>> Nobody should be in a position to judge the Israelis unless they themselves display a willingness to live under a constant barrage of missiles. Remember, these are the same people who get apoplectic when exposed to second-hand smoke. >>

Danny, when I can read a statement like yours, that just rips the liberal idiocy straight to shreds, I realize I’m hopelessly mentally sunk into the liberal world. Of COURSE the liberals don’t give a flying f***k about Israeli children… and yes they are apoplectic about second-hand smoke… and yes, you are right: Being capable of holding those two positions is clearly insane. It’s the very definition of insane.

And I was incapable of making such a connection until you made it. Sigh. I remain blinded. And I don’t know how blinded I am.

One, you shoot rabid dogs, you don’t befriend them or discuss proportionality. Afterwards, when the dog is no longer a threat, you can feel sorry for the dog and discuss ways that contracting rabies can be avoided.

Second, I would add that “liberal activists” can only hold such beliefs because they are insulated from the consequences thereof. Nobody should be in a position to judge the Israelis unless they themselves display a willingness to live under a constant barrage of missiles. Remember, these are the same people who get apoplectic when exposed to second-hand smoke.

These people think they can “gauge” the level of threat from something like Hamas based upon their technology levels or something. This is completely wrong and foolish.

There is no “for sure” in a fight. There is only what they can or cannot do, what Hamas is capable of and what they are not capable of physically. A dead enemy, for example, cannot fight anymore. That is the only 100% guarantee around.

The world is very simple for liberal activists, when everyone holding “bad ideas”, meaning ideas they don’t like, is treated as if they were criminal.

I think the better word is apostate or heretic rather than “criminal”. If they treated us like criminals, they would be yelling about our presumption of innocence and our right to due process. They don’t say that though, because they don’t see us violators of their religion not violators of a civil law.

I’ve wondered about that at times in these postings, too. The concept applies to using the courts to overturn the will of the people in these cases as well. It shows that these gay marriage advocates do not even conceive of the idea of “ordinary people supporting ordinary values”. There are those who are with them, and those who are against them. Those who are with them are good, and those who are against them, are bad.

That is why they will attack you even when you are not attacking them: Because you are holding bad ideas and are therefore bad, and are deserving of being assaulted.

The world is very simple for liberal activists, when everyone holding “bad ideas”, meaning ideas they don’t like, is treated as if they were criminal.

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2009/01/05/israel-hamas-gaza-oped-cx_re_0106epstein.html?partner=commentary_newsletter

The author said:
The principle of proportionality can be extended to some cases of bodily harm. You can’t kill an attacker who for sure will do no more than scratch your face. The innocent party has to lick his wounds for the benefit of a wrongdoer.

My thought is this:
Let’s look at individual responsibility in the case of a powerful man and his weaker, much smaller, but very temperamental girlfriend. She gets upset at him, and she flies at him, striking at his face with fingernails (per the fellow’s example above).

I think it is entirely reasonable for him to hold her off, try to calm her down, even while she is inflicting some damage. He is allowed to do worse, but perhaps should do minimal, in that situation. His friends, family, and neighbors might even expect him to exercise restraint.

But what about the SECOND time she does this? And then the third? And the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh? At what point are his friends, family, and neighbors morally obligated themselves to relieve him of all responsibility for being cautious in defense? Of course, being an individual example, the fellow can end the relationship, one supposes – except for the horrors of the judicial system, which might punish him with excessive alimony or palimony or what-have-you.

In the Israel/Hamas case, Israel cannot simply “leave”. If any restraint was called for on Hamas’ early aggressions, now that they are on their umpteenth campaign of death and destruction against Israel, how is it possible that across the rest of the world, there are those STILL urging Israel to be cautious and to accept, to simply accept, their own deaths and their own destruction?

I can only hope that more and more people will tire of the endless game and admit it’s simply nuts; that by now, Israel is more than justified in their responses. That in fact, if a school is filled with munitions, soldiers, and children, that in fact the community surrounding that school is responsible for deliberately sacrificing their own children to a martyr’s cause. And THAT, my fellow civilized citizens, is an act of EVIL, against your own children.

As a commenter said elsewhere, Hamas is worse than Nazis; at least the Nazis didn’t deliberately put their own children in the line of fire. Luckily for the world, Hamas is, at least currently, less effective than Nazis. But they’re a force of barbarism and horror set directly against all of civilization, all of civilized behavior. We should not be fooled.

Given that they were never interested in convincing their neighbors of the correctness of their cause, that wouldn’t matter to the gay activists, now would it.

Btw, Book, Israel should break Hamas in a fashion reminiscent of this video.

Link

Warning: Be advised that this video per FCC regulations has unexpected happenstances.

Break Hamas. Now.