Hafrada is worse than Apartheid

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Of course all human life is valuable.

But not equally. It seems.

[Texas]

A war??

Let's look at the more closely shall we?

One side has weapons only consisting of a few mortars and some privitive rockets.

The other side has one the most powerful and modern military capabilities in the world. Then Hamas must be, hands down, the dumbest organisation in history. Maybe they are too stupid to live.

[volatile]

The question is whether the level of civillian casualties can be justified and that involves looking at the tactics of both sides and the military goals pursued. Which involves actual research and the consideration of actual evidence rather than simple black and white moralising.

Exactly.

So let's look at these tactics. Israel are using fighter planes against handfuls of individuals with home-made rocket launchers. They are bombing densely-populated civilian areas to target small militia. 2,000 injured, at least (and certainly more) 62 civilians dead.

That's the evidence. So let's stop the black and white moralising. Is the military force exerted justifiable? Not to my mind.

[gtc]

That is a distinction without a difference,

Rubbish. There is a vast difference between relishing civillian deaths and recognising that civillian deaths may be justifiable. As an example, I do not relish the deaths of Japanese civillians from the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki but I recognise that they were most likely necessary to bring about the end of WWII.

particularly when accompanied by the phrase "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". Brilliant. Brilliant! More people dead. Good work, Israel.

Being happy that more Hamas terrorists are dead is very different from being happy that more Palestinian civillians are dead. Maybe you should ask the journalist which he meant before you start using his words to condemn Israel.

Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Palestine is not part of Israel although whether it is occupied by Israel or not is another matter.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Also, need I repeat -- two wrongs do not make a right. If Israel wants to stop the violence, there are better, more precise ways of going about it.
.

Israel is no better than Hamas. In fact it is worse. It's worse because it is bigger an stronger and can afford to take a more civilized approach then killing indiscriminately.

But Israel doesn't want that. It wants to eventually drive the Palestinians out of Palestine completely so there's a 1 state solution

[WildCat]

Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. So what? What does that have to do with the appropriateness of the response.
And Hawaii is not part of the North American continent. Which has no bearing at all as far as it being part of the USA.

Why would the British government not have been justified in ordering missile strikes on West Belfast? After all, the IRA operated out of civilian areas, and mustered considerable local support. So what's the functional difference here? If Israel is justified in acting in a manner guaranteed to cause massive civilian death because those actions will kill terrorists, why wouldn't the British have been justified in acting in the same way?
Because the British government had police in NI. They had British law in NI.

I grew up in Britain in the 80s. This is my frame of reference. So explain to me why the two situations aren't analogous from the point of view of the civilians on the ground -- because from where I'm standing, they're all too similar. Innocent men, women and children brutally killed because of the actions (and, occasionally, simply the beliefs) of their neighbours.
Which also makes it just like the terror after the French Revolution!
Except, of course, it's not at all like that once you look beyond the simplistic "innocent people get killed" analogy.

That cannot be justified.
And yet, it is. So long as Israel sticks to attacking militart targets they're off the hook under the Laws of Armed Conflict.

The same goes for Hamas too, of course - their attacks on civilians are equally heinous. The key word being "equally".
If your moral compass can't distinguish between targeting civilians and targeting military targets you may want to have it looked at.

[gtc]

Exactly.

So let's look at these tactics. Israel are using fighter planes against handfuls of individuals with home-made rocket launchers. They are bombing densely-populated civilian areas to target small militia. 2,000 injured, at least (and certainly more) 62 civilians dead.

That's the evidence. So let's stop the black and white moralising. Is the military force exerted justifiable?

Good.

Not to my mind.

So what actions would Israel be justified in undertaking?

[volatile]

Which also makes it just like the terror after the French Revolution! Except, of course, it's not at all like that once you look beyond the simplistic "innocent people get killed" analogy.

It's not a simplistic "innocent people get killed" analogy. It's about a disputed territory, with terrorists using civilian cover, in an area where they enjoy considerable popular support.

I take it, by your responses, that you feel the British bombing West Belfast would have been the wrong thing to do. Why not? They would have hit plenty of "military targets", if (as I assume from your final sentence) you count "civilian buildings where explosives are secreted" as "military targets".

How's that moral compass going? At least mine always points North, and doesn't shift poles depending on which country I'm in.

[volatile]

So what actions would Israel be justified in undertaking?

Armed soldiers arresting armed militants. No helicopters. No jet fighters. No missiles.

[WildCat]

It's not a simplistic "innocent people get killed" analogy. It's about a disputed territory, with terrorists using civilian cover, in an area where they enjoy considerable popular support.
NI wasn't disputed territory. It had been part of the UK for nearly 400 years.

I take it, by your responses, that you feel the British bombing West Belfast would have been the wrong thing to do. Why not? They would have hit plenty of "military targets", if (as I assume from your final sentence) you count "civilian buildings where explosives are secreted" as "military targets".
Because the British could go to any part of NI they felt like and take it out using far less destructive means.

How's that moral compass going? At least mine always points North, and doesn't shift poles depending on which country I'm in.
I don't think you know which way "north" is, actually.

[WildCat]

Armed soldiers arresting armed militants. No helicopters. No jet fighters. No missiles.
Well, I'm sure you'll be quite relieved when and if the ground troops move in. I'm sure they'll be able to walk right up to the long-beards and arrest them. :rolleyes:

[volatile]

I don't think you know which way "north" is, actually.

For the purposes of this analogy, North is: Don't kill innocent people.

It's quite a simple moral precept - though one that often seems to escape some otherwise decent people.

You seem to be OK with certain innocent people dying because of the what you perceive for some reason to be the uniquely heinous actions of their neighbours. You pick and choose who you care dies based on geography or some other equally arbitrary characteristic. And yet you have the gall to accuse me of lacking a moral compass? Astonishing!

[volatile]

NI wasn't disputed territory. It had been part of the UK for nearly 400 years.



You don't think the IRA disputed that? :rolleyes:

[Texas]

Israel is no better than Hamas. In fact it is worse. It's worse because it is bigger an stronger and can afford to take a more civilized approach then killing indiscriminately.

But Israel doesn't want that. It wants to eventually drive the Palestinians out of Palestine completely so there's a 1 state solutionYou do know that Israel could depopulate Gaza and the WB in 48 hours should it decide to do so don't you? Hell most Arab countries would be relieved. More Palestinians have been massacred and placed in camps by fellow Muslims than Israel could ever dream of doing.

[volatile]

Well, I'm sure you'll be quite relieved when and if the ground troops move in. I'm sure they'll be able to walk right up to the long-beards and arrest them. :rolleyes:

Ground troops? Not necessarily. Military police? Why ever not?

You cannot seriously be arguing that the only way to stop militants is to level their houses from jet fighters. Get a grip.

[Texas]

For the purposes of this analogy, North is: Don't kill innocent people.

It's quite a simple moral precept - though one that often seems to escape some otherwise decent people.

You seem to be OK with certain innocent people dying because of the what you perceive for some reason to be the uniquely heinous actions of their neighbours. You pick and choose who you care dies based on geography or some other equally arbitrary characteristic. And yet you have the gall to accuse me of lacking a moral compass? Astonishing! When it comes "innocent" people and taking sides as to who should die I would back the ones that are only asking to be left the hell alone over the ones that that are hell bent on not letting them.

[volatile]

When it comes "innocent" people and taking sides as to who should die I would back the ones that are only asking to be left the hell alone over the ones that that are hell bent on not letting them.

Don't you get it? You should back them BOTH. No-one deserves to die because of the actions, decisions or beliefs of their government or their neighbours. No-one.

Why the hell did you put innocent in quote marks? This kind of "us" and "them" thinking dehumanises the Palestinians and perpetuates the conflict. These are people. Real people. With real lives.

Imagine if someone dropped a bomb from a jet fighter onto your house because of something your State Legislature had decided? Or because of your neighbour's explosives cache? Have some empathy, man. These are people.

[gtc]

You seem to be OK with certain innocent people dying because of the what you perceive for some reason to be the uniquely heinous actions of their neighbours.

I don't think anyone is saying that Hamas is uniquely heinous. However, their actions do justify a certain level of carefully targetted military attacks even if that does lead to civillian deaths. The same applies to any and every military conflict. The question is simply whether the current level of military attacks is justifiable.

[gtc]

Ground troops? Not necessarily. Military police? Why ever not?

Putting aside the question as to whether Israel is legally allowed to send in military police - what is the tangible difference between a police action and ground troops. I am interested in differences in tactics, weaponry and so on.

More importantly, why would military police doubtlessly lead to more Israeli deaths but why would it lead to fewer Palestinian deaths? And why would it be as successful or more successful at stopping Hamas from shooting rockets at Israel?

[Texas]

Don't you get it? You should back them BOTH. No-one deserves to die because of the actions, decisions or beliefs of their government or their neighbours. No-one.

Why the hell did you put innocent in quote marks? This kind of "us" and "them" thinking dehumanises the Palestinians and perpetuates the conflict. These are people. Real people. With real lives.

Imagine if someone dropped a bomb from a jet fighter onto your house because of something your State Legislature had decided? Or because of your neighbour's explosives cache? Have some empathy, man. These are people. Geeze. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in history with more "innocents" killed than all other centuries combined. You want the Human race to evolve from the absolute brutes we humans still are. The ONLY thing we have evolved to is better ways to kill our enemies, "innocents" or otherwise. We now have a new century and yet we have a region of the world that is still mired in the 7th century and is lashing out with every weapon at its disposal. That is the problem Hamas must come to grips with, if they wish to make war with suicide bombers and rockets then I feel no twinges of "compassion" when they are turned into pink mist and I hold them responsible for any "innocents" on their side that are caught in the crossfire. There are over a million Palestinians in Gaza, if they do not like and agree with those they elected then they can overthrow Hamas and begin to join the modern world.

[volatile]

Geeze. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in history with more "innocents" killed than all other centuries combined. You want the Human race to evolve from the absolute brutes we humans still are. The ONLY thing we have evolved to is better ways to kill our enemies, "innocents" or otherwise. We now have a new century and yet we have a region of the world that is still mired in the 7th century and is lashing out with every weapon at its disposal. That is the problem Hamas must come to grips with, if they wish to make war with suicide bombers and rockets then I feel no twinges of "compassion" when they are turned into pink mist and I hold them responsible for any "innocents" on their side that are caught in the crossfire. There are over a million Palestinians in Gaza, if they do not like and agree with those they elected then they can overthrow Hamas and begin to join the modern world.

So the 9/11 dead are justly dead, because the residents of New York elected governments to which the terrorists were hostile? Of course not. Innocent people are just that - innocent.

Your philosophy is disgusting -- it renders the lives of Others worthless. Would that someone bombed your house because your neighbour was a terrorist. Maybe you'd change your tune.

[Texas]

So the 9/11 dead are justly dead, because the residents of New York elected governments to which the terrorists were hostile? Of course not. Innocent people are just that - innocent.

Your philosophy is disgusting -- it renders the lives of Others worthless. Would that someone bombed your house because your neighbour was a terrorist. Maybe you'd change your tune. In the eyes of Bin Laden and much of the Islamic world the deaths were justified. In the eyes of the Nazi the Holocaust and the London Blitz was justified. In the eyes of the allies firebombing Dresden was justified and in the eyes of the US nukes on Japan were Justified. In all cases "innocents" died for the "sins" of their governments. As always the winner will decide which actions were justified.

[gtc]

Would that someone bombed your house because your neighbour was a terrorist.

Saying that isn't going to convince anyone.

[Darth Rotor]

That's the evidence. So let's stop the black and white moralising. Is the military force exerted justifiable? Not to my mind.
But it is justified, and more, to some of the leadership in Tel Aviv. (Doubtless there are members of the Knesset who are horrified at this, and are as we interact here pushing as they can to get the government to stop this.)

You don't like it. I see it as a nearly ineviable chapter in the forever war that won't end until someone shows up with a better idea, either from within or without.

What besides arguing on this forum about moralizing on this can you do? If you've got the better idea, you'd be better off advising the decision makers in Tel Aviv and in Gaza.

It's wasted on us, though I'd love to see it, since we can't act on it.

DR

[lionking]

It is a war. Highly unbalanced...but still a war.

Like when the Americans fought the Indians....guns vs. bows and arrows. It was still a war.

and btw..when buses start blowing up in Tel Aviv (and they will soon)..will this war seem a little more balanced?

yes it will.

"meow"

I can't believe that this post was let go without comment. Perhaps because so many have you on ignore.

So you are looking forward to suicide bombings to balance things up a bit? Disgusting.

[gtc]

Give him a chance. I'm not sure that he suggested that a more balanced war would be a good thing.

More Israeli civillian deaths would mean that the war was more balanced but that doesn't mean that it would be anything other than a tragedy. Just as WWII would have been more balanced, but not better, if Japan had the ability to nuke US cities.

[XenonII]

Let's not.

Apartheid was based on a biological factor: melanin content in skin.

What Israel is doing is based on a sociological factor: political and cultural differences.

If you'd like to call it bigotry, it's hard to argue against that. It is obvious discrimination. If you try to import an emotionally charged term from somewhere else, due to an inherent dishonesty, it won't work as well. While both policies were and are political, their basis is not. Apartheid is a subset of general discrimination. Not all discrimination is apartheid.


Let's call it what it really is, FireGarden: Semite on semite bigotry, which in that part of the world is a well established habit for millenia.

DR

Race is much more than a person's skin color. In fact it is one of the least significant factors when it comes to race. Some Mongoloids for example, have very light colored skin but they are still not White. Jews and Arabs may both be Caucasoids, but they are still different races. An Arab is as distinct from a Jew as a White is to an Arab.

Apartheid was based on God's Holy Word in the Bible which demands the segregation of the races. It is not "discrimination" when done right, and besides not all discrimination is bad. Desegregation is far worse than Apartheid. Negroes for example, have made South Africa a Hell on Earth since black majority rule was permitted. The South African crime rate has gone through the roof and now Whites are actively discriminated against by South Africa's socialist "government".

[The Fool]

Race is much more than a person's skin color. In fact it is one of the least significant factors when it comes to race. Some Mongoloids for example, have very light colored skin but they are still not White. Jews and Arabs may both be Caucasoids, but they are still different races. An Arab is as distinct from a Jew as a White is to an Arab.

Apartheid was based on God's Holy Word in the Bible which demands the segregation of the races. It is not "discrimination" when done right, and besides not all discrimination is bad. Desegregation is far worse than Apartheid. Negroes for example, have made South Africa a Hell on Earth since black majority rule was permitted. The South African crime rate has gone through the roof and now Whites are actively discriminated against by South Africa's socialist "government".
Got some bad news for you dude. There is only one race of Humans on this planet. The rest is just rubbish made up by people like yourself.

[XenonII]

Got some bad news for you dude. There is only one race of Humans on this planet. The rest is just rubbish made up by people like yourself.

Don't confuse RACE with species! Race is a genetic FACT! Liberals protesting to the contrary does not make their propaganda true. Look at how the Liberal media savaged Nobel Prize winning biologist James Watson just for having the courage to tell the truth about Africa. Not only did they rob the man of his basic human rights to freedom of speech, they robbed him of his livelyhood as well. Those that scream for tolerance are amongst the most intollerant on Earth! Race denial causes far more problems than it solves. Race denial is a crime against nature! It promotes genocide. There's ONE human SPECIES divided into 3 subspecies - Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, and each of those are further divided into the various races and subraces of man.

[The Fool]

Don't confuse RACE with species! Liberals protesting to the contrary does not make their propaganda true. Race denial causes far more problems than it solves. Race denial is a crime against nature! It promotes genocide. There's ONE human SPECIES divided into 3 subspecies - Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid, and each of those are further divided into the various races and subraces of man.
congratulations you have arbitrarily divided Homo Sapiens Sapiens into 3 groups based on some superficial visual differences. I hope it suits whatever you want to use it for.

Unless Australian is a subgroup I don't want to play...

[XenonII]

congratulations you have arbitrarily divided Homo Sapiens Sapiens into 3 groups based on some superficial visual differences. I hope it suits whatever you want to use it for.

Unless Australian is a subgroup I don't want to play...

Australian is a nationality, not a race. Australian is also an ethnicity though, which is the next level down from subrace. :D Australian is a pseudonym for British. The Australians (and i'm talking about the REAL Australians and not some MultiCULTists PC definition of an "Australian" :rolleyes:) are those people descended from the original British colonists that discovered, brought civilization to, and founded Australia. It is thanks to their efforts that their is an Australia today. They built Australia.

Unlike some other species, divisions of mankind are not based on just "superficial visual differences" either. Race is more than just a person's appearance.

[The Fool]

Australian is a nationality, not a race. Australian is also an ethnicity though, which is the next level down from subrace. :D Australian is a pseudonym for British. The Australians (and i'm talking about the REAL Australians and not some MultiCULTists PC definition of an "Australian" :rolleyes:) are those people descended from the original British colonists that discovered, brought civilization to, and founded Australia. It is thanks to their efforts that their is an Australia today. They built Australia.

Unlike some other species, divisions of mankind are not based on just "superficia lvisual differences" either.
I really think you should start a thread on this as I think you are definitely onto something. Even some subgroups of australians are infinitely superior to other. People from my state (New South wales) are far superior even to the whitest people from where A_Unique_person comes from (Victoria). As demonstrated by the wierd form of football they play.

Lets not derail this thread any longer with your insites...start a thread man!

[RandFan]

Don't confuse RACE with species! Race is a genetic FACT! No, it's not. You are either ignorant of the facts or you are lying.

RACE - The Power of an Illusion (http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/whatdiff.htm)

...most human variation falls within, not between populations. About 85% of all genetic variation can, on average, be found within any local population, be they Swedes, Kikuyu, or Hmong. About 94% can be found within any continental population, consistent with what the Rosenberg Science study found. In fact, there are no characteristics, no traits, not even one gene that turns up in all members of one so-called race yet is absent from others. THAT is a fact.

[XenonII]

I really think you should start a thread on this as I think you are definitely onto something. Even some subgroups of australians are infinitely superior to other. People from my state (New South wales) are far superior even to the whitest people from where A_Unique_person comes from (Victoria). As demonstrated by the wierd form of football they play.

Lets not derail this thread any longer with your insites...start a thread man!

Hmmm I don't think there's any need for a new thread? I've just about said all that I have to say on this subject.

I make no value judgements when I acknowledge that not everyone is the same. We are not all the same race or gender, for example. An Indian is not a White and a White is not an Arab. We have differences. Those differences or not bad, they are just a fact of life.

The fact is that a nation consists of a group of people that all share the same ethnic background. For the Australian nation, that is those descended from the convicts from the British Isles, it is not the Mongoloids that preceeded them, for they did nout found Australia and had no real civilization to speak of. Others may have Australian citizenship, but they are not and cannot be part of the Australian nation, for the do not qualify on ethnic grounds. It is as simple as that.

[RandFan]

Race is more than just a person's appearance.Really? Then perhaps you could stop flapping your gums and post evidence. The fact is that while there are characteristics that are common among groups of people (like Sickle cell anemia) there is as much genetic variation within groups as between groups. That is a fact.

Race is an arbitrary human construct to justify tribalism.

[RandFan]

I make no value judgements when I acknowledge that not everyone is the same. We are not all the same race or gender, for example. An Indian is not a White and a White is not an Arab. We have differences. Those differences or not bad, they are just a fact of life.If you are really interested in the facts then perhaps you could present some rather than continue to make unsupported claims. All genetic studies to date demonstrate that genetic variation is as likely within groups as without.

But then, what the hell does facts have to do with it when you can simply declare something true. Right?

[XenonII]

No, it's not. You are either ignorant of the facts or you are lying.

THAT is a fact.

Race IS a genetic fact. It is possible to tell what someones race is solely by their DNA. I will have to find the URL that proves it. It was posted at FreeRepublic.com. "The Power of Illusion" is blatant liberal propaganda! "The Power of Illusion" is not true, it is wishful thinking and a pack of lies and pseudo-scientific nonsense! Race denial is the 21st century equivalent of believing that the Earth is flat!:jaw-dropp

[RandFan]

Race IS a genetic fact.Stating it is a fact doesn't make it a fact. This is a skeptics forum. We deal in evidence.

It is possible to tell what someones race is solely by their genetic code. One more time. There is as much variation within groups as there is between groups.

"The Power of Illusion" is blatant liberal propaganda!
Ad hominem. This is a fallacy. You don't address the arguments made nor the evidence that comes from many different sources.

Race denial is the 21st century equivalent of believing that the World is flat!More ad hominem. This isn't argument. It isn't evidence. :jaw-dropp is not evidence either.

[RandFan]

It was posted at FreeRepublic.com.See, when you post your link I'll address the arguments made instead of just dismissing it with ad hominem attacking of FreeRepublic.

That's assuming you ever post the damn link.

[Skeptic]

If anything "lacks nuance", it is strafing mosques, refugee camps and schools with bombers.

Well, perhaps hiding missiles and ammunition in them was not such a hot idea, then.

Hamas considers useful idiots such as yourself as part of its defense strategy against Israel: turn mosques into ammunition dumps, act shocked when they're bombed, wait for the useful idiots to start attacking Israel for its disproportionate response. Usually works.

What's disproportionate is hiding missiles in Mosques; but then again, it's the "religion of peace" we're talking about...

[Skeptic]

Your philosophy is disgusting -- it renders the lives of Others worthless.

No, it renders the lives of enemies who are trying to kill you in any way the can worthless as far as you're concerned.

Thank God the US Army, for instance, didn't follow your humane, moral advice; otherwise Europe would still have been under Nazi or Soviet rule.

[RandFan]

It is possible to tell what someones race is solely by their DNA.Individuals who are separated will develop markers. That Native Americans, Asians or Aborigines have certain unique genetic markers doesn't prove race anymore than the ability to tell what family a person comes from makes that family line a separate race. I'm afraid you will have to do much better than that. Also, you will have to rebut the arguments I've made and you will have to explain why there are no characteristics, no traits, not even one gene that turns up in all members of one so-called race yet is absent from others.

That's a pretty powerful argument against the concept of race.

Oh, and define what it is you mean by "race"? If it's some slippery concept to mean whatever you want it to mean then what's the point?

[XenonII]

Stating it is a fact doesn't make it a fact. This is a skeptics forum. We deal in evidence.

One more time. There is as much variation within groups as there is between groups.

Ad hominem. This is a fallacy. You don't address the arguments made nor the evidence that comes from many different sources.

More ad hominem. This isn't argument. It isn't evidence. :jaw-dropp is not evidence either.

I will address the evidence provided by "Race: The Power of an Illusion" in due course. Stating something is not a fact does not make it not a fact, and despite liberals best attempts to supress and discredit the evidence, there is still TONS of evidence that Race exists. There is no evidence that race doesn't exist, only propaganda, and you would need to be blind to not be able to see the plain and obvious fact that race clearly exists.

And it is true that races are very diverse. Look at the White race for example, it is so diverse that it can be further divided into 3 subraces: Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean. The White race must be the most diverse race on the planet. Other races however are not as diverse and diversity within races is no argument in favor of race denial.

This is a skeptics forum and I'm very skeptic of race denial.

[RandFan]

I will address the evidence provided by "Race: The Power of an Illusion" in due course.Then stop yapping and address it. Sheesh.

Stating something is not a fact does not make it not a fact
I didn't simply state that it's not a fact. I presented evidence. Facts.

...and despite liberals best attempts to supress and discredit the evidence, there is still TONS of evidence that Race exists. There is no evidence that race doesn't exist, only propaganda, and you would need to be blind to not be able to see the plain and obvious fact that race clearly exists.More damn gum flapping and words. I don't know how I can be more clear. Your rhetoric is not evidence. It's not reasoned argument. Hell, it's fallacy. You are arguing ad hominem.

And it is true that races are very diverse. Look at the White race for example, it is so diverse that it can be further divided into 3 subraces: Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean.Which is to say nothing. The facts still remain:


There is as much variation within Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean groups as there are between them.
There are no characteristics, no traits, not even one gene that turns up in all members of Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean groups yet is absent from the others.

Until you deal with those and the many other facts you are simply flapping your gums. Spare us the rhetoric and ad hominem. Get back to us when you've got evidence.

[DC]

It was posted at FreeRepublic.com.

Thanks for confirming my prejudice about you.

i see the British Penal colony is still alive.....

Must be a nice genepool, made of only best white genes.

[gtc]

This is off topic and I expect it to get sent somewhere else. However, I believe people of (recent) African origin have the most genetic diversity. I believe this is consistent with the out of Africa theory.

[gtc]

I really think you should start a thread on this as I think you are definitely onto something. Even some subgroups of australians are infinitely superior to other.

Certainly those people from states that weren't started as penal colonies aren't true Australians.

However, I love the idea that a true Australian is the descendant of criminals.

[FireGarden]

They may think so but what they think is not the sole determinant of morality.

Israel is not deliberately targetting civillians - it is attacking military targets with the knowledge that this may lead to civillian deaths. For the most part, Hamas is attacking civillian targets with the hope of killing civillians. That is an important difference.

No. Hamas is attacking civilians in the hope that it will bring about political change. That is terrorism and criminal.

Why do you have to pretend their goal is killing civilians? Do you not think that terrorism is bad enough?

[gtc]

Political change is indeed one of the reasons why Hamas wants to kill Israeli civillians. They also seem to believe that their religion calls them to kill Israeli civillians.

They want to kill civillians. Knowing the reasons why they want to kill civillians doesn't change that.