle east probably raises hamas's rep.

and dont forget democracy also has to do with powerful countries funding a particular party.

 

To consider intent is not moral relativism, it is the basis of morality. Bears kill people, but they are not evil. Bears do not intend to murder an innocent person, they intend to kill a prey animal and eat it. Hamas intends to further its agenda by targeting and murdering innocent people. The US intends to prosecute the war in Iraq by targeting the Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists and in the execution of that, some innocent people get killed. Intent is everything.

Moral relativism is saying that because they have different beliefs over there, because they have a different point of view, that what we would consider immoral here is in fact okay over there. Hamas is not okay. The Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade is not okay. They are murderous terrorist scum, and the vast majority of the Palestinian people feel that those organizations are what best represents them. I am disgusted.

 

I can make up a syllogism like that for Hamas. Easily. Hamas's enemy is what it thinks is the illegal israeli state on what it thinks is its soil. It's going to carry out attack on public establishments on its soil. Civillians might die (though doesnt hamas always claim that all israelis are subject to military srvice thus no civilians?) So they should stay the F away from buses and cafes and whatever else the wackos from Hamas want to blow up. Or else they should just leave. Sure, innocent people might die. But they knew the risk, and got in the way.

Now I don't believe this sh-t, but it's quite simple to justify killing people. It's easy. I just did, just like you did. And then I can jump back on to my BBS high horse and act haughty - and make pronouncements that recklessness and negligence are not culpable when blowing up people in the middle east while deliberate intent is.

Of course, even if we accept your post hoc rationalizing our own legal system treats recklessness and sometimes negligence as sufficient mens rea to put people in jail. But from you it apparently gets a free pass- regardless of the much greater human cost. Coming from an outspoken pro lifer such as yourself - it's surprising to see you trash tens of thousands of more innocent lives for that reason. It reminds me of your stance on affirmative action, which is that it is always morally wrong, except when you are for it and it might benefit you, and then it is right.

I didn't say jack sh-t about Hamaas being OK. So the rest of this post is useless. I honestly don't know what moral relativism is other than a convenient insult and a way for people to feel good about themselves without having to do anything.

 

If you believe killing innocents is wrong to be a moral absolute, which I would gather you do, then taking intent into account to judge the morality of killing innocents is definitely moral relativism.

 

Obviously I don't, as I said that intent is everything. Killing innocents is unfortunate. Trying to kill innocents is wrong.

 

so killing innocents while not trying to kill them is not wrong?

 

Not necessarily, no. The engineers that worked on the space shuttle could be said to have killed innocents. I wouldn't say they were morally wrong. They certainly weren't trying to kill innocents. That was just the end result. When we bombed the Al Quada meeting in Pakistan, some innocents were probably among the 18 killed. I don't think attacking our enemies was morally wrong, even though some innocents ended up dying. On the other hand, a drunk driver that kills a kid on his way home from the bar was morally wrong. He intended to drive drunk, and that is not a moral choice. He didn't intend to kill an innocent, but his intentions do determine the morality of the situation, not the outcome. In contrast, a person that is driving their friend to the hospital because they are bleeding out and kills a kid is not morally wrong. The result is the same, a dead innocent, but the intent of the people is different, and so the morality of the situation is different.

 

That first quote is the essence of moral relativism. A terrorist is a terrorist. They are the same over there as they are over here. One man's terrorist is not another man's hope, or freedom fighter, or anything else.

For your edification: Moral Relativism

 

They are the same to you, because you sit and judge from the safety of your keyboard. Wouuld you say the same thing if you lived in Gaza city? No. Would that make it right? No.

 

so your morality allows you to compare a space shuttle accident in which everyone on the shuttle willingly and knowingly took the risk and everyone on the ground did everything they could to save them...to the US acting on false intelligence bombing a village which obviously under pretty much every circumstance would kill innocent civilians given the size of the bomb and the vicinity of the homes near the target and the probability that the home itself even if it has the terror suspects would also have innocent civilians?

im happy i dont have your moral relativism.

 

Well it has happened. We can hope that the mandates of politics will temper if not eliminate the mandates of terrorism the group has been involved in.

The thing is there is a sort of cold war mentality that exists between Hamas and Israel, where both sides have so demonized the other that it will be hard for them to approach any negotiations from a position of trust. A reliable third party will have to step in and help in the negotiations. (I hope the U.S. could still be that partner.)

On the bright side maybe the corruption will be significantly less now that Fatah isn't in control.

It is a sticky situation, but hopefully it will work out for the best.

 

What would anyone expect?

We re-elected a war president bent on world domination. Was any other country expected to do anything differently? The Palestinians elected a war party in order to counter possible American imperialism.

Should we have expected anything different?

 

I think the Palestianians have a pretty legitimate position. They don't have a formal country. They've been bullied and persecuted by the Israelis for decades. The people have elected a group that over the years has stood up to Israeli aggression. Maybe not in the most humane way, but desperate people do desperate things. The British and American governments have created this mess and it started back before most of us were born. I don't expect to ever see peace between Israel and Palestine.

 

The Palestinians probably equate Hamas with giving bags of food to starving children and standing up for their rights more than the Hamas that blows up buses full of innocent people.

They would get a huge following in elections, with or without Bush.