Ah more Euro think about proportionality. As long as each side can legitimately claim the other is doing terrible things, therefore we can do terrible things back, each side will and neither side will be willing to negotiate.

And you are essentially saying that one side should be the 'better' side and stop responding to the violence perpetrated by the other side and then the other side has no more reason to hit you. Yeah, thats a fair argument, if you were talking to two children having an argument. These are not two children having an argument, this is one of the most powerful military powers in the world repeatedly attacking a place that doesn't have an army. Moreover, both sides have a vested interest in the continuation of the conflict. Hamas gains its legitimacy from resisting Israeli occupation, while Israeli politicians use brute violence as a means to boost their own popularity among their electorate.

Its unreasonable to expect a solution to this conflict will come from either side. It will have to come from a third party.

Wanting some sort of proportional dead center solution is grasping at straws. The only people who want that are invested in making sure the conflict rages as long as possible. It was this idea of proportionality that guided the line in the sand gang and the treaties at the end of WWI. Worked out very well. The solution unfortunately lies in a disproportionate ending.

You realize that the Versailles treaty was anything but proportional right? It lifted the blame entirely from every WW1 actor and dumped it all on Germany. A proportional agreement would have acknowledged that WW1 was the result of the systemic failure of traditional European Balance of Power politics, with everyone sharing a part in the blame.

If we leave it to the two parties, and let them settle it, it will be over. Yes, I know one side will nearly exterminate the other. However it is only when the losing side finally, completely gives up that a lasting peace can be obtained. In WWII Germany and Japan were utterly defeated, where are they today?

Really? You are comparing two highly industrialized, military super powers losing the Second World War with Gaza or Israel? At what point does that comparison make any kind of sense? I expected better from you.

Besides, you assume that once one side gives up the violence will be over. This is at best a flawed assumption. For one, just look at how Israel treats the Gaza strip. Collective punishment is standard operating procedure for the Israeli's. If one idiot drives his car into a crowd of Israeli's, the retaliation is always total. Houses are demolished, Palestinian civilians are displaced. If a small group of radicals fires useless unguided missiles into Israeli territory, Israel responds with guided 155mm artillery leveling an entire neighborhood. Even if at a state level the Palestinians surrender, there is no guarantee that every individual will stick to that. On top of that, Israel will continue to chase out Palestinians from their homes so they can make way for Israeli settlers. And it remains to be seen whether the oh so tolerant orthodox Jews in Israel are willing to stop their violence against the Palestinians. Xenophobia and racism don't always have their roots in war.

The question for the euro think proportional proponents to ask themselves is simple. Is another thousand years of low level conflict where neither side is permitted to gain advantage over the other preferable to a short orgy of death and destruction? Which is better for everyone long term?

Neither is an acceptable solution. And I reject your overly simplistic binary outcome scenario. There are more outcomes than just the utter destruction of one side or a millennium of low intensity conflict.

The question for the euro think proportional proponents to ask themselves is simple. Is another thousand years of low level conflict where neither side is permitted to gain advantage over the other preferable to a short orgy of death and destruction? Which is better for everyone long term?

Gary...

Of course the implied answer is correct.

Unfortunately for The World and Themselves, Europeans are still living in a Fantasy World.

They have, since 1945, lived in Daddy's (America) House, and have not yet advanced beyond Adolescent Thinking.

They, in this Thread, are having to Finally confront the Real World, and take responsibility for Their Future Existence.

As with many Adolescents, this is very difficult, and there is much Kicking and Screaming, during the process.

Thank you for proving so wonderfully that you really have nothing of any content to say and are just repeating the same nonsense over and over again. This is like the 100th post of you using that parents house metaphor, even when it makes no sense given the discussion itself.

On an unrelated note.

Anyone else noticed that many of the newspaper columnists who sprang to the defence of Charlie Hebdo's right to free speech are the same columnists who pop up every time Top Gear is aired to call for Clarkson's head on a pike?
A little hypocritical perhaps?
Seems they're only in favour of free speech for people they agree with, anyone they disagree with must be fired!

Just a thought.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

On an unrelated note.

Anyone else noticed that many of the newspaper columnists who sprang to the defence of Charlie Hebdo's right to free speech are the same columnists who pop up every time Top Gear is aired to call for Clarkson's head on a pike?
A little hypocritical perhaps?

Only if they literally want Clarkson's head on a pike. Which they don't.

And using your free speech to be critical about how other people use their free speech is a good thing. Indeed, its what free speech is for and what makes having it so great. Remember, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

Someone please fill me in. What's going on with Clarkson?

Someone please fill me in. What's going on with Clarkson?

Isn't he under fire from a lot of British press because he tends to make some really crude/racist statements from time to time?

And you are essentially saying that one side should be the 'better' side and stop responding to the violence perpetrated by the other side and then the other side has no more reason to hit you. Yeah, thats a fair argument, if you were talking to two children having an argument. These are not two children having an argument,

They are two children having an argument. Neither is acting the slightest bit of adult.

You realize that the Versailles treaty was anything but proportional right?

It is called sarcasm.

Really? You are comparing two highly industrialized, military super powers losing the Second World War with Gaza or Israel?

What did you just call Israel? "this is one of the most powerful military powers in the world"

---

They are two children having an argument. Neither is acting the slightest bit of adult.

Yeah, as a metaphor thats a really nice one. But, countries, governments and organizations aren't children and you cant treat them like children.

What did you just call Israel? "this is one of the most powerful military powers in the world"

And other than being a military superpower they got nothing in common. Besides, I honestly do not expect them to be the ones that eventually get crushed in some massive conflict.

Only if they literally want Clarkson's head on a pike. Which they don't.

And using your free speech to be critical about how other people use their free speech is a good thing. Indeed, its what free speech is for and what makes having it so great. Remember, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

Figure of speech!

They usually call for his resignation or for him to be fired.

I wasn't saying they should be free from criticism, but someone can't defend one party's right to say whatever they want while also calling for another party's resignation because they did say whatever they want.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Figure of speech!

They usually call for his resignation or for him to be fired.

I wasn't saying they should be free from criticism, but someone can't defend one party's right to say whatever they want while also calling for another party's resignation because they did say whatever they want.

Sure they can. Its their freedom of speech to call for his resignation over the things he said. As long as it stays with calls, its fine.

Again, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Losing your job as tv host because you make controversial or racist statements is not an infringement on your freedom of speech. You are allowed to say those things, you are not being imprisoned, prosecuted or physically attacked by it, you just lose your platform because people find it unacceptable to hear you say those things.

Sure you can. Its their freedom of speech to call for his resignation over the things he said. As long as it stays with calls, its fine.

It grows wearisome when such hand-wringing Guardian-reading types write opinion pieces about how offended they were after nearly every episode.
One would think by now they'd have learned to stop watching.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Thousands demonstrate in Grozny, capital of Russia’s largely Muslim region, over ‘vulgar and immoral’ depictions of prophet.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/19/chechens-protest-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-grozny

It grows wearisome when such hand-wringing Guardian-reading types write opinion pieces about how offended they were after nearly every episode.
One would think by now they'd have learned to stop watching.

Surely you should have learned by now to stop reading the opinion pieces written by those people if they annoy you so much, yet instead you are complaining about them over here. Whats the difference between you and those commentators, aside from the fact that they get published in major newspapers?

If those people get offended by Clarkson saying something stupid, they have a right to call him and the producers and channel that air his show out on it. If you get annoyed by all those people complaining about Clarkson, you have a right to call them out on it. Thats how a debate gets started, and thats how societies move forward as a whole.

Surely you should have learned by now to stop reading the opinion pieces written by those people if they annoy you so much, yet instead you are complaining about them over here. Whats the difference between you and those commentators, aside from the fact that they get published in major newspapers?

If those people get offended by Clarkson saying something stupid, they have a right to call him and the producers and channel that air his show out on it. If you get annoyed by all those people complaining about Clarkson, you have a right to call them out on it. Thats how a debate gets started, and thats how societies move forward as a whole.

I don't, they keep getting mentioned on the news, which i watch/listen to in order to be appraised of the news. By news, i mean fires, death, floods, etc. Not some whiny woolly-hatted wet blanket.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

I don't, they keep getting mentioned on the news, which i watch/listen to in order to be appraised of the news. By news, i mean fires, death, floods, etc. Not some whiny woolly-hatted wet blanket.

So you are annoyed because your daily dose of death and misery is supplemented with a small dose of people calling out racism? Yeah, I have a hard time feeling any kind of sympathy for you here. Zap away if it offends you that much.

Comment one.

They have, since 1945, lived in Daddy's (America) House, and have not yet advanced beyond Adolescent Thinking.

As with many Adolescents, this is very difficult, and there is much Kicking and Screaming, during the process.

Comment two.

But, countries, governments and organizations aren't children and you cant treat them like children.

Clyde, either take your meds when you are supposed to or go and see someone. You can't carry on like this.

Oh my Chris, I didn't know you had figured out Clyde's sock puppet ........

That or you have some 'splaining to do .....

---

Chomsky: Paris attacks show hypocrisy of West's outrage

"After the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, which killed 12 people including the editor and four other cartoonists, and the murder of four Jews at a kosher supermarket shortly after, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared "a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity."

Millions of people demonstrated in condemnation of the atrocities, amplified by a chorus of horror under the banner "I am Charlie." There were eloquent pronouncements of outrage, captured well by the head of Israel's Labor Party and the main challenger for the upcoming elections, Isaac Herzog, who declared that "Terrorism is terrorism. There's no two ways about it," and that "All the nations that seek peace and freedom [face] an enormous challenge" from brutal violence.

The crimes also elicited a flood of commentary, inquiring into the roots of these shocking assaults in Islamic culture and exploring ways to counter the murderous wave of Islamic terrorism without sacrificing our values. The New York Times described the assault as a "clash of civilizations," but was corrected by Times columnist Anand Giridharadas, who tweeted that it was "Not & never a war of civilizations or between them. But a war FOR civilization against groups on the other side of that line. #CharlieHebdo."

The scene in Paris was described vividly in the New York Times by veteran Europe correspondent Steven Erlanger: "a day of sirens, helicopters in the air, frantic news bulletins; of police cordons and anxious crowds; of young children led away from schools to safety. It was a day, like the previous two, of blood and horror in and around Paris."

Erlanger also quoted a surviving journalist who said that "Everything crashed. There was no way out. There was smoke everywhere. It was terrible. People were screaming. It was like a nightmare." Another reported a "huge detonation, and everything went completely dark." The scene, Erlanger reported, "was an increasingly familiar one of smashed glass, broken walls, twisted timbers, scorched paint and emotional devastation."

These last quotes, however -- as independent journalist David Peterson reminds us -- are not from January 2015. Rather, they are from a report by Erlanger on April 24 1999, which received far less attention. Erlanger was reporting on the NATO "missile attack on Serbian state television headquarters" that "knocked Radio Television Serbia off the air," killing 16 journalists.

"NATO and American officials defended the attack," Erlanger reported, "as an effort to undermine the regime of President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia." Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon told a briefing in Washington that "Serb TV is as much a part of Milosevic's murder machine as his military is," hence a legitimate target of attack.

There were no demonstrations or cries of outrage, no chants of "We are RTV," no inquiries into the roots of the attack in Christian culture and history. On the contrary, the attack on the press was lauded. The highly regarded U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke, then envoy to Yugoslavia, described the successful attack on RTV as "an enormously important and, I think, positive development," a sentiment echoed by others.

There are many other events that call for no inquiry into western culture and history -- for example, the worst single terrorist atrocity in Europe in recent years, in July 2011, when Anders Breivik, a Christian ultra-Zionist extremist and Islamophobe, slaughtered 77 people, mostly teenagers.

Also ignored in the "war against terrorism" is the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times -- Barack Obama's global assassination campaign targeting people suspected of perhaps intending to harm us some day, and any unfortunates who happen to be nearby. Other unfortunates are also not lacking, such as the 50 civilians reportedly killed in a U.S.-led bombing raid in Syria in December, which was barely reported.

One person was indeed punished in connection with the NATO attack on RTV -- Dragoljub Milanović, the general manager of the station, who was sentenced by the European Court of Human Rights to 10 years in prison for failing to evacuate the building, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia considered the NATO attack, concluding that it was not a crime, and although civilian casualties were "unfortunately high, they do not appear to be clearly disproportionate."

The comparison between these cases helps us understand the condemnation of the New York Times by civil rights lawyer Floyd Abrams, famous for his forceful defense of freedom of expression. "There are times for self-restraint," Abrams wrote, "but in the immediate wake of the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory, [the Times editors] would have served the cause of free expression best by engaging in it" by publishing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons ridiculing Mohammed that elicited the assault.

Abrams is right in describing the Charlie Hebdo attack as "the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory." The reason has to do with the concept "living memory," a category carefully constructed to include Their crimes against us while scrupulously excluding Our crimes against them -- the latter not crimes but noble defense of the highest values, sometimes inadvertently flawed.

This is not the place to inquire into just what was being "defended" when RTV was attacked, but such an inquiry is quite informative (see my A New Generation Draws the Line).

There are many other illustrations of the interesting category "living memory." One is provided by the Marine assault against Fallujah in November 2004, one of the worst crimes of the U.S.-UK invasion of Iraq.

The assault opened with occupation of Fallujah General Hospital, a major war crime quite apart from how it was carried out. The crime was reported prominently on the front page of the New York Times, accompanied with a photograph depicting how "Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs." The occupation of the hospital was considered meritorious and justified: it "shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants: Fallujah General Hospital, with its stream of reports of civilian casualties."

Evidently, this is no assault on free expression, and does not qualify for entry into "living memory."

There are other questions. One would naturally ask how France upholds freedom of expression and the sacred principles of "fraternity, freedom, solidarity." For example, is it through the Gayssot Law, repeatedly implemented, which effectively grants the state the right to determine Historical Truth and punish deviation from its edicts? By expelling miserable descendants of Holocaust survivors (Roma) to bitter persecution in Eastern Europe? By the deplorable treatment of North African immigrants in the banlieues of Paris where the Charlie Hebdo terrorists became jihadis? When the courageous journal Charlie Hebdo fired the cartoonist Siné on grounds that a comment of his was deemed to have anti-Semitic connotations? Many more questions quickly arise.

Anyone with eyes open will quickly notice other rather striking omissions. Thus, prominent among those who face an "enormous challenge" from brutal violence are Palestinians, once again during Israel's vicious assault on Gaza in the summer of 2014, in which many journalists were murdered, sometimes in well-marked press cars, along with thousands of others, while the Israeli-run outdoor prison was again reduced to rubble on pretexts that collapse instantly on examination.

Also ignored was the assassination of three more journalists in Latin America in December, bringing the number for the year to 31. There have been more than a dozen journalists killed in Honduras alone since the military coup of 2009 that was effectively recognized by the U.S. (but few others), probably according post-coup Honduras the per capita championship for murder of journalists. But again, not an assault on freedom of press within living memory.

It is not difficult to elaborate. These few examples illustrate a very general principle that is observed with impressive dedication and consistency: The more we can blame some crimes on enemies, the greater the outrage; the greater our responsibility for crimes -- and hence the more we can do to end them -- the less the concern, tending to oblivion or even denial.

Contrary to the eloquent pronouncements, it is not the case that "Terrorism is terrorism. There's no two ways about it." There definitely are two ways about it: theirs versus ours. And not just terrorism."

---

Reality Internet Personality

Isn't that article a bit off target?

Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine that pokes at any target that it see's as being outside the normal. And last year they supported Hamas, which I assume you would applaud.

It will make cartoons of the left and right politics, any religion etc.

The attacks on TV stations and the like in time of conflict are to deny the opposing forces a means of communication and propaganda. Therefore by absolute definition not the same thing.

And as can be seen in any conflict involving the Islamists they see no problem at all in hiding in hospitals, schools, behind women, children and the old, and use kidnap victims and prisoners as shields. All things I hope you would condemn.

re: Clarkson and Top Gear

Isn't Jeremy a reporter, even if you wouldn't describe him as such these days that's where his employment roots are, local rag in Doncaster, or close by.

Description of Top Gear is a Motoring magazine. subscription

Isn't that article a bit off target?

Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine that pokes at any target that it see's as being outside the normal. And last year they supported Hamas, which I assume you would applaud.

It will make cartoons of the left and right politics, any religion etc.

The attacks on TV stations and the like in time of conflict are to deny the opposing forces a means of communication and propaganda. Therefore by absolute definition not the same thing.

I think the point is more that the West has no qualms about bombing journalists and newspapers and committing all kinds of war crimes if and when it suits our needs. Only when we do all those things, its always justified in some way, but whenever someone does the same thing to us, we are horrified and outraged.

Either the enemy media is a valid military target in general, and applies to all media in every country, or the media is not a valid military target and what we did was wrong.

And as can be seen in any conflict involving the Islamists they see no problem at all in hiding in hospitals, schools, behind women, children and the old, and use kidnap victims and prisoners as shields. All things I hope you would condemn.

You expect them to come out and fight us on our terms? Terms in which we have an undeniable superiority? Conflicts involving extremists have always been of an extremely asymmetrical nature. In terms of traditional military power, the West and Israel has a lot of it, while these extremists have virtually non of it. Hence, if they were to fight these conflicts in a traditional military manner, they would be cut down and destroyed in no time. So they even the odds by not fighting on our terms, but on theirs, exploiting the weaknesses we have. Sorry but I can't fault them for being in it to win it, and doing it in a way that maximizes their chances.

Welcome to the 21st century and the 'New Wars'.