Terrorist's Gambit

I was surprised at the cry of the international community and the media about the 'disproportionate use of force' by the Israeli Defense Force against the Hezbollah militants. Not that I want to take a pro-Israel stand but to point out the fallacy in such a cry.

Who determines that which among any two warring parties has the prerogative to first strike and use force of whatever kind against the other. Isn't the one who first uses force (of any kind) against the other already guilty of using disproportionate force. Or is he not?

And on what grounds can anyone offer advise to the affected party to retaliate only with a force similar and proportionate to the one it was inflicted with. Isn't that plain bankruptcy of reasoning and biased judgment?

I came across an article "Defending A people" by Alan M. Dershowitz that appeared in the editorial page of Hindustan Times, August 4, 2006. Alan Dershowitz is a Professor of Law at Harvard and the author of Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways. I am putting some excerpts that I find quiet insightful from his article.

The Hezbollah and Hamas’ provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians (emphasis mine). This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option, and the terrorists with a win-win option.

...the international community, the media and the so-called ‘human rights’ organizations (emphasis mine) could stop falling for this terrorist gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda. Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of ‘over-reaction’, ‘disproportionality’ and ‘violations of human rights’. In doing so they play right into the terrorists’ hands...

Israel has every self-interest in minimising civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximising the same — on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the terrorists from killing their innocent civilians.

Talk God's Non-existence!!! Stupid Arrogance

Does Man have the necessary qualification to talk anything conclusively about God?

Just ask this question, "How much does a man know about all there is to know in this VISIBLE world and universe?"

How much does any one individual know of all that is already discovered and document by mankind. Mind you, we are talking about all that is already known to mankind.

All that is already discovered and documented in all the volumes and encyclopedias, be it about the human body, be it about the living creatures: mammals, reptiles, birds, insects and the species of each of them, be it the vegetation: the flora and fauna, the oceans, rivers, lakes, glaciers and their different behaviors, be it the atmosphere and its various behaviors, be it all kinds of elements with their physical and chemical properties, be it the properties of sound, light, be it about astronomy (it is estimated that there are over hundred million Galaxies), be it about all kinds of viruses and bacterias, are too exhaustive for any single individual to claim being an authority.

Even an individual who may specialize in any of the above subjects may have only a miniscule and limited knowledge of that area of specialization. How credible then is Man to talk about matters that are not seen.

Isn't it daring then for any man to comment about the non-existence of God whom he has not seen? All that a man can credibly do is to simply air his vague views and hypothesis.

God is best understood through faith in his existence and relationship with him in faith. A Man can surely believe in God with all of his faith, and that would be the right thing to do, than trying to define God conclusively, of whom he knows not an iota. For that Man has to first humble himself in the realisation that he doesn't know enough.

Why Cover Your Face?

Truth doesn't need to hide itself. If one is sure that his/her beliefs and practices are RIGHT, and that everyone worldover must actually believe and live in a similar manner, then one need not practice one's belief in the hiding and be afraid to reveal one's face.
Any practices in hiding and covering actually betray the fact of being in the WRONG.