Some joyous tidings from Israel [Archive]

tibilicus

12-27-2008, 15:40

Fair enough it's retaliation for mortar attacks but come on, those mortars are hardly capable of killing any one on a big scale, that's in comparison the F 15's dropping much bigger bombs. And by blocking of aid that's just targeting innocent civilians.

If you listen to what Hamas are saying there not going any where, the only people being hurt by Israel's actions are the innocent Palestinians and with every bomb that is dropped more people decide to take up arms and fight Israel. These air strikes will do nothing other than escalate an already dire situation.

It leads you to ask though with Israel's new policies on Bedouin settlers in it's country and it's continuous attacks on the Palestinian people are we seeing the complete dispelling of Arabs and Muslims from a land which they held and have claim to far longer than any Jewish settlers. the best solution would be for Israel to agree to the original 1947 U.N partition borders. If they were attacked then I wouldn't have as much of a problem as I do now but the fact they've gone past these borders and still continue to inflict so much misery on the people of Palestine simply disgusts me.

Hax

12-27-2008, 16:11

Bye rest in pieces hope it hurts like hell, they have had their chance but they just can't help shooting rockets. tada.

They. All the Palestinians?

Why not put them all under a nice shower while you're at it?

LeftEyeNine

12-27-2008, 17:47

A number of topping 200 is killed. So, what's out there to justify ? I'm interested.

tibilicus

12-27-2008, 19:07

"Hamas' continued rocket attacks into Israel must cease if the violence is to stop. Hamas must end its terrorist activities if it wishes to play a role in the future of the Palestinian people.

"The United States urges Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza."

That's a quote from a whitehouse spokesmen. All be it no one is at all surprised by the US bias towards Israel.

So when the Palestinians fire mortars it's a disgusting act of terrorism but when Israel bombs the living day lights out of them there just pursued with the careful reminder to not kill quite so many civilians.

You know maybe if the worlds super power wasn't so biased and anti Palestine the middle east peace process might actually get some where. It never will though as long as the US government continues to support and fund these Israeli raids.

naut

12-27-2008, 19:18

when Israel bombs the living day lights out of them there just pursued with the careful reminder to not kill quite so many civilians.
https://img175.imageshack.us/img175/295/middleeastwa2.jpg

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-27-2008, 19:28

https://img249.imageshack.us/img249/5527/hitandmissgse1.jpg

https://img224.imageshack.us/img224/5452/gunsgqt2.jpg

Crazed Rabbit

12-27-2008, 19:29

So when the Palestinians fire mortars it's a disgusting act of terrorism but when Israel bombs the living day lights out of them there just pursued with the careful reminder to not kill quite so many civilians.

Yes, because Hamas is targeting civilians. Israel is targeting terrorists who hid among civilians.

CR

Hax

12-27-2008, 19:48

Yes, because Hamas is targeting civilians. Israel is targeting terrorists who hid among civilians.

So, that justifies them killing civilians in the progress?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-27-2008, 19:55

So, that justifies them killing civilians in the progress?

It gives them a lot more justification than Hamas gets. Makes me wonder why people defend Hamas, but I suppose insanity helps the world go down around.

rasoforos

12-27-2008, 19:58

200 dead and 700 wounded for 2 dead people is a bit of an unjust response...

Its also amazing how Israel, with surgical precision strikes manages to kill all overwhelmingly larger ratio of civilians than Hamas with their unguided rockets...

I dont care who is right and who is wrong, they are both wrong if you ask me. But using an f-15 instead of a IED doesn't make you any less of a terrorist.

herr adolf must be laughing his arse off from Hell. A shame for a people who were the victims of a holocaust...

Alexander the Pretty Good

12-27-2008, 20:14

200 dead and 700 wounded for 2 dead people is a bit of an unjust response...
At least theoretically, Israel targets specific Hamas people and locations in response to random shelling from Hamas. The methods of the former seem clumsy at best, while the latter's is evil from the start.

However, would marching into Gaza and putting a bullet in two random Palestinians be any better of a response? It would certainly be numerically equal.

Seasons greetings. :no:

Hax

12-27-2008, 20:35

It gives them a lot more justification than Hamas gets. Makes me wonder why people defend Hamas, but I suppose insanity helps the world go down around.

This is not about of who has the most justification to bomb other people, it's about that they neither have justification. You don't have justification when it comes to killing innocents.

rasoforos

12-27-2008, 20:39

At least theoretically, Israel targets specific Hamas people and locations in response to random shelling from Hamas. The methods of the former seem clumsy at best, while the latter's is evil from the start.

However, would marching into Gaza and putting a bullet in two random Palestinians be any better of a response? It would certainly be numerically equal.

Seasons greetings. :no:

Well it would mean 198 less dead...I like it... Ideally they would target Hamas people of course but I m asking too much now...

I dont think that logic has any place in the Israel-Arab conflict. Slaughtering hundreds of innocents as retaliation is a no-no in my book though. I condemn it as much as I will condemn the resulting suicide attack that will kill 20-30 Israelis as retaliation.

Ronin

12-27-2008, 20:55

can´t we just blow both sides up and call it a day?

this is getting fastidious and I really don´t care anymore to be honest....there are no "good guys" on either side of that conflict...and I have been there personally.

Samurai Waki

12-27-2008, 21:55

why don't we just force everyone out of Israel, and set up a giant theme park?

Crazed Rabbit

12-27-2008, 22:02

200 dead and 700 wounded for 2 dead people is a bit of an unjust response...

Yes, not exactly proportionate, which makes you wonder, why does Hamas launch rocket salvos in the first place? I think that's an important question every pro-intifada person needs to ask themselves.

Its also amazing how Israel, with surgical precision strikes manages to kill all overwhelmingly larger ratio of civilians than Hamas with their unguided rockets...

Larger ratio? I think not. Larger amount? It would seem so.

I dont care who is right and who is wrong, they are both wrong if you ask me. But using an f-15 instead of a IED doesn't make you any less of a terrorist.

Indeed, it is the target and intentions that make the difference.

CR

Quietus

12-27-2008, 22:18

I read about the supposed-to-be minimal incursion days ago, thinking 'yeah, minimal, like 10-20 dead'. :skull:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-27-2008, 22:21

The 200-some dead are not all civilians. According to Hamas itself, at least 140 of the dead are Hamas militants.

CountArach

12-27-2008, 22:38

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-27-2008, 23:06

This is sickening and utterly reprehensible. Until the US tells Israel that enough is enough and force them to recognise they are responsible for so much more than the Palestinians this will continue while the US turns a blind eye.

Oh, the poor oppressed Palestinian civilians being forced to kill evil Israelis who are egged on by the even more evil American Empire...

Come off it. Hamas refuses to renew a ceasefire and shells Israeli towns. Israel responds by killing (mostly) Hamas militants, and this according to Hamas.

Alexander the Pretty Good

12-27-2008, 23:12

Link to something about this?

According to Hamas itself, at least 140 of the dead are Hamas militants.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-27-2008, 23:22

Link to something about this?

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7800985.stm):

Most of those killed were policemen in the Hamas militant movement, which controls Gaza, but women and children also died, the Gaza officials said.

Various sources:

Hamas police spokesman Ehad Ghussein said about 140 Hamas security forces were killed.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhsncwausngb/

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ml_israel_palestinians/2008/12/27/165615.html (http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ml_israel_palestinians/2008/12/27/165615.html)

Yahoo News:

But earlier in the day, police said about 140 Hamas security forces were killed.

Dutch_guy

12-27-2008, 23:49

Yes, not exactly proportionate, which makes you wonder, why does Hamas launch rocket salvos in the first place? I think that's an important question every pro-intifada person needs to ask themselves.

Yeah. You'd think the thought of a couple of bomb carrying fighter planes would make one think twice, but apparently that's wishful thinking.

why don't we just force everyone out of Israel, and set up a giant theme park?

That might do the trick.

:balloon2:

Hax

12-27-2008, 23:52

Indeed, it is the target and intentions that make the difference.

The road to hell is paved with "good" intentions.

tibilicus

12-27-2008, 23:54

Oh, the poor oppressed Palestinian civilians being forced to kill evil Israelis who are egged on by the even more evil American Empire...

Come off it. Hamas refuses to renew a ceasefire and shells Israeli towns. Israel responds by killing (mostly) Hamas militants, and this according to Hamas.

Oh but it was all so different when it was the IRA wasn't it?

America didn't take such a hard line then and I wonder why..

Marshal Murat

12-28-2008, 00:45

Oh but it was all so different when it was the IRA wasn't it?

America didn't take such a hard line then and I wonder why..

The IRA had completely different goals, objectives, and reasoning behind their war in Ireland. Read-up.

Guildenstern

12-28-2008, 00:55

tibilicus

12-28-2008, 01:35

The IRA had completely different goals, objectives, and reasoning behind their war in Ireland. Read-up.

Re unification of Northern Ireland with the republic of Ireland even though the majority of people in Northern Ireland remained unionists? Killing innocent civilians in attempts to get their point across?

And imagine what would of happened if the British reacted like Israel is now. After bloody Sunday there were world wide protests and the Brits were labelled murderers. The same can be said for the death of Bobby Sands there were huge protests then as well and again the British were made to look like criminals.

The only difference is the IRA were seen as good ol' Irish fighting the repressive British whilst instead Hamas are seen as Muslim extremists who want to cause the apocalypse.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? In the case of the IRA who were perceived by the west as freedom fighters and Hamas who are seen in the eyes of the west as terrorists.

Hooahguy

12-28-2008, 01:46

herr adolf must be laughing his arse off from Hell. A shame for a people who were the victims of a holocaust...
great. now you are comparing israelis to nazis. i take offense at this.

more to come from me.

Hooahguy

12-28-2008, 01:57

Most of the dead were Hamas security and police forces, but many were also civilians, including children. Gaza hospitals are overwhelmed with the casualties. The strikes were expected for Sunday, but were done earlier to increase casualties, in what is now clearly the first step to escalation of the conflict. Given how crowded Gaza is, it is effectively a city of one million people, avoiding civilian casualties is practically impossible.

A bombing attack like this can do a fair bit of damage, as it did, but Hamas will now disperse its people and assets, and future bombings will be less effective. The leaders killed will be replaced, and not by moderates. The missile attacks (which are scary but essentially ineffective) will continue. Gazans will hate Israelis even more. To get anything "meaningful" accomplished Israel has to invade on foot because they have to search for the missiles and the missile production centers.

But when they do that, they put themselves at risk because Hamas has destroyed Israeli tanks in the past...

true. war has casualties. civilian casualties are horrible to inflict, but sometimes its unavoidable and sometimes even necessary.

to quote from David Kenyon Webster (im paraphrasing here), from the book Parachute Infantry:

"i dont know why you want this war to be over so fast. we need to bring the war to the germans, fight in their streets, bomb their houses and leave dead in the streets. unless we show them how cruel war is, they will always have hate in them, and this will create the next war."

these people want aid, but dont want to stop the tyrants and maniacs who are controlling them. until they throw off the maniacs, they will have to suffer.
this is israels strategy. hopefully the Palestinians in gaza will elect a peaceful government, then peace can reign. but as long as hamas is in power, nothing doing.

also, AFAIK, israel isnt deliberately targeting civilians, or at least not all the time. they are targeting hamas, who hides among civilians. in this case, civilian deaths are unavoidable.
and precision bombing isnt always precise.

Crazed Rabbit

12-28-2008, 02:46

Okay, another question for the pro-intifada folks - why would you support Hamas when, in response to this attack they are going to attack even more civilians in Israel? Why is just stopping their constant terrorist attacks such an impossibility to even consider?

CR

Jolt

12-28-2008, 02:59

This is not about of who has the most justification to bomb other people, it's about that they neither have justification. You don't have justification when it comes to killing innocents.

While I have been agreeing with defending the Palestinians all this time, I do believe that there is no political will for the Hamas to cope with the present situation, that Israel will stay in the map. Having said that, Hamas have brought the attack on themselves, I find myself agreeing with this intervention. If I was in Livni's office, I'd order the strike as well. I think it's about time Hamas takes the peaceful route, and it isn't with rockets firing off and no retaliation that we're going to get anywhere. I think Israel needs to make clear to Hamas that peace, flawed as it may be, is preferable to war. And I do support the Palestinian people. Fatah is doing what's right, I think. Trying to sort out this mess and create a unified, independent, sovereign state.

Jolt

12-28-2008, 03:01

these people want aid, but dont want to stop the tyrants and maniacs who are controlling them. until they throw off the maniacs, they will have to suffer.
this is israels strategy. hopefully the Palestinians in gaza will elect a peaceful government, then peace can reign. but as long as hamas is in power, nothing doing.

also, AFAIK, israel isnt deliberately targeting civilians, or at least not all the time. they are targeting hamas, who hides among civilians. in this case, civilian deaths are unavoidable.
and precision bombing isnt always precise.

Pityfully, I myself agreeing with this. Hamas is as intransigent as it gets and allowed attacks on Israeli civilians while Israel didn't do any such thing. The Gaza people must elect Fatah for this cycle of wars to (hopefully) change for good.

Kekvit Irae

12-28-2008, 03:08

https://img249.imageshack.us/img249/5527/hitandmissgse1.jpg

https://img224.imageshack.us/img224/5452/gunsgqt2.jpg

I admit, I giggled.

FactionHeir

12-28-2008, 03:08

Maybe if the "international" community had actually acknowledged the fair election win by Hamas a few years back rather than block them off completely because they didn't like the result of a democratic election, things would have been different.
And stopping now would just show weakness - something their leadership cannot afford at this point when the populace is out for revenge.

Disproportionate force was used, let's face it, and continuing to bomb through the night after first calls for a cease fire is not helping.

Tribesman

12-28-2008, 03:24

until they throw off the maniacs, they will have to suffer.
this is israels strategy. hopefully the Palestinians in gaza will elect a peaceful government, then peace can reign. but as long as hamas is in power, nothing doing.

Its funny , thats what they said all the time with the PLO , then when the PLO wasn't in power they financed a coup and gave them guns .

BTW
they will have to suffer.
this is israels strategy.
Errr.....thats collective punishment isn't it ? thats illegal isn't it ?
which is hilarious when you think good old uncle adolf really loved the old collective punishment but you errrrr.....
i take offense at this. ...when the obvious is stated .

So back to the obvious question in relation to the main topic .
Is Israels bombing strategy going to work ?
Not bloody likely . Hamas will remain in Gaza and probably extend their level of support in the West Bank .
So once again Israel repeats its mistakes and not only fails to win militarily it gets another bloody big PR disaster for good measure .
But hey elections coming up so you gotta just bomb something eh:yes:

rasoforos

12-28-2008, 07:34

great. now you are comparing israelis to nazis. i take offense at this.

I m not comparing. I am saying that from a people that survived a holocaust I would expect greater sensitivity about the loss of innocent human life as a punitive measure. I come from a place were Jewish people were practically decimated by Nazis and never recovered (Thessaloniki), their cultural influence is almost lost. I know their loss. I m not saying Israelis act as Nazis but I would expect them to act more humane since they suffered from such courses of action.

I never saw Israel blowing up a whole illegal settlement and there are criminal elements on many of them too.

Hitler was doing the exact same thing you know. Whenever a German patrol was killed by resistance in Greece, the Nazis would go to the nearest village and execute 20 times the people who died. Do you think it helped the Nazis? As will happen with the attack in Gaza, a 1000 angry people who lost friends and relatives will join Hamas....

Furunculus

12-28-2008, 10:24

how many of those 'civilians' job was holding a kalshnikov or making bombs?

Furunculus

12-28-2008, 10:26

Oh but it was all so different when it was the IRA wasn't it?

America didn't take such a hard line then and I wonder why..

i supported killing terrorists then too.

america's tacit support kept their funding going much longer than it should have.

Tribesman

12-28-2008, 10:38

i supported terrorists then too.

Britains tacit support kept their funding going much longer than it should have.
Fixed it for ya .

Fragony

12-28-2008, 10:52

naut

12-28-2008, 11:01

I always find it humourous when people try to compare Hamas/Futah/Hezbolah with the IRA. Apples and oranges, people.

The fact that hamas was elected makes me kinda less concerned about civilians. This is what they wanted.
The fact that the Knesset is elected makes me less concerned about civilians. This is what they wanted. Isn't it?

Two can play at that game.

Samurai Waki

12-28-2008, 11:03

I hate thinking it, but I just don't really see the point of caring anymore. Its like neither side will listen to reason, instead they are so entrenched in their own ignorance that its pointless to even feel sorry for them anymore. I feel terrible for any innocent that has to put up with the completely insane politics of that region.

Tribesman

12-28-2008, 11:08

The fact that hamas was elected makes me kinda less concerned about civilians. This is what they wanted.

An interesting idea , people elected Hamas because they wanted to be bombed not because Hamas was itself running food programs , healthcare and social welfare payments while the principle opposition had sunk to new levels of corruption .
Errrrr...hold on , your arguement doesn't seem to hold any water Frag as it seems to be kinda full of great big holes .

Fragony

12-28-2008, 11:21

An interesting idea , people elected Hamas because they wanted to be bombed not because Hamas was itself running food programs , healthcare and social welfare payments while the principle opposition had sunk to new levels of corruption .

So? They still want to kill jews, jews don't want to be killed, tada.

Tribesman

12-28-2008, 11:39

So? They still want to kill jews, jews don't want to be killed, tada.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So ? people elected to the knesset still want to kill arabs , arabs don't want to be killed , tada .

So is that an arguement you are presenting or is it an overused wornout sieve ?

Fragony

12-28-2008, 11:46

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
So ? people elected to the knesset still want to kill arabs , arabs don't want to be killed , tada .

So is that an arguement you are presenting or is it an overused wornout sieve ?

If Israel wanted arabs dead they would be dead. I find it so incredibly unfair, it's blaming Israel for not being helpless, maybe they should just roll over?

Tribesman

12-28-2008, 11:52

Fragony

12-28-2008, 11:57

No it is not blaming Israel for not being defenceless , its blaming Israel for trying the same old crap again when they know it doesn't work .

What do you suggest they do? If they do nothing it will be seen as weakness, this is never going to stop it's the frontline of a much bigger battle, these are indeed surgical strikes.

Hax

12-28-2008, 13:54

If Israel wanted arabs dead they would be dead.

Hey, wasn't this what they tried to do in Lebanon back in the day? During Hezbollah's defense of Lebanon? In 2006, more Lebanese civilians were killed than Israeli.

So? They still want to kill jews, jews don't want to be killed, tada.

Actually, Hamas itself describes their conflict with Israel as being political, and not religious or anti-semitic.

Fragony

12-28-2008, 14:15

Actually, Hamas itself describes their conflict with Israel as being political, and not religious or anti-semitic.

Oh, do they. Must be that then they describe it as such after all. I say deal with it good they have had their chance but lack the self-restraint for peace, the desire to kill is too strong.

and stay down

Hax

12-28-2008, 14:53

So, you're basically saying we shouldn't trust Hamas on what they say? I think that make this untruthful as well:

Hamas police spokesman Ehad Ghussein said about 140 Hamas security forces were killed.

tibilicus

12-28-2008, 15:13

It will all end badly anyway, only the Gaza civilians will suffer.

Look what happened in Lebanon. The Israeli military which has been pay rolled and funded in billions by the US couldn't defeat Hezboulla on the ground who were armed with a couple of AK's.

To be honest I might care a bit more for Israel if they actually tried to get along with there Muslim neighbours but the thing is they don't. The Arab league of country's called for an agreement where by Israel would keep the land planned out In the original partition plan for Israel. Israel of course refuse and instead of meeting it's neighbours with meetings just prefer to drop bombs on them.

Also people seem to think that they some how have superior claim to the land. What you have to remember the idea of Israel and Zionism was active long before the holocaust and Jewish settlers were arriving long before then to. How I see Israel is imagine if immigrants were coming to your country then all of a sudden decided that your land was now there's because they have religious claim to it. The whole situations is just getting ridiculous.

The fact is Israel can push there weight around in the region as long as the US continues to support them, and don't get it wrong that the US are glad to do this as long as they keep their puppet in the middle east.

Idaho

12-28-2008, 15:44

Has Israel declared war? Has it recognised Gaza and it's government as sovereign?

No to both - therefore any 'act of war' is in fact collective punishment and not only illegal but immoral.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-28-2008, 17:45

Hitler was doing the exact same thing you know. Whenever a German patrol was killed by resistance in Greece, the Nazis would go to the nearest village and execute 20 times the people who died.

Uh, that's little different. Executing twenty times the people who died (or carrying out any kind of reprisals in that nature) is wrong. Killing a large amount of enemy combatants in a series of surgical strikes is not wrong.

Hax

12-28-2008, 18:04

Killing a large amount of enemy combatants in a series of surgical strikes is not wrong.

Yes, it is, especially when there are civilians threatened.

FactionHeir

12-28-2008, 18:14

Enemy combatants do not wear uniform according to their fickle definition. Hamas police, security forces and politicians certainly do. And politicians as targets is just about the same as assassination and killing civilians.

Hooahguy

12-28-2008, 18:23

It will all end badly anyway, only the Gaza civilians will suffer.

Look what happened in Lebanon. The Israeli military which has been pay rolled and funded in billions by the US couldn't defeat Hezboulla on the ground who were armed with a couple of AK's.
a few AK's? how about that, RPGs, rockets, and more arms sent by iran? hm? not only that, israel did a huge mistake and listened to world opinion, which condemned it for the invasion into lebanon. and if olmert wasnt such a wimp and didnt restrict the IDF, then things would have turned out differently.

To be honest I might care a bit more for Israel if they actually tried to get along with there Muslim neighbours but the thing is they don't. The Arab league of country's called for an agreement where by Israel would keep the land planned out In the original partition plan for Israel. Israel of course refuse and instead of meeting it's neighbours with meetings just prefer to drop bombs on them.

have you looked at the original UN partition plan? it splits israel in two- half palestinian, half jewish. but the jewish part is pretty split up, and each of the 3 main jewish areas are thinly connected. bad position for us. and trans jordan was given to the palestinians as well, remember. so of course israel refused. we were originally in the original partition plan, but then the arab states attacked us hours after the country called israel was established. most of the wars israel was in with its neighbors were started by the arab states. the war for independence, the six day war (israel did a pre-emtive strike- dont tell me israel started it, because you know its false- egypt and syria were stockpiling arms and tanks, ready for an attack) and the yom kippur war. only in the past 2 decades or so israel had been the aggressor, like lebanon and such. btw we are peaceful right now, and probably for a while, with egypt and jordan, and to a certain extent, syria. at least thats what i gather.

Also people seem to think that they some how have superior claim to the land. What you have to remember the idea of Israel and Zionism was active long before the holocaust and Jewish settlers were arriving long before then to. How I see Israel is imagine if immigrants were coming to your country then all of a sudden decided that your land was now there's because they have religious claim to it. The whole situations is just getting ridiculous.

reminds me of the US, doesnt it? technically israel has more right to be in israel than the US does in north america. and what does the zionism movement have to do with anything? btw there have been jews there since the bible. never has there been no jews in the land. we have always been a minority, but still there, since the 2nd temple destruction. we believe that we have a right to the land, just like the indians have a right to N. America.

by your same logic, we should give back all the indians lands back which the settlers bought/took/conquered. right?
same concept.

Hooahguy

12-28-2008, 18:37

Its funny , thats what they said all the time with the PLO , then when the PLO wasn't in power they financed a coup and gave them guns .
only when they realized the PLO was less worse than hamas, if im understanding you correctly.

BTW
Errr.....thats collective punishment isn't it ? thats illegal isn't it ?
which is hilarious when you think good old uncle adolf really loved the old collective punishment but you errrrr........when the obvious is stated .
arent sending rockets at israeli civilians also "illegal?"
please, the illegal thing isnt really going to work here. just like the joker in The Dark Knight , hamas has no rules. trying to play by the rules while you enemy has none wont help you. it will only make things worse. now, im not saying that you should go out and massacre civilians, but dont be afraid to throw that grenade at the terrorist who is hiding behind that child.
technically anyone who aids a combatant becomes one him/herself, so i guess it is right to send that missile at the group of women who are shielding the terrorists.
what annoys me is that people arent as upset when a suicide bomber blows himself up in a crowded israeli pizzeria, but go all up in arms when an israeli rocket, targeting combatants, accidentally kills some civilians.
/rant

Hax

12-28-2008, 19:08

Not accidentally. If they really thought there would not be civilian casualties, they'd be either naïve or fools. I'd like to think the first, though.

technically anyone who aids a combatant becomes one him/herself, so i guess it is right to send that missile at the group of women who are shielding the terrorists.

Alright, that's good! Let's also just shoot anyone with a basement, they might have terrorists in there.

So, we've come to the "right" point. I think you have about the same right to live in a place, as I have to stab you multiple times in the face and then set your corpse alight? Are we on the same page here?

So you say that the Jews have the God-given right to live in Palestine. Okay, sure, no problem. However, it goes wrong when they force people out of Palestine. If you deny that Israel did force Palestinians from their homes, I will not get into further argument with you.

Guildenstern

12-28-2008, 19:16

Killing a large amount of enemy combatants in a series of surgical strikes is not wrong.
There is nothing "surgical" in the Israeli raids of these days. They are the closest thing there is to a full-scale war between Israel and Hamas. This is definitely the harshest Israeli assault on Gaza since the territory was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967.

seireikhaan

12-28-2008, 19:29

I believe this sums up my view on this conflict, from both sides.

In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.

Ibn-Khaldun

12-28-2008, 20:02

Idaho

12-28-2008, 21:06

Until the people there say "Enough!" and beats up their politicians and generals for not delivering them peace these kind of news don't impress me.

I would say "Wow!" and would be surprised if I would here that Israel have sent humanitarian help to the Palestinians instead of tanks.

The Pals were offered a choice of corrupt and failed Fatah or an organised and active Hamas who had delivered extensively on grassroots projects. Israel and the US decided that this was the 'wrong' kind of democracy and shut down the fledgling Pal state.

rasoforos

12-28-2008, 22:17

Uh, that's little different. Executing twenty times the people who died (or carrying out any kind of reprisals in that nature) is wrong. Killing a large amount of enemy combatants in a series of surgical strikes is not wrong.

Yeah...as surgical as a 90 year old neighborhood butcher with parkinson's...after a few pints...

Hooahguy

12-28-2008, 22:20

The Pals were offered a choice of corrupt and failed Fatah or an organised and active Hamas who had delivered extensively on grassroots projects. Israel and the US decided that this was the 'wrong' kind of democracy and shut down the fledgling Pal state.
really? hamas was only for the advancement of the palestinian people? how about that, and the destruction of israel? dont leave out the fact that hamas wants israel destroyed.

Hooahguy

12-28-2008, 22:23

There is nothing "surgical" in the Israeli raids of these days. They are the closest thing there is to a full-scale war between Israel and Hamas. This is definitely the harshest Israeli assault on Gaza since the territory was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967.
wait. how would you know that they are surgical or not?
and how do you know this is the harshest raid on gaza? have you been a participant in every raid on gaza since the six-day war?

Yeah...as surgical as a 90 year old neighborhood butcher with parkinson's...after a few pints...
and how do you know that israeli raids havent been surgical?

rasoforos

12-28-2008, 22:23

really? hamas was only for the advancement of the palestinian people? how about that, and the destruction of israel? dont leave out the fact that hamas wants israel destroyed.

Its the middle bloody east...Everyone wants everyone else destroyed since 7000 bc

Tribesman

12-28-2008, 22:25

No to both - therefore any 'act of war' is in fact collective punishment and not only illegal but immoral.
Way to go Idaho :2thumbsup:

only when they realized the PLO was less worse than hamas, if im understanding you correctly.

errrr...before which Hamas was encouraged as a counter to the loony PLO:dizzy2:
Bugger me sideways hooah you give it the big "I am jewish" but you are frigging clueless about Israel .
You are nearly as bad as that Kach supporting idiot son of a star who used to post .

arent sending rockets at israeli civilians also "illegal?"

Yes , who has said it isn't ?

please, the illegal thing isnt really going to work here.
errrrrr.....yes it does unless Israel pulls out of all the agreements and organisations that define the legality , oh sorry I was wrong , in one part they are safe because their blind friend has a veto .
Well spotted :dizzy2:
Thats part of the discussion you ....( I ain't allowed to say Jim Henson creation anymore am I?)

hamas has no rules. trying to play by the rules while you enemy has none wont help you.
Actually it will .

it will only make things worse.
Absolute bollox .

technically anyone who aids a combatant becomes one him/herself
You really havn't the faintest idea what you are talking about .
Might I humbly suggest that you drop that typical Brooklyn "I am a Jew" rubbish and attempt to look at the position with open eyes ?

Hooahguy

12-28-2008, 22:30

Alright, that's good! Let's also just shoot anyone with a basement, they might have terrorists in there.
no, i meant that if you see a terrorist, and he is hiding behind a child, then i would throw a grenade at them, if carefully shooting the terrorist without hurting the child isnt an option.

So you say that the Jews have the God-given right to live in Palestine. Okay, sure, no problem. However, it goes wrong when they force people out of Palestine. If you deny that Israel did force Palestinians from their homes, I will not get into further argument with you.

ill concede that israel did evict SOME palestinians. not all. but then again so did other countries, like the US, and im sure i can think of others in die time.
also, would you have a problem if the arabs were successful in 1948 and they forced out the israeli settlers, who "invaded" what was then called Palestine?

Hooahguy

12-28-2008, 22:41

errrr...before which Hamas was encouraged as a counter to the loony PLO:dizzy2:
Bugger me sideways hooah you give it the big "I am jewish" but you are frigging clueless about Israel .
You are nearly as bad as that Kach supporting idiot son of a star who used to post .
i think you mean "Bar Kochba."
sadly israel turns to the wrong people. they turn to the opponent of the one in power. and when did i proclaim recently that because i am jewish i do know more?
so before we get into name calling, which im sure is against the rules, im going to ignore this little comment.

Yes , who has said it isn't ?
considering you arent coming down no where near as harsh on them.....

Actually it will .
prove it.

Absolute bollox .
as before, prove it. where has it worked? certainly not in iraq.

You really havn't the faintest idea what you are talking about .
Might I humbly suggest that you drop that typical Brooklyn "I am a Jew" rubbish and attempt to look at the position with open eyes ?[/QUOTE]
might i humbly suggest you stop posting with contempt?

ok, so just to make things easier for everyone, what exactly is you position on israel, or as you like to ignorantly call it, "Palestine?"

Hooahguy

12-28-2008, 22:42

ignore

Strike For The South

12-28-2008, 22:58

rory_20_uk

12-28-2008, 23:05

I support Israel merely because they are able to further US interests. If another country in the region was able to do that better then, I say we give the money to them. I don't care for the Israelis nor the Palestinians. Let them kill each other off.

There's a statement of Realpolitik I can understand.

More on topic missiles rarely cleanly kill terrorists - especially in a "target rich environment". IMO security guards in a place with rampant unemployment are not legitimate targets.

~:smoking:

tibilicus

12-28-2008, 23:31

a few AK's? how about that, RPGs, rockets, and more arms sent by iran? hm? not only that, israel did a huge mistake and listened to world opinion, which condemned it for the invasion into lebanon. and if olmert wasnt such a wimp and didnt restrict the IDF, then things would have turned out differently.

I know I was exaggerating. What I was trying to get at still is isn't it surprising that a group of militants armed by a fledgling country (Iran) could defeat a country who's military is supplied by the worlds super power?

have you looked at the original UN partition plan? it splits israel in two- half palestinian, half jewish. but the jewish part is pretty split up, and each of the 3 main jewish areas are thinly connected. bad position for us. and trans jordan was given to the palestinians as well, remember. so of course israel refused. we were originally in the original partition plan, but then the arab states attacked us hours after the country called israel was established. most of the wars israel was in with its neighbors were started by the arab states. the war for independence, the six day war (israel did a pre-emtive strike- dont tell me israel started it, because you know its false- egypt and syria were stockpiling arms and tanks, ready for an attack) and the yom kippur war. only in the past 2 decades or so israel had been the aggressor, like lebanon and such. btw we are peaceful right now, and probably for a while, with egypt and jordan, and to a certain extent, syria. at least thats what i gather.

Even if it did that doesn't matter. Oh and yes I have seen it. As I said earlier I wouldn't have a problem with the Israeli people defending themselves if attacked within the original partition plans but the fact is there not within the partition plans. The decision to previously allow Israeli settlements on the west bank and Gaza just show Israel's greed and it's desire to accumulate the whole territory.

reminds me of the US, doesnt it? technically israel has more right to be in israel than the US does in north america. and what does the zionism movement have to do with anything? btw there have been jews there since the bible. never has there been no jews in the land. we have always been a minority, but still there, since the 2nd temple destruction. we believe that we have a right to the land, just like the indians have a right to N. America.

by your same logic, we should give back all the indians lands back which the settlers bought/took/conquered. right?
same concept.

Ah the bible, with no offence to your religion there is no solid evidence to justify anything in that book so laying claim to a country and land rights purely on a book is ludicrous. Obviously I know there were Jews there before the Arabs but that's like saying the Celtic people were in England before the Anglo Saxons and Normans arrived. Kind of like inviting every Scottish and welsh person to take all of the English peoples land because they had historical claim to it.

And if I could go back in time and had the power of God to give more land to the native Americans yes I would, maybe actually let them have the great plains or something. The fact is though we can't and surely we should learn from history's mistakes? Also native Americans were in fairly small numbers whilst the Europeans were arriving in large numbers. It's the other way round as people are arriving in Israel in small numbers to take the majority's land.

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 00:23

I know I was exaggerating. What I was trying to get at still is isn't it surprising that a group of militants armed by a fledgling country (Iran) could defeat a country who's military is supplied by the worlds super power?
you can ask the same thing about the US in vietnam, and many other conflicts.

Even if it did that doesn't matter. Oh and yes I have seen it. As I said earlier I wouldn't have a problem with the Israeli people defending themselves if attacked within the original partition plans but the fact is there not within the partition plans. The decision to previously allow Israeli settlements on the west bank and Gaza just show Israel's greed and it's desire to accumulate the whole territory.
they were attacked within the partition plan borders, and as the arab forces retreated, the israelis followed, getting more land, because as the arab armies retreated, the Palestinians, hearing about how the jews were gonig to kill them and such, ran with them. with all the empty land, we took it. to the victors goes the spoils. it was wrong, but we did it, and theres no going back. we certainly cant go back now.

Also native Americans were in fairly small numbers whilst the Europeans were arriving in large numbers. It's the other way round as people are arriving in Israel in small numbers to take the majority's land.
really? tell that to the 15,000 native americans who were forced onto the Trail of Tears. there were a lot of indians. they were certainly the majority when the first settlers got there. it was the exact same situation. small amount of settlers would enter the land, then eventually increase. the reason why the israelis increased so rapidly was because after the holocaust, there was no where to go but israel. the US, and most allied countries had strict immigration laws, and most Holocaust survivors were pinned up in DP camps for a long time.

Tribesman

12-29-2008, 00:46

ok, so just to make things easier for everyone, what exactly is you position on israel, or as you like to ignorantly call it, "Palestine?"

Ah you are young grasshopper but you will learn .:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I suppose I could ask you to trawl through all the middle-east topics in this backroom to see what exactly my position is .
However I might be tempted to give you an answer if you can set some parameters for the answer:yes:
Start with what is Israel ? where is it ? what does it include or not include ?
What is palestine ? where is it ? what does it include or not include ?
What are the legal precedents for the establishment of either entity through all their myriad of manifestations?
What is the sensible process to resolution?
What are the stumbling points in that process?
What is the legal standing of those objections that are the stumbling points ?
How is bombing or rocket attacks going to alter those stumbling points ?

Now you can start with one point or you can start with many , however if you start with none but somehow want an answer then you go back to the stage of being ignorant and posting rubbish .

Samurai Waki

12-29-2008, 00:49

Anyone who says Israel is just a US money sink is terribly wrong, it's also in the invested interests of China and India to have Israel hand over US Technology. Which in return they also get a fat pay check, Israel is really two faced about every business deal they do, and it's undermining their long term support from other large nations, hence Europe's refusal to do much business outside their civilian sectors.

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 00:53

Wakizashi, didnt you change your name from?.... something else?....
or am i just hallucinating?

tibilicus

12-29-2008, 00:56

they were attacked within the partition plan borders, and as the Arab forces retreated, the Israelis followed, getting more land, because as the Arab armies retreated, the Palestinians, hearing about how the Jews were going to kill them and such, ran with them. with all the empty land, we took it. to the victors goes the spoils. it was wrong, but we did it, and there's no going back. we certainly cant go back now.

So the cowards pushed civilians out of their homes and then decided to keep them. How very ironic from a group of people who had their own homes confiscated by the Nazis, they kicked up quite a fuss about that. And yes there is going back, well maybe not in Israelis eyes due to there hunger for land and expansion. I bet if they were gifted the whole of the middle east by killing of every one there Israel would take it.

At this point as the attacks continue I have zero sympathy for Israel for all I care let hamas and it's numbers grow as an effect of Israel's ill judgement. Israel doesn't deserve the west's support and in time they have proven even to betray much of the west interests, hence why Europe's now sick of them.

Samurai Waki

12-29-2008, 00:58

No.. I've always been the same Bi-Polar Wakizashi. :juggle2:

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 01:13

what is Israel?
the country founded in 1948, but dates way before that, and according to jews, to the time of moses.

where is it ?
biblical borders-below lebanon, to the left of jordan, and northeast of the sinai, but doesnt extend all the way doen to eilat. but thats jsut according to the bible.

what does it include or not include ?
includes everything left of the jordan river and below lebanon, ending at what is now eliat. doesnt include the sinai, and does include the golan as well as the negev.

What is palestine?
what the romans called israel and what everyone else called it up until 1948, and what some people who refuse to acknowledge israel as a country still call it. but can be stretched to be used

where is it ?
see #2

what does it include or not include ?
see #3

What are the legal precedents for the establishment of either entity through all their myriad of manifestations?
restate of question, please.

What is the sensible process to resolution?
if the resolution what you are talking about is peace between arab and jew, then i think that if the arabs would lay down all arms against israel, accept israel as a country, we would do the same, and maybe even thrive together as allies.

What are the stumbling points in that process?
not all arabs dont want peace, not all jews want peace, a war-minded palestinian government, aka hamas who likes to throw rockets into israeli cities, israeli planes bomb hamas strong points, which just happen to be in civilian areas.

What is the legal standing of those objections that are the stumbling points ?
both arabs and jews say that its our homeland, arab say that we were there before the jews and how the jews kicked them out, jews say that we conquered it, the UN gave it to us as a home after the Holocaust, and we bought a lot of the land from the arabs.

How is bombing or rocket attacks going to alter those stumbling points ?
they dont- just make it worse. if both sides could stop, then we could get past the stumbling blocks.

i hope i understood your questions correctly-just my opinions.

:study:

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 01:14

No.. I've always been the same Bi-Polar Wakizashi. :juggle2:
funny. there was someone else who had nearly the same sig and the same avatar as you do...
w/e

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 01:21

So the cowards pushed civilians out of their homes and then decided to keep them. How very ironic from a group of people who had their own homes confiscated by the Nazis, they kicked up quite a fuss about that. And yes there is going back, well maybe not in Israelis eyes due to there hunger for land and expansion. I bet if they were gifted the whole of the middle east by killing of every one there Israel would take it.

At this point as the attacks continue I have zero sympathy for Israel for all I care let hamas and it's numbers grow as an effect of Israel's ill judgement. Israel doesn't deserve the west's support and in time they have proven even to betray much of the west interests, hence why Europe's now sick of them.
you make it seem as if all israelis are greedy and land-hungry people. been reading the "protocols of the elders of zion" much?

tibilicus

12-29-2008, 01:32

you make it seem as if all israelis are greedy and land-hungry people. been reading the "protocols of the elders of zion" much?

Oh yes because if I don't support Israel I'm an anti-semetic Nazi!

Always a good one used by the Jewish/Israeli people to defend there actions. Get over it, the world doesn't hate Jews, they hate Israel and that's no fault other than Israel's itself. Ever since it was founded it has done its self zero favours.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7802515.stm

Just a little update those oh so good Israelis are now bombing the University which isn't just a symbol for the youth but it also has religious symbolism in Gaza as well. This is going to bring religion into it even more now and you know what? I honestly hope hamas give you every bullet you've got coming to you Israel, this is one westerner that wont stick up and defend murderous tyrants.

You can't crush the will of the people, they will just come back stronger and stronger each time. Tonight as Gaza burns, all the people of Gaza are untied in their hatred for these attacks. Congratulations Israel you've just encouraged a whole new breed of militants who want to wipe you of the face of the earth. And can you blame them?

KarlXII

12-29-2008, 01:37

no, i meant that if you see a terrorist, and he is hiding behind a child, then i would throw a grenade at them, if carefully shooting the terrorist without hurting the child isnt an option.

What? :inquisitive:

KarlXII

12-29-2008, 01:39

you make it seem as if all israelis are greedy and land-hungry people. been reading the "protocols of the elders of zion" much?

When in doubt, accuse anti-semetism! It never fails!

Personally, I think the reaction is stupid, stepping on someone's toe is not deserving of a punch to the face.

(I think we need a new Godwin's Law for this.)

Seamus Fermanagh

12-29-2008, 03:18

No it is not blaming Israel for not being defenceless , its blaming Israel for trying the same old crap again when they know it doesn't work .
And not only do they know it doesn't work , they know it is counterproductive ...that is really an accurate definition of being a stupid idiot isn't it

This is a telling statement.

Israel's current actions do little save to preserve and enhance the militant components of Hamas (and other hardliners) without resolving the issue. Repeating an unsuccessful solution is not likely to work -- Tribes makes a good point here.

It has been my belief for some time that the "warlords" among Hamas and the Palestinians (and possibly among the Israeli right as well) enjoy wielding the power of the warlord. They have a vested interest in maintaining the conflict, not winning it outright. So, if Israel is establishing a period of quiessence, then rockets will be sent off to encourage precisely the response they've gotten.

Israel's choices to actually RESOLVE the conflict must be substantially different than those employed to date, since those employed to date haven't resolved the issue. Consider:

1. Bring about a constitutional convention to create a new state -- Palestine -- in which all participate equally. This will result in Jews being a significant minority but return political control to arab-descent Palestinians.

2. Israel ceases all counter-attacks of any kind, utilizing only passive defense techniques such as metal detectors and the like. It then accepts the ongoing civilian and military casualties among Israelis until world opinion turns and the Palestinians themselves are sickened by their own actions.

3. Israel mobilizes all armed forces, turning on Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank in turn and eradicates (by ejection or extermination) all Palestinian presence. It would then likely have to close its borders almost entirely for several years as it would be a pariah state.

4. Israel petitions to be annexed by some other nation, perhaps the USA, and petitions to become a state or two after status as a territory.

So what do you think?

Please note, my key point is -- as Tribes pithily observed -- the current regimen of answers is NOT doing it; something new must be tried. I myself lack the wisdom to know what the best course for Israel should be -- and I can hardly be viewed as having a direct stake in the matter.

Marshal Murat

12-29-2008, 03:29

I think Israel's actions make alot of sense.
1.The ruling party is seeking to continue it's hold on the government, so they drum up support by bombing the heck outta Gaza Strip Hamas sites.
2.They actually want to take out those sites that fire rockets and also send out a warning to Hamas about firing rockets.
3.With the approaching U.S. government ambiguous and more "change-oriented", the Israelis think they have one more real chance of pulling this off while the U.S. is willing to look away.

So, while everyone condemns Israel (again), they carry on airstrikes (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1230456496945) and might launch ground offensives, while they still can.

Besides, Israel is doing what conquerors have done before. Cromwell in Ireland, Harrison in the Midwest; destroying the support structure that the population relied on, forcing them into submission.

Papewaio

12-29-2008, 04:17

Two words:

Snap Election.

Yoyoma1910

12-29-2008, 08:37

Irguin

Furunculus

12-29-2008, 09:59

Tribesman

12-29-2008, 09:59

Besides, Israel is doing what conquerors have done before. Cromwell
So you are comparing Israels actions to a crazed dictator who thought he was on a mission from god .
Thats errrrr.....thats anti-semetism that is :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

KarlXII

12-29-2008, 13:16

" Originally Posted by hooahguy View Post
no, i meant that if you see a terrorist, and he is hiding behind a child, then i would throw a grenade at them, if carefully shooting the terrorist without hurting the child isnt an option."

what do you not understand?

The mentality behind,

you see a terrorist, and he is hiding behind a child, then i would throw a grenade at them, if carefully shooting the terrorist without hurting the child isnt an option.

Dutch_guy

12-29-2008, 15:10

What is the sensible process to resolution?
if the resolution what you are talking about is peace between arab and jew, then i think that if the arabs would lay down all arms against israel, accept israel as a country, we would do the same, and maybe even thrive together as allies.

One could argue that Israel, being something like a Western country, should make the first move there. Not bombing the hell out of one of the most densly populated area's in the world in response to a mortar attack might be a good start. Current technology doesn't allow for surgical strikes in such a densly populated area, and those mortar attacks are crude, ineffective and kill more Hamas than Israeli civilians. Honestly, I don't see what Olmert was trying to achieve other than pure vengeance and extending his time in office. As anyone can judge just by looking back in history that this won't stop the mortar/missle attacks, and won't make the people less inclined not to vote Hamas next elections. And the latter should be what Israel should try to achieve, as it's a democratic country itself.

:balloon2:

rasoforos

12-29-2008, 16:15

wait. how would you know that they are surgical or not?
and how do you know this is the harshest raid on gaza? have you been a participant in every raid on gaza since the six-day war?

and how do you know that israeli raids havent been surgical?

I know so mainly because I live in the real world...

Lets see some latest targets too:

'An Israeli strike early Monday hit the Jabalya refugee camp, leaving five children dead in a home that was damaged when a nearby mosque was hit, said Dr. Mu'awiya Hassanein. The Israeli military had no immediate comment.'

Oh...and bombing the University was a good one too.

Bravo Israel, great election campaign.

Fragony

12-29-2008, 17:10

One could argue that Israel, being something like a Western country, should make the first move there. Not bombing the hell out of one of the most densly populated area's in the world in response to a mortar attack might be a good start.

Not just one mortar attack there have been hundreds of attacks what do these idiots expect? If they can't control their primitive bloodlust c'est ca. There seemingly is no end to the patience of Israel Hamas never stops attacking them no matter what Israel does, 100% behind our nosy muca's screw the hatebeards over good this time, shalome :balloon2:

Marshal Murat

12-29-2008, 17:21

So you are comparing Israels actions to a crazed dictator who thought he was on a mission from god .
Thats errrrr.....thats anti-semetism that is
:laugh4:

I was just comparing Israeli tactics to those enacted by Cromwell in Ireland. As I understand it, he burned all the crops, destroyed all the villages, forcing the Irish to come under his control.
Thanks for the laughs though.

tibilicus

12-29-2008, 17:37

Not just one mortar attack there have been hundreds of attacks what do these idiots expect? If they can't control their primitive bloodlust c'est ca. There seemingly is no end to the patience of Israel Hamas never stops attacking them no matter what Israel does, 100% behind our nosy muca's screw the hatebeards over good this time, shalome :balloon2:

You say that but then what do you expect? Let Israel choose Gazas government and have the will and the freedom of the people crushed by Israeli tyrants?

"Freedom needs a soldier" and in this case hamas happen to be those soldiers.

Banquo's Ghost

12-29-2008, 17:37

Hamas never stops attacking them no matter what Israel does, 100% behind our nosy muca's screw the hatebeards over good this time, shalome :balloon2:

Fragony, your capacity for highlighting the very point and then missing it spectacularly is only rivalled by your astoundingly brilliant irony. (You do know what shalom means?)

I know the battle lines here in the Backroom are well and truly drawn on this issue, but in the spirit of optimism that Seamus advanced so well, I submit a piece by Robert Fisk (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-leaders-lie-civilians-die-and-lessons-of-history-are-ignored-1215045.html) - who illustrates that justice is founded on the principle of proportionality. Tribesman is quite right to argue that a change of strategy is in the best interests of Israel.

Yes, Israel deserves security. But these bloodbaths will not bring it. Not since 1948 have air raids protected Israel. Israel has bombed Lebanon thousands of times since 1975 and not one has eliminated "terrorism". So what was the reaction last night? The Israelis threaten ground attacks. Hamas waits for another battle. Our Western politicians crouch in their funk holes. And somewhere to the east – in a cave? a basement? on a mountainside? – a well-known man in a turban smiles.

Seamus, to attempt a reply to your post would find me somewhat restricted. I have noted many times that since Israel is politically incapable of getting itself out of this rut (by its coalition style governments dependent on the lunatic fringe alone) only the United States has the power to force the ritual slaughter to end. The only way that will happen is if the Palestinians force their leadership to adopt non-violence as the only way to fight back. Sadly, like peoples across the world when attacked, relying on men of violence to retaliate is all too easy.

Option 2 of your list is the only one I can see working - Israel must continue as a democratic state - but the demonisation of the Palestinians is a very useful political tool, and so will not be given up. Just as terrified Palestinians vote for Hamas to "defend" them, terrified Israelis tend to vote for whichever party looks the most hawkish. Nonetheless, as a relatively mature democracy, and the over-whelming military power, it is much more likely the Israelis will conclude that peace will require some forbearance. That day however, appears a very, very long way off. Nonetheless, I daresay that if the US tired of the charade and threatened to withdraw aid and patience, they might come to this conclusion as a matter of urgency.

Furunculus

12-29-2008, 17:49

Oh...and bombing the University was a good one too.

that university was a bit different to the one about a mile away from me, if only because i'm sure that mine doesn't have a bomb factory inside it.

and as far as i know they didn't drop a fuel-air explosive on top of the entire complex including student halls, they launched precision strikes on the bomb factory itself.

Fragony

12-29-2008, 17:55

Fragony, your capacity for highlighting the very point and then missing it spectacularly is only rivalled by your astoundingly brilliant irony. (You do know what shalom means?)

But of course, I may be an idiot but I am not uneducatd. This is a good thing, about time that hamas-trash is getting what it deserves, and that would be to be very much dead and most of all not alive.

Just because it's different doesn't mean it isn't love. With Hamas gone we can start fixing things.

tibilicus

12-29-2008, 18:04

Just because it's different doesn't mean it isn't love. With Hamas gone we can start fixing things.

Hamas wont die and they will never die. All that will happen is more will take up arms against Israel. And to be honest that isn't a bad thing, Israel are long over due an complete and utter ass whooping for there land hungry and imperialistic views in the middle east. Israelis seem to think they hold claim to the middle east and see themselves as superior to it's other "less civilized" neighbours.

As the loyalists would say in northern Ireland "no surrender".

Fragony

12-29-2008, 18:20

Hamas wont die and they will never die. All that will happen is more will take up arms against Israel.

Which they will do anyway, can't make peace with Hamas it isn't possible, but it is certainly possible to keep killing them, it's the only way. It's ugly, but it is just the way it is so if that would be ugly then let it be ugly. And I am not saying that Israel should kill them all but Israel has earned the right to take of it's silk gloves and not care that much.

Furunculus

12-29-2008, 18:23

Hamas wont die and they will never die. All that will happen is more will take up arms against Israel.

And to be honest that isn't a bad thing, Israel are long over due an complete and utter ass whooping....

.....for there land hungry and imperialistic views in the middle east. Israelis seem to think they hold claim to the middle east and see themselves as superior to it's other "less civilized" neighbours.

No, but israel may wish to bargain from a position of power, much as Britian did with the IRA, (BG may disagree with me here).

But no country in the ME has the military competence to give israel a kicking.

Or possibly they just want strategic depth. SOME israelies see a divine right to the territory of biblical israel, only some.

rory_20_uk

12-29-2008, 18:24

Cobblers.

It's difficult to preach hatred against a country that isn't doing anything to you; getting people in Belgium to suicide attack France wouldn't be possible. Attacking a foe that is starving your family to death when it's not killing them isn't

If we were talking about commando raids killing key players then it is Israel vs Hamas. Missiles and blockage it is Israel vs the palestinians most of whom would rather be anywhere else in the world besides there.

The rockets are pretty pathetic as a weapon. If Palestinians had a quality of life and had even a passable relationship with Israel support would quickly wither. Indiscriminate killing - no I don't view as a missile blowing up the right house as descriminating - will not noticably harm such a low-tech foe.

~:smoking:

Fragony

12-29-2008, 18:45

The rockets are pretty pathetic as a weapon.

But they keep flying regardless, they may be too blinded by hate to actually hit something but that doesn't make them any less hostile, if they had better equipment they would be using it. They are scum and Israel deals with it properly, making holes in them or making sure they are spread out among holes, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Vladimir

12-29-2008, 18:52

Wow. Four pages huh?

Meanwhile fellow muslims rush to embrace (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5grmpk18UVAYzqu4fu2F0eNh8QIgA) their Palestinian brothers.

LeftEyeNine

12-29-2008, 19:07

Ha !

Bomb the hell out of people -death toll 300, wounded surpasses 2000- and expect to "teach them a lesson".

Which planet is that of which atmosphere you're inhaling ?

Turkish air forces bombed PKK camps a couple of months ago and it was all "HEY STOP ! STOP THERE, HEY HEY HEY STOP THERE UR HURTING CİV1L1ANS !111HUMANITARIANFECES".

Once more again: The whole world is about being powerful, not righteous. Jeez, you'll even have democracy-cradle Euros supporting your wicked cause.

For ****'s sake, they are using cell phones' lights to make surgeries over there right now while you have your console's gamepad in your hand.

I'm truly disgusted of you and your sense telling that "I am human, you are not".

tibilicus

12-29-2008, 19:20

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7803711.stm

Israel was fighting a "war to the bitter end" against Hamas, its defence chief said.

All this is just another political tool to try and keep the ruling Israeli party in power. if they fail then there will be an even more right wing party in power. Judging by the scenes here in England at the Israeli embassy the whole world right now pretty much hates their guts.

To be honest Israel has pretty much made one bad move after one bad move since the state was born. You look on t.v and see Israel and it's nice modern housing whilst 5 miles over the border you see Palestinians who have no homes being killed for no crime other than being in "Israel's land". The other attacks by Israel before were hardly justified but this is the last straw.

The plan for an Israeli state failed from day one and here it is over 60 years later still failing today.

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 19:21

Oh yes because if I don't support Israel I'm an anti-semetic Nazi!

Always a good one used by the Jewish/Israeli people to defend there actions. Get over it, the world doesn't hate Jews, they hate Israel and that's no fault other than Israel's itself. Ever since it was founded it has done its self zero favours.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7802515.stm

Just a little update those oh so good Israelis are now bombing the University which isn't just a symbol for the youth but it also has religious symbolism in Gaza as well. This is going to bring religion into it even more now and you know what? I honestly hope hamas give you every bullet you've got coming to you Israel, this is one westerner that wont stick up and defend murderous tyrants.

You can't crush the will of the people, they will just come back stronger and stronger each time. Tonight as Gaza burns, all the people of Gaza are untied in their hatred for these attacks. Congratulations Israel you've just encouraged a whole new breed of militants who want to wipe you of the face of the earth. And can you blame them?
sorry if i wasnt clear- i was being sarcastic....

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 19:44

The plan for an Israeli state failed from day one and here it is over 60 years later still failing today.

i dont see how it was a complete failure. maybe in foreign relations its a failure, but technologically its pretty high up there, and weve done a lot with the land. it used to be barren wastelands for the most of it. have you seen pics of what is now Tel-Aviv back in the 1880s? its pretty astonishing how much its grown.

for a country to fail it literally has to fail completely, as in the entire country is in shambles. i dont see that. :inquisitive:

Banquo's Ghost

12-29-2008, 19:48

But of course, I may be an idiot but I am not uneducatd. This is a good thing, about time that hamas-trash is getting what it deserves, and that would be to be very much dead and most of all not alive.

Just because it's different doesn't mean it isn't love. With Hamas gone we can start fixing things.

I didn't mean to imply you are uneducated, but the irony of your statement was too much to pass up. Nonetheless, I would agree with you about Hamas, but this is not the way to get rid of them. Indeed, it simply creates more radicals, whatever they choose to call themselves. No, they need to be marginalised - which means someone else ought to be doing the healthcare, water supplies, food and education etc.

No, but israel may wish to bargain from a position of power, much as Britian did with the IRA, (BG may disagree with me here).

I have no intention of disagreeing with you - we differed a little on the scale of the IRA's infiltration, but not the fact of it. In fact you illustrate the point for this thread perfectly: from a position of power, the British government realised it could not defeat the IRA utterly (so that it posed no future threat of any sort) or any of its splinter groups. The final defeat of violent republicanism had to come by engaging them in peaceful negotiation - to sit down with the men of terror and bring them into the mainstream. Just as the British had done with those terrorists in Palestine that wished to create the state of Israel.

I submit that Israel is already in a position of great power from which to start substantive negotiations. The first realisation that needs to dawn is that they will never completely defeat the terrorists through military means.

The plan for an Israeli state failed from day one and here it is over 60 years later still failing today.

On the contrary, Israel is a vibrant and civilised society, and rather too democratic for its own good. Compared to its neighbours - who rather ill-advisedly have tried on numerous occasions to destroy it - it is a model of liberal practice and thought.

You make the mistake of tarring all Israelis with the same brush. There are many who deplore the treatment of Palestinians and work very hard to better the situation. There are those who go so far as to refuse military service to make their point. The challenge for Israel is that like may democracies, conservatives and liberals are pretty much present in equivalent numbers. That means that the Knesset is often divided - and thus the influential hard-line religious parties (influence derived from very few seats, but the difference between winning and losing a vote of confidence) hold inordinate power.

Remember that the last Prime Minister to have made real progress to peace was assassinated by one of these fringe loonies. That's a hard legacy for any politician to ignore.

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 19:52

You make the mistake of tarring all Israelis with the same brush. There are many who deplore the treatment of Palestinians and work very hard to better the situation. There are those who go so far as to refuse military service to make their point. The challenge for Israel is that like may democracies, conservatives and liberals are pretty much present in equivalent numbers. That means that the Knesset is often divided - and thus the influential hard-line religious parties (influence derived from very few seats, but the difference between winning and losing a vote of confidence) hold inordinate power.

agreed. remember when israel pulled all the settlers out of gaza? there were entire army units that refused to take part in forcing the settlers out.

Goofball

12-29-2008, 19:55

LoL!

I notice that in this particular Israel thread, by the eighth post someone had already made the Nazi/holocaust reference (with the Palestinians as the innocent victims of genocide, of course), and by the 10th post the U.S. had been blamed for the situation.

Priceless. That must be a new frickin' record for the Backroom.

Banquo's Ghost

12-29-2008, 20:00

agreed. remember when israel pulled all the settlers out of gaza? there were entire army units that refused to take part in forcing the settlers out.

That's not quite my point. ~:rolleyes:

Forcing the settlers to comply with the terms of the withdrawal was seen as a betrayal by the hard right. I was referring to the many soldiers of the IDF who have refused to serve in operations to oppress the Palestinians, not illegal Israeli settlers.

Anyway, here's another excellent and thoughtful commentator (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050932.html) to help us reflect.

Who, in the end, truly speaks for the Gazans?

Those who are willing, just once, to lay down the axes they are accustomed to grinding, and who accurately and with both passion and objectivity describe the suffering and the violence on both sides of the border.

Those who truly speak for the Gazans are those who are willing to grant the humanity of Israeli Jews as well, and who are seeking, in a sincere effort to move past revenge and blind tribalism, a common future for peoples whom fate has somehow decreed, will continue to be neighbors.

Husar

12-29-2008, 20:08

I'm truly disgusted of you and your sense telling that "I am human, you are not".

But we are. ~;p

Once more again: The whole world is about being powerful, not righteous. Jeez, you'll even have democracy-cradle Euros supporting your wicked cause.

Yes, but some people actually make an effort to improve things and some even call them heros *cough* Atatürk *cough*, yet you come here and say we should appreciate the status quo more and not try to change things for the better. :dizzy2:

For ****'s sake, they are using cell phones' lights to make surgeries over there right now while you have your console's gamepad in your hand.

I bet many of them wish they could switch to having a console controller in their hand instead of being in that "operating room", from what I quoted before you sound like you think it's fine when they can't?

LeftEyeNine

12-29-2008, 20:20

Husar, are you on a deserted island ? You sound quite alienated.

Ironside

12-29-2008, 20:26

Something that actually seems to be new is that appearently Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, PLO and Jordan has changed the tone versus Hamas (from stop the aggression Israel, to stop the aggression both of you).

Thoughts? :thinking2:

Reduced support from Egypt means that the smuggling will go down and that also seems to been a target.

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 20:34

i dont think that hamas nor israel will heed. the arab states around them havent supported either side much at all.

Vladimir

12-29-2008, 20:46

i dont think that hamas nor israel will heed. the arab states around them havent supported either side much at all.

:inquisitive: Are you serious? So do you believe Hezbollah is receiving foreign support and Hamass (yes I spelled them Ham Ass) is not? How do you think Hamass acquires the resources to construct and launch all their rockets and mortars?

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 21:00

tibilicus

12-29-2008, 21:14

On the contrary, Israel is a vibrant and civilised society, and rather too democratic for its own good. Compared to its neighbours - who rather ill-advisedly have tried on numerous occasions to destroy it - it is a model of liberal practice and thought.

You make the mistake of tarring all Israelis with the same brush. There are many who deplore the treatment of Palestinians and work very hard to better the situation. There are those who go so far as to refuse military service to make their point. The challenge for Israel is that like may democracies, conservatives and liberals are pretty much present in equivalent numbers. That means that the Knesset is often divided - and thus the influential hard-line religious parties (influence derived from very few seats, but the difference between winning and losing a vote of confidence) hold inordinate power.

Sorry I will try and explain what I meant by my earlier statement. I wasn't trying to argue Israel is uncivilized or anything like that but when I say the "Israeli state failed" I mean to concept of sticking a new country right in the centre of a part of the world governed by religion. It didn't help that the new state was also based on a religion which had a long feud dating century's with the religion already established in the region. I also know that not all Israelis are land grabbing war lovers but I'm referring the the establishment as a whole. Even Israel's "centre" party is very anti-Palestine and well the more right wing party's are even worse. I'm also right in presuming though that the orthodox Jews in Israel are predominantly anti-Palestine and they make up a majority of the population as I understood it.

Marshal Murat

12-29-2008, 21:28

It didn't help that the new state was also based on a religion which had a long feud dating century's with the religion already established in the region.

Actually, the Jewish people have had the best relations with Islamic nations. When the Spanish Catholics persecuted Jews, they fled to the Ottomans or Mamlukes. Islamic nations have always previously been Jewish havens from Christian persecution.

The only problems have arisen when the surrounding Muslim nations attacked Israel and, as you can tell by this thread, Jews in general. The wars became religious, fighting over "Jerusalem" and the "Holy Land" rather than about who will live where, peacefully. With the rise of extremist Muslim sects, this war has been taken to a new and disgusting level of death, killing, and murder.
Especially in Lebanon.
Lebanon was supposed to be a Christian haven, but the result was the polygot nation, with Christian, Druze, Jewish, and Muslim militias fighting it out, butchering one another for no other purpose than religion and land.

Hooahguy

12-29-2008, 21:50

thank you Marshal Murat. my thoughts exactly.

Devastatin Dave

12-29-2008, 22:11

Idaho

12-29-2008, 22:12

Idaho

12-29-2008, 22:13

and by the 10th post the U.S. had been blamed for the situation.

Priceless. That must be a new frickin' record for the Backroom.

In what possible way could the US not be blamed for the current situation?

Marshal Murat

12-29-2008, 22:20

In what possible way could the US not be blamed for the current situation?
:book:
We didn't lead the Jewish people to a homeland ordained by God.

Moses did.
Moses wasn't American.
US cannot be blamed for Moses leading the Jews into Israel.
US can't be blamed for setting Israel up.
QED - US can't be blamed for the current conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.

LeftEyeNine

12-29-2008, 22:35

Well, at least, if nothing else, the latest assault can be blamed onto US for their GWBush's warmonging Big Israel model of governing which obviously expressed that they'll be backing Israel's actions. So before Obama takes the charge, Israel will be doing her "best" over there.

Oh now come on, don't tell me what a state's actions has to do with another's approval, it's Middle East -a playground for US.

rory_20_uk

12-29-2008, 22:37

:book:
We didn't lead the Jewish people to a homeland ordained by God.

Moses did.
Moses wasn't American.
US cannot be blamed for Moses leading the Jews into Israel.
US can't be blamed for setting Israel up.
QED - US can't be blamed for the current conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.

The Jews were booted out by the Romans. They were let back in during the 1930's and promptly destabilised the region. The Brits were not happy about the numbers going to the region, and managed the rather obvious conclusion that it would cause trouble.

Which nation backed them returning? Erm...
They bombed the rulers of the land - effectively acting as terrorists. Which nation didn't seem to mind this? Erm...

Israel is and always was a American puppet. It would implode in under a year left to its own devices. I understand the need for a regional "bag man" who can do all the unpleasant jobs with cast iron deniability, but at least acknowledge this.

~:smoking:

Ice

12-29-2008, 23:33

*Yawn* Typical Crap

LeftEyeNine

12-29-2008, 23:36

*Yawn* Ur speaking crap 'cause I disagree with u. Byez.

Ice

12-29-2008, 23:39

*Yawn* Ur speaking crap 'cause I disagree with u. Byez.

Uh huh... congrats you've just incorrectly dissected my post/

Hit a nerve, LEN?

LeftEyeNine

12-29-2008, 23:47

Uh huh... congrats you've just incorrectly dissected my post/

Hit a nerve, LEN?

No, not at all. I was watching the news. Oh ****, look at that mortar.

Tribesman

12-30-2008, 00:52

have you seen pics of what is now Tel-Aviv back in the 1880s? its pretty astonishing how much its grown.

Have you seen pics of what is now Milton Keynes back in the 1880s ?:dizzy2:

Tribesman is quite right to argue that a change of strategy is in the best interests of Israel.

Or to paraphrase a quote from the media .
"If you are unable to kill the wolf don't be a prick and pull its tail"

The size of the 'original' Israel is founded on fairly limited and unreliable religious literary references.
Why bother Idaho , even ignoring that he got both the biblical and current borders wrong surely the approach should be that if god gave the land to the tribes and 10 of them don't exist then the only land they can claim from god is that of the two tribes that got given land :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-30-2008, 02:10

Yeah...as surgical as a 90 year old neighborhood butcher with parkinson's...after a few pints...

Well, what can you do when they're hiding behind civilians? Israel did the best it could with what it had.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-30-2008, 02:40

Well, what can you do when they're hiding behind civilians? Israel did the best it could with what it had.

Why not absorb the Israeli casualties without retaliation? Accept a few dozen deaths per year as part of the mortgage on that land and move forward. Eventually, even the arab street would begin to villify Hamas and others if they were killing innocents without either a) destabilizing Israel or b) drawing a response.

Really, the only other choice is an all out pogrom -- which would tear Israel apart psychologically.

Rory:

I wouldn't go so far as to say "puppet" and I disagree with your timeline for Israel's demise absent US support. That said, the US was the foremost mover for the creation of Israel back in 1947 and was strongly supportive of Israel throughout the Cold War (and you could argue that we did let them do some of the "hatchet work" in the region for us as well as test out the efficacy of some of our weapons systems). US support continues today and is significant albeit not the do/die level you suggest.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-30-2008, 02:43

Seamus Fermanagh

12-30-2008, 02:46

The Israeli ambassador to Britain talked about this on the BBC, did you see it?

Nope. Link?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-30-2008, 02:48

Nope. Link?

It was on the BBC World, sorry.

Beren Son Of Barahi

12-30-2008, 06:12

It seems to me that both sides only ever offer the stick; never really offering the carrot. Neither side is willing to comprimise enough to allow the other to get any really benifit from peace. This is in part that both sides have come to power through war and death, (hamas also provided basic services). Both parties need to appear the bigger, strong (read most stubbon) then the other.

I think in order for gaza to be furthered the answer lies in the west bank. with a moderate in Abbas it would seem to be the best option to give the west bank the carrot to balance out the tic for tac in the gaza strip.

The real answer is not countless cycles of bombing each other; so what is the best way out of this mess now and what should the sides be doing.

Furunculus

12-30-2008, 11:00

The Jews were booted out by the Romans. They were let back in during the 1930's and promptly destabilised the region. The Brits were not happy about the numbers going to the region, and managed the rather obvious conclusion that it would cause trouble.

It would implode in under a year left to its own devices.

I would have been happier to see a nation of palestine, but seeing as that didn't happen i will back israel to the hilt against those groups that wish to destroy a nation state.

I will hold you to that, and i am fairly certain you will be seen to be dead wrong. come the 30th Dec 2009 israel will not only exist but be seen to be a fundamentally 'healthy' sovereign nation.

Furunculus

12-30-2008, 11:03

Why not absorb the Israeli casualties without retaliation? Accept a few dozen deaths per year as part of the mortgage on that land and move forward. Eventually, even the arab street would begin to villify Hamas and others if they were killing innocents without either a) destabilizing Israel or b) drawing a response.

Really, the only other choice is an all out pogrom -- which would tear Israel apart psychologically.

you might argue that they have, given that there have been 8000 rocket attacks on israel in recent years, but when all is said and done they are a democracy and must respond to the demands of the electorate.

rory_20_uk

12-30-2008, 11:33

I will hold you to that, and i am fairly certain you will be seen to be dead wrong. come the 30th Dec 2009 israel will not only exist but be seen to be a fundamentally 'healthy' sovereign nation.

Apologies, I must have written poorly.

By existing on its own, I mean without the massive aid from America, the frequent vetos in the UN etc etc. I do not imagine that this is going to fundamentally change any time soon merely as the President has changed.

~:smoking:

Ironside

12-30-2008, 12:45

no, i just think that after years of neglect (in terms of aid, not weapons) from other arab states, the palestinians wont want to listen to those countries. and AFAIK, iran is the main supplier of weapons for those two anyhow.

and expecting israel to listen to them is just a bit far-fetched.

I was more refering to that the tone of rethoric has changed in thier standard response for about any major Israeli operation, not that they got enough influence to make someone listen to the response.

How exactly do you think the Iranian arms end up at Hamas? Teleportation? Or perhaps smuggling through a certain border?

Fragony

12-30-2008, 14:39

lol http://snaphanen.dk/upload/2008/12/2298296970103726530s600x600q851.jpg

Tribesman

12-30-2008, 14:40

come the 30th Dec 2009 israel will not only exist but be seen to be a fundamentally 'healthy' sovereign nation.

If it were a fundamentally healthy sovereign nation it would have those little things that make a nation , like borders and a recognised capital .

Furunculus

12-30-2008, 15:06

it does.

Hooahguy

12-30-2008, 15:17

I was more refering to that the tone of rethoric has changed in thier standard response for about any major Israeli operation, not that they got enough influence to make someone listen to the response.

How exactly do you think the Iranian arms end up at Hamas? Teleportation? Or perhaps smuggling through a certain border?
oh. i guess that iran somehow smuggles weapons to hamas through a border or somehow evades the israeli blockade.

rory_20_uk

12-30-2008, 15:18

Hooahguy

12-30-2008, 15:24

Why not absorb the Israeli casualties without retaliation? Accept a few dozen deaths per year as part of the mortgage on that land and move forward. Eventually, even the arab street would begin to villify Hamas and others if they were killing innocents without either a) destabilizing Israel or b) drawing a response.

a wise idea, but i dont think that israelis would like this. i mean, if rockets were falling around you, you would demand action from your government against the perpetrators, even if it meant the risk of killing civilians. i know i certainly would.

Hooahguy

12-30-2008, 15:26

Internationally recognised borders within which is stays, and an internationally recognised capital.

The facts of Jerusalem being disputed between two sides and illegal settlements (and a border fence that even israel's own cours rules as illegal) is far from either a recognised capital or borders.

~:smoking:
jerusalem isnt the recognized capital of israel? it says that it is in all my atlases and such. :inquisitive:

i would say it is- just not for a few arab nations.

Lorenzo_H

12-30-2008, 15:43

When the most persecuted group in history comes up against yet another enraged group of "Death-to-Israel" Islamic militants who victimise themselves when their agression is responded to with the full retaliation of the most effective fighting nation pound for pound in the world, I know who I support.

rory_20_uk

12-30-2008, 15:53

jerusalem isnt the recognized capital of israel? it says that it is in all my atlases and such. :inquisitive:

i would say it is- just not for a few arab nations.

East Jerusalem is, not the entirity of it.

~:smoking:

Hooahguy

12-30-2008, 15:54

funny- my atlases say "jerusalem" not 'east jerusalem"

Tribesman

12-30-2008, 16:06

it does.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No seriously:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Ok this time seriously :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Right then Furunculus , where are they ?

jerusalem isnt the recognized capital of israel?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
no it isn't , because Jerusalem is not recognised as a legally established part of the country . :yes:

i would say it is- just not for a few arab nations.
No its not by anyone .
That is why there are no embassies there , Italy Greece and America have consulates in Jerusalem but their actual embassies are in what they recognise as the legal capital.....Tel-Aviv .
I suppose its a bit like Israel having a consulate in Taipai but an embassy in Beijing , the people in Taipai may call it the capital of China but it isn't really the case is it .

tibilicus

12-30-2008, 16:26

jerusalem isnt the recognized capital of israel? it says that it is in all my atlases and such. :inquisitive:

i would say it is- just not for a few arab nations.

I'm pretty sure Tel Aviv is meant to be that capitol of Israel but after the war Israel decided to keep the city as their little war trophy. In reality as the original partition suggests Jerusalem should be a U.N administrated neutral city but hey, Israel just thought they'd keep it. Jerusalem shouldn't even be in their hands but hey as the ruling Israelis would say "land, land , land."

Paradox

12-30-2008, 17:33

i would say it is- just not for a few arab nations.
Of course we don't think it belongs to Israel, Palestinians had to go through metal detectors to enter the second holiest mosque in Islam. Not only that, but they were massacred in it.
Frankly, I don't put the whole blame on Israel due to what happened recently, just most of it. I admire the fact that a single Israeli is enough for them to go crazy. At least they're not sitting on their asses while their brothers are being massacred.

And now the Islamic New Year won't be celebrated anywhere, not even in Dubai!

Crazed Rabbit

12-30-2008, 18:15

IDF Youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk) - showing videos from planes striking targets among others. So be forewarned.

Eventually, even the arab street would begin to villify Hamas and others if they were killing innocents without either a) destabilizing Israel or b) drawing a response.

That could be a long, long time.

CR

Vladimir

12-30-2008, 18:44

Hey man, give peace a chance. :hippie:

Ignore Tribesman. He's just trying to pick a fight through his pedantry.

Jolt

12-30-2008, 18:54

The only problems have arisen when the surrounding Muslim nations attacked Israel and, as you can tell by this thread, Jews in general.

Wrong. The attacks were a consequence, not a cause. The problems began when the UN created a country where it shouldn't have created, and illegitimately, because by doing so, they'd have to create a bucketload more of countries whose people also want independence. If, instead of Israel, there had been a joint Arab-Jew Palestine, then there would have been no attack. But the jews wanted a country of their own, where they wouldn't have to share power with the arabs.

Idaho

12-30-2008, 19:38

Israel is an apartheid state founded on ethnic cleansing. On top of which it is aggressive and expansionist and has killed over 3000 Palestinians in the last few years. It isn't that suprising that it gets a hundred or so casualties from Palestinian attacks. They are just lucky in their enemies. The Palestinian strategy is stuck in a losing rut.

rvg

12-30-2008, 19:50

Israel is an apartheid state founded on ethnic cleansing. On top of which it is aggressive and expansionist and has killed over 3000 Palestinians in the last few years...

Maybe so. I would argue though that Israel cannot afford to have a less aggressive stance given past and present actions of its neghbors and the Palestinians. Arab states ganged up on Israel in 3 separate wars and 3 times they went home crying. It's time to stopthe stupid and pointless violence (aka rocket attacks) and start building a peaceful future. Fatah is led by the pragmatists and technocrats who understand that, while Hamas is ruled solely by warmongers who only understand the most widely understood language on Earth. And Israel is more than happy to speak that language whenever the opportunity presents itself. Regardless of its origin Israel is here to stay. The sooner Hamas stops the violence the better off its people would be.

Ironside

12-30-2008, 20:14

oh. i guess that iran somehow smuggles weapons to hamas through a border or somehow evades the israeli blockade.

Good, very good.

"Pulls up hooahguy's atlas". And as you can see from these maps, Gaza strip is between two countries, Egypt and Israel. Care to guess what country most smuggling goes through and guess what influence that nation can have on the smuggling?

So slightly more blunt, what will be the consequnces of that Hamas' main supply line will be severly weakened?

Tribesman

12-30-2008, 20:17

Fatah is led by the pragmatists and technocrats who understand that
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
That has to be the funniest thing written so far .

Fragony

12-30-2008, 20:28

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
That has to be the funniest thing written so far .

More true for Fatah then it is for Hamas and these two are the only flavour

tibilicus

12-30-2008, 20:32

Idaho

12-30-2008, 20:40

Maybe so. I would argue though that Israel cannot afford to have a less aggressive stance given past and present actions of its neghbors and the Palestinians. Arab states ganged up on Israel in 3 separate wars and 3 times they went home crying. It's time to stopthe stupid and pointless violence (aka rocket attacks) and start building a peaceful future.

Hmmm... last Arab instigated Israeli war was over 30 years ago. You think they may be dining out a little long on that scare story? Since the 1970s the picture has been one of Arab diplomacy. Hizbollah were created by Israel doing some regional powerplay in Lebanon. Take a look at what happened in the Palestinian refugee camps in that country. Perhaps they don't teach that in American text books.

As for stupid and pointless rocket attacks - I agree they are stupid and pointless. They draw attention away from the drastically greater number of Palestinians killed by state-of-the-art US military equipment given free to Israel by the US - but as someone has said - what has this got to do with the US :laugh4:

Did you hear the latest US spokesman? "Hamas has to declare a ceasefire that we can believe in... er.. not we, I mean Israel can believe in".

Fragony

12-30-2008, 20:43

Since the 1970s the picture has been one of Arab diplomacy.

You have got to be kidding me. There is the region and there is the world around it.

rvg

12-30-2008, 20:53

Hmmm... last Arab instigated Israeli war was over 30 years ago. You think they may be dining out a little long on that scare story? Since the 1970s the picture has been one of Arab diplomacy. Hizbollah were created by Israel doing some regional powerplay in Lebanon. Take a look at what happened in the Palestinian refugee camps in that country. Perhaps they don't teach that in American text books.

Arab diplomacy? Man, those words don't even go together, it's like saying "Israeli democracy". I mean, Sadat got killed for being diplomatic with Israel. Now Abbas is catching fire from every corner of the Arab world for not unilaterally condemning Israel. I'm not trying to sugarcoat what Israel does, but the Palestinian side has definitely shot itself in the foot on numerous occasions by refusing to acknowledge the objective reality.

Idaho

12-30-2008, 21:34

Arab diplomacy? Man, those words don't even go together, it's like saying "Israeli democracy". I mean, Sadat got killed for being diplomatic with Israel. Now Abbas is catching fire from every corner of the Arab world for not unilaterally condemning Israel. I'm not trying to sugarcoat what Israel does, but the Palestinian side has definitely shot itself in the foot on numerous occasions by refusing to acknowledge the objective reality.

I agree the Pals have made a mess of the crap hand they have been played. But the Israelis are the ones with the most blood on their hands. They have control of the best weapons and best media - and still they aren't winning.

Fragony

12-30-2008, 22:20

If the Israeli's have the best media they sure do a poor job out of using it because just about every newspaper is predictably channeling the negative energy towards them. The 'quality media' have actually managed to mentally block the attacks of Hamas and actually managed to imprint the idea that this is the result of a single mortar-attack.

Lord Winter

12-30-2008, 22:29

I agree the Pals have made a mess of the crap hand they have been played. But the Israelis are the ones with the most blood on their hands. They have control of the best weapons and best media - and still they aren't winning.

When was the quality of your weapons or winning a war a measure of morality?

Husar

12-30-2008, 22:30

Ignore Tribesman. He's just trying to pick a fight through his pedantry.

Eh, he is correct about Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as you can read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478).

Jerusalem is only the capital of Israel in the minds of people who ignore everybody else's thoughts on the matter. Such people should not be surprised about the constant war over there since they obvioulsy choose to ignore how everybody else feels about their deeds.
If you do whatever you want and ignore what others say and then start whining that others don't support you, you just look like a little child that doesn't get it's way, the conservative way to deal with that would be a hard slap in the face... :mellow:

Idaho

12-30-2008, 23:49

When was the quality of your weapons or winning a war a measure of morality?

Quite so :yes:

Seamus Fermanagh

12-31-2008, 02:27

KukriKhan

12-31-2008, 05:05

By that standard, all of us -- save perhaps Costa Rica -- are all immoral bastards. All of our nations have waged wars, often aggressively and some without even a "fig-leaf" to hide behind.

The only "moral" stance would be passive defense and letting the other guy kill you -- only using violence in a limited fashion and only when there existed virtually no possibility of any non-combatant taking the chop. That's as close to "never" as possible.

So, Idaho, your stance seems to boil down to -- no, you have never stated such in so many words -- "Israel should quit and cede political control to the Palestinians." That's even less likely then my "go passive" odd new approach suggestion.

Indeed, we are all... or have been, immoral bastards.

So the question is: who's job is it to solve this problem; stop this seemingly wanton killing? Israel? US? Palestine? Iran?

Idaho seems to think that absent US military hardware and support, Israel would crumble militarily. That might be a valid point.

I humbly posit that it is on the Palestinian people, those folks who feel oppressed, to get bold, throw off the yoke of perceived oppression, declare themselves an independent people, and form their own country.

Write a declaration of independence. Ignore and refuse any and all aid from their oppressors. Form a government, declare borders, fly a flag, issue a currency, form an army, construct a police force, hold verifiable elections, and so on and so on.

What's with waiting to be given freedom? It is not given. It is taken. Asserted. Assumed. Those 'inalienable' thingees a smart guy wrote about a few years back.

Wanna see US public opinion, and gov't policy change in a week? Try that.

Ditch the rockets and mortar fire. That's teeanage and tribal get-even stuff.

In this idiot's opinion.:bow:

Seamus Fermanagh

12-31-2008, 06:20

In sales terms, Kukri's plan would be labeled an "assumptive close." Don't ask, don't worry about vengeance, start your own place and make it stick. You might be able to sell that on the "street" since, in practice, it would involve quite a lot of bloodletting. A good bit of scrupulous attention to hit military and police targets only and they might even get foreign intervention and the like. It would certainly be harder for the USA to continue support if there were more guerilla and less terrorist targeting choices.

CountArach

12-31-2008, 06:23

rasoforos

12-31-2008, 07:43

Well, what can you do when they're hiding behind civilians? Israel did the best it could with what it had.

So its not surgical anymore? Because they were surgical hits in your latest post. Now its the civilians to blame?

So basically if a nuclear bomb demolishes a city to take out a police station would be fine because its hiding behind civilians...

Look, statistically speaking if you bomb a building and kill 20 people, at least one of them is bound to be a policeman, civil servant, suspected militant or there are rumors that a hidden ammo stockpile is there, or an enemy official might pass from that point etc etc. If you approve large scale bombing civilian structures just because a 'valid target' might be there then you pretty much approve any carpet bomging action including 9/11 as well. So what's it gonna be? Double standards?

Husar

12-31-2008, 09:15

9/11 was pretty much a surgical strike, hit exactly what was targeted and didn't damage much else, in that way the terrorists seem to have an edge over the western world as it is. :sweatdrop:

Banquo's Ghost

12-31-2008, 09:42

I humbly posit that it is on the Palestinian people, those folks who feel oppressed, to get bold, throw off the yoke of perceived oppression, declare themselves an independent people, and form their own country.

Write a declaration of independence. Ignore and refuse any and all aid from their oppressors. Form a government, declare borders, fly a flag, issue a currency, form an army, construct a police force, hold verifiable elections, and so on and so on.

What's with waiting to be given freedom? It is not given. It is taken. Asserted. Assumed. Those 'inalienable' thingees a smart guy wrote about a few years back.

Interesting idea, but impractical beyond theory.

To start: Where? Even Antarctica is claimed. Any part of the current Middle East is part of someone's territory, and that someone is likely to take a dim view of the declaration. You have a few pointed sticks and some imported mortars/rockets. They have state of the art military hardware supplied by the world's superpower. If you fight for your freedom and choice of land, does that make you a warrior of freedom in George Washington's image, or a terrorist?

Second: You need to feed and service your people. Thus farmland and probably access to the coast for trade would be a plan. So, return to point one. Where are you? Surrounded on all sides by a military machine refusing to allow you trade across your borders? A nice little camp on the fringes of the Sahara (or abandonded desert of choice) like Polisario (who declared the independence of Western Sahara in the 70's and have since been really newsworthy).

Third: Form public institutions with what? I can easily create my own currency, but without recognition from others, it's just paper or tin. I can arm my butler but his viciously sharpened slice of mango is not going to help him much if another government refuses me legitimacy.

To bring it back home, Ireland "declared" freedom from England 800 years back. Took us a very nasty series of wars and eventually even nastier terrorism to establish that freedom beyond theory. Even the independence of the United States depended much more on an ocean, global politics and the French than merely writing one of the most magnificent documents of human history.

The Palestinians represented by Hamas have de facto, declared the independent homeland you advocate. They have been ignored, and so fight, as the colonists of the States did, against their oppressors. They represent values that their oppressors despise, just as the British despised the liberty-mongers. And just as the Founding Fathers would, had the word been in vogue, have been called terrorists, the Palestinians are vilified.

Israel itself was founded on terrorism, murder and violence. They had the advantage that they fought against the British Empire in decline, which did not have the stomach for mass reprisals. One might have thought then, that the Palestinian cause, however poorly prosecuted (and it must be recognised that the commitments, however rhetorical, to Israel's ultimate demise make a huge stumbling block) would attract more approval from the American people.

FactionHeir

12-31-2008, 09:54

Well sourced account of the whole ordeal so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes
(Read the 8:46 version)

One thing that hasn't been talked about much is the killing of police. I'm interested in my fellow Backroomers' take on killing police officers, who IMO are clearly civilians.

What strikes me the most, however, is the report in the Dec 30th section where the Israelis have agreed that Hamas non military targets are being attacked, such as sports centers, kinder gartens and the like to undermine support for Hamas by destroying all their infrastructure and social institutions that serve the populace.
While certainly a blow to the political organization, to me it clearly is an act of vandalism if not terrorism to give the green light for such atrocities, especially as there is a very high risk of civilians being killed with such attacks and just about no chance that a Hamas militant will die in those strikes (though now anyone who seems even affiliated with Hamas seems to be a "legitimate" target now).

Furunculus

12-31-2008, 10:35

That's some of the best input in this thread. well said.

odd, i thought rvg's response to that statement to be far closer to the truth:

Maybe so. I would argue though that Israel cannot afford to have a less aggressive stance given past and present actions of its neghbors and the Palestinians. Arab states ganged up on Israel in 3 separate wars and 3 times they went home crying. It's time to stopthe stupid and pointless violence (aka rocket attacks) and start building a peaceful future. Fatah is led by the pragmatists and technocrats who understand that, while Hamas is ruled solely by warmongers who only understand the most widely understood language on Earth. And Israel is more than happy to speak that language whenever the opportunity presents itself. Regardless of its origin Israel is here to stay. The sooner Hamas stops the violence the better off its people would be.

rory_20_uk

12-31-2008, 10:55

Interesting. A state who'se borders are controlled by a foreign, hostile power, who'se resources are sinilarly controlled and who continue to take parcels of land should just unilaterally play nice - and hope that Israel stops chocking the life out of the place. If they're lucky the military incursions, illegal fences, artillery and missile attacks might also stop! :thumbsup:

Israel has all the cards. The rocket attacks due next to nothing. Unlike the Palestinians they have radar and alarms. They could open the borders, let food and supplies into the territories, hell, even give the land back that even their courts state is stolen. This would neither destabilise Israel, but it would give palestinians a future to live for, and stop them being seen as a bully. Rockets are getting though with the embargo of almost everything. it's not like Hamas are going to get sent Stinger missile batteries or the odd nuke, is it?

~:smoking:

Tribesman

12-31-2008, 11:14

One thing that hasn't been talked about much is the killing of police. I'm interested in my fellow Backroomers' take on killing police officers, who IMO are clearly civilians.

No they are not civilians , they work for the government , Hamas is the government so all government workers are terrorists .
All we have to do now is wait for Israel to repeat its statement that there are no civilians like it used when it bombed the hell out of Lebanon .
But look on the bright side , at least they ain't using cluster bombs on towns and villages yet .
Then again didn't they nearly exhaust their supplies of those munitions last time and have a slight problem with America getting embarassed about donating more to the cause of freedom ?

rory_20_uk

12-31-2008, 11:57

It's Bush's last few days (thank God). I'm sure that the Military can get some over there on his say-so, and by the time they're dropping them it'll be Obama in the White House.

~:smoking:

Ironside

12-31-2008, 13:05

One thing that hasn't been talked about much is the killing of police. I'm interested in my fellow Backroomers' take on killing police officers, who IMO are clearly civilians.

Depends, police officers are civilians (although often associated with the goverment, thus often targeted due to that), but I'm not sure if Hamas is using them as gendarmes (well, rather as the exact opposite). That (police forces that is also intended to be used as military forces) would be a legimite target.

Don't know the original wording by Hamas, but they are often translated to be security forces, thus atleast implying that they have other purposes as well. If that's Hamas or the translators I don't know.

Hooahguy

12-31-2008, 16:39

The rocket attacks due next to nothing.

but is it the right of a country to defend its citizens? the rockets dont do nothing. they terrorize, destroy property, and kill. i doubt where you live, rockets fall every day or bombs drop from planes. you cant say they do nothing. they do something. living in fear is horrible. but of course its easy for us to say israel should absorb it, but how do you think that makes the people of Sderot, who are under rocket attacks daily, feel? i think right now they feel great becasue the IAF is doing something.
it is the right of every country to defend its citizens from acts of aggression, no matter what.

rory_20_uk

12-31-2008, 16:43

Hooahguy

12-31-2008, 16:55

A very emotional take. Doesn't help much though, does it? Northern Ireland was not sorted out by sending in tanks / SAS / Commandoes to kill indiscriminately. I don't imagine that this will help in Palestine.

The phrase "no matter what" of course means that other lives are worthless compared to those in your own country.

~:smoking:
but countries have a duty to protect their citizens, no?

btw when i say "no matter what" i mean no matter what public opinion or what the UN says.

Hooahguy

12-31-2008, 16:58

Jerusalem is only the capital of Israel in the minds of people who ignore everybody else's thoughts on the matter. Such people should not be surprised about the constant war over there since they obvioulsy choose to ignore how everybody else feels about their deeds.

no, i believe that its the capital of israel, and i dont ignore your opinions. i read them, and i think most are valid points, not including this one. that doesnt make me dumb or blind to the matter- i realize that israel has done some pretty apprehensible things, but i believe that they were done for the betterment of the state.

Hooahguy

12-31-2008, 17:21

No its not by anyone outside of israel.
fixed it for ya. but realize that saying "anyone" you mean governments, not people. im sure there are many all over the world who say that jeruslaem is the capital of israel.

I'm pretty sure Tel Aviv is meant to be that capitol of Israel but after the war Israel decided to keep the city as their little war trophy. In reality as the original partition suggests Jerusalem should be a U.N administrated neutral city but hey, Israel just thought they'd keep it. Jerusalem shouldn't even be in their hands but hey as the ruling Israelis would say "land, land , land."
not a trophy. in jerusalem is the holiest site in judaism, the western wall. considering the UN is pretty inept, do you think that they would keep it an international city? i think not. most likely jews and arabs would be shooting at each other while the UN peace keepers would stand down, since they havent been fired upon. at least thats what they did in Rwanda, AFAIK.

Of course we don't think it belongs to Israel, Palestinians had to go through metal detectors to enter the second holiest mosque in Islam. Not only that, but they were massacred in it.
Frankly, I don't put the whole blame on Israel due to what happened recently, just most of it. I admire the fact that a single Israeli is enough for them to go crazy. At least they're not sitting on their asses while their brothers are being massacred.
you forget that before israel was established jews, to visit THE HOLIEST site in Judaism they had to pass through hostile arabs neighborhoods, and one Rosh HAshanah, the jewish new year, they were massacred by arabs at the Western Wall. btw i thought the Masjid Al-Aqsa was the THIRD most holy site to islam.

Hey man, give peace a chance. :hippie:
let hamas give peace a chance first.

Wrong. The attacks were a consequence, not a cause. The problems began when the UN created a country where it shouldn't have created, and illegitimately, because by doing so, they'd have to create a bucketload more of countries whose people also want independence. If, instead of Israel, there had been a joint Arab-Jew Palestine, then there would have been no attack. But the jews wanted a country of their own, where they wouldn't have to share power with the arabs.
how could it be joint-arab jew if a bit before that there were riots on both sides against the other? the people at the UN recognized this. it wasnt as if they were living in peace only until Israel was created. the result was that former Palestine was split up into two, and jordan was given as a whole to the palestinians.

Israel is an apartheid state founded on ethnic cleansing. On top of which it is aggressive and expansionist and has killed over 3000 Palestinians in the last few years. It isn't that suprising that it gets a hundred or so casualties from Palestinian attacks. They are just lucky in their enemies. The Palestinian strategy is stuck in a losing rut.
really? i idnt see any death camps for palestinians. :help:
nor do i see them aggressively expanding as of now. if they were, wed have syria, lebabnon, jordan and id wager much of egypt.

and if the palestinians were in a losing rut, wouldnt it make sense for them to lay down their arms. oh wait- thats unreasonable to ask of hamas.
i guarantee you that if the palestinians would lay down their arms, israel would to. they would live peacefully together if the arabs stopped aiming for our destruction.

rory_20_uk

12-31-2008, 17:27

Hooahguy

12-31-2008, 17:29

The West bank is a concentration camp: borders sealed, little food in. Random deaths from outside with no warning. I imagine that when the ground offensive starts for many it will be a death camp.

~:smoking:
um, no its not. IMO, comparing the west bank to concentration camps is incedibly offensive to me and those who have lost ancestors to the nazis.

seireikhaan

12-31-2008, 17:29

let hamas give peace a chance first.
That's just being lazy. As Israel holds about 97% of the chips in this, the onus is on them to be the better man and "give peace a chance". If Israel adopted a pacifist, ultra-defensive approach, not launching air strikes, not blockading some one million people into a tiny little patch of utterly undesirable land, and the Palestinians continue their rocket attacks for a prolonged period, THEN you can say that Hamas must give peace a chance.

rory_20_uk

12-31-2008, 17:45

um, no its not. IMO, comparing the west bank to concentration camps is incedibly offensive to me and those who have lost ancestors to the nazis.

Concentration camps happened elsewhere you know. South Africa, Cuba, Russia to name a few. People are being concentrated in an area

Are you referring to the extermination camps? This is a comparison I did not make.

Your indignation doesn't alter that this IMO is a fair comparison. I'm not going to let past events influence how I react to todays occurences. Israel / Jews don't get carte blanche based on one terrible episode under the one regime however horriffic it was.

~:smoking:

rasoforos

12-31-2008, 17:46

um, no its not. IMO, comparing the west bank to concentration camps is incedibly offensive to me and those who have lost ancestors to the nazis.

Imagine how offensive Israel's actions are to the people who gave their lives so your ancestors were able to survive to have descendants.

With closed borders, restriction in water electricity etc the palestinian areas are concentration camps. There is no escape from Gaza.

A few days ago a ship carrying aid, doctors and journalists was rammed by the Israeli navy in international waters just because it was heading for Gaza. Israel makes a point about maximizing the suffering of civilians.

The current state of Gaza does draw Holocaust parallels. Denying it is happening draws its own parallels too.

rvg

12-31-2008, 17:55

That's just being lazy. As Israel holds about 97% of the chips in this, the onus is on them to be the better man and "give peace a chance". If Israel adopted a pacifist, ultra-defensive approach, not launching air strikes, not blockading some one million people into a tiny little patch of utterly undesirable land, and the Palestinians continue their rocket attacks for a prolonged period, THEN you can say that Hamas must give peace a chance.

Nah. Israel is not in the business of being "a better man". Israel is in the business of defending its citizens, since unlike Hamas, Israel actually values the lives of its people. If being a "better man" means sitting dily and letting Hamas cause trouble, then screw it. Toothless morality is worthless morality. Let Hamas cry victim and wait out the offensive in bunkers. They can have that moral high ground (if one indeed could call it that), while Israel will be satisfied with having the land and the power. The bottomline is that Hamas does not care about the lives of the people it rules over. To Hamas, the Gazan population is merely expendable cattle that can be sacrificed for perceived political gains. Israel might be the regional boogeyman, but at least it cares about its own people, something that Hamas would be wise to replicate.

FactionHeir

12-31-2008, 18:03

and if the palestinians were in a losing rut, wouldnt it make sense for them to lay down their arms. oh wait- thats unreasonable to ask of hamas.
i guarantee you that if the palestinians would lay down their arms, israel would to. they would live peacefully together if the arabs stopped aiming for our destruction.

Except that it doesn't work. If all Palestinians laid down their arms, they wouldn't be welcomed into Israel because then Jews would be the minority rather than the majority. And they don't exactly want that last I checked. So the Palestinians would for the most part be deported off their rightful land and a few integrated as second class citizens.

Fragony

12-31-2008, 18:04

Imagine how offensive Israel's actions are to the people who gave their lives so your ancestors were able to survive to have descendants.

With closed borders, restriction in water electricity etc the palestinian areas are concentration camps. There is no escape from Gaza.

A few days ago a ship carrying aid, doctors and journalists was rammed by the Israeli navy in international waters just because it was heading for Gaza. Israel makes a point about maximizing the suffering of civilians.

The current state of Gaza does draw Holocaust parallels. Denying it is happening draws its own parallels too.

Called a blockade perfectly normal in wartime, and it is a good thing the Palestinians have something to think about. I would imagine that the people surviving the holocaust would be blessed with a very keen sense for survival and Israel shows it does without being anything near what the nazi's were trying to establish. Again: sooooooooooooooooooooo soooooooo unfair give them nosy's a break already if they would be anything remotely like the nazi's there wouldn't be any arabs.

FactionHeir

12-31-2008, 18:06

Nah. Israel is not in the business of being "a better man". Israel is in the business of defending its citizens, since unlike Hamas, Israel actually values the lives of its people. If being a "better man" means sitting dily and letting Hamas cause trouble, then screw it. Toothless morality is worthless morality. Let Hamas cry victim and wait out the offensive in bunkers. They can have that moral high ground (if one indeed could call it that), while Israel will be satisfied with having the land and the power. The bottomline is that Hamas does not care about the lives of the people it rules over. To Hamas, the Gazan population is merely expendable cattle that can be sacrificed for perceived political gains. Israel might be the regional boogeyman, but at least it cares about its own people, something that Hamas would be wise to replicate.

Actually, as I said previously, the "international" community and Israel boycotted and blockaded Gaza once Hamas won their democratic elections because of their social institutions and because they cared for the people. They didn't even fire a rocket at that time until no aid came in and attacks on them continued.

Besides, they kept the 6 month cease fire fairly well and did what they could to enforce it. Read the wiki article I linked to.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-31-2008, 18:07

Logistics, not tactics.....Israel is doomed to a slow spiral into dissolution.

1. They are grossly outnumbered and the native resources of the arab states around them are greater than those Israel can bring to bear. This places Israel in a long-term "behind the 8-ball" situation. To date, Israel has maintained an "edge" anyway by leveraging other factors.

2. Part of the edge Israel maintains despite this inequity of native resources is a result of US support. Efforts by various political elements throughout the West and throughout much of the Muslim world to decouple the US and Israel will bear increasing fruit as America's demographics change. Dwindling support will leave Israel on its own and that is a losing game in terms of resources.

3. Another part is the Israeli hyper-patriot doctrine coming out of the kibbutz era. This sense of patriotism and its "us" mentality is being eroded from within. Israel's "force multipliers" vis-a-vis the resource inequity are fading -- without a replacement on the horizon.

4. Palestinian motivation shows little signs of wavering or atenuating itself.

Suggested implications:

A. Removing US resources will result in the destruction of Israel, though not quite so quickly nor cleanly as Rory implies. The Israeli will to win is the component that can counteract this.

B. Israel itself is losing the will to win in the face of the horrific cost of victory -- terrorism is working in that it has shifted the primary focus of warfare onto the civilian populations -- and Israel is held to a different standard of behavior than is its opposition (by the Western media, by common morality).

C. Israel is progressively being placed into a forced choice scenario by its terror-tactic opponents: Lose or butcher everybody in the opposition (and I mean everybody -- a desert called peace).

As I don't believe that Israel is capable of eradicating the Palestinians, I must conclude that Israel will dwindle and, ultimately, dissolve. The Jews will be a minority ruled by arabs and there will be no uniquel Jewish state.

Stray thoughts:

The warlords are winning this one. One more joyous step towards barbarism.

tibilicus

12-31-2008, 18:13

um, no its not. IMO, comparing the west bank to concentration camps is incedibly offensive to me and those who have lost ancestors to the nazis.

If you don't want to call it a concentration camp call it the worlds largest cesspool. What you have to remember is that most of the people in Gaza aren't originally from Gaza but more people thrown of their land and people who have been evicted from their homes all because of the influx of Israeli immigrants who needed that land.

If you look at what hamas are doing they're simply performing the basic task by any organization to have their homeland restored to them these are;

1: A war of attrition against enemy personnel based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their people at home for their withdrawal.

2: A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interests in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long term investment in our country.

3: To make the territories ungovernable except by military rule.

4: To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns.

5:By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers

I know if I had my house taken of me by some Israeli and was thrown into this cesspool I would happily pick up an AK 47 and attack the people who took my house.

Do you honestly blame hamas for this?

rvg

12-31-2008, 18:46

...C. Israel is progressively being placed into a forced choice scenario by its terror-tactic opponents: Lose or butcher everybody in the opposition (and I mean everybody -- a desert called peace)...

So, they'll just butcher everyone. If Israel ever gets backed to the wall, nukes will fly (or drive, or even walk, doesn't matter), and the region will light up like a christmas tree. Jews didn't get their country through timidity, they conquered it and will fight to the last man to protect it. If that means that they'll have to kill millions to ensure their own survival as a state, so be it. Desperate times would call for desperate measures.

Guildenstern

12-31-2008, 19:07

but countries have a duty to protect their citizens, no?
I think it is correct to say that Hamas's failure to cause significant Israeli casualties should not be a reason against Israel's military response. Hamas's rocket attacks, however ineffectual, are not merely hypothetical or potential. No nation should be expected to wait for an enemy's attacks to pass some threshold of deadliness before a response is warranted.

That said, I do not think it is utterly senseless to speak of the "proportionality" of Israel's response. In my opinion, Israel's response is "disproportionate" because it results to be more forceful than necessary to achieve its (justifiable) goal, which here is the defense of its territory. This sense of "disproportionality", I think, remains in the criticisms of these attacks, even after we reject the argument that the attacks are disproportionate because Hamas has generally been unable to kill many Israelis. In other words, I think the subject still needs to be addressed.

I think critics against the Israeli raids here are also responding to the sense that Israel's "military necessity" here seems largely the product of a situation Israel is substantially responsible for. Israel has turned Gaza into something resembling a prison camp, so that now even the entry of humanitarian aid into the country is a newsworthy event, to say nothing of regular economic activity or the remittance of money owed to Palestinians living there. This fact may or may not justify Hamas's violent resistance, but it certainly does suggest that Israel is not without non-violent alternatives to resolving this crisis.

Another factor here that makes the Israeli attacks unseemly is that they're probably substantially the product of electoral politics in Israel. Tzipi Livni in particular has an interest in casting herself as a strong leader ready to use military force against the Palestinians, since her main rival for the PM spot is Netanyahu. Given Israeli public frustration with perceived governmental inaction against the rocket attacks, it seems a particularly difficult time for a figure like Livni to urge restraint. So in my opinion critics, in calling Israel's attacks "disproportionate", are also responding to a perception that the attacks are in some sense politically motivated, as well.

I can not accept the argument that your ineffective military campaign against me prevents me from responding in an effective away against you. But I think the argument about "proportionality" here is really about many aspects of the conflict besides that illogical and unacceptable bit of reasoning. The "wisdom" or "long-term effectiveness" of Israel's action is not just an ancillary consideration. As far as I am concerned, it really lies at the center of the criticism.

seireikhaan

12-31-2008, 19:23

Nah. Israel is not in the business of being "a better man". Israel is in the business of defending its citizens, since unlike Hamas, Israel actually values the lives of its people. If being a "better man" means sitting dily and letting Hamas cause trouble, then screw it. Toothless morality is worthless morality. Let Hamas cry victim and wait out the offensive in bunkers. They can have that moral high ground (if one indeed could call it that), while Israel will be satisfied with having the land and the power. The bottomline is that Hamas does not care about the lives of the people it rules over. To Hamas, the Gazan population is merely expendable cattle that can be sacrificed for perceived political gains. Israel might be the regional boogeyman, but at least it cares about its own people, something that Hamas would be wise to replicate.
Whoever said ANYTHING about morality, about rights, or any of the such? I'm talking about results. Tribes nailed the problem. What about Israel's tactics have successful in dissolving this conflict? NOT A THING. The conflict continues to spiral even further into tit-for-tat life trading despite Israeli air strikes, blockades, and property destruction. As Seamus quite accurately noted, the only alternative to a pacifist resolution to this conflict is all out ethnic cleansing of more than a million people, and maybe far more depending on what the reaction to said efforts is by the Arab/Islamic community. Tell me, which is a more appealing option to you? A few (ten?) thousand dead, or millions?

rvg

12-31-2008, 19:44

Whoever said ANYTHING about morality, about rights, or any of the such? I'm talking about results. Tribes nailed the problem. What about Israel's tactics have successful in dissolving this conflict? NOT A THING. The conflict continues to spiral even further into tit-for-tat life trading despite Israeli air strikes, blockades, and property destruction. As Seamus quite accurately noted, the only alternative to a pacifist resolution to this conflict is all out ethnic cleansing of more than a million people, and maybe far more depending on what the reaction to said efforts is by the Arab/Islamic community. Tell me, which is a more appealing option to you? A few (ten?) thousand dead, or millions?

The way I see it, conflict resolution would be nice, but it really is not Israel's primary goal. Survival is Israel's primary goal, and so far they've been surviving just fine. Peace *would* have made things easier, but they can live without it. Also, Palestinians have been split into Hamas and Fatah camps not only ideologically but now also geographically. Now Israel can point at the West Bank and say to the world: "Look, Fatah is staying civil, and we are staying civil in return. Hamas throws a tantrum and we get medieval on their :daisy:." If Fatah can be pacified separately, it makes things that much easier and brings peace that much closer. As for which option would *I* prefer? I'd prefer that Brits had never left the area, but that's just me.

LeftEyeNine

12-31-2008, 20:06

Keep on with your "they need rockets" politics and the righteousness of Israel and the very collapse of your so called "civilizations" since 9/11...

http://fotogaleri.ntvmsnbc.com/detay.aspx?categoryID=8&galleryID=1873&picID=0&dp=1

...while I get disgusted as hell with your unsurpassed inhumanity.

Fragony

12-31-2008, 20:27

Not my world just living there and the world is a cruel place. Having a really hard time actually caring about even the children which is sick as can be but this is the moral credit crisis for the Palestinians and I don't feel responsible at all, people shouldn't cry after hitting someone, everybody should have seen this comming, if you absolutely insist on a fight you can't win, well that's gene-theory.

edit, ok that is terrible but I mean it's what they always wanted, the pity of the world, but they have gone too far and lost it. I can't sympathise with these people and their sorrow. If you burn your :daisy: you have to sit on the blisters, dutch proverb.

LittleGrizzly

12-31-2008, 20:38

I don't see why everyopne gets upset about valid comparisons to concentration camps, though the most hurtful insults are quite often the truest i guess...

Both leaders are muderous thugs and both countrys (whatever you want to call the 2 palestinian area's + israel) are filled with vengeful hateful people, there are plenty on both sides who want peace but unfortunatly extremity seems to win out in both cases, Hamas because they provide social programs for the people with money from backers against israel, so thats going to leave any populace who doesn't have anyone else to look out for them in to the hands of extremists... and don't mention the PLO, israel had years to work with them, but decided not go down thier own route, and look at result, Hamas. Israel for reasons i don't understand has also gone to extremity, though people mention coalitions causing fringe elements to have more power.... both these goverments democratically elected through the will of thier own people...

Well i think screw the free will of both people's. I don't want my goverment working with either butchers, the world in unison should cut both israel and palestine off (i would be happy to send food aid and other basic essentials to any who need it in the countrys) they not only cause huge problems to themselves but they inflict this crap on the rest of us, Iraq... 9/11... and why the middle east is filled with dictators. It isn't solely down to israel and palestine conflict but it shares a large responsibility in each case

The dictators one is arguable but it has certaintly been an obstacle to reform as dictators instead concentrate peoples mind on the enemy

Blame can be shared all round but if were going to talk about the 2 countrys making a peace themselves then thew ball is firmly in israel's court, with the continuation of israeli tactics the palestine population is only going to get more extreme, anyone somehow hoping the palestinians will suddenly accept what has happened and reject violence en masse are waiting for hell to freeze over, as a state israel has the power to stop the violence, palestine in its current state can no way stop the conflict. Hell, i don't now about you but if a foriegn state starting bombing my country because it didn't like our democratically elected leaders it would only sure up thier support, even for myself i would be more inclined to vote for them rather than agreeing with those bombing me who want a different result.

Of course there is 1 other option, mass murder, but unless israel want to be become mass murderers they're going to have to go for peace.... although i guess status qou could be seen as another option....

people shouldn't cry after hitting someone

So you will feel equally unfeeling to israelis crying about thier losses in the latest retaliation ?

As far as im concerned they are both equally undeserving of death, it is why i tend to end up on the palestinian side (even they they are wrong as well) as they have far worse casulties for thier eqaul wrongness...

Jolt

12-31-2008, 20:44

how could it be joint-arab jew if a bit before that there were riots on both sides against the other? the people at the UN recognized this. it wasnt as if they were living in peace only until Israel was created. the result was that former Palestine was split up into two, and jordan was given as a whole to the palestinians.

What did you expect? Arabs dominated and populated Palestine for more than 1000 years, and the jewish population in Palestine was minimal and suddenly in five decades (1950), the jewish population grows something like starts swelling like crazy, and were there were a few dozen thousand jewish, a very clear minority in Palestine, more than half a million jewish immigrants migrated to Palestine. Obviously the Arabs, who weren't even in control didn't like the jewish invasion and arabs and jews started to clash. In five decades, the Arab majority now had to deal with an increasingly radical jewish community, who because of their recent numbers now had the distinct nerve of asking for a nation of their own, on a ground which was ruled by arab kin for millenia. It is obvious that with the growth of Jewish migrants, so grew their boldness and their confrontation of the Arab population.

rvg

12-31-2008, 21:05

...In five decades, the Arab majority now had to deal with an increasingly radical jewish community, who because of their recent numbers now had the distinct nerve of asking for a nation of their own, on a ground which was ruled by arab kin for millenia...

If we start taking the route of historical claims, the Jews still win out since before Israel, British madate, Ottoman Empire, The Mamluks, The Crusaders, The Romans, The Macedonians, The Persians, The Chaldeans and The Assyrians, that land belonged to the Jews. Well, there were Canaanites before that, but they are all dead and cannot claim that land.

LittleGrizzly

12-31-2008, 21:08

If we start taking the route of historical claims, the Jews still win out since before Israel, British madate, Ottoman Empire, The Mamluks, The Crusaders, The Romans, The Macedonians, The Persians, The Chaldeans and The Assyrians, that land belonged to the Jews.

You don't notice a slight difference in people still living there now and people who are still alive having lived there and historical claims going back is it a 1000 years ?

Because one claim has a lot of sense to it... the other is quite frankly laughable...

Fragony

12-31-2008, 21:09

So you will feel equally unfeeling to israelis crying about thier losses in the latest retaliation ?

I really don't understand that part of the world it is way beyond of what I am capable of understanding and I like to keep it that way. But, yes, I will be more sympathetic towards them.

LittleGrizzly

12-31-2008, 21:17

I really don't understand that part of the world it is way beyond of what I am capable of understanding and I like to keep it that way. But, yes, I will be more sympathetic towards them.

Why ?

Sticking to the hitting analogy, palestine gets a few jabs in and then israel jumps on top of him and smashes his face in for half hour...

The innocent civilians on both sides deserve equal sympathy, even if large sections of these innocent civilians have been turned into vengeful horrible people by the other side....

rvg

12-31-2008, 21:28

Sticking to the hitting analogy, palestine gets a few jabs in and then israel jumps on top of him and smashes his face in for half hour...

I don't see anything wrong with this. If Hamas wants to pee against the wind, they have to deal with the consequences. I mean heck, it's not like the Israeli reaction is completely unpredictable: you take out their tooth, they take out your jaw. Don't wanna lose the jaw? Don't hit them. Action, reaction. Israel always went bananas on them when given a casus belli and always will go bananas.

Watchman

12-31-2008, 21:33

And those rocket attacks have killed how many people exactly, compared to the ghastly bodycounts the IDF reprisals tend to be accompanied by...?

Fragony

12-31-2008, 21:35

Sticking to the hitting analogy, palestine gets a few jabs in and then israel jumps on top of him and smashes his face in for half hour...

Just because they are so blinded by hate that their attacks makes them serial faillures doesn't mean they won't keep trying, if someone hits you once, not nice, if someone hits you twice, even less nice, if someone just keeps comming at you there is a time where it is just enough and you smack him hard. If BNP members would make a habit out of squeezing every immigrant they see in the butt and run of giggling would you be all to surprised when an immigrant gives one of them a proper beatup when it has been going on for decades? You would probably be cheering.

rvg

12-31-2008, 21:36

And those rocket attacks have killed how many people exactly, compared to the ghastly bodycounts the IDF reprisals tend to be accompanied by...?

Doesn't matter. The list of casualties is currently under 10 people, but even if it were zero, it would not matter.

Watchman

12-31-2008, 21:41

Why not ?

rvg

12-31-2008, 21:44

Why not ?

Because it shouldn't. Casualties or no casualties, it's still an act of war. Any self-respecting nation when confronted by an act of war will put the fear of God into the perpetrator. Provided that they have the means to do it.

rory_20_uk

12-31-2008, 21:47

So, missile attacks against sovereign nations are acts of war? But not when America is doing them???

~:smoking:

rvg

12-31-2008, 21:50

So, missile attacks against sovereign nations are acts of war? But not when America is doing them???

~:smoking:

Sure it is. They are welcome to retaliate. *If* they can. You don't see us bombing China or Russia. Gotta know how to pick your fights.

rory_20_uk

12-31-2008, 21:51

Therefore America deserved 9/11 - they could retaliate.

~:smoking:

rvg

12-31-2008, 21:54

Therefore America deserved 9/11 - they could retaliate.

~:smoking:

And retaliate we did. You think the Israelis are crazy.... they are pretty tame compared to us. Moral of the story: do not mess with those who can kill you. They might do just that.

LittleGrizzly

12-31-2008, 21:56

Therefore America deserved 9/11

That is the logical conclusion i am drawing from most pro israel posts....

I don't see anything wrong with this.

I do, btw at the very least the analogy start with both sides starting the fight, so there is no he hit me first argument applicible, does you goverment agree with this view ?

can you have a bar fight (which you both start) the guy gives you a bruise you leave him crippled for life, who gets the harsher punishment ?

And retaliate we did. You think the Israelis are crazy.... they are pretty tame compared to us. Moral of the story: do not mess with those who can kill you. They might do just that.

so why is nobody following the morals, every side is dicing with death for thier own civilians in an effort to kill thier enemy, the only difference is we praise one side and criticise the other...

rory_20_uk

12-31-2008, 21:56

Funny thing is most of the perps were Saudis and the USA did nothing against them. :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

rvg

12-31-2008, 21:59

Funny thing is most of the perps were Saudis and the USA did nothing against them. :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

Individual nationality doesn't matter, the country harboring Al-Qaeda was Afghanistan, so off we went. Iraq was just an afterthought to underline the notion that Uncle Sam is not to be messed with.

rvg

12-31-2008, 22:07

can you have a bar fight (which you both start) the guy gives you a bruise you leave him crippled for life, who gets the harsher punishment ?

The best analogy I can think of would be a bar fight between a villain and a fool. Villain is big, strong and , well, villainous. However, you can reason with a villain. Reasoning with a fool is much more tricky.

Watchman

12-31-2008, 22:07

That's pretty nihilistic, you know.

rory_20_uk

12-31-2008, 22:10

Well, that's one take on it.

Another would be that a terrorist organisation has managed to get the USA embroiled in a seemingly endless war in a place that has chewed up and spat out both Britain and the USSR. America's forces are wasting manpower and vast sums of money fighting in an unimportant backwater; for the mere cost of light armaments, hostile countries can ensure that the mission continues almost indefinitely.

Stretched supply lines mean that thousands of their troops are dependent on the goodwill of Russia or Pakistan!

America's forces are not infinite, and when so much is in the centre of Asia it will limit what it can achieve elsewhere in more important places... which is almost anywhere else.

Looks more like America is more like an inebriated thug who can be tricked into head butting a wall down, convinced that the wall said something about his girl...

~:smoking:

rvg

12-31-2008, 22:12

That's pretty nihilistic, you know.

Perhaps, but that's world politics for you. The only cure is to have half a dozen empires ruling the planet instead of the current 200+ states. Empires are far too big, far too rich, have too much to lose and too little to gain to risk wars. These days the epitome of conflict betwen the big boys is their respective ambassadors expressing "concern" or "dismay" at one another....

Ahh, Napoleon III was right when he said: "Empire equals peace"

LittleGrizzly

12-31-2008, 22:12

The best analogy I can think of would be a bar fight between a villain and a fool. Villain is big, strong and , well, villainous. However, you can reason with a villain. Reasoning with a fool is much more tricky.

The villian is the far greater threat, the fool is simply too stupid to be much of a risk... thought tbh i have completely lost what link this analogy has to real life and was simply discussing the analogy...

rvg

12-31-2008, 22:14

Looks more like America is more like an inebriated thug who can be tricked into head butting a wall down, convinced that the wall said something about his girl...

~:smoking:

Headbutting it? Hardly. More like smashing it down with a bulldozer, which brings me to my earlier point: do not mess with Uncle Sam.

rory_20_uk

12-31-2008, 22:20

Don't mess or a random, tenuously related country will get attacked?

If I pinch a car, three families in the next street will get deported??

~:smoking:

rvg

12-31-2008, 22:23

Don't mess or a random, tenuously related country will get attacked?

If I pinch a car, three families in the next street will get deported??

~:smoking:

Same reason why the Israelis tear down the houses of suicide bombers' families.

LittleGrizzly

12-31-2008, 22:34

Same reason why the Israelis tear down the houses of suicide bombers' families.

They enjoy bloodshed and slaughter and see this as the best way to continue it ?

rvg

12-31-2008, 22:37

They enjoy bloodshed and slaughter and see this as the best way to continue it ?

That's one way of explaining it. I think of it as a tradeoff.

Watchman

12-31-2008, 22:38

Perhaps, but that's world politics for you.If you remove little things like "ethics", "morals" and "restraint" from it, well, yes. For some reason most people don't much like that "Hobbesian jungle" scenario though, and go for alternatives.

So, you're basically saying that power is its own justification and thus the strong have every right to do whatever they damn well please ?

The only cure is to have half a dozen empires ruling the planet instead of the current 200+ states. Empires are far too big, far too rich, have too much to lose and too little to gain to risk wars. These days the epitome of conflict betwen the big boys is their respective ambassadors expressing "concern" or "dismay" at one another.... :inquisitive: Not only are you blatantly contradicting yourself there, you're talking complete nonsense. Are you actually aware of what wen on between about the mid-1800s and 1945, and why...?

Ahh, Napoleon III was right when he said: "Empire equals peace"*snicker* Yeah, and he totally meant it too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III#Foreign_policy).

...pardon me for asking, sir, but are you actually trolling ?

rvg

12-31-2008, 22:47

If you remove little things like "ethics", "morals" and "restraint" from it, well, yes. For some reason most people don't much like that "Hobbesian jungle" scenario though, and go for alternatives.

So, you're basically saying that power is its own justification and thus the strong have every right to do whatever they damn well please ?

I'm not saying that the things are done is just, or good, or moral. I'm just saying that this is the way things are done.

:inquisitive: Not only are you blatantly contradicting yourself there, you're talking complete nonsense. Are you actually aware of what wen on between about the mid-1800s and 1945, and why...?

It's 2008. Maybe even 2009 where you are. Your pre-nuke examples are not relevant. Mass nukes make wars too risky to conduct.

*snicker* Yeah, and he totally meant it too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III#Foreign_policy).

Doesn't matter what he *did*, what he said is still true.

...pardon me for asking, sir, but are you actually trolling

I never troll. Ever.

Watchman

12-31-2008, 23:07

I'm not saying that the things are done is just, or good, or moral. I'm just saying that this is the way things are done....and people should just suck it down and stop whining, right ? The weak should just meekly "suffer what they must", to quote Thucydides ? And others should not be disgusted by it ?

It's 2008. Maybe even 2009 where you are. Your pre-nuke examples are not relevant. Mass nukes make wars too risky to conduct.What, like for example the ones the US has had with diverse patently non-nuclear Third and Second World countries since 1945 ? It's currently stuck in at least two (depending a bit on definitions), and frankly not doing all that awesomely either...

I think it would rather help your case if you actually connected your arguments to reality, you know.

Doesn't matter what he *did*, what he said is still true....even if his own career and times quite patently proved it false ? "Your talk talks and your walk walks, but your walk talks more than your talk walks."

That's like saying what matters is Hitler in the late Thirties claiming he was not planning nor preparing for war, rather than that he indeed was...

Cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) much ?

rvg

12-31-2008, 23:17

...and people should just suck it down and stop whining, right ? The weak should just meekly "suffer what they must", to quote Thucydides ? And others should not be disgusted by it ?

Oh, you can complain and be disgusted, it just won't do you any good.

What, like for example the ones the US has had with diverse patently non-nuclear Third and Second World countries since 1945 ? It's currently stuck in at least two (depending a bit on definitions), and frankly not doing all that awesomely either...

I think it would rather help your case if you actually connected your arguments to reality, you know.

There has not been a world war since the nuclear weapons have been invented and employed in the arsenals of the world's superpowers.

...even if his own career and times quite patently proved it false ? "Your talk talks and your walk walks, but your walk talks more than your talk walks."

That's like saying what matters is Hitler in the late Thirties claiming he was not planning nor preparing for war, rather than that he indeed was...

Cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) much ?

You're are focusing on who said it, instead of what is being said. It could be Napoleon III, Hitler, the guy down the street or a bum living under a bridge. Doesn't matter.