Click Image to Enlarge.
The Israelis have been warning the enemy before they attack by dropping leaflets telling civilians to leave the area. Still there has been "collateral damage" and Israel has been criticized for killing babies and U.N. observers.
Hezbollah has killed innocent civilians too. But not as "collateral damage". In Hezbollah's case civilians are the targets as well as the shields.
While we're on the subject of hypocrisy, last week Turkey lost 15 soldiers to attacks from Kurds in neighboring Iraq. Bush's message to the Turks….. " Be patient." Bush's message to Israel…
"You have the right to defend yourself."
Also, since "collateral damage" seems to be a distasteful yet widely accepted cost in the quest to kill our enemies, why shouldn't we view destroyed stem cells as "collateral damage" in the quest to save lives ?
Just a thought.
You are one sick individual. Get a life and get in the real world.
why shouldn't we view destroyed stem cells as "collateral damage" in the quest to save lives ?
Interesting point. If we were to apply the moral equivalence you suggest here, why would you object to the attacks on Hezbollah but not the cannibalization of the young to feed the old?
I thought it was a perfectly reasonable question to those who don't seem terribly concerned about civilian deaths (on either side) if it serves some larger political goal of theirs. AND FOR THE LAST TIME, I defend nothing of Hezbollah's actions or ideals. I've only asked that the Israelis be held accountable as well for their actions. Am I putting too fine a point on these arguements for you guys?
"the cannibalization of the young to feed the old ?" Man, talk about hyperbole.
Such righteous indignation. Is that really your opinion ?
Okay Sam. Now that you have that out of your system, tell me in
your own words where my mistake was in asking that question.
And that's all I did…. was ask a question.
As someone who is not sick and in the real world, let's see what you've got.
"Am I putting too fine a point on these arguements for you guys?"
No, you're missing my point entirely. And nowhere did I even hint that you were defending Hezbollah, so I don't know where that remark comes from.
My argument is this:
You call people who support Israel's attacks, yet oppose abortion hypocrits. Im assuming the reason you say this is because they are advocating the killing of Lebanese for the benefit of Israel while at the same time condemning the killing of children to benefit the old, sick, lame, what have you. Fine.
My question is, how is advocating the reverse any less hypocritical? If advocating for the death of one group so another can benefit is hypocritical, why is it different if we merely change who the groups are?
"Such righteous indignation. Is that really your opinion ?"
Yes it is. And I've kept my tone civil, refraining from personal attacks. I ask the same in return.
"nowhere did I even hint that you were defending Hezbollah, so I don't know where that remark comes from."
Uh Mick, what other conclusion could I come to after reading this:
"why would you object to the attacks on Hezbollah but not the cannibalization of the young to feed the old?"
"You call people who support Israel's attacks, yet oppose abortion hypocrit"
Just throwing the question out there Mick. As I've said many times, this is a political blog, not a blog on gardening or the care and feeding of siamese cats. You can't play football and
then complain about the tackling.
My point was that some people seem to be pretty blase' about civilian casualties when it serves them ideologically, and yet blood starts spurting out of their ears when I suggest there isn't a moral equivelence between let's say a 13 year old girl and 150 cells half the size of the period at the end of this sentence. If that's objectional to you then so be it. I would also ask where was all of the moral outrage for years when 1000's of unused embryos from fertility clinics were routinely thrown out in the trash ? Why no protest then ? Why not put them to good use and try and improve some people's lot in life ? As someone with a disease who could potentially benefit from stem cell research, why don't you tell me why my life is less important
than a blastocyst ? I'm dead serious Mick.
"Uh Mick, what other conclusion could I come to after reading this:"
What is there to conclude? You've made it abundantly clear that you do oppose the attacks. I never suggested it means you approve of Hezbollah's actions. One can oppose the death penalty without condoning the actions of the criminal. You're seeing implications where there are none. I meant nothing other than exactly what I stated.
"Just throwing the question out there Mick."
And Im just throwing them back. No blood no foul, to continue the sports metaphor.
"My point was that some people seem to be pretty blase' about civilian casualties when it serves them ideologically, and yet blood starts spurting out of their ears when I suggest there isn't a moral equivelence between let's say a 13 year old girl and 150 cells half the size of the period at the end of this sentence."
Good. My view is the exact opposite. Some people are blase'about killing innocent children for their own benefit, and go nuts over accidental civilian casualties when a country is protecting itself against murderous attackers (you chose your language, I choose mine). But the bottom line is we're BOTH advocating the killing of one group for the benefit of another. So we're back to my original question in my first post. Why is my view hypocritical and yours not? We're both doing the same thing.
My intention, here and now, is not to defend my political views, nor is it to attack yours. My sole purpose is to figure out why one is hypocritical and the other is not.
Mick, you think blastocysts are people.
I don't.
Game over.
If you dehumanize them, its easier to kill them. Believe whatever makes you feel good.
Believing whatever makes you feel good is the problem, not the
solution.
Yes, I agree. It is.