In the last decade or two, I have noticed, particularly with the liberals, a trend toward directing anger toward the lesser of two evils, and while they may carry anger for both sides, they don't voice their anger against the greater of the evils.

Here are a few examples of what I mean.

1) Officer shoots suspect.  There is an outrage against "police brutality".  Suspect shoots officer. There is a 10 second blip on the local news here and there for a couple weeks, and that's it.  Maybe a couple family members and friends of the officer will speak out, but the majority of the community does not.

2) Palestinians break the cease-fire and attack Israel's civilian community.  Israel retaliates, giving every civilian, woman, child, tourist, etc. the opportunity to flee, and targets Palestinian militants.  Group of protesters gathers in San Francisco... to protest ISRAEL!  Haven't seen much of any outrage against the Palestinians.

3) U.S. soldiers are killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In this case, if you are liberal, I can see why you might say this all leads back to the U.S. getting involved in the first place.  So anger toward the Bush administration (and congress) is understandable... but nobody speaks out against the insurgents responsible for killing women and children, suicide bombing crowded public places?  They'd rather protest our military?

This always blows my mind.

I was with my driving instructor and driving through Downtown. I saw many protesters at Cleveland State.

Both Parties are equally bad and good.

The Democrats during the Victorian Times were into money whereas The Republicans were the progressive party. Now it seems the tables have turned.

1) Officer shoots suspect.  There is an outrage against "police brutality".  Suspect shoots officer. There is a 10 second blip on the local news here and there for a couple weeks, and that's it.  Maybe a couple family members and friends of the officer will speak out, but the majority of the community does not.
That's a bit of a "man bites dog" story - when it's one way round, it's not "news".  But when a policeman shoots a suspect, he'd better be damn sure he's shooting the right guy (note that the majority of times this happens, there is no uproar: an awful lot depends on who it is that gets shot)



2) Palestinians break the cease-fire and attack Israel's civilian community.  Israel retaliates, giving every civilian, woman, child, tourist, etc. the opportunity to flee, and targets Palestinian militants.  Group of protesters gathers in San Francisco... to protest ISRAEL!  Haven't seen much of any outrage against the Palestinians.
Palestinians firing rockets over a period of weeks kill 4 Israelis... Israeli air strikes and shelling kills 300 in the first hour.  What surprised me was that the estimates put it at "only" 60 civilians killed, which given the rocketeers' propensity for hiding amongst civilians seems to me quite remarkably low - either that or they've taken to classifying the families and children being used as shields as combatants.

Even the Egyptian foreign minister was sending letters to the Palestinian Hamas government saying they were going to bring this down on themselves.

But even so, the Israeli reaction has been excessive - they've managed to kill more *innocent* people than the last year's rockets and suicide bombs combined within a few hours.  Neither side has any kind of moral high ground here.  Just because the Palestinians are in the wrong doesn't make what the Israelis have done in retaliation right.


3) U.S. soldiers are killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In this case, if you are liberal, I can see why you might say this all leads back to the U.S. getting involved in the first place.  So anger toward the Bush administration (and congress) is understandable... but nobody speaks out against the insurgents responsible for killing women and children, suicide bombing crowded public places?  They'd rather protest our military?

Iraq and Afghanistan are two very different kettles of fish - different reasons for being there; different reactions from the populus; different outside interactions and very, very different terrains.  Not to mention very different opponents: the hideous suicide campaign in Iraq (take the example of a suicide bomber killing a group of children around an American marine - he was handing out candy, and the bomber just blew them all up) is scarily heartless.  However, the reason people don't speak up about it is, IMO, twofold: firstly, it's "the enemy" - it's "them".. it's not "our" business being angry about it; secondly, sad to say we've become inured to reports of insurgents & suicide bombers.. that's what we're expecting them to be doing.  It doesn't mean we agree or like it.. just that there doesn't actually seem much point in saying what everyone else around us will agree with.

Is there much protesting of the military over Iraq/Afghanistan that side of the pond?  There's very little here (though it does seem to get a disproportionate amount of media time - but that's just another argument about a news media that has to find news somewhere, even if there's nothing worthwhile to be found)

Liberal bashing has is going the way of bush and co.  Liberals thinks this, liberals do that.  It's tired

Liberal bashing has is going the way of bush and co.  Liberals thinks this, liberals do that.  It's tired


Who is bashing?

It's obvious that liberals and conservatives have different viewpoints... and I don't see what is wrong with questioning the logic of some of those viewpoints.

Who is bashing?

It's obvious that liberals and conservatives have different viewpoints... and I don't see what is wrong with questioning the logic of some of those viewpoints.



Philbo summed up what I'd say about your examples.  Philosophically, we liberals are suspicious of power and authority.  There is no balance of power between the Israel and the Palestinians.  Israel seized land that wasn't theirs to seize and has been smothering the life out of Palestine for forty years.  Pro-Israel people, I know your answers.  Please, I'm not interested in sidetracking this thread into Israel versus Palestine; I'm demonstrating an example of a liberal position per the question.

Liberals tend to distrust cops because they are authority figures.  The state vests in them the power of enforcement, arrest, and the right to use deadly force.  We believe it is imperitive to keep a constant vigil on law enforcement because they will abuse their power if it is not challenged.  I agree, sometimes the moral outrage is misplaced.  If a cop shoots an armed drug dealer, I'm not going to play the drug dealer up as a victim.  I still see the root of the problem as social injustice rather than moral failing on the part of the individual.  That is a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative outlooks.

If a suspect shoots a cop, the suspect should have the chance to demonstrate he was not threatening the life of another civilian or the life of officer, and the cop was about to kill him without legal cause.  If the suspect fails to demonstrate this, I have no problem with the people sending him up for homicide. Unfortunately, if the suspect has no money for private counsel, he might not get a fair shake in court. 

With the military in the Middle East, I ask as a liberal and a conscientious person, why our military is there in the first place and whose interests are we really advancing.  Again, suspicious of authority, I am unlikely to take the "official version" at face value.

In the last decade or two, I have noticed, particularly with the liberals, a trend toward directing anger toward the lesser of two evils, and while they may carry anger for both sides, they don't voice their anger against the greater of the evils.


We're tribal social animals, and (by definition, in a tribe of about 100 units) 99% of us are underdogs, so it's only natural for us to root for the underdog. 

(I agree with Max in skipping the individual issues up for debate; this isn't about IvP, this is about why people choose their respective sides in the first place.  I'm only mentioning it in that context.)

Coming from the other side of the political fence on the Israeli thing, I sympathize with the Israelis because I see them as the underdogs.  Underdogs with nukes, mind you, but what good is overwhelming military superiority (conventional and nuclear) if you can't actually use it?  A million members of Western civilization sticking it out in a sea of a hundred million people who'd rather see them dead, and having survived without ever having actually used their overwhelming military superiority to simply "Become One With The Dark Side" and wipe their enemies out... is pretty underdoggishly-spiffy.  I woulda nuked 'em decades ago.  Conversely, a bunch of illiterates armed with nothing more than homebuilt knockoffs of WW2-era Russian unguided missiles actually managing to genocide a modern Western nation-state, well, that would also be a pretty awesome come-from-behind win, especially given the Israelis' nukes and general touchiness about that whole genocide thing.

So Max and I disagree on which side we support, but in the sense that matters, our decisionmaking process was identical: we evaluated the situation on its merits, and although we came to different conclusions about who was the underdog, after our evaluations, we went with the side we perceived as the underdog.

The only real difference between the people labeled with meaningless words beginning with "l"s and "c"s is who they perceive to be the underdog. 

To use a non-political example, consider Formula 1 vs. NASCAR.  The engineering in F1 is arguably the best in the world.  Depending on how much of an engineering advantage a team has, it can consistently finish a race minutes ahead of its nearest competitor.  And while there's also some great engineering going on in NASCAR, it's also got restrictor-plate racing (cars that are artificially limited in terms of their maximum performance on certain tracks) that has the effect of keeping the pack bunched together, and rules like a "lucky dog" rule - one lapped car per caution effectively gets a lap back - and a whole slew of rules pertaining to restarts and the end the race to make sure that if (when!) there's a crash, that the race finishes under a green flag, even if it means stopping the entire field and letting everyone else catch up to the leader while the crews clean the last crash off the track.

Because all things being equal, it's more exciting when the guy who's 5 laps down can make it back through a combination of good strategy, luck, and skilled driving.  That sort of thing almost never happens in F1.  So F1's got the faster/better cars, but NASCAR's still more fun to watch, and the TV ratings prove it.  Because everyone loves to root for the underdog.

Coming from the other side of the political fence on the Israeli thing, I sympathize with the Israelis because I see them as the underdogs.  Underdogs with nukes, mind you, but what good is overwhelming military superiority (conventional and nuclear) if you can't actually use it? 

I definitely get that... if you remember the beginning of the movie "Con-Air", Nicholas Cage's character gets attacked out of the blue, he defends himself, but then goes to prison.. even though everyone knew he was acting in self defense, but due to his training his hands were considered "lethal weapons".. so it's kind of the same thing.. sure, take self-defense classes, just don't ever use the skills you learn.

I appreciate the enlightenment from all who have responded... and I do kind of understand where you're coming from.  I always thought it came across as so anti-good and pro-bad... not sure if you can see from my perspective why it looks that way when I hear all this stuff on the radio...

I tend to side with America, or whatever I feel is in America's best interest - so it is natural for me to side with Israel, a longtime friend of America as opposed to an anti-American Palestinian regime... regardless of who exactly did what first, etc.  I also think law and order is in America's best interest, as opposed to criminal activity.  I think crooked cops should be treated as the criminals that they are, but I think most cops are trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.  I suppose when they are face to face with a violent criminal, they worry about their own lives and aren't about to take any chances, so sometimes things get out of hand... but I admit I'd rather see a violent criminal off the street than a good cop.

I definitely get that... if you remember the beginning of the movie "Con-Air", Nicholas Cage's character gets attacked out of the blue, he defends himself, but then goes to prison.. even though everyone knew he was acting in self defense, but due to his training his hands were considered "lethal weapons".. so it's kind of the same thing.. sure, take self-defense classes, just don't ever use the skills you learn.

I appreciate the enlightenment from all who have responded... and I do kind of understand where you're coming from.  I always thought it came across as so anti-good and pro-bad... not sure if you can see from my perspective why it looks that way when I hear all this stuff on the radio...

I tend to side with America, or whatever I feel is in America's best interest - so it is natural for me to side with Israel, a longtime friend of America as opposed to an anti-American Palestinian regime... regardless of who exactly did what first, etc.  I also think law and order is in America's best interest, as opposed to criminal activity.  I think crooked cops should be treated as the criminals that they are, but I think most cops are trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.  I suppose when they are face to face with a violent criminal, they worry about their own lives and aren't about to take any chances, so sometimes things get out of hand... but I admit I'd rather see a violent criminal off the street than a good cop.


What you and Foo seem to overlook is exerting force because you can will backfire in the long run.  The PNAC thugs got in charge and now everybody hates America (except Israel and some desperate sub-Saharan countries, and the UK.  We also let the kleptocrats take charge of our economy and now we're in hock to the Communist Chinese.  Yeah, you can blame it on Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, but that doesn't go very far.
You guys are also baiting me into barking about Israeli blowing Palestinian children to kingdom come.  Well, I'm not biting!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/dogrun.gif

Who is bashing?

It's obvious that liberals and conservatives have different viewpoints... and I don't see what is wrong with questioning the logic of some of those viewpoints.






I also think law and order is in America's best interest, as opposed to criminal activity.  I think crooked cops should be treated as the criminals that they are, but I think most cops are trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.  I suppose when they are face to face with a violent criminal, they worry about their own lives and aren't about to take any chances, so sometimes things get out of hand... but I admit I'd rather see a violent criminal off the street than a good cop.





The implication here is that "liberals" do not think as you do about the question of law and order.  Why don't you think that we feel the same because we ask the hard questions about the opposing side of what we are told, or even believe, to be true? Asking the questions doesn't mean taking sides, one way or the other. There are many of us who are tired of being labeled as un(or anti)American, or even worse, because we bring up the thorny issues of right or wrong on either side of anything, but that is what happens.  The media has been able to convince many that to ask the hard questions makes one sympathetic to murderers, rapists, and terrorists, and make many believe that to be a liberal is to take the side of those out to destroy the United States.  It is my opinion un-questioned loyalty, unquestioned anything, is not a virtue.

From what I see (just to focus on cops) most of the time the cops are vindicated and most people agree that they responded correctly, but when 10 or 12 cops fire over 70 rounds into one suspect who showed no weapon, or ( as happened in VT) 2 cops blow away a distraught guy who is holding a knife to his own throat, you gotta ask what's up with that.

From what I see (just to focus on cops) most of the time the cops are vindicated and most people agree that they responded correctly, but when 10 or 12 cops fire over 70 rounds into one suspect who showed no weapon, or ( as happened in VT) 2 cops blow away a distraught guy who is holding a knife to his own throat, you gotta ask what's up with that.

I knew Robert Woodward.  He was a friend of my sister and brother-in-law.  Those cops shot Woody in the back while he was already wounded on the floor.  His friends and family formed "Justice for Woody."  I was not involved in the campaign and I don't remember exactly what their demands were.  I do know those Barney Fifes from Brattleboro got off the hook.  Howard Dean wouldn't touch the case with a ten-foot pole. 

Who is bashing?

It's obvious that liberals and conservatives have different viewpoints... and I don't see what is wrong with questioning the logic of some of those viewpoints.




True...  I think part of what you're seeing involves expectations.

We expect a suspect (that turns out to be guilty) to be low enough to shoot a cop.  We hold the cop to a higher standard, because he's a figure of authority.

We expect terrorists to kill people, but we expect an educated First World country with a powerful military to have the ability and restraint to be able to handle terrorists in a way that doesn't involve blowing another country to smithereens.

So, by extension, liberals often focus on these expectations and protest accordingly.  I lean leftward myself, but I can understand why some people might question why the tendency to protest seems so one-sided.

It is just that I know too many young thugs who became cops to think that anything they do should not be questioned

You guys are also baiting me into 

Naw, totally not the intent of that post.

Here's a far better analogy, since it's about something that's (a) trivial, (b) completely overhyped by the media, because it (c) gets extremists on both sides riled up and in the mood to make donations to their favorite charitable organizations, and it works because (d) both sides can legitimately feel like they're the underdog.

"The War on Christmas(tm)".

If you're a Dominionist, the religious bedrock from which all rights in the Constitution supposedly flow, is obviously under attack by the twin Demonic forces of Godless Communism and Pagan Multiculturalism.  Every time someone says "Happy Holidays", they're persecuting Christians just as surely as if they were hammering the nails into Christ himself.  FEAR the Liberal Left and fight for the oppressed sane minority!  (And send your money.)

If you're an Atheist fundamentalist, the American constitutional principle against the Establishment of an American Church, another one of those principles from which comes everything from Mom and Apple Pie, is also obviously under attack by the the forces of Theocracy that threaten to turn America into a theocracy more oppressive than Afghanistan under the Taliban.  Every time someone says "Merry Christmas", they're secretly thinking about burning every copy of The Origin of Species in existence.  FEAR the Christian Right, and fight for the oppressed sane minority!  (And send your money.)

Almost all political arguments boil down to:

1) Fear people who hold differing opinions, for they are not of our tribe.
2) ???Our tribe is the underdog.
3) PROFIT!

In passing, this also explains the mystery of the underpants gnomes.

Naw, totally not the intent of that post.

Here's a far better analogy, since it's about something that's (a) trivial, (b) completely overhyped by the media, because it (c) gets extremists on both sides riled up and in the mood to make donations to their favorite charitable organizations, and it works because (d) both sides can legitimately feel like they're the underdog.

"The War on Christmas(tm)".

If you're a Dominionist, the religious bedrock from which all rights in the Constitution supposedly flow, is obviously under attack by the twin Demonic forces of Godless Communism and Pagan Multiculturalism.  Every time someone says "Happy Holidays", they're persecuting Christians just as surely as if they were hammering the nails into Christ himself.  FEAR the Liberal Left and fight for the oppressed sane minority!  (And send your money.)

If you're an Atheist fundamentalist, the American constitutional principle against the Establishment of an American Church, another one of those principles from which comes everything from Mom and Apple Pie, is also obviously under attack by the the forces of Theocracy that threaten to turn America into a theocracy more oppressive than Afghanistan under the Taliban.  Every time someone says "Merry Christmas", they're secretly thinking about burning every copy of The Origin of Species in existence.  FEAR the Christian Right, and fight for the oppressed sane minority!  (And send your money.)

Almost all political arguments boil down to:

1) Fear people who hold differing opinions, for they are not of our tribe.
2) ???Our tribe is the underdog.
3) PROFIT!

In passing, this also explains the mystery of the underpants gnomes.
Yes, the atheist fundamentalists embarass me.  I'm more of a Pat Condell atheist.  I bitch about the things worth bitching about concerning religion.

When someone says Merry Christmas, it's a gesture of kindness best followed up with your own response of Merry Christmas.

Jolly Kwanzaa sometimes works too though...  ;)

Naw, totally not the intent of that post.

Here's a far better analogy, since it's about something that's (a) trivial, (b) completely overhyped by the media, because it (c) gets extremists on both sides riled up and in the mood to make donations to their favorite charitable organizations, and it works because (d) both sides can legitimately feel like they're the underdog.

"The War on Christmas(tm)".

If you're a Dominionist, the religious bedrock from which all rights in the Constitution supposedly flow, is obviously under attack by the twin Demonic forces of Godless Communism and Pagan Multiculturalism.  Every time someone says "Happy Holidays", they're persecuting Christians just as surely as if they were hammering the nails into Christ himself.  FEAR the Liberal Left and fight for the oppressed sane minority!  (And send your money.)

If you're an Atheist fundamentalist, the American constitutional principle against the Establishment of an American Church, another one of those principles from which comes everything from Mom and Apple Pie, is also obviously under attack by the the forces of Theocracy that threaten to turn America into a theocracy more oppressive than Afghanistan under the Taliban.  Every time someone says "Merry Christmas", they're secretly thinking about burning every copy of The Origin of Species in existence.  FEAR the Christian Right, and fight for the oppressed sane minority!  (And send your money.)

Almost all political arguments boil down to:

1) Fear people who hold differing opinions, for they are not of our tribe.
2) ???Our tribe is the underdog.
3) PROFIT!

In passing, this also explains the mystery of the underpants gnomes.


Yeah, well, we say Merry Christmas around here, boy!  You wanna say something else, go back to f@gville, where you belong!

If you're an Atheist fundamentalist...

The odd thing is that I've never met an Atheist fundamentalist, either in real life or online - ISTM that the extremists get a disproportionate amount of air time for both believers and disbelievers.


In passing, this also explains the mystery of the underpants gnomes.

It does?  The *what*???

The odd thing is that I've never met an Atheist fundamentalist, either in real life or online - ISTM that the extremists get a disproportionate amount of air time for both believers and disbelievers.
It does?  The *what*???

Exactly.  The atheist activist makes better television.  Here in the states, for instance, it's real precious to the pious Right for students to recite the "Pledge of Allegiance."  Thus, the uppity atheist who rails against requiring kids to say "One nation under God" in school makes better TV than the atheist who doesn't care--might as well say "One nation under Mickey Mouse."

Underpants gnome is a new one to me too...not sure I wanna know more!

In the last decade or two, I have noticed, particularly with the liberals, a trend toward directing anger toward the lesser of two evils, and while they may carry anger for both sides, they don't voice their anger against the greater of the evils.

Here are a few examples of what I mean.

1) Officer shoots suspect.  There is an outrage against "police brutality".  Suspect shoots officer. There is a 10 second blip on the local news here and there for a couple weeks, and that's it.  Maybe a couple family members and friends of the officer will speak out, but the majority of the community does not.

what exactly are we supposed to do when a suspect shoots an officer? our tax dollars do not go toward helping suspects break laws, they go to law enforcement supposedly keeping the peace. when law enforcement fails to do so, it's our job as citizens to see to it they mend their ways. when lawless criminals commit crimes, there really is very little we can do to affect this one way or the other. we can complain about it but it's not like we have the ear of criminals so what would be the point, except to state the obvious that shooting people is wrong?

2) Palestinians break the cease-fire and attack Israel's civilian community.  Israel retaliates, giving every civilian, woman, child, tourist, etc. the opportunity to flee, and targets Palestinian militants.  Group of protesters gathers in San Francisco... to protest ISRAEL!  Haven't seen much of any outrage against the Palestinians.israel broke the ceasefire, not hamas, by continuing to wall off and starve palestine. and hamas, though they are definitely bastards, have killed five civilians with their ridiculous rockets, whereas israel has killed more than 400 and wounded more than 2000. i'm frankly speechless that anyone would define israel's acts as the "lesser evil" compared to hamas, with the absolutely dreadful human toll israel is exacting. but i guess we define these things as we see fit. perhaps palestinian lives count for less? it's really the only conclusion one could draw from this.

3) U.S. soldiers are killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In this case, if you are liberal, I can see why you might say this all leads back to the U.S. getting involved in the first place.  So anger toward the Bush administration (and congress) is understandable... but nobody speaks out against the insurgents responsible for killing women and children, suicide bombing crowded public places?  They'd rather protest our military?

This always blows my mind.
again, if there is an insurgent lobbying organization with a 1-800 number i will certainly call it and protest their use of suicide bombers and targeting civilians. but the misuse of the US military for outright profiteering and adventurism on the part of the bush administration is being conducted on MY tax dime, it is personally and financially benefiting THEM, and they claim to be acting on my behalf. so you're goddamn right i'm going to call them out on it. they're abusing their country, their elected people's trust and the good name of the united states of america to proliferate their war crimes garbage. fudge them.

and again, the death toll question pertains. if you want to maintain that the bush administration is somehow a "lesser evil" than the insurgents, you're going to need to square that with the sheer human cost. the bush administration has killed a hell of a lot more people over there than the insurgents have. not only that, they used to consort with saddam hussein, and now they use his human rights violations as an excuse to conduct an invasion and occupation that plainly had nothing to do with him. their sanctimony and sheer hypocrisy are truly astounding.

i dunno, conservatives blow MY mind. to me this stuff seems obvious but they keep insisting i'm supposed to take the right wing's side and that somehow they have some remotely functioning moral compass. from where i sit, i really, really do not see it. conservatives have done more damage to the USA and to the world in the last eight years, and have recklessly, needlessly and callously packed more innocent people into the cold ground, than i have witnessed in my life. and what's really mind-numbing about the whole thing is that they have the unmitigated, irredeemable, unconscionable, and unforgivable gall to continue, in the face of their sheer cruelty and incompetence, to claim they're in the right and to insult those who side with humanity, and against THEM. they really need to get off it and fudging own up to what they've done.

rant over.

Well, at least they don't hate freedom and stuff!
:D

That was exactly my point when the Right condemned the Muslims for not protesting the terrorists.  Why should Muslims waste their time protesting people who aren't going to listen to them anyway? 

Similarly when Sean Hannity asked why the American anti-war protesters were protesting our government instead of Saddam, I was flabbergasted!  They're Americans, not Iraqis.  Sure, the protesters could go down to Lafayette Park and chant "Hey hey! Ho ho! Saddam Hussein has got to go!," but what would that accomplish?  Saddam didn't ask and he wouldn't care.  My point to the protesters was that the Bush Administration was as mad as Saddam; they didn't ask and they don't care either.  However, in theory, politicians are supposed to respond to public pressure in a democratic republic (which the U.S. claims to be and Iraq was not).
::)

That was exactly my point when the Right condemned the Muslims for not protesting the terrorists.  Why should Muslims waste their time protesting people who aren't going to listen to them anyway? 

er... like the Danes?

er... like the Danes?
gotta admit, that was a pretty good one. ;D

gotta admit, that was a pretty good one. ;D

What amused me most with the 'toon riots was the news that Muslim countries were banning Danish imports - the major ones being bacon and beer, of course :)

What amused me most with the 'toon riots was the news that Muslim countries were banning Danish imports - the major ones being bacon and beer, of course :)


The Danes also have great licorice...and porn!
8)

In the last decade or two, I have noticed, particularly with the liberals, a trend toward directing anger toward the lesser of two evils, and while they may carry anger for both sides, they don't voice their anger against the greater of the evils.

Here are a few examples of what I mean.

1) Officer shoots suspect.  There is an outrage against "police brutality".  Suspect shoots officer. There is a 10 second blip on the local news here and there for a couple weeks, and that's it.  Maybe a couple family members and friends of the officer will speak out, but the majority of the community does not.

2) Palestinians break the cease-fire and attack Israel's civilian community.  Israel retaliates, giving every civilian, woman, child, tourist, etc. the opportunity to flee, and targets Palestinian militants.  Group of protesters gathers in San Francisco... to protest ISRAEL!  Haven't seen much of any outrage against the Palestinians.

3) U.S. soldiers are killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In this case, if you are liberal, I can see why you might say this all leads back to the U.S. getting involved in the first place.  So anger toward the Bush administration (and congress) is understandable... but nobody speaks out against the insurgents responsible for killing women and children, suicide bombing crowded public places?  They'd rather protest our military?

This always blows my mind.


   It depends on the political slant of your preferred media outlet.  Also noteworthy, a police officer won't draw an automatic death penalty for shooting a suspect... 

   Many folks believe, rightly or wrongly (it's up to you), the deaths of both coalition and insurgets, soldier and civilian, are US government proxy killings.  It's the "were it not for" addage - were it not for A, then B, C and D would likely not have happened...

   In short, and in my opinion, there would be less needless deaths and misery in the world if people (and governments) would start telling the truth.  It's the ONLY way true reform can take place... :)


  To rephrase - "...killing a suspect."  Not "shooting"...

i'm frankly speechless that anyone would define israel's acts as the "lesser evil" compared to hamas, with the absolutely dreadful human toll israel is exacting. but i guess we define these things as we see fit. perhaps palestinian lives count for less? it's really the only conclusion one could draw from this.


I do define it a little differently... it has more to do with intent and motive than the actual amount of damage.  To give a rather cliche-ish nonpolitical scenario:

Suppose there is a big 8th grade bully, and he gets his kicks by picking on the little 6th graders by demanding their lunch money and giving them a black eye when they don't comply.  Then one day a new 6th grader shows up at the school, he looks pretty scrawny and the bully decides he's a good target.  But what the bully doesnt know is that this particular kid has been taking karate since he was 3.  So when the bully messes with him (physically) he can easily block the punches.. but he takes it a step further, beats the living daylights out of the bully and the bully ends up in the hospital.

Even though the 6th grader caused more damage than the bully, the 6th grader was responding to an attack, and only attacked the person responsible... whereas the bully was attacking random people that never did anything to him.  So I would come to the conclusion that the 6th grader is a lesser evil, as he is not a menace to society and won't initiate violence.

And no, the bully and the 6th grader are not supposed to be symbolizations of israel & hamas... I'm just trying to show that the amount of damage done is not always a good measurement of who is the greater or lesser evil.

I do define it a little differently... it has more to do with intent and motive than the actual amount of damage.  To give a rather cliche-ish nonpolitical scenario:

Suppose there is a big 8th grade bully, and he gets his kicks by picking on the little 6th graders by demanding their lunch money and giving them a black eye when they don't comply.  Then one day a new 6th grader shows up at the school, he looks pretty scrawny and the bully decides he's a good target.  But what the bully doesnt know is that this particular kid has been taking karate since he was 3.  So when the bully messes with him (physically) he can easily block the punches.. but he takes it a step further, beats the living daylights out of the bully and the bully ends up in the hospital.

Even though the 6th grader caused more damage than the bully, the 6th grader was responding to an attack, and only attacked the person responsible... whereas the bully was attacking random people that never did anything to him.  So I would come to the conclusion that the 6th grader is a lesser evil, as he is not a menace to society and won't initiate violence.

And no, the bully and the 6th grader are not supposed to be symbolizations of israel & hamas... I'm just trying to show that the amount of damage done is not always a good measurement of who is the greater or lesser evil.

Your analogy is wrong on so many different levels - there's no way that the relationship between Hamas & Israel could be described with Hamas as bullying the smaller person.  The main complaint against Israel isn't that the person doing the attacking (the bully in your analogy) has been left in hospital, but that hundreds of innocent people who didn't have any say in the rockets being fired have been killed and injured.

What you're saying it's not OK to kill four Israelis when you don't care who you're aiming at, but it's OK to kill hundreds of Palestinians because they happen to live in the same building as someone the Israelis want to hit.  The same sort of logic that thinks that killing 3000 people in the WTC is the worst thing ever to hit the US, while the deaths of a hundred times that many Iraqis is OK 'cause it's "collateral damage" and they weren't the intended targets.

Your analogy is wrong on so many different levels - there's no way that the relationship between Hamas & Israel could be described with Hamas as bullying the smaller person.  The main complaint against Israel isn't that the person doing the attacking (the bully in your analogy) has been left in hospital, but that hundreds of innocent people who didn't have any say in the rockets being fired have been killed and injured.

What you're saying it's not OK to kill four Israelis when you don't care who you're aiming at, but it's OK to kill hundreds of Palestinians because they happen to live in the same building as someone the Israelis want to hit.  The same sort of logic that thinks that killing 3000 people in the WTC is the worst thing ever to hit the US, while the deaths of a hundred times that many Iraqis is OK 'cause it's "collateral damage" and they weren't the intended targets.
thanks for responding for me, philbo, i totally agree with all of this.

i'd only add that playground analogies are extremely common when people are trying to justify war crimes. only football analogies turn up as often. it's something to do with human psychology, i guess. right now israel is using cluster bombs in gaza, which are hideous weapons of mass destruction that are only legal because they're made by major corporations. they leave bright yellow "bomblets" scattered randomly hundreds of feet around where they fall. little kids love to play with them and they almost invariably die horrible, dismembered deaths when they do. i bet israel has put some bomblets somewhere in a playground in gaza even as we speak. israel should be ashamed of itself, profoundly.

What people lose sight of is that Israeli  leaders are looking to consolidate power, and Palestinian leaders are looking to consolidate power, each side has its brown shirts, and in the middle are people just trying to live their lives who are watching their babies, husbands, wives, parents, neighbors, etc go through through hell. 

I had a professor in at school who grew up in Palestine before it became Israel.  He is Jewish.  He rues the day Israel was made a Zionist state, he left the country never to return because of the divisions caused by the influx of Germanic/Slavic culture, with all its prejudices intact.

Your analogy is wrong on so many different levels - there's no way that the relationship between Hamas & Israel could be described with Hamas as bullying the smaller person. 

You're absolutely right.  Which is why at the bottom of my post, it says


And no, the bully and the 6th grader are not supposed to be symbolizations of israel & hamas... I'm just trying to show that the amount of damage done is not always a good measurement of who is the greater or lesser evil.



thanks for responding for me, philbo, i totally agree with all of this.

i'd only add that playground analogies are extremely common when people are trying to justify war crimes. only football analogies turn up as often. it's something to do with human psychology, i guess. right now israel is using cluster bombs in gaza, which are hideous weapons of mass destruction that are only legal because they're made by major corporations. they leave bright yellow "bomblets" scattered randomly hundreds of feet around where they fall. little kids love to play with them and they almost invariably die horrible, dismembered deaths when they do. i bet israel has put some bomblets somewhere in a playground in gaza even as we speak. israel should be ashamed of itself, profoundly.


I'm not trying to justify anything - I agree that neither side is right, and I hate to see the deaths as much as anyone else.  My only question, which was my reason for starting this thread, was, why is nearly ALL the public outrage (that the media jumps on, anyway) against Israel, when clearly the Palestinians brought this upon themselves in many ways.

I didn't mean for this to be an Israel vs Palestine debate... was just trying to understand the thought process.

You're absolutely right.  Which is why at the bottom of my post, it says

I'm not trying to justify anything - I agree that neither side is right, and I hate to see the deaths as much as anyone else.  My only question, which was my reason for starting this thread, was, why is nearly ALL the public outrage (that the media jumps on, anyway) against Israel, when clearly the Palestinians brought this upon themselves in many ways.

I didn't mean for this to be an Israel vs Palestine debate... was just trying to understand the thought process.



actually i think you're right, usually there's a lot more spirited defense of israel than i'm seeing this time. i think this editorial shines some light on a possible reason, i think after iraq anything that seems like a stronger power invading a weaker one based on suspicious pretenses, people have sorta lost their appetite for that. plus the administration and the major media are all so unembarrassedly pro-israel that it makes the palestinians seem sympathetic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/why-arent-more-americans_b_155194.html

But while Israel's PR machine cranked its Mighty Wurlitzer to full blast, drowning out all opposing voices with its droning sound, a surprisingly substantial portion of the American public decided to dance to its own tune. According to a December 31 Rasmussen poll (so far the only measure of US opinion on the Gaza assault), while Americans remained overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, they were split almost evenly on the question of whether Israel should attack Gaza -- 44% in favor of the assault and 41% against it. The internals are even more remarkable.

While Republicans supported the assault on Gaza by a large margin, a predictable finding, only 31% of Democrats did. Members of the Democratic base thus stood in sharp contrast to most of their elected representatives (freshman Rep. Donna Edwards is a notable exception), who backed the latest Israeli assault in lockstep, and seem to support Israel no matter what it does. The rift between the progressive base and the party played out on Barack Obama's Change.gov site, which was deluged in recent days with demands for a statement condemning Israel's assault on Gaza.

So what accounts for the surprising trend in American opinion on Gaza? The proliferation of progressive online media and social networking sites could be a factor, but I have another theory: The same pundits who are cheerleading Israel's assault on Gaza once sold the occupation of Iraq to America, and with a nearly identical set of arguments. In their voices and those of the grim Israeli PR agents carted out for cable news, many Americans hear echoes of the Bush administration's most fantastical lies. When they see images of Gazans under withering bombardment, they flash back to Fallujah and the assorted horrors of Iraq. When they look at Israel, they see themselves during the darkest days of the Bush era.

You're absolutely right.  Which is why at the bottom of my post, it says


And no, the bully and the 6th grader are not supposed to be symbolizations of israel & hamas... I'm just trying to show that the amount of damage done is not always a good measurement of who is the greater or lesser evil.
I didn't get that implication first time around, I'm afraid.  But I still think your analogy doesn't actually fit the thread.

You're absolutely right.  Which is why at the bottom of my post, it says

I'm not trying to justify anything - I agree that neither side is right, and I hate to see the deaths as much as anyone else.  My only question, which was my reason for starting this thread, was, why is nearly ALL the public outrage (that the media jumps on, anyway) against Israel, when clearly the Palestinians brought this upon themselves in many ways.

I didn't mean for this to be an Israel vs Palestine debate... was just trying to understand the thought process.





What you're see is the mainstream media talking about the public outrage against Israel and how unfair that is because poor innocent Israel is just trying to protect her people from the Hamas savages of Gaza.
::)

Pat Buchanan is a vociferous critic of Israel, but he can get away with it because he's written off as an anti-semite (which he kinda is).

they just shelled another school this morning where civilians had congregated for shelter, killing 43. all civilians, i think.

gets me fuming. i'm starting to think maybe i'd like to deny israel's right to exist, too. there's something seriously wrong with that country, some sickness in their spirit, for them to be capable of doing the monstrous sheesh they're doing in gaza right now.

they just shelled another school this morning where civilians had congregated for shelter, killing 43. all civilians, i think.

gets me fuming. i'm starting to think maybe i'd like to deny israel's right to exist, too. there's something seriously wrong with that country, some sickness in their spirit, for them to be capable of doing the monstrous sheesh they're doing in gaza right now.


They gotta knock over the schools to rub out the next gerneration of terrorists, dontcha know!

(is that new handle a noun or a verb?)

(is that new handle a noun or a verb?)



The Profile Bandit is on the loose.  :D ;D ;D ;D


http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=35320.0



Cat

(is that new handle a noun or a verb?)
i believe i will leave this question as an exercise for the reader.

they just shelled another school this morning where civilians had congregated for shelter, killing 43. all civilians, i think.

gets me fuming. i'm starting to think maybe i'd like to deny israel's right to exist, too. there's something seriously wrong with that country, some sickness in their spirit, for them to be capable of doing the monstrous sheesh they're doing in gaza right now.


I'm no fan of Israel, but it would probably help the Palestinians a lot if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel.  I know the level of retaliation that Israel is making isn't justified, but Hamas obviously knows what's going to happen as a result of rocket firings.

So, Hamas deserves blame for this just as much as Israel.

I'm no fan of Israel, but it would probably help the Palestinians a lot if Hamas stopped firing rockets into Israel.  I know the level of retaliation that Israel is making isn't justified, but Hamas obviously knows what's going to happen as a result of rocket firings.

So, Hamas deserves blame for this just as much as Israel.
i agree with you up until the last sentence. if you kill 500 people, that's worse than killing 10 people. simple as that.

i agree with you up until the last sentence. if you kill 500 people, that's worse than killing 10 people. simple as that.


Well yeah, but if you knowingly prod someone into killing 500 people, then you're just as bad in my eyes.

It's not like Israel's behavior is enigmatic.  They have a long history of overreaction.  Hamas knows full well what it's doing when it sends rockets into Israel.  Because they're still willing to do that knowing the consequences beforehand, they essentially sign the death warrants for their own people.

I guess what I'm saying is...  if the best thing Hamas can come up with in reaction to Israel is to send rockets at them, then the Palestinians really have put their faith in the wrong people.  What they're doing is suicidal.

Well yeah, but if you knowingly prod someone into killing 500 people, then you're just as bad in my eyes.

It's not like Israel's behavior is enigmatic.  They have a long history of overreaction.  Hamas knows full well what it's doing when it sends rockets into Israel.  Because they're still willing to do that knowing the consequences beforehand, they essentially sign the death warrants for their own people.

I guess what I'm saying is...  if the best thing Hamas can come up with in reaction to Israel is to send rockets at them, then the Palestinians really have put their faith in the wrong people.  What they're doing is suicidal.
that makes sense on a certain level. i'm not sure how much the palestinians actually support hamas; it seems like they see hamas as defending them against israel but they don't recognize that hamas is deliberately provoking this israeli collective reprisal. i think what the palestinians may need is something like the 911 truth movement but palestinian style, someone who will show them that hamas is delivering the palestinians to their deaths in return for political leverage.

that said, israel is still like 5000 times more fudgeed up in this. sorry, they look like blood-thirsty cannibals at the moment. if i were israeli i'd be ashamed of my country right now. and that's putting it lightly.

that makes sense on a certain level. i'm not sure how much the palestinians actually support hamas; it seems like they see hamas as defending them against israel but they don't recognize that hamas is deliberately provoking this israeli collective reprisal. i think what the palestinians may need is something like the 911 truth movement but palestinian style, someone who will show them that hamas is delivering the palestinians to their deaths in return for political leverage.

that said, israel is still like 5000 times more fudged up in this. sorry, they look like blood-thirsty cannibals at the moment. if i were israeli i'd be ashamed of my country right now. and that's putting it lightly.


I know what you mean.  You do have to give them credit for one thing though.  Israelis definitely stand up for each other better than the Arabs do.

For the most part, it seems like most of the Arab world just uses Palestinians as fodder against Israel while simultaneously pretending they care about the Palestinians.  They definitely hate Israel, but they don't truly seem to care about the suffering of the Palestinians.

It does?  The *what*???



Underpants gnome is a new one to me too...not sure I wanna know more!


The underpants gnomes from South Park, Season 2, Episode 17.

1) Get Underpants
2) ???
3) PROFIT!

The gnomes were very good at step 1).  Their goal - in step 3) - was well-defined.  The problem with their plan was that none of them knew what step 2) was.

In any policy debate, step 2) ultimately boils down to some variation of "portray your side in the conflict as having been victimized, disadvantaged, or in some way as being the underdog".  Only then, can you succesfully manipulate public sympathy in order to proceed to step 3), the succesful fundraising campaign.

This was pointed out on another forum:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213380&title=strip-maul

Satire so good, it's almost British ;)

Pat Buchanan is a vociferous critic of Israel, but he can get away with it because he's written off as an anti-semite (which he kinda is).


Max, I was very surprised when I heard Buchanan of all people disagreeing with Israel.  I had the preconceived notion ( which turned to be wrong) that he would have Israel's back.

Max, I was very surprised when I heard Buchanan of all people disagreeing with Israel.  I had the preconceived notion ( which turned to be wrong) that he would have Israel's back.


I agree with Pat 1/2 the time; the other 1/2 of the time I hate his guts, no in between, so it averages out to a mild disliking.  Last night he was on defending Gitmo!
>:(

See, Pat's a socialist...a national socialist!  So, sometimes he appears to be for the working man and the underdog against the multinatinal corporate bosses...but then he starts running down the immigrants and the gays and the artists, so it's like, well f**k him! 

Pat Buchanan is a great example of what they sometimes call a "paleo-con."  Old school.  They're much more consistently "conservative" than neo-cons.  The problem I have with guys of Pat's political orientation is they tend to be bigots, like Archie Bunker!
::)

Who is bashing?

It's obvious that liberals and conservatives have different viewpoints... and I don't see what is wrong with questioning the logic of some of those viewpoints.


How dare you question us!

We have or beliefs, how dare you cloud them with such meaningless things as facts!

::)

Who is bashing?

It's obvious that liberals and conservatives have different viewpoints... and I don't see what is wrong with questioning the logic of some of those viewpoints.




Amen!

My viewpoints and opinions are very moderate. I know what Bush did during his presidency was wrong...but he needed more than one man to do it. But Obama may be doing the similar thing, he may be basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater just like what Bush did when he got the keys to the White House!

How dare you question us!

We have or beliefs, how dare you cloud them with such meaningless things as facts!

::)


No no dearie.

We have our facts, how dare you cloud them with such meaningless things as beliefs!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/icon_biggrin.gif