No, that is not what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Printable View
No, that is not what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Seamus, i asked him what he would do, if negotiation nor military force worked, to reduce the radicals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
also, asking the israelis to not do anything while israelis are dying is absurd. the politicians who werent doing anything would be voted out really quickly, and replaced with those who would act.
Oh looky replaced with those who would act.
By that you mean those that would use military strikes instead of negotiating
Well done Hooah , you see that the use of violence against the population makes the population more radical and turn to the more extreme groups .
oh sorry , the problem is that you can see it but don't actually see it .
Hey from what has been written here I thought that was his natural state :2thumbsup:Quote:
I suspect he enjoys leaving you confused and frustrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Do you support Hamas killing Israel people? It's ok if they fire rockets in Israel and kill their people, but if Israel bombs the Palentines and kill the Hamas, it's not ok?
Besides, if more civilans die, maybe the Palinetines would wake up and realize if they keeping supporting terroists, they will suffer.
Sounds cruel, but it's the truth.
no, not that. you may not agree now, but if there were terrorist attacks in your area, you would demand your government to do something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
when i said replaced with those who would act i was referring to Seamus's post, on Israel sticking to the deal as written even though the radicals will kill Israelis regardless of any settlement agreement.
in this case, diplomacy hasnt worked. israelis are still dying (in this case) and that is not acceptable.
but you still haven't answered my question:
if diplomacy and military fails, what would you do?
:laugh4: ... what? Seriously? I am opposed to violence of all kinds, which comes from being a pacifist. REGARDLESS of who does it, it is still murder. However, Israel is responsible for the deaths of more people and their reasons for doing so are less sound. Never once did I say that Hamas should kill Israelis...Quote:
Originally Posted by ||GoTW||Warman8||Sldr||-III-||
Orrrrrrrrrrr, the far more likely response would be the situation I laid out - they become more radical themselves due to the loss of family members and support from the Hamas institution. Besides the majority of Palestinians do not support Terrorist acts, they are quite moderate - punishing the greater majority for the actions of the minority is in fact a breach of International law.Quote:
Originally Posted by ||GoTW||Warman8||Sldr||-III-||
Its certainly one of those things.Quote:
Originally Posted by ||GoTW||Warman8||Sldr||-III-||
its a 50-50 chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
if israel doesnt do anything theres a big chance that more radicals will emerge. hamas will see it as a victory and will strengthen their cause. people will see that israel is weak, so they will begin to think that israel can be defeated.
it can go both ways.
A Grad rocket fired from the Gaza Strip landed in an open area in central Ashkelon today. There were no reports of injuries or damage.
No. Just no. Think about it - why would people become radicals WITHOUT ANY REASON?Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
They don't without any reason. But if they finally see they can win, Hamas may well see a boost from those who want to see Israel destroyed, but weren't keen on joining a futile cause. Hence, boosted recruitment for Hamas. I can certainly see Hooah's point.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
yes. just yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
my answer to you: indoctrination.
there will be a reason. israel is the reason behind all this. even if israel didnt launch the attacks, they would still hate israel.
hamas hates israel- well known.
put yourself in the mind of a hamas fighter, fighting to get rid of israel.
you hear that israel is giving in to hamas demands. is there less of a will to fight, or are you energized to keep going?
lets put it in western terms:
its color war in your school. your team has suffered two defeats in a row. but then the other team goes lax. are you energized to fight harder, or do you weaken or do you have less of a will to fight?
and btw, people dont always need reasons to do things.
But that implies that they actually win a victory. Which implies that military action was used, which is against the scenario put forth in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
you dont need a real victory to claim it.
I would demand they do something that might work , not demand they do the same things again that they already know don't work .Quote:
no, not that. you may not agree now, but if there were terrorist attacks in your area, you would demand your government to do something.
No it isn't , its a 100% chance that carrying on doing the things that don't work won't work .:idea2:Quote:
its a 50-50 chance.
Who on earth said anything about not doing anything ?Quote:
if israel doesnt do anything theres a big chance that more radicals will emerge.
Can't you understand that there are more options than just following the failed process of escalation?
People have already seen that , it has been evident for a long timeQuote:
people will see that israel is weak
Oh my, that must be your 356th attempt to introduce some reason. I admire your Irish pluck, but don't you ever get weary of the irrelevant answers you get?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Hold on to that fox hat. :bow:
Succinctly put :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Reason? More like Pinko-hippie bull corn. See this what there teaching them kids in them dar skools. You hate America boy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
No if I was being succinct I would have just wrote "bollox" as that really is precise and compact:2thumbsup:Quote:
Succinctly put
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
From a vaguely famous dice thrower.
Taking into account the profession in question, it is quite possible to achieve different results with the same routine. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
once again, were back to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
i see two options:
1) diplomacy, and hope to high heaven that hamas keeps its word. about this cease-fire in effect right now, hamas isnt holding it. so i guess that isnt so effective, is it?
2)military- israel uses force.
i keep asking you that is military force isnt working, and nor is diplomacy, what should israel do?
you still havent answered it.
What ceasefire ?Quote:
1) diplomacy, and hope to high heaven that hamas keeps its word. about this cease-fire in effect right now, hamas isnt holding it. so i guess that isnt so effective, is it?
You didn't understand earlier but I might as well try again just to see if something will eventually register in your mind .
The ceasefire was a unilateral declaration .
It had terms and conditions .
If those terms are not met then the declaration is null and void .
Simple isn't it , can you grasp it yet ?
The ceasefire was conditional on the removal of the troops and the opening of the crossings ...the crossings are closed so there is no ceasefire:idea2:
How about he answers that question once some deplomacy has actually been used and failed?Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
So you say they're not holding that ceasefire, well, there are some issues that made them fire rockets in the first place, instead of addressing them Israel made those issues even worse, then goes for a ceasefire and now you expect them to be calm for a few years and hold that ceasefire and be diplomatic? In case you haven't noticed, the constant bombing makes the Palestinian issues even worse.
Which means their reason for being angry is not gone, it is stronger than it was before. Maybe if Israel actually made sure Palestinians get solid homes, land to live on(the land that israeli settlers have illegally taken would be nice), water to drink and electric energy, maybe then if Hamas grows stronger and attacks increased significantly, maybe then you'd have a reason to say they're ungrateful swine or something like that, I might even agree with you then. But as long as you herd them like cattle you cannot expect them to behave like humans.
Touche, but the point is thatn you roll a six sided dice numbered 1 to 6 youQuote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
don'tshould not expect a rainbow. :hippie:
QTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The dipolmatic efforts are forever being undercut and sabotaged by assassinations; ground offensives, settler expansion and blocking border crossings not to mention big walls taking the only land that can produce anything of value along with the water...
For anything to work both sides need to see a benefit to peace; currently any halt to the violence only benefits the Israelis.
It is more than a little much to blame every single failure of diplomacy on the Israelis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beren Son Of Barahi
Launching an attack is so much easier than engaging in difficult diplomacy. Just like some of the sniping in this thread is so much easier than writing a well thought out, rational argument for your point of view.
So spake the clown. :clown:
Back to the NotW thread.
I didn't mean to just blame the Israelis, It happens on both sides. Militants break ceasefires all the time; but in the end what else can they do? i mean really what options do they have in order to try and get what they want/need in the current environment. I am not taking sides i am just pointing out what i see as the realities of the situations. Also its just that Israel is in a much better position to negotiate and as such should be the ones to take the first steps in showing that peace can be a good thing. The Palestinians do not have much to give up or add to a peace deal except the removal of violence. If that makes sense, the less you have to offer the more likely you will be to hang on to it until you are sure it is worth giving up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
It is more than a well founded statement to say that, the only reason the Palestinian government continues to sanction suicide bombers is because of Israel's commitment to keep them going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
So...
Which government has more blood on its hands?
The answer is the Israeli one.
Israel's policy, hooah, has clearly got nothing to do with effectiveness or the security of Israeli "settlements", it has everything to do with the interests of a cabal of wanna-be oligarchic nutters and their racist ideology of zionism and Greater Israel.
I do not mean to offend you, but I expect I will, but you have been smothered with Israeli and Western propaganda, so much so that you seem to believe that the Israeli government has the interests of the nation first in their minds.
So, while they continue to further their personal objectives, you and people like you are the ones who recieve the rockets and suffer the horror of bus bombings.
Can't you understand that there are more options than just following the failed process of escalation?
These options being? Why don't you just answer Hooahguy's question instead of pulling up the usual smokescreen.
And I don't want to see an '?' at the end of it.
Because it was gibberish not a questionQuote:
Why don't you just answer Hooahguy's question instead of pulling up the usual smokescreen.
Umm, well, open up the checkpoints? It would seem that might have meant a ceasfire?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Stop the illegal occupation of lands outside the UN recognised borders?
Dissarm itself of illegal nuclear weapons?
Recompense for the Palestinian people who had their ancestral lands stolen by zionists?
Give up all claims on Jerusalem, it needs to always be kept an international city under the rule of the UN and the guidance of the three religions, niether the Palestinians nor Israelis can claim Jerusalem.
It is ours (christian, muslim and jew) collectively.
So, what are the other options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Well I hate to say it Adrian , but you were right .Quote:
but don't you ever get weary of the irrelevant answers you get?
Look at your compatriots latest efforts:dizzy2:
Nownow your a big boy you don't need AdrainII's aproval.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So, the options.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Als u hersenen had zou het een antwoord kunnen waard zijn
I have gotten so many personal attacks from you that I started to enjoy it so thanks for the latest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So, the options?
I have gotten so many personal attacks from you that I started to enjoy it so thanks for the latest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So, the options?
edit, heyyyy you use a translator you don't speak dutch it's google-kung-fu. I guess the debate you saw where Wilders was pwned had subtitles?
Fragony, the options have already been named in this thread, numerous times, and instead of addressing them you keep harassing Tribes...
Don't bother Husar , he has a mental block .
Its a simple process , so simple that anyone with a functioning brain should be able to understand .
Option A doesn't work , it will never work .
Option B has been shown to work repeatedly .
If in this instance option B fails to deliver the required results at the first attempt then you try option B again because option Awill never work .
really? funny. i asked a few mods and they said it was a perfectly reasonable question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Which he just answered... :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
but he just said that it was gibberish.
Thats because it was gibberish as you got it all arseways right from the start .Quote:
but he just said that it was gibberish.
Don't pay any attention to Tribesman, Hooah. He's an entertaining fellow, and one I have no doubt is quite engaging in the pubs. But he doesn't tolerate dissenting views too well. You either agree with everything he has to say as supremely inspired, or its. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: for you!
Really Don ?Quote:
But he doesn't tolerate dissenting views too well.
you wouldn't decribe the views of hooah in this topic not so much as dissenting but more as devoid of rational thought ?
Tribes, hooah, do us all a favor and take it to PM, please.
He asked you a reasonable question, and as Seamus suggested, you answered him in a nuanced way that more prostelyized your own position yet again rather than answering his question. He asked you for a more specific response, and you suggested that his inquiries were devoid of rational thought.
It's okay, old friend. After all these years, I've come to accept you for who you are. ~:cheers: I know that you cannot possibly fathom how any intelligent person could possibly disagree with you, ergo, anybody who disagrees with you must not be intelligent (or if it's a particular issue on which they disagree with you, they've taken temporary leave of their senses).
I must admit, I suffer from the same malady myself from time to time, a condition from which I attempting to remedy myself.
Hooah, at the end of the day, what Tribesman is so obtusely getting at is that from his perspective, Israel has no hope in any military solution at all. In his estimation, Israel's only hope is to attempt to placate the anger of its foes, assuming it's not too late and the rage hasn't become too uncontrollable.
What I think he fails to consider is that his proposed solution has been attempted at various points in the 70s, the 80s, and the 90s, and each and every time, Israel's foes have used such period of magnamity to redouble the efforts against them.
I honestly don't know if the pervasive European thought is that Europeans don't believe the pan-Islamic world when they say their ultimate goal is to eliminate Israel and Jews in the Middle East, or you're content with that as a final result yourselves. All I know is I find it utterly amazing that Hamas fires rockets into Israel in direct violation of the most recently established ceasefire and the most popular European response is that Israel was to blame, followed with condemnation of Israel for suggesting that they might do ANYTHING to prevent future attacks.
will do, assuming he wants to reply to my PM's... ~:idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
@Don
well put!
And you taking shots at me and everyone else gets you what again...... Warning points? But wait, you just trying to stir up a debate, and besides, I'm just 16 years old, you a big boy adult, I don't know anything about these issues. I think it's time to put this guy on my ignore list so I don't get any points myself for aruging with him, a mute point it is. :rtwno:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Hamas will never learn though. If you bomb and kill innocent people, expect the same to be done to you. If US went to, say, Africa and just killed 800,000 Africans in a few year timespan, we would proably get attacked by at least terrorists, maybe even other nations, yet, if Hamas can want the deaths of all the Israeils and want to kill Men,women and children like they already did in Israel, it's ok to blame Israel for attacking Hamas and provoking Hamas, but.... Meh.
Option A being, and option B being? Result being?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
What I think he fails to consider is that his proposed solution has been attempted at various points in the 70s, the 80s, and the 90s, and each and every time, Israel's foes have used such period of magnamity to redouble the efforts against them.
Do you think the IRA dropped thier weapons the moment we started trying to make peace ?
You even said the other day you believed the real IRA was under the control of the IRA (i would disagree slightly, it was probably controlled by extreme elements of the IRA) the real IRA kept up attacks for years whilst britian was trying to make peace, if we had gone in there guns blazing we would have just set the whole thing back a few decades... hell they even did a huge bank robbery like a year or so back... this is years after peace had been made, its a long hard road, much easier to go in guns blazing and please the crowds baying for blood
What i think really helped with Britian is that the issue wasn't considered as important as it is in Israel, so we didn't have politicians being 'strong leaders' in an attempt to win votes the same way they can in Israel, this allowed leaders to work on solving the issues rather than simply posturing for the masses..
I honestly don't know if the pervasive European thought is that Europeans don't believe the pan-Islamic world when they say their ultimate goal is to eliminate Israel and Jews in the Middle East
Extreme situations cause extreme reactions, it is the same all over the world, if your taking outside of area's israel directly effects (like palestine and lebanon) then im sure the general population gets less and less anti-semitic, sure there are still some bad feelings, in the same way anti-muslim racism over here increased expotentially when we had muslims suicide bomb us, anti-semitic racism increase across the middle east everytime Israel attacks muslims, if it happens to the extent it does in a rich and educated country like britian then you can only imagine how much more it would affect the uneducated, oppressed people living in poverty.
or you're content with that as a final result yourselves.
yeah europeans hates jews and americans hate muslims... couldn't be anything to do with differing points of view...
All I know is I find it utterly amazing that Hamas fires rockets into Israel in direct violation of the most recently established ceasefire and the most popular European response is that Israel was to blame
You know whats even more amazing, logical intelligent people like yourself supporting israel trying the same failed plan repeatedly, why not turn around and say wait a second... this isn't working... maybe we need to try something else ?
I didn't actually mention the current event in my post, i was just generally giving my view on the conflict as a whole and criticising the repeated attempts at a failed strategy, infact thats what i noticed myself tribesman and a few others doing.
followed with condemnation of Israel for suggesting that they might do ANYTHING to prevent future
attacks.
I would love it if Israel actually did something to prevent future attacks, unfortunately all they seem to want to do is encourage them, the moment Israel engages in actual attempts to stop terrorism i will be full of praise!
I don't know anything about these issues.
I think thats the first time you have ever made anything close to approaching sense
I've said this before and I'll say it again (and shame on me for invoking it in this thread) the Northern-Ireland/Palestine parallels break down in one fundamental sense: The IRA were never fighting for the end of the UK and the extermination of Englishmen. I submit that if the existence of the UK was the ante on the table, the British would have had a decidedly different approach.
For the record, I am NOT ruling out negotiation and attempting to find peaceful solutions. I'm trying to say that all sides SHOULD be doing that, and when one side decides to abandon the peace processs, there has to be consequences. There has to be.
I do believe the Israeli government should be negotiating with Hamas, or whomever the Palestinians select to lead them. In fact, I believe they are. But when the negotiations slow, Hamas cannot turn to rockets into Israel as a means to 'diplomacy by other means'. And when they (seemingly inevitably) do, they have to know that 1) it will not secure for them the results they desire and 2) they will experience negative consequences for negotiating in bad faith.
Now, perhaps I'm missing something, but what I seem to hear as the prevalent view coming from Europe is as follows:
-Israel should negotiate with Hamas on a peaceful, viable agreement (we agree here).
-When Hamas isn't getting what they want at the negotiation table, it's okay for them to resort to violence. Well, no technically, what I hear is "they shouldn't, but there shouldn't be any consequences for them to do so".
-Israel must never retaliate for any violence.
-Israel must not take measures to ensure their safety.
Let's take the checkpoints for a second... Do you think Israel likes shutting down highways, commerce, etecera? Let's not forget, the Palestinians are doing business with somebody... there must be somebody on the other side of that checkpoint that wants to sell or buy a good or a service.
So why the checkpoints? Hmmm, maybe stopping suicide bombers? Aaah, you say, well, just trust the Palestianian leadership to guarantee that it won't happen again. To which I reply, and when it does? The answer... well, eggs are going to break to make the omlette, Israel just has to learn to deal with a few suicide bombings.... Only by proving how much they will endure can they convince the other side they truly want peace... And meanwhile, Hamas interprets that as "Aaah, Israel is now more afraid of European condemnation than us. Let's ratchet it up some more."
Has it ever occurred to you and the rest of the folks over there that peace talks have failed because at the end of the day, they require a condition that is unpalatable to one side and always will be? Do any of you honestly, truly ever see a world in which Palestinians acknowledge the right of Israel to exist? In the absence of that, or the extermination of Israel, what else can you offer?
I dont know if you've noticed but the IRA never actually achieved its goal, so if we can get extremists like the IRA to accept that thier fairly reasonable goal of an independent united ireland isn't happening, or at least not commit terrorism over, then it would be far easier to convince extremists like hamas that they can't achieve thier extreme goals.
I would imagine that the goal of a united independant ireland run much closer to most ira members hearts than killing all jews runs closely to hamas members hearts, i sometimes think people deliberately pick that at that one things as a good excuse to keep up the failed tactic rather than try the proven one...
L
dont do that. thats tribesman-like behavior and its reprehensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
An interesting summation of just how ****** the situation on the ground is:
Where to begin? Palestinians are now divided between the West Bank and Gaza, with a secular Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah in the West Bank and a fundamentalist Hamas government based in Gaza. But Hamas is further divided between a military and political wing, and the political wing is further divided between a Gaza-based leadership and a Damascus-based leadership, with the latter taking orders from both Syria and Iran.
Are you still with me?
Best I can tell, the Palestinians from Gaza are simultaneously negotiating a cease-fire with Israel in Cairo, pursuing war-crimes charges against Israel in Europe, digging new tunnels in the Sinai to smuggle more rockets into Gaza to hit Tel Aviv and trying to raise money for reconstruction from Iran. Meanwhile, the West Bank Palestinian leaders are busy publicly collecting food and blankets to help all those Palestinian civilians brutalized by the Israeli incursion into Gaza, while privately demanding to know from senior Israeli officials why they wimped out and didn’t wipe Hamas in Gaza off the face of earth — casualties be damned.
Israel, meanwhile, has a government in which the prime minister, foreign minister and defense minister each has a different peace plan, war strategy and cease-fire conditions for Gaza, and the foreign minister and defense minster are running against each other in Israel’s election on Tuesday. Speaking of that election, a whole new party, Yisrael Beiteinu, led by Avigdor Lieberman, which has been accused of having “fascist,” viciously anti-Arab leanings, appears headed to make the biggest gains and possibly become the kingmaker of Israel’s next government. The other day, the Labor Party leader, Ehud Barak, was quoted in the newspaper Haaretz as criticizing Lieberman as a lamb in hawk’s clothing, asking: “When has he ever shot anyone?”
How did this conflict get so fragmented?
As I said earlier in the thread, Lt. Ellen Ripley has already given us the answer. Take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
That might solve the global warming issue too, believe it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Fubar indeed!
If a viciously anti arab party got elected in Israel would that excuse arabs from negotiating with Israel in the same way that Israel cannot negotiate with hamas because they are viciously anti-semitic ?
Or are there different standards ?
As i get older i get more tired of this issue, im only 22 and i feel fatigued just talking about the thing, if i live to 50 and this thing is still going i will probably sit very much in the kill them all let god sort them out camp...
well, israeli policies are decided on by the Knesset, which have a large variety of views.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
but i will say that if Avigdor Lieberman is elected, it will be a disaster.
If the people of Israel who are educated and relatively prosperus can get pushed to such extremes, can you understand why the people of palestine who are nowhere near as educated or rich can get pushed to thier extreme views ?
My favourite quote from the whole mess ever:
"The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet," Dov Weisglass, Israeli Prime Ministerial Adviser, on the blockade.
Quick-fire (no pun intended) questions to my friendly pro-Israel Orgahs. Why is it that over 2 thirds of children killed in Gaza were killed by sniper rifle fire? Why is it that over 97 health clinics and 11 hospitals are being blocked off to the Palestinian populations they serve by the Israeli border wall? When was the first rocket fired? How many confirmed deaths have been caused by rocket fire? (You'll get both wrong, I assure you). What percentage of the Palestinian population was polled as wanting peace with Israel?
I always found the snippets of Muslim clerics used by news stations to portray a "balanced outlook" humourous. As Omid Djalili said, it's a bit like using the head of the KKK to get a "balanced outlook" on western views.
PS: Don't take any of this personally, I like y'all, I just want to gauge your opinions/knowledge.
Personally, I think the stupid, selfish extremists in that region have proved that they are unfit to govern. And their people, by permitting them to govern, have demonstrated that they are unfit to rule themselves. The Israelis and Palestinians have had their chance, and they've blown it every time. Enough.
I say the world takes up a collection and pays the Brits to re-colonize Greater Israel. If the Brits don't want the job, we can ask the Italians, since the Romans did a good job back in the day. If the Italians don't want the gig, we can probably get the Russians to do it. They're all grumpy 'cause they lost their empire, and crushing dissent in a small Middle Eastern country might make them feel better.
Seriously. I've completely had it with the Israelis and the Palestinians. They've been busily killing each other and screaming "Foul!" to the world community since I was a baby, and I'm now a middle aged man. To hell with the lot of them. If we can't nuke them, let's re-colonize them.
It's post number 120 that I mean, he sais if option A never works and option B works at least temporarily, they should keep trying option B.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Now if you replace "option A" with "revenge" and "option B" with diplomacy, you might get the idea.
And since we're about asking other people about viability and noone asks me anyway, i want to say that i find that a viable answer to Hooah's question about what Tribes would propose if neither option leads to peace. In other words, Tribes proposes to keep trying the option that works at least somewhat instead of the one that doesn't work at all.
I didn't really find it very hard to figure that out, but maybe I got a little Tribesman inside me. ~D
I tried to explain that myself, it's post number 103, you might want to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
On the issue of the pan-islamic world being serious about their threads or not I myself am not very sure, I think some probably are, but I do not think bombs are a solution for them, arrests or assassinations with small squads are more dangerous but they are what civilized nations use when some citizens act up. As Tribesman said before, when someone takes a bank hostage, you don't just fire with artillery at the building to end this, do you?
What Israel should attempt with negotiations is a free Palestinian state that is not occupied, has access to important ressources and then hold the government responsible for terrorist acts when they happen, but right now it's a miserable place that reminds you of mad max and Israel expects it to be a peaceful place where law and order flourish and everybody has to love the ones who are cutting off their water and electricity.
I would also like to hear what you think should be done about settlers who settle in a foreign country that is not theirs and then throw stones at the locals and/or expulse them at gunpoint?
Now are the locals right to fight back or would you gladly leave your own house to a russian communist when he comes and moves in?
standard israeli procedure for when militants hide behind kids is to brng in a sniper, to try to take out the terrorist behind them. unfortunately the targets move, so its kinda hard to always hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
first of all its a fence, not a wall. only about 5% of the fence is actually a wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
EDIT: to add to my incomplete thought, the checkpoints are very necessary. they have cut down on suicide bombings drastically, and unfortunately, the heath clinics are cut off.
16 April, 2001Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
still looking, will get back to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
i read somewhere that only like 25% of them wanted peace in a poll taken a few years back. ill find it for you if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
No offence, but you made that up didn't you. (Nothing personal, it just sounds made up).Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
Close but no cigar. October 2001.Scratch that, the one you mention, is correct.
Take your time.Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
80%.Quote:
Originally Posted by hooahguy
Without sources. Both yours and Hooahs information is suspect.
I am kinda confused on how people believe that diplomacy has always worked?
Please read, noone said it has always worked, we just said it works better than revenge, at the very least it leads to a short period of peace while revenge leads to a short period of death and destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Diplomacy can also potentially arrive at a solution for the whole thing, while a final solution through war and destruction, well, final solution says it all, doesn't it? Last time someone tried that he didn't find much support outside his country.
What makes you think I want a final solution. I never made a case for that not even remotely that must be your inner Tribes speaking. Diplomacy with Hamas is sitting back while you are being shaved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
nope. i swear to you that is the correct procedure. ask an IDF soldier who has seen stand-offs like these. i have many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
kind of. most want peace, but dont want to recognize israel. but you cant have peace if you dont recognize israel, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmic
No Don , each time since the 73 war that Israel has tried the military option it has failed miserably , yet each time some rather painful negotiations have resulted in a bi-lateral agreement it has worked out better for them .Quote:
What I think he fails to consider is that his proposed solution has been attempted at various points in the 70s, the 80s, and the 90s, and each and every time, Israel's foes have used such period of magnamity to redouble the efforts against them.
Is it really ? Evidence would suggest that the standard proceedure is to bring in a tank and use them nice little special flechette munitions to clear a path to identify any possible miltant after the crowd has been flattened into a bloody mess .Quote:
standard israeli procedure for when militants hide behind kids is to brng in a sniper, to try to take out the terrorist behind them.
Hold on there Rythmic , that poll of Hamas supporters carried out by the Israelis only said just over 75% not 80% but that does mean that Hooah with his "25%" has managed to get the survey completely arsewise .:yes:Quote:
80%.
Well thats a hard one , can you find a similar guerilla war where it hasn't had to be solved by diplomacy ?Quote:
I am kinda confused on how people believe that diplomacy has always worked?
Yes there are lots that come up with short terms swings...... that turn into roundabouts and put them back where they started , but can you think of any long term ones ?
Well I must say Hooah you have shocked me with your ....
... that perhaps after all you can sometimes think beyond the "I support Israel" or "I support the pally" lines .Quote:
but i will say that if Avigdor Lieberman is elected, it will be a disaster.
What a pleasant surprise :2thumbsup:
Is that a promise ? please say it is so little child:yes:Quote:
I think it's time to put this guy on my ignore list
Well plenty in fact including the one where the name guerilla comes from, but this isn't a guerilla war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
So diplomacy will work in this case? :laugh4:
Is that a promise, Tribesboy? Yes it is, since it seems you act more like a 10 year old then your old age :laugh:.
Offically on my ignore list :medievalcheers::medievalcheers:
To which do you refer Frag , the Latin or the German origin?Quote:
Well plenty in fact including the one where the name guerilla comes from, but this isn't a guerilla war.
If it the Latin then you are bolloxed because the occupiers lost militarily and then lost pretty badly sitting at a table after their weakness had been fully exposed .
You aren't exactly schooled in Roman history are youQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
edit, I forgot, the term guerilla comes from the Boney era, Spain. Somewhat later then Rome.
Is that because I mentioned the Latin version which was many hundreds of years after the Romans?:idea2:Quote:
You aren't exactly schooled in Roman history are you
Though the same was true for the Romans in the long term if you go for the germanic origin of the word .
Yes indeed , but it matters not because both origins show the flaws of your attempted arguementQuote:
edit, I forgot,
OK, enough.
The topic will be put to sleep while I hand out the warning points and I don't want to see another Israel/Palestine thread for at least a week. The next one had better be civil or punishments will be swift and unannounced.
Thank you to those that found the time and balance to post interesting thoughts.
:closed: