Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: TrashMan on March 21, 2009, 06:08:39 am
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gaza-probe20-2009mar20,0,1821341.story
-
Yeah, sick indeed, should have nuked e'm.
-
Not this **** again.
-
Please explain to me which part of this you find as 'sick.'
What, three instances? 22 days, 1450 people dead, and there are three accounts? This reminds me of the propaganda during one of the world wars (I can't remember which one right now) about claims that German soldiers were mutilating Belgian children "just because they could." Unfounded.
Seems to me the same here. Three accounts, all unnamed personnel. The one with the sharpshooter isn't even abuse. It was a misunderstanding, said it right in the article.
-
Please explain to me which part of this you find as 'sick.'
What, three instances? 22 days, 1450 people dead, and there are three accounts? This reminds me of the propaganda during one of the world wars (I can't remember which one right now) about claims that German soldiers were mutilating Belgian children "just because they could." Unfounded.
Seems to me the same here. Three accounts, all unnamed personnel. The one with the sharpshooter isn't even abuse. It was a misunderstanding, said it right in the article.
:nod: Not that that justifies that in any way, but still, we have only heard three accounts, so we don't know how prevalent it is, if it is prevalent.
-
If it was/is true, it just makes me angry. :mad:
Why the RoE would be something like that shows how little people in higher echelons of the Israeli military care about what goes on "down there". Shooting civilians is bound to happen in a war, but RoE is supposed to prevent that.
-
...
The RoE down there are to prevent unnecessary military casualties. In case you didn't know, Israel has one of the smallest manpower 1st rate militaries in the world. Additionally, granted there are obvious exceptions, how are you going to know who is a threat in a place like that. Not only is it heavily urbanized, it is also run by a terrorist friendly government that has proven capable and willing to shell cities at no provocation.
-
...
The RoE down there are to prevent unnecessary military casualties. In case you didn't know, Israel has one of the smallest manpower 1st rate militaries in the world. Additionally, granted there are obvious exceptions, how are you going to know who is a threat in a place like that. Not only is it heavily urbanized, it is also run by a terrorist friendly government that has proven capable and willing to shell cities at no provocation.
Well an effective RoE should, in that situation also prevent civilian casualties, they're operating in an Urban area and some consideration has to be given to the civilians in the area. Fair enough it's hard to distinguish civilians from hostiles, but shooting a child?
I think neutralizing everyone in the building in an urban environment regardless of who they are is pushing it though. If they're holding a weapon or anything that could pose a threat to friendly forces fair enough, drop 'em, but shooting EVERYONE isn't right. Most if not all modern militaries put their infantry through CQB training, being able to identify and neutralise hostiles in a close quarters environment and identify (and restrain depending on the nature of the operation) non-combatants, surely the IDF could put that to some use.
-
Well an effective RoE should, in that situation also prevent civilian casualties, they're operating in an Urban area and some consideration has to be given to the civilians in the area. Fair enough it's hard to distinguish civilians from hostiles, but shooting a child?
You can't really have it both ways. And, in all fairness, Hamas has in the past used child suicide bombers. Their arming children would not be without precedent either; it's common practice among Islamic militants in much of western Africa.
-
You can't really have it both ways.
Thank you. I was beginning to feel like a nut-job for even defending them :D.
-
I don't see how any RoE justify sniping old women who poses zero threat from a thousand yards off or blowing away a woman and her kids because they don't understand the difference between "go left" and "go right" in Hebrew.
I don't make excuses for either side, since both have done some down-right dirty things. Hamas plays dirty sometimes, and Israel mistakenly tends to respond in kind. It's my personal belief that Cast Lead was unjustified to the extent that it was executed, but not unnecessary in its basic goal to protect Israel and stop the rocket attacks. However, Israel's blockade of Gaza is unjustified and created many of the conditions that lead to arms smuggling and increased tensions that justified Cast Lead.
But really, how many of those rockets fired into Israel were from Hamas? Hamas is extremist, yes, but they're not entirely stupid. What they're not willing to admit is that they're weak and not totally in control of Gaza. I'm willing to bet many of the attacks which Israel used to justify Cast Lead weren't launched by Hamas but by independent militants. In which case, Israel and Hamas should be cooperating more than anything to root out the militants, but with an extreme right-wing Israeli government about to be installed and Hamas being Hamas...I don't see that happening anytime in the near future.
-
Well there are some things I don't think the IDF should be bagged for, their airstrikes etc
I'm no expert on the conflict so I didn't hear about the child suicide bombers, in that respect it makes sense. I suppose in that environment it's mildly justifiable
I don't see how any RoE justify sniping old women who poses zero threat from a thousand yards off or blowing away a woman and her kids because they don't understand the difference between "go left" and "go right" in Hebrew.
Well not complying could mean a lot of things, not understanding the language was at the bottom I'm guessing. I agree you can't idolize one and bag the other.
-
Well there are some things I don't think the IDF should be bagged for, their airstrikes etc
The use of white phosphorous munitions is illegal. They should be blamed for that.
I don't see how any RoE justify sniping old women who poses zero threat from a thousand yards off or blowing away a woman and her kids because they don't understand the difference between "go left" and "go right" in Hebrew.
Well not complying could mean a lot of things, not understanding the language was at the bottom I'm guessing.
Actually, it's close to the top. If you don't know Hebrew and that's all the soldiers are using to communicate with you (i.e. not using hand signals), then you're not going to know whether they're threatening to blast you off the face of the earth or if they're asking for a cup of sugar. I mean, there are strong similarities between Hebrew and Arabic...but that's not enough.
-
Well there are some things I don't think the IDF should be bagged for, their airstrikes etc
The use of white phosphorous munitions is illegal. They should be blamed for that.
I don't see how any RoE justify sniping old women who poses zero threat from a thousand yards off or blowing away a woman and her kids because they don't understand the difference between "go left" and "go right" in Hebrew.
Well not complying could mean a lot of things, not understanding the language was at the bottom I'm guessing.
Actually, it's close to the top. If you don't know Hebrew and that's all the soldiers are using to communicate with you (i.e. not using hand signals), then you're not going to know whether they're threatening to blast you off the face of the earth or if they're asking for a cup of sugar. I mean, there are strong similarities between Hebrew and Arabic...but that's not enough.
I agree but if you had no idea who the hell this woman was and she's acting "suspiciously" from the soldier's p.o.v. you don't know wether she's about to tie her shoes or blow herself to pieces. These soldiers are acting in a hostile environment, you treat everything and everyone as hostile until otherwise proven.
-
Please explain to me which part of this you find as 'sick.'
What, three instances? 22 days, 1450 people dead, and there are three accounts?
Everything.
And this is only what 3-4 people said. Those who were willing to talk. They did mention other offenses and things like being ordered to destroy whatever they can or shoot everyone.
The one with the sharpshooter isn't even abuse. It was a misunderstanding, said it right in the article.
Children man. 2 kinds and a woman. I don't give a f*** if it was an order of not. If I was in the army and my superior gave such an order, I would shoot HIM.
-
Please explain to me which part of this you find as 'sick.'
What, three instances? 22 days, 1450 people dead, and there are three accounts?
Everything.
And this is only what 3-4 people said. Those who were willing to talk. They did mention other offenses and things like being ordered to destroy whatever they can or shoot everyone.
The one with the sharpshooter isn't even abuse. It was a misunderstanding, said it right in the article.
Children man. 2 kinds and a woman. I don't give a f*** if it was an order of not. If I was in the army and my superior gave such an order, I would shoot HIM.
With the women and children, although it seems brutal and completely inhumane in that context. As has been said before, women and children had a history of being used as suicide bombers, and the marksman would've been well within his rights to open fire on them if they were acting suspiciously. If I was on duty in Iraq and a guy started acting suspiciously I would restrain him there and then. Better safe than sorry.
-
I have to agree with TrashMan. Soldiers have a duty to disobey what is known as illegal orders.
It would be kind of ironic seeing Israeli soldiers using the Nuremberg defense.
-
And this is only what 3-4 people said.
All unnamed, citing undocumented incidents, and not naming anyone AT ALL that may have been invovled. Until they actually say who saw and did this, I treat it as propaganda. All of it right now is unfounded.
They did mention other offenses and things like being ordered to destroy whatever they can or shoot everyone.
No. They said that they felt like they could vandalize things "just because they could," and even that is suspect to me. Granted, shooting everyone would be a war crime if you knew that every person in that building was innocent and in no way involved. RoE are made to protect one kind of person, either civilian or military. Given the Hamas and Gaza penchant for using civilians as suicide bombers, the RoE was completely justified.
Children man. 2 kinds and a woman.
See last sentence above.
If I was in the army and my superior gave such an order, I would shoot HIM.
And be court martialed, found guilty, and SHOT. Just because he gave such an order is no grounds for shooting him. And that is IF this all even happened.
The use of white phosphorous munitions is illegal. They should be blamed for that.
It is. In combat. Used for disguising troop movements falls completely inside world regulations.
Israel is believed to be using controversial white phosphorus shells to screen its assault on the heavily populated Gaza Strip yesterday. The weapon, used by British and US forces in Iraq, can cause horrific burns but is not illegal if used as a smokescreen.
Read the bolded part.
I'm willing to bet many of the attacks which Israel used to justify Cast Lead weren't launched by Hamas but by independent militants.
Not only would you be wrong, it wouldn't matter. Palestinian nationals were attacking Israel with rockets from inside the Gaza Strip. Israel stops it. Just about what happened.
-
Rocket attacks on southern Israel with zero to few casualties don't justify over a thousand dead and an infrastructure completely destroyed. Israel has a right to defend itself but they just go far too over the top sometimes. There is such a thing as a measured response, which Israel needs to use more often rather than ripping up entire cities.
-
And have to do this again every few years. It sent a clear, if a little destructive, message to Hamas, or any other Palestinian gov't that they will **** them up if they attack.
-
Isn't Israel already doing just that with their blockade, and demolishing Palestinians homes to make settlements for Israelis? Or does the IDF actually need to go in every few years and kill a thousand innocent people just to "send a message"?
Or maybe Israel is a little bit at fault and you're not willing to admit it?
-
why don't we drop the sniper issue for a moment.
it sounds like the guys who went room to room house to house killing everyone in sight are gonna get shot, or at least the guys in charge.
so can we expect Hamas to publicly execute the guys who fired the rockets into those shopping malls ect soon?
-
Mmm...
An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the United Nations Assembly which made the world community smile. A representative from Israel began: "Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses. When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good opportunity to have a bath!' He removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water. When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Palestinian had stolen them."
The Palestinian representative jumped up furiously and shouted, "What are you talking about? The Palestinians weren't there then."
The Israeli representative smiled and said, "And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech."
For clarification: I find the entire premise of Israel extremely silly. I think the jews should go live in the sahara.
-
An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the United Nations Assembly which made the world community smile. A representative from Israel began: "Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses. When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good opportunity to have a bath!' He removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water. When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Palestinian had stolen them."
The Palestinian representative jumped up furiously and shouted, "What are you talking about? The Palestinians weren't there then."
The Israeli representative smiled and said, "And now that we have made that clear, I will begin my speech."
Are you ****ing serious?
Given that he's a representative of Israel he makes them all sound like a heap of arrogant bastards. It's beyond me why he would've chosen such an example to begin with.
It's kind of funny though :)
-
Uh, no, I'm not serious. It's a retarded right-wing forward. myrightwingdad.blogspot.com
-
Give Israel back to the Spanish!
-
Give the Americas and Australia back to the natives.
-
Give the Europe back to the Neanderthals!
To be honest, after a generation or two have passed it starts getting stupid.
-
It's like killing somebody because his dead grandfather stole your dead grandfather's pig decades ago.
Why does anybody support Israel, anyway? Is it seriously just the whole holocaust thing?
-
It's like killing somebody because his dead grandfather stole your dead grandfather's pig decades ago.
Why does anybody support Israel, anyway? Is it seriously just the whole holocaust thing?
In part, yes. People are afraid to criticize Israel because they fear their criticisms will be seen as anti-semitic, or worse, twisted to make them into supporters of the holocaust. It's one of the big reasons why no major media outlet has ever openly criticized Israel.
EDIT: Or rather, why no American outlet has criticized Israel. Israel and America are pretty buddy-buddy right now, though that may change in a few years depending on how President Obama decides to deal with the issue of middle eastern peace.
-
why don't we drop the sniper issue for a moment.
it sounds like the guys who went room to room house to house killing everyone in sight are gonna get shot, or at least the guys in charge.
so can we expect Hamas to publicly execute the guys who fired the rockets into those shopping malls ect soon?
I'll believe it when I see it. I would be surprised if it doesn't end up the usual way - the military giving the involved a slip on a wrist and keeping it quiet untill the media looses interest and everyone forgets about it.
-
All unnamed, citing undocumented incidents, and not naming anyone AT ALL that may have been invovled. Until they actually say who saw and did this, I treat it as propaganda. All of it right now is unfounded.
there's a link in the article that leads to another, more coprehensive one. It has some names too.
They did mention other offenses and things like being ordered to destroy whatever they can or shoot everyone.
No. They said that they felt like they could vandalize things "just because they could," and even that is suspect to me. Granted, shooting everyone would be a war crime if you knew that every person in that building was innocent and in no way involved. RoE are made to protect one kind of person, either civilian or military. Given the Hamas and Gaza penchant for using civilians as suicide bombers, the RoE was completely justified.
No. They got orders to destroy the houses. To throw everything out the windows. Break everything of value so tthat the people really have nothing to return to.
See last sentence above.
I have. Unwaranted. Always was, always will be. not to mention that the children and woman were going away from the soldiers. If they were bombers you'd reckon they'd go towards them.
If I was in the army and my superior gave such an order, I would shoot HIM.
And be court martialed, found guilty, and SHOT. Just because he gave such an order is no grounds for shooting him.
And I'd die a happy man if need be.
And I reckon such an order is sufficient grounds for shooting children?
Israel is believed to be using controversial white phosphorus shells to screen its assault on the heavily populated Gaza Strip yesterday. The weapon, used by British and US forces in Iraq, can cause horrific burns but is not illegal if used as a smokescreen.
I've seen videos of white phosphorous rockets fired on houses, in the middle of a city, with people running away. No soldiers were even near.
If that is giving your troops a smokescreen, then the IDF is doing it wrong.
-
I'm with TrashMan on the WP, not ONCE have I seen Israel use it for screening & concealment.
It would seem odd that they were used on airbursting munitions that conviently spew the **** all over the place at a 45 degree cone right into crowds rather than in WP grenades.
-
america still happily uses napalm and wp on people. i think its kinda cool way to kill people, not quite as cool as nukes though.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/23/israel-gaza-war-crimes-guardian
Seems like no one can say that those making the claims are unidentified any more.
-
Moral of the story, don't shoot missiles at Isreal.
-
Don't shoot missiles at Israel cause we'll invade your country and commit war crimes against your civilian population?
Sounds more like an amoral to me.
Frankly I'm saddened that anyone would attempt to defend the commission of war crimes against someone who simply happened to be born in the wrong country.
-
Don't shoot missiles at Israel cause we'll invade your country and commit war crimes against your people?
Sounds more like an amoral to me.
No, sounds like poke me with a small knife, I'll blow you away with my shotgun even if everyone screams when you splatter them with guts. Definitely, the moral to the story.
-
Are you kidding me? Hamas order a rocket attack on Israel and that give Israel the right to tie children of that country to their jeeps in order to prevent them being shot at?
That conduct is disgusting.
Are you actually claiming that the commission of war crimes is justifiable as long as the enemy started the war?
-
Are you kidding me? One person orders a rocket attack on Israel and that give Israel the right to tie children of that country to their jeeps in order to prevent them being shot at?
Disgusting.
Hmmm, I wonder if it worked?
-
Are you kidding me? Hamas order a rocket attack on Israel and that give Israel the right to tie children of that country to their jeeps in order to prevent them being shot at?
That conduct is disgusting.
Are you actually claiming that the commission of war crimes is justifiable as long as the enemy started the war?
If that's the case then Afhganistan and Iran should be vaporized by the U.S. and then we call it a day. :P
-
Well, it's more like, "Poke me with a small knife and I throw a hand grenade at you and a huge group of people."
This is more than just Palestinians being affected by the attack. Even if Hamas was 100% responsible for 100% of the rockets coming out of Gaza, they got their nose bloodied enough. I 100% doubt that all 1000+ Gazans killed in the attack were all affiliated with Hamas, or fired those rockets.
Innocent people died. Israel did it. Hamas did plenty of it too, but Israel is held to higher standards than a terrorist organization. They should live up to them.
-
Well, it's more like, "Poke me with a small knife and I throw a hand grenade at you and a huge group of people."
This is more than just Palestinians being affected by the attack. Even if Hamas was 100% responsible for 100% of the rockets coming out of Gaza, they got their nose bloodied enough. I 100% doubt that all 1000+ Gazans killed in the attack were all affiliated with Hamas, or fired those rockets.
Innocent people died. Israel did it. Hamas did plenty of it too, but Israel is held to higher standards than a terrorist organization. They should live up to them.
They should have? Then what? As bad as what happened to the civilians, Israel sure as heck sent a message. Because one thing that can be assured, the U.N. sure as heck wasn't gonna do a thing besides whine, "Bad Hamas, don't shoot Israel with rockets." To be perfectly honest, Israel was gonna get griped at by the U.N. in any case.
Killing civilians is horrible, but war is horrible, and if it takes extreme force, then use extreme force.
-
Moral of the story, don't shoot missiles at Isreal, unless they're nukes.
fixed
-
Seems like no one can say that those making the claims are unidentified any more.
That's all good for the claims side, but there is still no detail regarding the actual offenses. So far, all that has been presented is "Israel committed war crimes: an anonymous soldier did this, an unidentified soldier did that, according to this guy in Gaza."
Innocent people died. Israel did it. Hamas did plenty of it too, but Israel is held to higher standards than a terrorist organization. They should live up to them.
Soooo.... Israel needs to be held to a higher standard than another established government? Why does Hamas get away with no blame at all for this? Hamas may be a terrorist organization to us, but it is the government of the Gaza Strip. It should be held to the same standards.
I 100% doubt that all 1000+ Gazans killed in the attack were all affiliated with Hamas, or fired those rockets.
And I 100% doubt that all the Germans killed in air raids during WWII were affiliated with the Nazi Party, but no-one calls that a war crime. Neither does anyone call a SINGLE ONE of the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan having been the victim of a war crime, no matter what may have happened. This has all been blown out of scope by the media.
-
Innocent people died. Israel did it.
It's not just that innocent people died. That can be explained away as collateral damage. What I'm getting upset about is a completely different matter.
I'm talking about the deliberate actions of the IDF. I'm talking about them grabbing random civilians (including children) off the street and pushing them through doorways first when storming a building so that the civilian will get shot instead of a soldier.
Anyone who can claim justification for that is a ****ing bastard.
That's all good for the claims side, but there is still no detail regarding the actual offenses. So far, all that has been presented is "Israel committed war crimes: an anonymous soldier did this, an unidentified soldier did that, according to this guy in Gaza."
Bollocks. The attack by the drone against the family having lunch was taped by the drone operator. If Israel want to know who did it they only need to look at the tapes.
-
Innocent people died. Israel did it.
It's not just that innocent people died. That can be explained away as collateral damage. What I'm getting upset about is a completely different matter.
I'm talking about the deliberate actions of the IDF. I'm talking about them grabbing random civilians (including children) off the street and pushing them through doorways first when storming a building so that the civilian will get shot instead of a soldier.
Anyone who can claim justification for that is a ****ing bastard.
I don't think anyone is claiming justification for soldiers doing things like that. What I'm getting at is where is our right to whine about what they did when we(U.N. countries) sat on our butt and kept saying "Bad Hamas, don't do this, Bad Hamas don't do that". What you open the door to is firstly letting a country who is having rockets tossed at daily, having the U.N. not do anything about it and know they won't. You put them who already hates the Palestinians into rage for revenge.
We have no right to complain or justify what Israel did, because it looks fairly certain we chose to be on the sideline no mater what.
-
I think we always have the rights to point out war crimes.
And given that your nation is funding Israel it's pretty hard to make the claim to the rest of the world that America is just sitting on the sidelines. If you are funding a regime who is responsible for the commission of war crimes, know about it, and continue to fund them that makes you complicit in the commission of those crimes.
There's far too much turning a blind eye to the **** Israel does.
-
Israel isn't the aggressors in this Hamas is. If Hamas is lobbing rockets at Israel, that's all the provocation Israel needs to go in guns blazing. Israel has the right to protect itself. The citizens of the Gaza Strip are less important in Israel's eyes than Israelis are, and I don't blame them. That's like saying if America and Canada were at war, America should care the same about Canadian lives as it would about American lives.
-
So you'd support American troops using Canadian children as human shields? That's perfectly fine with you?
-
Soooo.... Israel needs to be held to a higher standard than another established government? Why does Hamas get away with no blame at all for this? Hamas may be a terrorist organization to us, but it is the government of the Gaza Strip. It should be held to the same standards.
"Terrorists" don't fall under the rules of NATO and the Geneva Convention. :P
They can cut our scrotums off and force us to eat them just for kicks and walk away with it.
Israel isn't the aggressors in this Hamas is. If Hamas is lobbing rockets at Israel, that's all the provocation Israel needs to go in guns blazing. Israel has the right to protect itself. The citizens of the Gaza Strip are less important in Israel's eyes than Israelis are, and I don't blame them. That's like saying if America and Canada were at war, America should care the same about Canadian lives as it would about American lives.
Remember the term "necessary force?" Israel's actions are far from necessary or equal.
-
"Terrorists" don't fall under the rules of NATO and the Geneva Convention. :P
They can cut our scrotums off and force us to eat them just for kicks and walk away with it.
The disregard of the rules governing civilians is pretty much what makes them terrorists in the first place.
-
That's like saying if America and Canada were at war, America should care the same about Canadian lives as it would about American lives.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
-
I'd hate to say it but that's been contradicted and flat-out ignored since it was first written. :doubt:
-
I'd hate to say it but that's been contradicted and flat-out ignored since it was first written. :doubt:
Where the hell's Rorshach when you need him?
-
lol?
Ugh, forgot the plot already.
-
I'd hate to say it but that's been contradicted and flat-out ignored since it was first written. :doubt:
Right, but it's still the foundation of the modern world.
-
So you'd support American troops using Canadian children as human shields? That's perfectly fine with you?
Depends on what Canada was doing to us. If Canada was launching rockets, suicide bombers, and general terror attacks us, maybe I would.
-
So you'd support American troops using Canadian children as human shields? That's perfectly fine with you?
Depends on what Canada was doing to us. If Canada was launching rockets, suicide bombers, and general terror attacks us, maybe I would.
Then America would be seen as the bad guys to everyone else in the world for being inhumane. :rolleyes:
I'd hate to say it but that's been contradicted and flat-out ignored since it was first written. :doubt:
Right, but it's still the foundation of the modern world.
Even if it is it's still a 200-some year-old piece of paper that was never followed. It's pointless even being taught to anyone at all anymore.
-
I'd hate to say it but that's been contradicted and flat-out ignored since it was first written. :doubt:
Right, but it's still the foundation of the modern world.
No. It's an ideal. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Haven't we been around this circle a thousand times before in this forum? Who claimed that all this happened? What is the Palestinians greatest "weapon" and "tactics"? Do they have a long and well documented history of using these "weapons" and "tactics" against their enemies? Does the international media have any better history of truth telling in these matters or do they usually just gobble up the juiciest story and sh*t it out for all to read?
Yes we have. The Palestinians. Propaganda, international media bias, sob stories that make great headlines. Yes like the hundreds butchered in Jenin or the 'fact' that there were no militants anywhere near that school (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061189.html)...oops, or even the photo (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/The_Photo_that_Started_it_All.asp) that started the 2nd intifada. I would hope the answer to the last one would be so blatantly obvious but I guess not since people still seem to take everything they are fed by their local news outlet as stone cold fact.
That video of the human shields you keep bringing up is the perfect example of how this works.
00:55-01:05 That guy is leading the soldier to whatever he wants to show him. 1. His walk/run and stance is not one of fear 2. there is only one soldier going with him not the whole group. Human shield or not soldiers don't walk into a possible attack alone. 3. if he was being used as a human shield he the soldier would be up close behind him advancing slowly.
01:05-01:08 just take a look at the picture the soldier had apprehended someone and came under attack 1. if he was a human shield he would be standing not crouching 2. he would be out in front of the soldier as it is he is clearly covered from the angel of attack the soldier is aiming toward. 3. the reason he is not back somewhere else would be because they are behind a pillar and moving out from under it's cover would endanger them both. I mean seriously? the soldier gave that guy more cover then he is giving himself! FFS!
01:08-01:14 Kid was throwing stones and was stopped. 1. if he was a human shield he would be freaking out and not sitting calmly 2. if he is a human shield for what? the jeep? they have a cage against stones and bulletproof glass.... what the hell would they need a kid for? 3. if he was shielding them from attack the soldier wouldn't be outside his vehicle talking on the radio while leaning casually on something to his left. 4. would you prefer the kid handcuffed? they tied a belt around his arm. oh no! and to stop him from just running away they attached him to what they had close by.
If I came up to you on the street and you didn't know me but I told you a very convincing story about how some guy came and raped my daughter and beat my wife etc etc and then I asked your help to get the son of a b*tch would you help me or would you need a bit more proof before going after someone? Chances are you would think it was unlikely and wouldn't jump at the prospect, but imagine that I had a history of coming up to people on the street and being willing to lie to their faces to get the result I wanted. Chances are in that situation your average person would assume it was another bullsh*t story and demand proof before acting.
I sometimes wish Israeli parents would be as sick as SOME of their counterparts and teach their kids to cry and lie and make up huge horrific stories about the evil Palestinians and some ridiculous media outlet somewhere would publish 'first hand accounts' by 'reliable sources' about Palestinian evil and then all the news outlets will pick it up as fact.
The really sad part is that no one can prove any of this to anyone. Everything we quote everything we find in research and study is all just what someone else said and like I always say unless you see it for yourself...
-
So you'd support American troops using Canadian children as human shields? That's perfectly fine with you?
Depends on what Canada was doing to us. If Canada was launching rockets, suicide bombers, and general terror attacks us, maybe I would.
Then America would be seen as the bad guys to everyone else in the world for being inhumane. :rolleyes:
I'd hate to say it but that's been contradicted and flat-out ignored since it was first written. :doubt:
Right, but it's still the foundation of the modern world.
Even if it is it's still a 200-some year-old piece of paper that was never followed. It's pointless even being taught to anyone at all anymore.
I'd hate to say it but that's been contradicted and flat-out ignored since it was first written. :doubt:
Right, but it's still the foundation of the modern world.
No. It's an ideal. Nothing more, nothing less.
So you say not all men are created equal?
-
So you say not all men are created equal?
Yes. As much as I hate it, but just by virtue of when and where I was born, I have more and better opportunities to live up to that ideal than many others. I would argue that no country on this earth truly follows that ideal with regards to their own population.
-
Men were never created equally, nor were they ever treated equally.
Look how long it took for other races to get the same rights that others have. Look how long it took for women to get the same rights as men have.
233 years. 233 years of people wanting to be able to live like the rest of the average Americans, women only spending their time as housemaids / wives for over half of that period, with Blacks being slaves even after the damn thing was written, and then STILL treated like dirt when they were given the opportunity to live on thier own for over half of that 233 year period.
Hypocracy is the norm of human life.
-
There's equal (which is impossible), and there's equal before the law (which is not just possible, but necessary). That line also says that all men are equal before their Creator, in this case, God. That line is supposed to mean that all men should be treated equally by both the law and by men. And by men, I mean the human race, not just males.
-
@Commander Zane/The E
I didn't ask about how it was fullfilled in reality, I asked what you thought about this.
You know, some time ago a country said, not all men are created equal, we are created superior. And in the end, after a world war and a few million dead people, it led to the creation of Israel. And now we are here, and nothing has changed, nothing has been learned.
Nuke, I think I lost... lost hope in humanity -.-
Maybe I'll join you, nuke 'em all. ;(
That line also says that all men are equal before their Creator, in this case, God. That line is supposed to mean that all men should be treated equally by both the law and by men. And by men, I mean the human race, not just males.
I think so, too. I thought everyone else here does as well. I was wrong.
@Splinter
There are to different questions:
a) Did it happen?
b) If it did happen, was it ok?
What would you answer to question b?
It seems a few answered yes, what would your answer be?
-
But we weren't treated equally by the law. We weren't treated equally by the rest of the human race. Equal is as possible as world peace.
-
It says created equal, not treated equally. All mankind has been created equally before the eyes of God, what mankind does to mankind is not subject to that ideal.
You know, some time ago a country said, not all men are created equal, we are created superior. And in the end, after a world war and a few million dead people, it led to the creation of Israel.
Yeah, and they lost. About 60 million dead, and only indirectly lead to Israel, which doesn't really matter in that context.
And now we are here, and nothing has changed, nothing has been learned
"You can't say civilization don't advance, for in every war they kill you in a new way." - Will Rogers.
Answering for Splinter:
a)no
b)no. I was defending the RoE earlier, not crimes against humanity, which I'm still quite certain never happened.
-
Yeah, and they lost. About 60 million dead, and only indirectly lead to Israel, which doesn't really matter in that context.
Somehow it doesn't, somehow it does.
Israel should learn from the mistakes of Nazi Germany, they were victims at that time. Kill a few hundred Polish? Well, it will show them they shouldn't resist, we need to protect German life, cause it's better. And take the money of the jews, we need it to feed our poor German kids. Kill a thousand so they stop terrorizing us, killing a few? Why not? Believe that the life of the other has equal value, where? They are the uncivilized beyond the border after all.
Do you think people in Germany at that time thought they were wrong? Of course not, everything was ok that way.
Ah, I just Godwined myself, so I will stop
Answering for Splinter:
a)no
b)no. I was defending the RoE earlier, not crimes against humanity, which I'm still quite certain never happened.
a) was already answered :/
But I am glad to hear the answer to b)
We still share values after all...
-
The really sad part is that no one can prove any of this to anyone. Everything we quote everything we find in research and study is all just what someone else said and like I always say unless you see it for yourself...
As the report said, the drone attack was videotaped. Israel can easily prove that it was an accident/didn't happen if they want.
As for the rest of your post, you're simply assuming it didn't happen without investigation. Also the question has to be asked. If the IDF never used human shields why did Israel's supreme court need to specifically ban the use of them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314898.stm)?
-
@Splinter
There are to different questions:
a) Did it happen?
b) If it did happen, was it ok?
What would you answer to question b?
It seems a few answered yes, what would your answer be?
a) No one here can say for 100% fact if it did or did not happen therefore what you need to look at is who has more reason is more likely and has more history of trying to deceive you. (and that isn't always as clear cut to everyone either) My personal belief based on 20 years of living this situation is that the more likely candidate for deceit by a long shot is Hamas and the residents of Gaza. (Yes it's 20 years of living on the Israeli side but I have hundreds of Arab friends and or acquaintances most of whom are Muslim not Christian a surprisingly large number of whom say that their own brother and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank are liars. In addition I am not completely for Israel either. I have a huge hatred problem toward orthodox Jews whom to me have proven time and time again to be the most racist selfish smelly (literally) people I know. and I have a problem with the many of the settlers because believe it or not most IDF soldiers hate having to guard them because they hide behind that protection and harass the Arabs neighbors. specifically I know in Hebron but I am sure it happens elsewhere.)
b)If it did happen then you need context before making a snap call but as it is presented here if this is the truth and more importantly the WHOLE truth then no it's not ok. One of the main reasons I found these stories unlikely being quoted from IDF soldiers was because every IDF soldier knew that every area they went into every building was warned by leaflets megaphones and even cellphone calls to the residents before moving in on a building therefore the order to shoot on sight is not as excessive as it may seem. Another thing is that most Israelis especially the ones in combat units go through some Arab courses and I have yet to meet a Palestinian that doesn't know any Hebrew. I can guarantee you that the woman and child were told in Arabic or signaled with hand gestures at the very least. Someone said they were heading away from Israeli forces... where does it say that? They were heading away from the group that sent them but there were soldiers all over they were probably running right towards another platoon when the sniper shot them. And there have been PLENTY of woman suicide bombers before.
As the report said, the drone attack was videotaped. Israel can easily prove that it was an accident/didn't happen if they want.
And America can easily prove that whatever hit the Pentagon on 9/11 was in fact a plane with the video tape from the gas station.
The reasons could be many or few but again your assuming that the report was truthful which means you are assuming their sources were truthful. And believe me (or don't) sometimes the reporters are bigger liars than anyone because they also have motive to get a juicier story and to get the story that will gain the most outrage anyone nowadays telling himself he is getting unbiased reporting from his news outlet is living in a cave I don't care if you are in Israel the US the UK or Tajikistan.
As for the rest of your post, you're simply assuming it didn't happen without investigation. Also the question has to be asked. If the IDF never used human shields why did Israel's supreme court need to specifically ban the use of them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314898.stm)?
I'm not assuming. Everyone else (the media and some people here) assumed it DID happen I simply presented logical faults with their argument and character that would lead me to lean towards their deceit and not the other way around... that is until proven otherwise. But what is funny with these post war investigations is that every time (see 2nd Lebanon war, Operation Defensive Shield etc..) So many of the biggest juiciest stories are revealed to be complete and utter fabrications by the Arabs favorite weapons and even then very few news outlets recant.
And the question can be answered. When it was brought up that the IDF were using human shields no one did anything because no one noticed outside of Israel and they didn't do anything because they knew Amnesty international and Human rights groups are so twisted you are more likely to find the truth up Ahcmedinijads small intestine. Then it became and international concern so the Supreme Court wanted to cover it's own ass by Passing this law even though they didn't think anyone in the IDF had done such a thing they wanted to appease those concerns.
After reading that article it seems that they use 'human shield' to encompass a large array of activities. Using locals to talk to other wanted locals because they can do so in Arabic better than the Israelis can is a human shield? Having locals tell wanted suspects that they should surrender because they are surrounded is a human shield? I thought a human shield was using another human to cover your body from outside attack. A single guy won't save a platoon from getting hit by bullets. So if that is all they did then I don't really have that much of a problem with it. As long as they don't use any mentally handicapped or anything. Seriously saying they couldn't refuse being told to do that is BS. No IDF soldier is going to shoot a detainee just because he won't go door to door for them.
-
Haven't we been around this circle a thousand times before in this forum? Who claimed that all this happened? What is the Palestinians greatest "weapon" and "tactics"? Do they have a long and well documented history of using these "weapons" and "tactics" against their enemies? Does the international media have any better history of truth telling in these matters or do they usually just gobble up the juiciest story and sh*t it out for all to read?
Yes we have. The Palestinians. Propaganda, international media bias, sob stories that make great headlines.
That works both ways. And who has more resources, more connections to use for propaganda? Israel or some palestinian terrorists?
Oh geez, that's such a difficult question.
Both have the same amount of money, communicational acess and political leverage...yeah right. Dream on! :rolleyes:
-
They should have? Then what? As bad as what happened to the civilians, Israel sure as heck sent a message. Because one thing that can be assured, the U.N. sure as heck wasn't gonna do a thing besides whine, "Bad Hamas, don't shoot Israel with rockets." To be perfectly honest, Israel was gonna get griped at by the U.N. in any case.
Killing civilians is horrible, but war is horrible, and if it takes extreme force, then use extreme force.
What I'm beefed at is Isreal systematicly destroying infastructure. Notice a pattern?
Every time Israel invades the Gaza strip is destroys infrastructure, factories, mills, waterworks, plants - en masse.
It tries to keep the Gaza strip undeveloped and dependant on importing stuff from Israel. No wonder some Palestinians shoot rockets.
If I was a plaestinian living in Gaza, I'd be the first one to take up arms.
Soooo.... Israel needs to be held to a higher standard than another established government? Why does Hamas get away with no blame at all for this? Hamas may be a terrorist organization to us, but it is the government of the Gaza Strip. It should be held to the same standards.
Except that Hamas doesn't have nearly the same levlel of control Israel has. The persons responsible or shoting those rockets - they're not part of any formal military or a clearly organized strucrue. They might not even be Hamas. Maybe they are Fatah. Or some other smaller splinter group.
Simpl put, Hamas doesn't even have the means to stop all rocket attacks, even if it wanted to.
-
And America can easily prove that whatever hit the Pentagon on 9/11 was in fact a plane with the video tape from the gas station.
IIRC, they did do that. I recall a video of that. Even if I'm wrong, it's easy enough to prove - a plain with passengers doesn't just dissapear. If Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, then where did tat plane go?
So many of the biggest juiciest stories are revealed to be complete and utter fabrications by the Arabs favorite weapons and even then very few news outlets recant.
When it was brought up that the IDF were using human shields no one did anything because no one noticed outside of Israel and they didn't do anything because they knew Amnesty international and Human rights groups are so twisted you are more likely to find the truth up Ahcmedinijads small intestine.
Aha...so propaganada is used on a massive scale by terrorist and Israel doesn't use it an all? And non-government controlled organizations that criticize Israel are all twisted and evil?
Are you sure you weren't brainwashed? :wtf:
-
Holy crap, when did Kissinger start posting on HLP, why does he use two or three alt-nicks, and can I have your autograph, sir? ;7
-
They might not even be Hamas. Maybe they are Fatah. Or some other smaller splinter group.
Simpl put, Hamas doesn't even have the means to stop all rocket attacks, even if it wanted to.
Okay, first of all, Al-Fatah is not a splinter group. Rather, Hamas is a splinter group of Al-Fatah. Up until more than two years ago, Al-Fatah was the government of the Gaza Strip. Hamas ousted them in a violent coup in June 2006.
Secondly, if Hamas doesn't have the means to stop belligerence coming from its own territory, why should it be in place in the beginning?
I also notice that no-one responded to my WWII comment. Killing Germans and other people in air raids during WWII wasn't called a war crime, why should Israel have those charges leveled at it now? AFAIK, the Geneva Convention hasn't changed much.
-
It wasn't called a war crime back then because the term didn't exist, really. It is being called a war crime now.
-
But really, why should Israel be held to a higher standard than even the U.S., the U.K., France, and all the nations of WWII?
-
Just because other countries committed war crimes doesn't make it right. Because the world is sick and tired of the endless violence in that region. Because Israel, as the only western democracy in the region, is held to higher standard.
-
But really, why should Israel be held to a higher standard than even the U.S., the U.K., France, and all the nations of WWII?
Because we're not in 1941 anymore?
-
Israel puts one tiny pink toe across the line and the world comes down on them like a ton of bricks. Conversely, Hamas can do pretty much whatever they want, and no one gives a damn since they are a terrorist organization, never mind they are the Palestinian government, and should act like it.
-
Secondly, if Hamas doesn't have the means to stop belligerence coming from its own territory, why should it be in place in the beginning?
Israel didn't have the ability to stop the rocket attacks when they were in charge either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Number_of_Morter_and_Rocket_Attacks_2001_Through_2008V5.jpg
So why do you expect Hamas to be able to crack down on splinter groups when Israel couldn't?
-
That works both ways. And who has more resources, more connections to use for propaganda? Israel or some palestinian terrorists?
Oh geez, that's such a difficult question.
Both have the same amount of money, communicational acess and political leverage...yeah right. Dream on! :rolleyes:
You are wrong and right. You are correct that they have all the ability and resources etc however, as we can see with all the lies that have been revealed on the other side, propaganda has a big flaw... it's not the truth and usually be it a month or a year or 10 years after the incident the truth comes out. So far I can't recall any clear cut Israeli propaganda being used... a quick Google search confirmed there are scattered reports of this happening here and that happening there but every time I clicked on one of them it was another Palestinian claiming the IDF did this this and this and the IDF saying no we didn't. That is the Israeli propaganda. The difference is between Israel and the Palestinians is that whenever a final verdict has come out on one of these issues it always happens to be the desperate terrorists who were lying what a shocker. :eek:
IIRC, they did do that. I recall a video of that. Even if I'm wrong, it's easy enough to prove - a plain with passengers doesn't just dissapear. If Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, then where did tat plane go?
As far as I remember the point was that the whole was too small and there was not nearly enough wreckage to have been a 767 or whatever it was... so your question stands the other way around as well. If it was a plane where did that plane go? I don't really care honestly it's not my country not my problem and I don't like to get involved in things I don't know a great deal about because what gives me the right to judge if all I know is what I get off youtube and your favorite right/left wing media outlet?
Other than that if you do happen to find a link to that video I would like to see it... would be interesting.
Aha...so propaganada is used on a massive scale by terrorist and Israel doesn't use it an all? And non-government controlled organizations that criticize Israel are all twisted and evil?
Are you sure you weren't brainwashed? :wtf:
I didn't say no propaganda and I didn't say evil. See here is what so many people forget. The U.N. in Gaza isn't the UN you think of like I showed before 99% of them are the local residents so when a UN report comes out about what Israel did etc and UN sources told BBC news etc etc that is far from a reliable source. Same with the human rights groups they are only ever in Gaza only ever comment on what Israel does never said a word when buses hotels and cafes were blowing up don't you think that maybe they are a bit influenced as well? I hate to point it out like this but it's like trying to avoid that terrorist attacks worldwide are 99% committed by Arab Muslims. It's not that they are all bad I work with quite a few of them and we get along fine. But it can't be avoided that that is who is committing these acts.
Well here we have the same thing all these organizations have international names but their core workforce and thereby quoted sources are either the locals whom have been shown to be less than honest in these situations or volunteers who usually don't get to be in the middle of situations they just go ask the aforementioned locals afterwards and then write their report. Basically whatever the locals tell them is what comes out and as I have yet to be disproved that they are extremely untrustworthy considering the massive amount of proven false propaganda they have spewed forth.
-
Secondly, if Hamas doesn't have the means to stop belligerence coming from its own territory, why should it be in place in the beginning?
Israel didn't have the ability to stop the rocket attacks when they were in charge either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Number_of_Morter_and_Rocket_Attacks_2001_Through_2008V5.jpg
So why do you expect Hamas to be able to crack down on splinter groups when Israel couldn't?
What splinter groups? Hamas IS the group firing the rockets. The Al Aqsa brigade is Fatah who were ran out of Gaza by the Hamas and who now exist solely in the West Bank. PLO gone. PFLP gone. Islamic Jihad answer to Hamas. Whos left?
-
What splinter groups? Hamas IS the group firing the rockets. The Al Aqsa brigade is Fatah who were ran out of Gaza by the Hamas and who now exist solely in the West Bank. PLO gone. PFLP gone. Islamic Jihad answer to Hamas. Whos left?
Explain that to the IRA. Have we forgotten, perhaps, what a struggle enforcing the peace accords was/is for a group with many times the organization and professionalism of Hamas?
Such groups are in cells, compartmentalized, decentralized, not easily controlled. The only thing that most or all of Hamas shares is a generalized idealogy, and doubtless they differ on points (probably violently, as that is the way of such things). Islamic Jihad doesn't "answer" to Hamas. Hamas doesn't answer to itself. They are not organized or regimented or coordinated in any fashion, they cannot afford to be, it makes them too easy to destroy. They have scattered rockets and launchers to the four winds so that they would difficult to wipe out. The natural slack in such organizations works against any effort to suppress or control them.
-
So far I can't recall any clear cut Israeli propaganda being used...
Maybe they're just that good at it? With all the resources and connections and logistics they can hide their trail better.
And so far, I can't recall any clear cut Palestianian propaganda. And spare me the links. As you say, it's all lies and propaganda in media these days. Thus, I shall follow your suggestion and not believe anything I read anymore. Ever. I'm starting today - with the holocaust. And the moon landing. I also refuse to believe you exist.
I didn't say no propaganda and I didn't say evil. See here is what so many people forget. The U.N. in Gaza isn't the UN you think of like I showed before 99% of them are the local residents so when a UN report comes out about what Israel did etc and UN sources told BBC news etc etc that is far from a reliable source.
Because locals are not as reliable as foregneirs?
Bollocks. If I learned anything from a war in my own country is that things like that are always a double-edged sword. It can go both ways. Are reports by locals more accurate because they are locals and therefore understand the situation better, or are they therefore emotionally colored? Similary, simply because an observer is a foreigner doesn't mean he'll be any more objective. Quite the contrary, he's far more suceptible to believing whatever he's told when he first arrives, given that he knows very little. And he could always be an agent of a foreign power, who will lie because it's his job. Or he could be paid to lie - after all, the conflict is not his problem, what does he care?
People can ALWAYS lie for a million, zillion reasons.
-
So far I can't recall any clear cut Israeli propaganda being used...
We get it all the time here in the US. It's called "the news"
-
What I'm peeved at is how Israel gets away with it cause it's Israel. Same story everywhere. Powerful contries/armies with powerful friends can get away with anything. Little guys can do nothing.
I mean, let's draw some comparisons here, shall we? The Israel attack in Gaza lasted for 3 weeks, the city and infrastructure was left in ruins, over 1000 dead and 5000 wounded.
Now let's look an event from the war here, in my country. The war lasted for years. the city of Knin was shelled during an attack. The damage was minimal, the total death toll was 50 (or so the persecution claims. They refuse to list the names of the dead in that attack). All targets were confirmed military positions (data supplied by the USA unmanned drones). And general Gotovina is still accused for war crimes because of that.
What bout the Israeli general and commanders?
When are they gonna face justice? The answer is obvious - when hell freezes over!
-
Explain that to the IRA. Have we forgotten, perhaps, what a struggle enforcing the peace accords was/is for a group with many times the organization and professionalism of Hamas?
Such groups are in cells, compartmentalized, decentralized, not easily controlled. The only thing that most or all of Hamas shares is a generalized idealogy, and doubtless they differ on points (probably violently, as that is the way of such things). Islamic Jihad doesn't "answer" to Hamas. Hamas doesn't answer to itself. They are not organized or regimented or coordinated in any fashion, they cannot afford to be, it makes them too easy to destroy. They have scattered rockets and launchers to the four winds so that they would difficult to wipe out. The natural slack in such organizations works against any effort to suppress or control them.
Yeah your probably right they are just a bunch of kids bored out of their minds messing around... oh wait... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW2omguC5BM&feature=related) So they just happen to launch simultaneous attacks from different positions in Gaza and happen to know where their forces are deployed in Gaza? I think they are scum but I give them more credit than that. They have a military leader they have commanders under him and commanders under them to whom orders are passed down and carried out. They have been at this for a long time they have a bit more infrastructure than you think. They even have specialized training departments for science, development, culture, and education.
Maybe they're just that good at it? With all the resources and connections and logistics they can hide their trail better.
And so far, I can't recall any clear cut Palestianian propaganda. And spare me the links. As you say, it's all lies and propaganda in media these days. Thus, I shall follow your suggestion and not believe anything I read anymore. Ever. I'm starting today - with the holocaust. And the moon landing. I also refuse to believe you exist.
Hey honestly I have said it before I don't give a flying crap if you believe me or not my goal here is to make anyone realize that you cannot trust the news you get period. I'm here to make skeptics out of anyone I can because better a skeptic then someone who is judgmental and dogmatic that they know everything and this side is wrong because the news told me so.
Because locals are not as reliable as foregneirs?
Bollocks. If I learned anything from a war in my own country is that things like that are always a double-edged sword. It can go both ways. Are reports by locals more accurate because they are locals and therefore understand the situation better, or are they therefore emotionally colored? Similary, simply because an observer is a foreigner doesn't mean he'll be any more objective. Quite the contrary, he's far more suceptible to believing whatever he's told when he first arrives, given that he knows very little. And he could always be an agent of a foreign power, who will lie because it's his job. Or he could be paid to lie - after all, the conflict is not his problem, what does he care?
People can ALWAYS lie for a million, zillion reasons.
You know what? I almost 100% agree with you there, and this is another important step in realizing what kind of deceit can and does get fed through _____ news channel/paper/site. And you are just solidifying my position that you shouldn't take anyones word for what is going on and that everyone should stop getting all self righteous about Israel or Palestinians doing all this stuff when you yourself have just admitted that you can't trust what you know.
Here is where the almost comes in. you said "simply because an observer is a foreigner doesn't mean he'll be any more objective. Quite the contrary, he's far more susceptible to believing whatever he's told when he first arrives,". However he is still begin fed this by a local or someone who has been there for a while. So while the local has his story set the foreigner will not 100% of the time take his word for it and will sometimes check it out for himself in which case the locals are still the more unreliable source.
-
If Israel has nothing to hide why were they so adamant about not allowing any reporters in Gaza so the world could see what was going on for themselves. Why give the Palestinians a chance to make it all up themselves later?
Or perhaps it's that Israel knew that their soldiers would be committing war crimes and they didn't want independent proof of this reaching the rest of the world.
You like to claim that the Palestinians put out a lot of propaganda but not allowing the worlds media into Gaza so that Israel could put out their own sanitized version of the truth was far bigger than anything I've seen from them.
-
If Israel has nothing to hide why were they so adamant about not allowing any reporters in Gaza so the world could see what was going on for themselves. Why give the Palestinians a chance to make it all up themselves later?
Or perhaps it's that Israel knew that their soldiers would be committing war crimes and they didn't want independent proof of this reaching the rest of the world.
You like to claim that the Palestinians put out a lot of propaganda but not allowing the worlds media into Gaza so that Israel could put out their own sanitized version of the truth was far bigger than anything I've seen from them.
I don't expect anyone to understand this because admittedly it looks fishy but I will fight tooth and nail that this was the right move and I would do it another 100 times over and heres why.
Giving the Palestinians a chance to make it up later didn't really matter because whether the reporters come now or later they make stuff up anyway I saw it first hand in the 2nd Lebanon war. Did you? The reporters whether now or later will take whatever juicy story they can find and run it.
What did matter was that my friends gave their lives needlessly in the second Lebanese war because Hezbollah got to watch their troop movements on their favorite new channel so I could care less what you or anyone thinks about this. It saved the lives of my brothers and sisters and for the I will never apologize.
-
Sorry but that's bollocks. There is no reason reporters simply couldn't be told that they have to wait a week before broadcasting in order to avoid giving away troop movements.
The Americans had embedded reporters during the attack on Baghdad and all throughout major operations since then in Iraq. The fact that Israel issued a blanket ban instead is more than just suspicious.
-
Sorry but that's bollocks. There is no reason reporters simply couldn't be told that they have to wait a week before broadcasting in order to avoid giving away troop movements.
The Americans had embedded reporters during the attack on Baghdad and all throughout major operations since then in Iraq. The fact that Israel issued a blanket ban instead is more than just suspicious.
Yes because we all know the favorite news tactic isn't leaking a story... oops. Now I suppose you suggest Israel confiscate the tapes or disc's or whatever until a week later and then return them but then Israel would have been under suspicion of tampering. Sorry there is no solution here that makes everyone happy. Better the one that saved some lives.
-
And prevented any chance of catching them committing war crimes too. Wonderful. :rolleyes:
Remember that you could charge anyone leaking with spying.
-
Yeah your probably right they are just a bunch of kids bored out of their minds messing around... oh wait... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW2omguC5BM&feature=related) So they just happen to launch simultaneous attacks from different positions in Gaza and happen to know where their forces are deployed in Gaza? I think they are scum but I give them more credit than that. They have a military leader they have commanders under him and commanders under them to whom orders are passed down and carried out. They have been at this for a long time they have a bit more infrastructure than you think. They even have specialized training departments for science, development, culture, and education.
Ah, I see the problem. You have no conception of how a terrorist group actually works!
-
Sorry but that's bollocks. There is no reason reporters simply couldn't be told that they have to wait a week before broadcasting in order to avoid giving away troop movements.
The Americans had embedded reporters during the attack on Baghdad and all throughout major operations since then in Iraq. The fact that Israel issued a blanket ban instead is more than just suspicious.
Yes because we all know the favorite news tactic isn't leaking a story... oops. Now I suppose you suggest Israel confiscate the tapes or disc's or whatever until a week later and then return them but then Israel would have been under suspicion of tampering. Sorry there is no solution here that makes everyone happy. Better the one that saved some lives.
If IDF soldiers are practicly allowed to kill everybody because they are not being watched, how does that save some lives?
-
It saved Israeli lives. And they're the only ones that count.
-
It saved Israeli lives. And they're the only ones that count.
I do hope you mean to Israeli Command...
-
Well to Splinter too apparently.
-
Heil Israel! :nervous:
-
Israel bombs Gaza and kills dozens of Palestinians. Then they blockade Gaza and starve Palestinians to death. Hundreds of Palestinians die between the bombing and blockade.
But random Hamas or non-Hamas militants fire rockets which rarely ever do any real damage or cost lives and that justifies killing over a thousand people?
So how many Arab lives are worth one Israeli life? Two hundred? A thousand?
Israel more than has the right to defend itself but there is such a thing as going far too over the top. IDF soldiers committed war crimes. The IAF used white phosphorous for no other purpose to inflict pain and suffering. Israel ravaged Gaza's infrastructure and used force far more excessive than necessary or humane. If you're still trying to justify this, you need to check your priorities, because you are either getting your news from a terrible, terrible source (and blaming the EVIL CORRUPT LIBERAL media in the BBC, Guardian, al-Jazeera or al-Arabiya for reporting the facts you don't want to hear) or are racist to the point of valuing Israeli life over Arab life.
-
You forgot option n03. He could be both. :p
-
Sorry but that's bollocks. There is no reason reporters simply couldn't be told that they have to wait a week before broadcasting in order to avoid giving away troop movements.
The Americans had embedded reporters during the attack on Baghdad and all throughout major operations since then in Iraq. The fact that Israel issued a blanket ban instead is more than just suspicious.
They ejected reporters because reporters do nasty things like get themselves killed in war zones. They also do give away troop movements, and targets, and plans, and all other sorts of things like that. Besides, what reporting station can you even THINK of that wouldn't leak it earlier just to get a good story.
Ah, I see the problem. You have no conception of how a terrorist group actually works!
Apparently, you also have no conception of how the military branch of a government actually works!
Remember that you could charge anyone leaking with spying.
And who the hell is going to run a story about themselves getting caught leaking troop movements? Really.
If IDF soldiers are practicly allowed to kill everybody because they are not being watched, how does that save some lives?
Yet again. Show me a F***ing documented account of IDF soldiers running into an oblivious house and just gunning everyone down. It doesn't exist!
Well to Splinter too apparently.
Hey! No need to get nasty here.
IDF soldiers committed war crimes.
Once again.....
The IAF used white phosphorous for no other purpose to inflict pain and suffering.
Look at the pictures they show you of WP being used. Every single burst seems to be headed in a nice, precise, 45 degree cone of smoke. That's not how WP burns. It burns almost instantly, so a high(ish) altitude burst does absolutely nothing. Here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/USS_Alabama_%28BB-8%29_1921.jpg) is an actual WP bomb being used in a test. Here (http://bbsnews.net/images/gaza_phosphorus_presstv.jpg) is a picture from the alleged use of WP as a weapon in the Gaza Conflict. Notice the bursting patterns. Because of the way WP bursts, the conical detonation is impossible. Also notice the altitude used. The higher burst has the effect of the WP burning out on the way to the ground, creating a smoke screen, nothing more. Any WP used as munitions must be used as close range/low altitude.
If you're still trying to justify this
Justify what? Excessive force is actually one of the best deterrents, even if a lot of people don't like it. I get my news from a hell of a lot of sources. You could call it my job to find out that stuff. I don't consider them evil or corrupt. Hopelessly, hopelessly liberal, but that isn't a crime. I just look at the reporting, the most likely story, look into independent statistics and reports, then correlate to determine any possible errors in reporting. So far, it seems more likely by far that Gaza is fronting propaganda than Israel is actually actively commiting war crimes.
I am not racist. I am an equal opportunity offender :p. It doesn't matter what they are, if they are wrong, I say so. If Israel had been lobbing rockets in to Gaza, I would actually expect the same response from Gaza (under significantly less political flak, too), and agree with their reasoning as well. Fact of the matter is, however, that Gaza lobbed rockets, and Israel retaliated.
-
I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself.
Israel's use of force was over the bounds of necessary and humane. War is violent, and people die, I know, but two or three Israeli lives and a few new holes in Southern Israel do not justify 1500 people dead and blasting an entire region back three millenia.
Regardless of whether the IDF committed war crimes or not, they still went far too over the top with their response. Israel has had a recent history of doing that--and too many people have died as a result. There are other approaches Israel, the other Arab countries, and the Palestinians can take to disarming Hamas and returning stability to the region without spilling any further blood, but Israel has so far not worked its hardest to advance these proposals. With a new extreme right-wing government about to take power I fear that won't change anytime in the near future.
-
I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself.
Neither do I. ANY war is over the bounds of humane. It's just about a part of the modern definition! [nitpick]it was 13-17 Israelis[/nitpick] I also seriously doubt that it was blasted back to before they had cars, or steel, or firearms :D.
they still went far too over the top with their response.
Their response was more than just stopping the rockets. It was a message to Hamas, or any other government in that region (*ahem* Lebannon) that if they don't stop F*cking with Israel, they are going to deal with some pretty serious consequences. In effect, a forced re-evaluation of the cost-benefit analysis of attacking Israel.
There are other approaches Israel, the other Arab countries, and the Palestinians can take to disarming Hamas and returning stability to the region without spilling any further blood, but Israel has so far not worked its hardest to advance these proposals.
Yeah, because everyone knows that just EVERY nation down there wants to help Israel :rolleyes:.
-
They ejected reporters because reporters do nasty things like get themselves killed in war zones. They also do give away troop movements, and targets, and plans, and all other sorts of things like that. Besides, what reporting station can you even THINK of that wouldn't leak it earlier just to get a good story.
The one that hopes to get any cooperation and dews coverage from you in the future?
You argument is complete bollocks.
Reporters always went where the news is. Into war zones. And sometimes died. It's a risk they take willingly. The army doesn't have to protect them and can restrict their movement if they are so worried about sensitive information.
News agencies had agreements with government and militaries before about postponing some story releases. It worked too.
And who the hell is going to run a story about themselves getting caught leaking troop movements?
What? :wtf:
Look at the pictures they show you of WP being used. Every single burst seems to be headed in a nice, precise, 45 degree cone of smoke. That's not how WP burns. It burns almost instantly, so a high(ish) altitude burst does absolutely nothing. Here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/USS_Alabama_%28BB-8%29_1921.jpg) is an actual WP bomb being used in a test. Here (http://bbsnews.net/images/gaza_phosphorus_presstv.jpg) is a picture from the alleged use of WP as a weapon in the Gaza Conflict. Notice the bursting patterns. Because of the way WP bursts, the conical detonation is impossible. Also notice the altitude used. The higher burst has the effect of the WP burning out on the way to the ground, creating a smoke screen, nothing more. Any WP used as munitions must be used as close range/low altitude.
And naturally there is only one kind of bomb. All bombs look and detonate exactly the same. I assume you're a military weapons expert?
If Israel had been lobbing rockets in to Gaza, I would actually expect the same response from Gaza (under significantly less political flak, too), and agree with their reasoning as well. Fact of the matter is, however, that Gaza lobbed rockets, and Israel retaliated.
So if a bunch of idiots from your country decide lobbing a few crude rockets into USA is fun, then USA would be fully justified if they stormed your house, killed everyone, trashed the place and wrote grafity and then proceed to pummel your country into the ground, leave people without food and water and a roof over their head and then force the country into economic dependance on itself?
Good to know.
I know a guy from your country that broke my window last Sunday. Let me get my shotgun and I'll get right over to your place.
-
The U.S. couldn't do that even if they wanted to. :P
We're Geneva's *****.
-
If Israel had been lobbing rockets in to Gaza, I would actually expect the same response from Gaza (under significantly less political flak, too), and agree with their reasoning as well. Fact of the matter is, however, that Gaza lobbed rockets, and Israel retaliated.
So if a bunch of idiots from your country decide lobbing a few crude rockets into USA is fun, then USA would be fully justified if they stormed your house, killed everyone, trashed the place and wrote grafity and then proceed to pummel your country into the ground, leave people without food and water and a roof over their head and then force the country into economic dependance on itself?
Good to know.
I know a guy from your country that broke my window last Sunday. Let me get my shotgun and I'll get right over to your place.
Wow. I just mean, wow. You managed to take all of my arguments about SOMETHING ESLE ENTIRELY and apply it to a matter of who started it. Thing about this is (even though I live in the U.S., I'll play along) the hypothetical idiots lobbing rockets aren't PART OF THE F*CKING GOVERNMENT!. Secondly, show me the graffiti they wrote, show me an uninformed house that everyone was killed in, then show me where there is absolutely no food or water in a city of 1.5 million (speaking of Gaza for this one). Finally, economic dependence on oneself implies independence of anyone else, meaning a good thing.
For almost a week and a half before the actual troops went in, leaflets, fliers, and all sorts of warnings to civilians were dropped by air. Then, as I believe someone already pointed out in this thread, they actually called cell phones to warn people before actually moving in. I highly, fully, and completely doubt that there is no food or water in Gaza. You seem to have misunderstood the infrastructure that Israel is destroying is the infrastructure that the government has been using to launch rockets.
I know a guy from your country that broke my window last Sunday. Let me get my shotgun and I'll get right over to your place.
Go ahead, there's a great place south of here to go shooting. We can go find him instead of mining the road to my house.
EDIT: fixed some quote issues
-
The rockets aren't just an attack on Israel's people or structures. They're also direct attacks on Israel's sovereignty as a nation.
-
Yeah, because a rag-tag terrorist group composed of starving and sick people poses such a significant threat to Israel. :rolleyes:
Nation whose military power is only surpassed by the United States and has nukes...versus a blockaded overcrowded under-supplied and neglected strip of land. Yep! Israel's sure to fall now.
-
An attack doesn't have to have a hope of winning to still be an attack.
-
Wow. I just mean, wow. You managed to take all of my arguments about SOMETHING ESLE ENTIRELY and apply it to a matter of who started it.
It's not a matter of who started it. It's a matter of you claiming that side A has the right to respond in ANY way and with ANY means to whatever side B (alegedly) has done.
Thing about this is (even though I live in the U.S., I'll play along) the hypothetical idiots lobbing rockets aren't PART OF THE F*CKING GOVERNMENT!.
Prove it. Prove it that all who fired the rockets are part of the government.
As I said, Neither Hamass, nor Fatah is a fully unifies and tight-knit group. They have mostly independant cells. Half of those cells have their own spiritual leaders who preach their own version of whatever should be done.
Secondly, show me the graffiti they wrote, show me an uninformed house that everyone was killed in, then show me where there is absolutely no food or water in a city of 1.5 million (speaking of Gaza for this one). Finally, economic dependence on oneself implies independence of anyone else, meaning a good thing.
A bit harder to do given that journalist are not allowed to enter. Still, there are many a reports all over the internet. Even if I were to assume that 90% of htem are bogus or propaganda, that still leaves a whole lot.
And Israel making Gaza dependent on itself(Israel), by destroying it's infrastrucutre, so that the Gaza strip has to import their food and almost everything else from Israel at DOUBLE PRICE is NOT a good thing.
For almost a week and a half before the actual troops went in, leaflets, fliers, and all sorts of warnings to civilians were dropped by air. Then, as I believe someone already pointed out in this thread, they actually called cell phones to warn people before actually moving in. I highly, fully, and completely doubt that there is no food or water in Gaza.
Given that Israel bombed the waterworks and mills, where is the food coming from?
Speaking of which, where are the people supposed to go?
Gaza is a big ghetto. Israel is doing what the natzis did in Berlin.
You seem to have misunderstood the infrastructure that Israel is destroying is the infrastructure that the government has been using to launch rockets.
Allegedly. With no proof whatsoever to back it up. What a startling conincidence that every factory, mill, plant or other important infastructure bulding in Gaza was used by Hamas. Such a load of bulls*** is imply too much to swallow.
-
And prevented any chance of catching them committing war crimes too. Wonderful. :rolleyes:
Remember that you could charge anyone leaking with spying.
Yeah so better be ready to catch these kids in case they suddenly start doing something they don't have a history of doing (war crimes) at the cost of their lives just because notorious and historically proven liars (I'm talking about the terrorist groups which for some reason constitute a reliable source for so many.) claim these kids are barbarians. Good deal.
Your right we could charge anonymous with leaking a story because we know exactly who that is because he didn't use anonymous so that we wouldn't know who leaked the story. Peoples ability to assume that other people can't think through situations is nothing short of astounding.
Ah, I see the problem. You have no conception of how a terrorist group actually works!
Gosh I'm sorry I forgot about how you spent so much time in a country with terrorists or in a terrorists organization yourself? But it's a good thing you don't just gloat that you know more. You actually share what you know and enlighten us about how terrorists work and think... oh wait...
If IDF soldiers are practicly allowed to kill everybody because they are not being watched, how does that save some lives?
WARNING: Graphic links!
Because they are just blood thirsty barbarians who cut your guts out throw your body out the window (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1kglhluz1U) and parade around with your intestines (http://cdnll-1.liveleak.com/s/18/media18/2009/Jan/16/LiveLeak-dot-com-e5c6cf88e07d-v03_jpg.jpg?h=9650197332d30eb5ff2bc9434797e4b5&e=1238856789&rs=150) dripping on their faces screaming “death to Arabs!” after smashing in your head (http://www.masada2000.org/ramallah.JPG) all because you took a wrong turn into an Israel town. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_Ramallah)
No you are right the IDF has the history of war crimes better the soldiers die then be able to continue their proven long track record of blatant disregard for human life and the utter blood lust instilled in all Israeli children at birth.
Heil Israel! :nervous:
Wow.
Jesus loves you my man. Be safe. Peace be with you and your family...
Israel bombs Gaza and kills dozens of Palestinians. Then they blockade Gaza and starve Palestinians to death. Hundreds of Palestinians die between the bombing and blockade.
The only people starving the Palestinians is Hamas. Every day trucks with tons of supplies go to the border crossings... Israeli trucks sent by the Israeli government and every day one of 3 things happen the first happens least the second happens the most and the third is right in the middle depending on the mood that day. 1. The trucks get through and unload at the distribution centers that are of course under Palestinian government control or Hamas if you prefer where it is then distributed to the families and markets around Gaza. 2. The trucks get through and unload at the distribution centers that are of course under Palestinian government control or Hamas if you prefer where it is then distributed to Hamas members only. 3. The trucks get through and are shot at by Hamas and are forced to turn back.
But random Hamas or non-Hamas
There is nothing random about it. Hamas still has a stated end goal of a Palestine free of Jews and non Muslims period. The fact that they are willing lie about putting that aside so that they can live to fight another day doesn't make them any less goal oriented. At all their rallies seminars and Sunday school meeting they still teach this stuff. Just because the rest of the world is too dumb to care doesn't mean we should be.
fire rockets which rarely ever do any real damage or cost lives and that justifies killing over a thousand people?
So how many Arab lives are worth one Israeli life? Two hundred? A thousand?
I wonder is your house insured against rocket attacks? So you are sitting at home with your child watching a t.v. Show and suddenly there is the missile siren again and even though it's been like this for the past 8 years you still can't shake how wrong it is that you have 15 seconds to get your entire family into shelter or risk losing them forever. So you jump up and so does your kid because you both know the drill and you shout to your wife seeing if she is getting the baby only the baby was sleeping on the upper floor so you have to choose to get to cover or go get the baby well of course you go get the baby so you run upstairs while your wife and child go to the shelter and all you can do is cover the baby with your body and pray that today is not your day. If not for yourself for your families sake. After the earth shattering boom you come downstairs holding your child to find the last 3 stairs missing and your child's favorite sponge bob chair slowly deflating from shrapnel that hit it where your sons stomach was just 20 seconds ago. Your living room is gone and the rain is pouring in but still you are thankful because your family is alive... for now.
Live like that for 8 years then you can get all self righteous and come talk to me.
The world's favorite new leader... the most liberal leader ever elected himself said he would never stand for that kind of threat on his children. But again maybe you just don't love your family as much as Israelis do.
Israel more than has the right to defend itself but there is such a thing as going far too over the top. IDF soldiers committed war crimes. The IAF used white phosphorous for no other purpose to inflict pain and suffering. Israel ravaged Gaza's infrastructure and used force far more excessive than necessary or humane. If you're still trying to justify this, you need to check your priorities, because you are either getting your news from a terrible, terrible source (and blaming the EVIL CORRUPT LIBERAL media in the BBC, Guardian, al-Jazeera or al-Arabiya for reporting the facts you don't want to hear) or are racist to the point of valuing Israeli life over Arab life.
Show me war crimes? Again you are basing all this on what you got from your media station which was gotten from Palestinian sources which is historically not only unreliable but downright deceitful.
Scotty beat me to the WF issue. I'll address excessive force. So the force was far more excessive than necessary to achieve what? Was the bombing of Berlin excessive? Are we going to hold the allies for war crimes now?
I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself.
Israel's use of force was over the bounds of necessary and humane. War is violent, and people die, I know, but two or three Israeli lives and a few new holes in Southern Israel do not justify 1500 people dead and blasting an entire region back three millenia.
I still find it funny sometimes that people start a war with you and then cry when they lose it's so funny.
First of all if you guys get to quote your oh so reliable sources (the Palestinians) on the casualty number I will do the same. So now your question should read: “War is violent, and people die, I know, but 8 years and over 10,000 rocket and mortar attack along with 20-25 Israeli lives and 500+ wounded and significant property damage and unbearable living conditions in Southern Israel do not justify 1166 people dead of whom 709 have been identified as "Hamas terror operatives 162 additional names of men killed during the operation "have not been yet attributed to any organization." and A total of 295 Palestinian non-combatants died during the operation - 89 of them under the age of 16, and 49 of them women”
It's not like this was all the sudden a lash out. Every time they would shoot at us we would surgically strike this leader and surgically strike that launch team. But it just wasn't helping hell we even tried giving them back Gaza that just showed them that their temper tantrum worked and they started shooting more!
Your walking down the street a guy comes at you and smacks you in the face and runs off. You know who it is you know where he lives but you call the police (UN) and they issue him a stern warning. Well next day he does it again and again and again and the police just keep issuing warning never anything more. So the next time he comes back he slaps you and you punch him. The police are mad at you but you feel like finally he learned his lesson. The next day he comes and stabs you your in the hospital and you survive but you don't know what to do anymore and every day he keeps coming at you with bigger and more powerful weapons until finally after 8 years and more scars than you can count you say enough and decide to do something about it. I don't know about you but I wouldn't have shown that kind of restraint. And to put it further into perspective he wasn't just attacking you, the man/protector of your house, he was actually trying to leave you alone because he knew you could stop him and he was intentionally going after your house your wife and your kids... and your little dog too. Now Tolerate that for 8 years.
Regardless of whether the IDF committed war crimes or not, they still went far too over the top with their response. Israel has had a recent history of doing that--and too many people have died as a result. There are other approaches Israel, the other Arab countries, and the Palestinians can take to disarming Hamas and returning stability to the region without spilling any further blood, but Israel has so far not worked its hardest to advance these proposals. With a new extreme right-wing government about to take power I fear that won't change anytime in the near future.
This is all relative to your perspective as someone on the outside looking in through a prepositioned window to show you only what 'they' want to show you. Seriously I'm so tired of every Joe Schmo thinking he can solve the ME problem given a month in power. Understand Radical fundamentalist Islam and it's goals first. Understand that despite what the world would have you believe everything is not all just a product of your circumstances and evil does exist. Understand that you can't always believe what you see especially when it's through someone else's 'eyes'.
Yeah, because a rag-tag terrorist group composed of starving and sick people poses such a significant threat to Israel. :rolleyes:
Did we forget 900+ dead Israelis in the second intifada by nothing but these same sick starving people?
Nation whose military power is only surpassed by the United States and has nukes...versus a blockaded overcrowded under-supplied and neglected strip of land. Yep! Israel's sure to fall now.
Ummm... The U.S. Is the only military power stronger than Israel? What happened to Germany? GB? Russia? China? I don't know for a fact and honestly it's quite flattering that you would think that but I do believe at least 2 of the countries I said would be more than a match for sheer overwhelming numbers. (RU & China)
Oh yeah and 'neglected' I just want to remind everyone that when Israel pulled out of Gaza we left all the award winning farming work complete with irrigation and high tech greenhouses everything intact and your peace loving friends who just want some water and to be support themselves and to be able to live in peace ransacked and pillaged the whole think in less than 24 hours. (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/6586.htm)
Ask yourself this question. If the Palestinians in Gaza weren't bombing Israel would they still be being under-supplied and neglected and even attacked by Israel? Before you answer let me just point out a little piece of land that most of you have forgotten that is inhabited by the exact same people. The West Bank. When is the last time you heard of a blockade or starving west bank people? Well that's not shock because the west bank doesn't attack Israel. Who knew? If you leave Israel alone they will leave you alone? You mean they aren't blood thirsty scum sucking bottom dwelling parasites? Gosh there goes your doctoral thesis.
-
Yeah so better be ready to catch these kids in case they suddenly start doing something they don't have a history of doing (war crimes) at the cost of their lives just because notorious and historically proven liars (I'm talking about the terrorist groups which for some reason constitute a reliable source for so many.) claim these kids are barbarians. Good deal.
So everyone in Gaza is a terrorist? Or at least anyone who tells anything wrong about the IDF?
And the sweet , innocent kiddes don't have a history od doing anything wrong, ever... like runnign people over with bulldozers? :rolleyes:
Your right we could charge anonymous with leaking a story because we know exactly who that is because he didn't use anonymous so that we wouldn't know who leaked the story. Peoples ability to assume that other people can't think through situations is nothing short of astounding.
You don't sure anonymus, you sue the news agency. You ban it form the country and sue it. Believe me, that's too high a cost to pay, regardlesss of how "hot" the news is. Under such circumstances, they'd even tell who their source was.
The only people starving the Palestinians is Hamas. Every day trucks with tons of supplies go to the border crossings... Israeli trucks sent by the Israeli government and every day one of 3 things happen the first happens least the second happens the most and the third is right in the middle depending on the mood that day. 1. The trucks get through and unload at the distribution centers that are of course under Palestinian government control or Hamas if you prefer where it is then distributed to the families and markets around Gaza. 2. The trucks get through and unload at the distribution centers that are of course under Palestinian government control or Hamas if you prefer where it is then distributed to Hamas members only. 3. The trucks get through and are shot at by Hamas and are forced to turn back.
4. The trucks are not allowed to cross the border in the first place. Israel regulary stops who convoys of humanitarian aid.
Live like that for 8 years then you can get all self righteous and come talk to me.
Better than living in the streets, treated like dirt, kicked out of your house and half your family and firends killed by now. with more getting killed every day. And like that for your whole life. Don't talk about "unbearable living conditions". People in Gaza have it FAR worse.
The world's favorite new leader... the most liberal leader ever elected himself said he would never stand for that kind of threat on his children. But again maybe you just don't love your family as much as Israelis do.
Maybe I just don't like killing other innocent people as much as you do and using redicolous excuses and flimy(and I dare say horrific) justifications like love.
Scotty beat me to the WF issue. I'll address excessive force. So the force was far more excessive than necessary to achieve what? Was the bombing of Berlin excessive? Are we going to hold the allies for war crimes now?
If they did it now they would be.
This is all relative to your perspective as someone on the outside looking in through a prepositioned window to show you only what 'they' want to show you. Seriously I'm so tired of every Joe Schmo thinking he can solve the ME problem given a month in power. Understand Radical fundamentalist Islam and it's goals first. Understand that despite what the world would have you believe everything is not all just a product of your circumstances and evil does exist. Understand that you can't always believe what you see especially when it's through someone else's 'eyes'.
Understand Radical Judaism and it's goals first. Understand that despite what the world would have you believe everything is not all just a product of your circumstances and evil does exist.
-
Understand Radical Judaism and it's goals first.
So... Everyone leading Israel and the IDF is a Radical Jew? It couldn't possibly be that the Radical Muslims that have been bombing them for eight years brough this on themselves at all.
So everyone in Gaza is a terrorist? Or at least anyone who tells anything wrong about the IDF?
In this case, most likely those who are calling the IDF war criminals are a part of Hamas (or some other anti-Israel group). If you bother looking, you can find maybe 50 different people whining about how Israel brutally murdered people, and used them as shields. 50, out of 1.5 million people living in Gaza. That comes to 0.00003% of the people in that city. I'm inclined to believe that those people are of Hamas, or terrorists.
like runnign people over with bulldozers?
Check both sides of that. Gaza actually started that too. Killed three people with a bulldozer by running into a bus.
4. The trucks are not allowed to cross the border in the first place. Israel regulary stops who convoys of humanitarian aid.
.... As of November 2008. The aid that has been stopped has been: one boat by Israel, a convoy in Rafah (another Palestinian State), some convoys in Tunisia. Oh, and don't forget that the U.N. Aid program stopped its aid to Gaza too! Wow, all that must be Israel stopping the convoys, huh?
half your family and firends killed by now.
Yeah, because Israel actually killed half of the cities population?
Better than living in the streets, treated like dirt, kicked out of your house and half your family and firends killed by now. with more getting killed every day. And like that for your whole life. Don't talk about "unbearable living conditions". People in Gaza have it FAR worse.
Hmmm, you just have to be the world's foremost expert on Gazan living conditions then.
Maybe I just don't like killing other innocent people as much as you do and using redicolous excuses and flimy(and I dare say horrific) justifications like love
Seriously? He's talking about (presumably) his house being bombed, and you accuse him of liking killing innocent people? Bull****.
-
So... Everyone leading Israel and the IDF is a Radical Jew? It couldn't possibly be that the Radical Muslims that have been bombing them for eight years brough this on themselves at all.
If you can make silly claims that everyone in Gaza is a radical, then I can make silly claims that everyone in Israel is a radical too.
After all, if you don't need common sense, neither do I.
In this case, most likely those who are calling the IDF war criminals are a part of Hamas (or some other anti-Israel group). If you bother looking, you can find maybe 50 different people whining about how Israel brutally murdered people, and used them as shields. 50, out of 1.5 million people living in Gaza. That comes to 0.00003% of the people in that city. I'm inclined to believe that those people are of Hamas, or terrorists.
A "bit" more than 50, some of them aren't even palestinians. I also bet there would be more if there wasn't a journalist blockade.
Not to mention that most of the people in Gaza hate the IDF and Israel (and justly so). If I lived there I would too.
Check both sides of that. Gaza actually started that too. Killed three people with a bulldozer by running into a bus.
And that makes it right for IDF to run over people who defeintely aren't terrorist?
You don't fight evil by being "eviler" than the other guy.
.... As of November 2008. The aid that has been stopped has been: one boat by Israel, a convoy in Rafah (another Palestinian State), some convoys in Tunisia. Oh, and don't forget that the U.N. Aid program stopped its aid to Gaza too! Wow, all that must be Israel stopping the convoys, huh?
Israeli propaganda. I don't trust your numbers. :drevil:
Hmmm, you just have to be the world's foremost expert on Gazan living conditions then.
Well, apparently more than you.
Seriously? He's talking about (presumably) his house being bombed, and you accuse him of liking killing innocent people? Bull****.
No bull****. He uses that as justification and excuse to bomb other civilians.
Israeli lost his house. That makes it OK for thousands of palestinians to loose theirs. And their lives.
There was a war in my country too.
I never would have supported an attack on Belgrade for instance. I would never have supported occupation of their territory or our troops even crossing the border. Even the NATO bombing seemed to harsh at times.
-
Heil Israel! :nervous:
The rest of your argument may or may not be valid, I can't judge, and frankly, I don't care, but what's above these words is worth only one response:
:beamz:
-
If you can make silly claims that everyone in Gaza is a radical
I never said they were all radical. I was merely saying the Hamas is a radical Islamic government. Its citizens are not forced to think exactly the same way. Fatah is actually a moderate group, and is supported by about 41% of the population (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062758.html).
A "bit" more than 50, some of them aren't even palestinians.
And really funny how they only single out Israel. No mention anywhere of Egypt police firing on fleeing Palestinians (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1229/p01s03-wome.html). Second paragraph.
Looking back on the argument, a question arises. Why should we be holding the entirety of Israel responsible for the actions of a few immoral idiots?
*And now back to your regularly scheduled argument*
Israel the government didn't commit war crimes. A small, horribly insignificant percentage might have. Besides, why would they wait two months to finally say something?
Idan Zuaretz of Givati said "in every war there is a small percentage of problematic soldiers, but we must look at it from a broad perspective and not focus on isolated incidents."
Zuaretz, a company commander, also questioned the integrity of the soldiers who made the controversial claims, saying "if this was such a burning issue for them, why have they remained silent until now? On an ethical and moral level, they were obligated to stop what they claimed had occurred and not wait two months to be heard at some esoteric debate."
That, and no real conclusive evidence has yet to be presented. You can't take claims like this at face value.
Some more eveidence against:
IDF Soldiers Rebut Claims of Immoral Conduct in Gaza (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3689388,00.html)
This one actually NAMES people and gives specific examples, as well as providing a fairly conclusive view of the situation. One of my favorite parts of the articles is in the last paragraph:
"We checked whether Israel violated any international laws in Gaza," she said, but admitted that the report was based on Palestinian eyewitness accounts and did not include soldiers' testimonies.
I can't believe they'd forget to include a little detail like that. :rolleyes:
EDIT: fixed a quote issue.
-
The Guardian report I posted asked for the Israelis to give their side of the story repeatedly only to get spin from the Israeli military instead.
-
TrashMan, the Mossad are at your house.
-
Heil Israel! :nervous:
The rest of your argument may or may not be valid, I can't judge, and frankly, I don't care, but what's above these words is worth only one response:
:beamz:
Bah. If the Israel government doesn't want to be compared with natzi's then they should stop acting like them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8
-
I never said they were all radical. I was merely saying the Hamas is a radical Islamic government. Its citizens are not forced to think exactly the same way. Fatah is actually a moderate group, and is supported by about 41% of the population (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062758.html).
Apparently, everyone who sez anything against Israel is a radical. Not a big difference.
Some more eveidence against:
And everything you post is automaticly considered hard evidence? Everything contrary is terrorist propaganda or lies from immoral and stupid soldiers. What do those soldiers have to gain from lying like that I wonder?
TrashMan, the Mossad are at your house.
That's all right. I boobie trapped it. Let the pussies come.
-
I boobie trapped it.
And that right there is the whole f*cking problem!! That's why the RoE is as it is.
-
My turf man. You got no right to tresspass.
-
And launching rockets into Israel isn't a form of trespassing?
-
Isn't the invasion of the West Bank also trespassing? :p
-
So everyone in Gaza is a terrorist? Or at least anyone who tells anything wrong about the IDF?
Yes! that is exactly what I have been saying all along! Good job!
I will quote myself “(I'm talking about the terrorist groups which for some reason constitute a reliable source for so many.)”
How do you get everyone in Gaza is a terrorist out of that? I'm afraid I may say something about terrorists and you will start an argument about evolution or something.
Just in case you are wondering if under a communist government to speak up against it is so dangerous imagine what it is under a fundamentalist radical Islamic terrorist government then maybe you will understand that if you are are in Gaza and you don't have anything nice to say... you don't say anything at all. They hang people all the time for even talking to an Israeli. So yes the people who speak up are in general the ones on the Hamas payroll or at least ones who don't want their families dragged off in the middle of the night never to be heard of again.
And the sweet , innocent kiddes don't have a history od doing anything wrong, ever... like runnign people over with bulldozers? :rolleyes:
eh? What? Rachel Corrie? The girl who sat down in front of an armored D9... you ever been in one of those? You can't exactly see very well as it is let alone what is directly in front of you. Besides there were claims she was standing with a megaphone that she was on a hill and that there was no weapons tunnel.
Well She was standing on a hill with a megaphone when between 2-4pm when the bulldozer didn't run into her.
But when she was run over at 5pm she was sitting on flat ground and she was run over. Which was exactly what the ISM said they wanted in the first place.
You don't sure anonymus, you sue the news agency. You ban it form the country and sue it. Believe me, that's too high a cost to pay, regardlesss of how "hot" the news is. Under such circumstances, they'd even tell who their source was.
Haha we did that already it doesn't do anything They just get their stories second hand and no one knows the diffrence. CNN (or was it BBC) was only available upon special request for a number of years.
4. The trucks are not allowed to cross the border in the first place. Israel regulary stops who convoys of humanitarian aid.
Yes we stop our own convoys. Brilliant. That's using logic to decipher if information you are getting might be doctored. Way to go. Have a cookie.
Better than living in the streets, treated like dirt, kicked out of your house and half your family and firends killed by now. with more getting killed every day. And like that for your whole life. Don't talk about "unbearable living conditions". People in Gaza have it FAR worse.
I see. So first of all after your visit of compassion to the Gaza strip where I can only assume you witnessed the great suffering and unbearable living condition of the Palestinian people... hmm wait no that seems unlikely I wonder how you would know this. Well lets put that aside for now...
Let's say this was exactly the way things were there. Would your suggestion be to the Israelis stop bombing them in response to their attacks and let your aid truck drivers keep going and get killed when they are shot at and eventually everything will be okay in a few years. Or maybe your suggestion should be to the Palestinians to let the trucks through to not let Hamas bully them out of their food to stop shooting rockets aimed at civilians and maybe for some unprecedented reason Israel, who has no history of living at peace with any Arabs or Palestinians (Egypt, Jordan, West Bank has been quite latley, all the hundreds of Arab towns spread across Israel that don't have a single checkpoint between them and the rest of the population and on and on...), will live and let live.
Maybe I just don't like killing other innocent people as much as you do and using ridiculous excuses and flimy(and I dare say horrific) justifications like love.
Love is a flimsy and horrific justification? If the Palestinians loved each other more than they hated us they wouldn't be attacking and they wouldn't be getting ***** slapped.
If they did it now they would be.
Well that is F-ed up.
Understand Radical Judaism and it's goals first. Understand that despite what the world would have you believe everything is not all just a product of your circumstances and evil does exist.
What does radical Judaism have to do with this? And who the hell cares about them anyway I have said it before I have a big problem with Orthodox Jews (the radical Jews) and the settlers and I think they should both go and form their own country in the west bank territories and they can die defending it themselves. I will tell you that at least 80% of IDF soldiers hate them and despise having to protect them. A further 15% don't hate them but don't agree with them. I made those statistics up of course from my own discussions and experiences with IDF soldier over many years and the population here in general. In fact I even lied a little because I never talked to a single soldier who liked them or supported them but since I assume there have to be some out there I still left them 5% support.
See the difference is we don't worship our radical activists and post their pictures on the wall and teach their names to be revered by school children because they died blowing up school children.
Heres a video from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs (obviously propaganda right?) talks a little bit about your precious human shields (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Oqo_wmuGo&feature=related)
And here is an inside look into who is running the show in Gaza
Escape from Hamas:
Part 1 of 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=1W5wZ1J1OZM)
Part 2 of 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7WFRJ54_QA&feature=related)
Part 3 of 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE1_-nXo-TE&feature=related)
Part 4 of 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd2F1ndgJLc&feature=related)
Part 5 of 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmfJdDyI7gE&feature=related)
Part 6 of 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47dDhw9Br2E&feature=related)
Isn't the invasion of the West Bank also trespassing? :p
First off when was that done recently or do you mean Gaza? And secondly since they have in 60+ years never stopped hostilities toward Israel both of those territories can be legally annexed... I didn't say settled because I disagree with the current settlers. But the IDF military presence there is completely within international law.
-
What do you mean "when was that done recently?" :lol:
Israel has been involved in an ongoing invasion of the West Bank for years!
-
What do you mean "when was that done recently?" :lol:
Israel has been involved in an ongoing invasion of the West Bank for years!
You mean the part where IDF forces pushed back invading armies and captured territory that was being illegally held by Egypt and Jordan and annexed those territories in a time of war which continues to this very day?
Oh but this DID happen. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727563412&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
-
How do you get everyone in Gaza is a terrorist out of that? I'm afraid I may say something about terrorists and you will start an argument about evolution or something.
Just in case you are wondering if under a communist government to speak up against it is so dangerous imagine what it is under a fundamentalist radical Islamic terrorist government then maybe you will understand that if you are are in Gaza and you don't have anything nice to say... you don't say anything at all. They hang people all the time for even talking to an Israeli. So yes the people who speak up are in general the ones on the Hamas payroll or at least ones who don't want their families dragged off in the middle of the night never to be heard of again.
That's a strawman argument and shallow, since it can practicely be used everywhere in any country. Did my country keep out reporters? No. Did the USA? No.
Truly, massive losses of lives happened because of that! Whole troop divisions were led into ambushes! :rolleyes:
Excuses. Shallow excuses everywhere.
Keeping the news people out is done neither for their security nor the security of the troops.
Haha we did that already it doesn't do anything They just get their stories second hand and no one knows the diffrence. CNN (or was it BBC) was only available upon special request for a number of years.
So what sensitive troop movement did they leak? Don't recall ever hearing anything about that.
Not to mention that unless the camera is showing battleplans with coordinates that is totally useless. The news could give so little information of any military value that it's simply preposterous. It's not like they give the the numbers, armament and future troop deployment in detail.
Yes we stop our own convoys. Brilliant. That's using logic to decipher if information you are getting might be doctored. Way to go. Have a cookie.
Did I say they were Israeli convoys? Humanitarian aid for Gaza comes from all over the world.
I see. So first of all after your visit of compassion to the Gaza strip where I can only assume you witnessed the great suffering and unbearable living condition of the Palestinian people... hmm wait no that seems unlikely I wonder how you would know this. Well lets put that aside for now...
Would you believe me if I told you I did visit recently? No? Thought so...
Let's say this was exactly the way things were there. Would your suggestion be to the Israelis stop bombing them in response to their attacks and let your aid truck drivers keep going and get killed when they are shot at and eventually everything will be okay in a few years. Or maybe your suggestion should be to the Palestinians to let the trucks through to not let Hamas bully them out of their food to stop shooting rockets aimed at civilians and maybe for some unprecedented reason Israel, who has no history of living at peace with any Arabs or Palestinians (Egypt, Jordan, West Bank has been quite latley, all the hundreds of Arab towns spread across Israel that don't have a single checkpoint between them and the rest of the population and on and on...), will live and let live.
Oh yes. Trucks with humanitarian aid butchered to no end. It us so terrible no one wants to drive there anymore! The horror!
CLEARLY the only logical action is to stop aid delivery cause some if might end up in the hands of Hamas. Golly gee, Hamas would never give it to the people! They never do anything for the people!
Love is a flimsy and horrific justification? If the Palestinians loved each other more than they hated us they wouldn't be attacking and they wouldn't be getting ***** slapped.
No, the pretex of "doing it for love" is horrificly twisted.
If Israeli loved eachother more than they hated arabs, they wouldn't be occuping their homes abd would be getting rockets as gifts for their brotherly love.
Is that the best you can do? Guilt transfer?
That's the oldest, most basic psychological trick in the book. Newsflash - projecting ones own guilt on others (as in, he "forced" me to do this, ergo, it's his fault) works only on weak-mined fools.
Well that is F-ed up.
No, that's reality.
Last time I checked, slavery was OK in the past. So it would be terribly wrong of you to protest if I take you as a slave...right?
Comon' slave boy!
What does radical Judaism have to do with this?
What? Never noticed the fast that most of your government and military are just as radical and retarded as the worst palestinin terrorists?
Don't you know history? The first leaders of Israel were radical terrorists.
-
The first leaders of Israel were radical terrorists.
Don't you know history? The first leaders of the United States were radical terrorists.
That's a strawman argument and shallow, since it can practicely be used everywhere in any country. Did my country keep out reporters? No. Did the USA? No.
Truly, massive losses of lives happened because of that! Whole troop divisions were led into ambushes!
Excuses. Shallow excuses everywhere.
:wtf: Did you quote the wrong part of the post? He wasn't even talking about reporters, he was talking about the state of speech freedoms (or lack thereof) in Gaza, and how people get killed for saying anything good about Israel.
Humanitarian aid for Gaza comes from all over the world.
And gets stopped all over the world. Or did you conveniently forget my post earlier?
4. The trucks are not allowed to cross the border in the first place. Israel regulary stops who convoys of humanitarian aid.
.... As of November 2008. The aid that has been stopped has been: one boat by Israel, a convoy in Rafah (another Palestinian State), some convoys in Tunisia. Oh, and don't forget that the U.N. Aid program stopped its aid to Gaza too! Wow, all that must be Israel stopping the convoys, huh?
Never noticed the fast that most of your government and military are just as radical and retarded as the worst palestinin terrorists?
Have to say that isn't a fact. Granted, the government since the elections is more radical than before, during the war it was made up of moderates. And the military argument is like saying that everyone in the U.S. military is a raving liberal. Just because the government is made up of them.
-
The first leaders of Israel were radical terrorists.
Don't you know history? The first leaders of the United States were radical terrorists.
Rebels techincly. I don't recall them actually doing acts of terrorism, unlike in the begining of the glorious state of Israel
He wasn't even talking about reporters, he was talking about the state of speech freedoms (or lack thereof) in Gaza, and how people get killed for saying anything good about Israel.
Or anything bad about Israel.
They're best off just keeping quiet, right?
Because the state of speech in Gaza is exactly how Israel sez it is? Again, a convenient excuse to not allow anyone to talk to people. Too convenint.
Wars happen in other countries. People are thretend in other conficts too. people can lie in other wars too. Still no one was stopping journalists.
Humanitarian aid for Gaza comes from all over the world.
And gets stopped all over the world. Or did you conveniently forget my post earlier?
MOST of it gets stopped by Israel.
Hehe..I see you haven't responed to things related to slavery and love. Cat got your tounge?
-
That's a strawman argument and shallow, since it can practicely be used everywhere in any country. Did my country keep out reporters? No. Did the USA? No.
Truly, massive losses of lives happened because of that! Whole troop divisions were led into ambushes! :rolleyes:
Excuses. Shallow excuses everywhere.
Wha... I'm at a total loss for words. How can you go from arguing about how the only people who will speak up from Gaza are the ones who will speak up against Israel under threat of death by the Hamas to keeping out reporters?
Keeping the news people out is done neither for their security nor the security of the troops.
I was under no illusion that it was done for the protection of the news crews but it was for the protection of the troops. Even Hizbollah after the 2nd Lebanon wars said that they were aided by being shown by the 'western pigs own technology' where to strike. So we have me who took part in the 2nd Lebanon war who saw this in practice from the Israeli side where there was far to much shown on TV AND Hizbollah claims that they were aided by what was given out on the news. And then we have you whose only basis for claiming that they weren't aided by what was reported on TV is that you don't want it to be true.
So what sensitive troop movement did they leak? Don't recall ever hearing anything about that.
Not to mention that unless the camera is showing battleplans with coordinates that is totally useless. The news could give so little information of any military value that it's simply preposterous. It's not like they give the the numbers, armament and future troop deployment in detail.
Interesting. okay so first It doesn't even have to be "sensitive" information. All it has to be is in real time and it gives out enough to know where the troops are and what direction they are heading. And they don't even have to say where they are I identified half the backdrops for the newscasters from satellite photos imagine how many locations Hizbollah could identify since it was their 'playground'. I love how you think terrorists are so dumb. I wish it were the case. And claiming that all other information would have been useless you either A. Never been in the military B. you have but because you are in Europe, IIRC, you have had no wars and therefore no need to learn first hand what it is to fight in a modern combat zone. and thank God for that... Believe it or not I envy you in that respect.
Second I was doing a search to try and find some links for you but every time it was mentioned that "a lot of official information was available in real time." It was overshadowed by the rest of the article talking about how "DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon."
No wonder Israelis can't stand the UN haha. Here's the article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/622bqwjn.asp) although I saw it was published in many different places.
Did I say they were Israeli convoys? Humanitarian aid for Gaza comes from all over the world.
No, but I did. I am telling you that they are Israeli convoys and that every single day there are Israeli trucks with Israeli supplies paid for by the Israeli government at the border. What do you think they are doing there? Trying to taunt the Palestinians? by loading the trucks driving cross country to the border crossing and then getting turned back by their own troops? get real. There is a reason there is a blockade on the strip. Because in foreign 'aid' packages they like to throw in a few grenades and missile launchers and searching the boat will not always find those weapons which is why Israel sends aid itself because it knows there are no hidden surprises that will come back and bite them in the ass. If they want to bite the hand that feeds them thats their tough luck.
Would you believe me if I told you I did visit recently? No? Thought so...
Sure why not? I would believe it because a person of your views would surely want to record his journy so you can just show me some pictures or your little blog posts. I would believe it. But because of what you say and how you say it I know you haven't unless you were blindfolded the whole way in or you are just lying to my face.
Oh yes. Trucks with humanitarian aid butchered to no end. It us so terrible no one wants to drive there anymore! The horror!
CLEARLY the only logical action is to stop aid delivery cause some if might end up in the hands of Hamas. Golly gee, Hamas would never give it to the people! They never do anything for the people!
First of all the trucks haven't stopped they just turn around when they are shot at. Secondly if that doesn't bug you I would like to extended you the position of aid truck driver and see what you do when they decide that they want to shoot at you because you are not Arab.
And really if you think the Hamas takes good care of the people you have your head buried somewhere just look up in other arguments on the same subject there have been plenty of posts about what the Hamas does. And if you still aren't convinced I invite you to come visit them in fact I encourage you to do so. Gain a little real life perspective away from your computer screen.
No, the pretex of "doing it for love" is horrificly twisted.
If Israeli loved eachother more than they hated arabs, they wouldn't be occuping their homes abd would be getting rockets as gifts for their brotherly love.
Is that the best you can do? Guilt transfer?
That's the oldest, most basic psychological trick in the book. Newsflash - projecting ones own guilt on others (as in, he "forced" me to do this, ergo, it's his fault) works only on weak-mined fools.
Wait wait. So you believe that Israelis hate the Arabs and we want to do things to them? You just stuck your foot in your mouth my friend. Because as has been pointed out soooooooooo many times there are hundreds and thousands or Arabs living within Israeli borders some are Christians some are Muslims some are atheists none are under military occupation or even behind a checkpoint or fence. The main north south road crossing Israel ends in the North into a Muslim Arab town of 43k+ called Umm Al-Fahm where to go east is to drive straight through the town. On the way you will notice most the signs are in Arabic some also have Hebrew the cars traveling through are 80% Israelis and there are no checkpoints no one throwing stones no one glaring at you for being different.
To reach my home in Gilo (a neighborhood of Jerusalem) you drive past Beit Tzafafa and Shuafat both situated between Jerusalem proper and the neighborhood of Gilo again both are Muslim Arab towns with no road blocks or police presence in fact I go to work with many of the the residents. When I pull A night shift the guy that drives me home is an arab from those villages and sometime we drive through those villages to drop off or pick up people and I never feel at risk because hes my friend. We get along because his beliefs don't encompass the part of wanting to kill me for being a Jew or an Israeli or a non Muslim. We get along because all these people love that now that they are not fighting they have jobs and houses and cars and electricity and water and no one bugs them.
I could go on and on and on with hundreds of examples but my point is you are flat out wrong to suggest Israelis are motivated by a hatred for Arabs. Israelis have a long proven track record of having no problem living alongside Arabs. Live and let live.
I don't study psychology and I don't know any tricks. I know fact and fact is that we live with Arabs in Israel in peace. Where can you show me the same kind of tolerance being reciprocated from your buddy's in Gaza and the West Bank? So the point stands if the Palestinians loved life more than death. If they loved each other more than hated us they wouldn't have any problems with Israel.
No, that's reality.
Last time I checked, slavery was OK in the past. So it would be terribly wrong of you to protest if I take you as a slave...right?
Comon' slave boy!
No, That's war. What are you in some kind of 'we shouldn't have killed Hitler and destroyed Nazi Germany' youth movement? Get real. War is war and it's never pretty but you would charge the allies with war crimes for bombing Berlin?
What? Never noticed the fast that most of your government and military are just as radical and retarded as the worst palestinin terrorists?
Don't you know history? The first leaders of Israel were radical terrorists.
First of all I never noticed 'the fast' please tell me what it's about.
Second of all no I never noticed that my government and military purposefully targeted and sought to destroy civilians while ignoring juicy military targets. Hmmm.
Third of all what does history have to do with it? Are those people still in charge? No. They are dead. And besides that they didn't target civilians they targeted the British forces. Big difference but hey If it doesn't seem like that big a difference to you give me a soldier and a kid from your country I'll hide from the soldier and shoot the kid and see how you feel.
-
How can you go from arguing about how the only people who will speak up from Gaza are the ones who will speak up against Israel under threat of death by the Hamas to keeping out reporters?
Do you actually have any proof of this? Or is it simply your method of absolving Israel of any guilt.
-
Do you actually have any proof of this? Or is it simply your method of absolving Israel of any guilt.
Yes sir. And this was all within the first 5 min of looking.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3668615,00.html
Human rights researchers told Ynet that at least six Fatah loyalists have been killed and several others have been detained since the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect as part of the Islamist group's efforts to cement its rule over Gaza. Many other Fatah men have gone into hiding, they said.
Hamas said anyone who may have been killed in such cases must have been a collaborator with Israel.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3643550,00.html
The bill is made up of 214 subsections. Section 59 states that "any Palestinian found guilty of raising a weapon against Palestine in favor of the enemy; countering Palestine's interests in a negotiation with a foreign government; and placing Palestine's existence in danger by committing an act of aggression against a foreign country... will be sentenced to death."
http://olehgirl.com/?p=1616
35 Fatah members have been murdered by Hamas this week in Gaza.
“We will kill them all if they try to help Israel bring down our government,” the official said. “We will hang Mahmoud Abbas and Muhammad Dahlan in the public square,” a Hamas official reported.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1002306.html
A Palestinian military court on Tuesday sentenced two Palestinians to death by firing squad for collaborating with Israel, a court statement said.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1066081.html
A military court in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip on Sunday sentenced a man to death by firing squad for allegedly collaborating with Israel.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3671573,00.html
Amnesty says Hamas kidnaps, tortures, threatens, and murders Palestinians who oppose regime
-
That's not the same thing at all. You seem to be making the claim that Hamas has intimidated people into making false claims of war crimes. Have you any proof of that?
-
That's not the same thing at all. You seem to be making the claim that Hamas has intimidated people into making false claims of war crimes. Have you any proof of that?
No most people don't need any help in coming up with the stories they do that because they want to because it's good publicity for them and bad publicity for Israel.
We see that Hamas intimidates and kills people who talk against it or for Israel and we see that many of the stories coming out about war crimes (not just in Case Lead) were embellished if not completely fabricated I.E. no weapons in mosques no weapons in schools etc etc. I wouldn't claim I can prove that they intimidate people to lie for them but then again they don't need to. Most of the people who speak up are part of some wing of the Hamas and even the ones who aren't have just as much motivation to falsify information as the next guy.
And that wasn't my point anyway my point was "Just in case you are wondering if under a communist government to speak up against it is so dangerous imagine what it is under a fundamentalist radical Islamic terrorist government then maybe you will understand that if you are are in Gaza and you don't have anything nice to say... you don't say anything at all. They hang people all the time for even talking to an Israeli. So yes the people who speak up are in general the ones on the Hamas payroll or at least ones who don't want their families dragged off in the middle of the night never to be heard of again."
-
Wha... I'm at a total loss for words. How can you go from arguing about how the only people who will speak up from Gaza are the ones who will speak up against Israel under threat of death by the Hamas to keeping out reporters?
Of course you're at loss for words - you realise you're driven into a corner
Explain to me PLEASE, how come that journalists are no big deal to any other country doing warfare?
Can you PLEASE show me examples of horrible losses the other countries suffered because of journalists?
I was under no illusion that it was done for the protection of the news crews but it was for the protection of the troops. Even Hizbollah after the 2nd Lebanon wars said that they were aided by being shown by the 'western pigs own technology' where to strike. So we have me who took part in the 2nd Lebanon war who saw this in practice from the Israeli side where there was far to much shown on TV AND Hizbollah claims that they were aided by what was given out on the news. And then we have you whose only basis for claiming that they weren't aided by what was reported on TV is that you don't want it to be true.[/qutoe]
Wait..so now you trust Hezbollah? What if they said that only cause they knew Israel would overreact (as usual)?
So, a journalist traveling with a military force is generally allowed to transmitt only at specific times (like after the attack has already started, so the position of the troops is pretty much useless to the enemy since they already know).
Not to mention that I've yet to see a news report that shows a military force in any detail. A cammera might pan and you might see a APC and some soldiers, a tank passing by. But that's only a fraction of a force and any info you get is sketchy at best.
Finally, you still fail to explain how no other country has problems with it.
Or are you saying that all other countries are moronic? Or that the forces they fought against are idiotic?
Interesting. okay so first It doesn't even have to be "sensitive" information. All it has to be is in real time and it gives out enough to know where the troops are and what direction they are heading.
Most reports aren't real time. And when they are they are made in the base camp or after the force has already made an attack.
Again, how come other countries don't have so big problems with it?
And really if you think the Hamas takes good care of the people you have your head buried somewhere just look up in other arguments on the same subject there have been plenty of posts about what the Hamas does. And if you still aren't convinced I invite you to come visit them in fact I encourage you to do so. Gain a little real life perspective away from your computer screen.
So I guess Hamas didn't build hospitals and schools and didn't help feed and clothe people?
If there's anyone with his head in the sand, it's you.
Wait wait. So you believe that Israelis hate the Arabs and we want to do things to them? You just stuck your foot in your mouth my friend. Because as has been pointed out soooooooooo many times there are hundreds and thousands *SNIP*
Nice attempt at dodging the issue, but I'm not falling for it. You know very well what I mean with that post.
"If they loved each other more than hated us they wouldn't have any problems with Israel." is the whole point, don't try to dodge it.
"Them" and "us" - doesn't matter if those terms describe all Israeli/Arabs or just a smaller sub-set, the point remains the same.
"If you loved eachother more than you hated them, you wouldn't have any problems with Gaza." is just as retarded a statement as yours is. But works just as much as yours. It's an "argument" (and I use the term jokingly) that can be used by anyone, anywhere, against anyone. Thus making it completley useless.
No, That's war. What are you in some kind of 'we shouldn't have killed Hitler and destroyed Nazi Germany' youth movement? Get real. War is war and it's never pretty but you would charge the allies with war crimes for bombing Berlin?
Slavery can also be part of war. Dodge all you want, you won't escape the issue.
Where do you draw the line in the sand?
And yes, I would charge them. You know why? Cause the German war machine was broken. They were pushed out of all occupied territories, with not nearly enough force to take them over again.
The allies could have effectively stopped at the borders of Germany and just dig in. Hitler would have fallen on it's own.
And besides that they didn't target civilians they targeted the British forces.
Did they now?
-
No most people don't need any help in coming up with the stories they do that because they want to because it's good publicity for them and bad publicity for Israel.
For which, again, you have no proof.
Why should I trust any Israeli source? They have just as much reasons to lie as everyone else on this planet.
"Everyone of "them" lies" gets real old, real soon.
-
"Everyone of "them" lies" gets real old, real soon.
My God, can you seriously not see how this is exactly what you were saying?
Because the state of speech in Gaza is exactly how Israel sez it is?
They have just as much reasons to lie as everyone else on this planet.
Hehe..I see you haven't responed to things related to slavery and love. Cat got your tounge?
No, I just try not to address stupid issues when I see them. Where the f*ck did the love part come from? It is completely and totally irrelevant.
Finally, you still fail to explain how no other country has problems with it.
Because it doesn't happen to any other country. Honestly, what countries besides the U.S. and Israel are involved with modern wars?
Or are you saying that all other countries are moronic? Or that the forces they fought against are idiotic?
All of the other ones are. Just about every conflict in the world today is in Africa, and they don't use stuff like that.
Can you PLEASE show me examples of horrible losses the other countries suffered because of journalists?
Can you PLEASE show me examples of bad things that have been PROVEN to have happened because of global warming? Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. You know the old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Most reports aren't real time.
Yeah, until they say "reporting live from...." In the first Gulf War, the United States actually used a reporter's video to see if they were hitting close to the targets, because debris and smoke was obscuring the high-altitude targeting.
Of course you're at loss for words - you realise you're driven into a corner
Of course he's at a loss for words - you changed from talking about freedom of speech in Gaza to Israel keeping out reporters without taking a breath. You made no sense.
-
Of course you're at loss for words - you realise you're driven into a corner
Wow. Umm I'm kinda sad now that I have to go to work and I'll be getting back late from the night shift and will have to go on 3 hours sleep before my morning shift tomorrow... but tomorrow evening I will try and address what you have to say with calm and composure. :lol: Nah who am I kidding? This is a practical joke right? You had me going there.
There should be a law against arguing A, B, and C and someone replying 27, 38, and, 430 you could have at least remained in the same general area of with like 1, 2, and 3, at least those slightly correspond to A, B, and C. God.... err Allah Damn! :eek2:
-
"Everyone of "them" lies" gets real old, real soon.
My God, can you seriously not see how this is exactly what you were saying?
So when you say it it's right, when I say it it's wrong?
My point is that there's no proof that any of the people who made claims were laying. You'd want everyone to ignore them because you think they are lying.
Freedom of speech doesn't work that way.
No, I just try not to address stupid issues when I see them. Where the f*ck did the love part come from? It is completely and totally irrelevant.
It's not. The attacks in the region were attributed to the lack of love some Arabs have for eachother.
Because it doesn't happen to any other country. Honestly, what countries besides the U.S. and Israel are involved with modern wars?
News flash - reporters have been cowering war ever sine TV was invented. Wars happen all the ime. It does happen to other nations too. Israel is not special at all.
All of the other ones are. Just about every conflict in the world today is in Africa, and they don't use stuff like that.
Thanks for making your stance here. Everyone in the world is a bunch of morons except for Israel.
Alas, you fail to take into acconut at least a few modern conflict that happened lately, all covered by reporters, all ending without anyone ever complaining about reporters causing death of their troops.
Can you PLEASE show me examples of bad things that have been PROVEN to have happened because of global warming? Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. You know the old saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Aha..so instead or real danger we now come into the murky area of possible danger. And stiffling the freedom of speech and information that so happens to be good at concealing any war crimes.
And again, Israel is the only one one smart enough to pull such a brilliant move.
Of course he's at a loss for words - you changed from talking about freedom of speech in Gaza to Israel keeping out reporters without taking a breath. You made no sense.
It was a bit of a jump, but the discussion is related. Freedom of speech and freedom of information are interconnected. There is no real freedom of speech if that speech is made impossible to be heard.
Everythnig said so far distills into a few simple premises that are completely and totally wrong:
- reporters are a danger to troops, not allowing them access to Gaza is the ONLY sane thing to do
- terrorists launch rockets, it is therefore OK for us to stomp the country they're from into stoneage. The lives of the civilians there are worth jack s*** anyway, since it's all their fault.
- war is brutal. Such a thing as a war crime doesn't exist. Everything is allowed.
- everyone who speaks against Israel is either a member of Hamas, a anti-semite or was bullied into saying that. Everyone speaking for Israel is a trusty source
- Israel is not pushing Gaza into economic slavery (contrary to all evidence)
So yea...
B.t.w. - the question about me taking a rip to Gaza - it was hypothetical. No, I didn't take a trip there (and even if I did I'm not a blogger or a picture person), BUT my father did. And I also have a few aquaintances from that region.
And I'm very much inclined to believe my father..unless of course, you also think he's a member of Hamas?
-
I'm also impressed with how any source in Palestine must have been bullied into saying it or must be saying it cause they hate Israel. But when an Israeli soldier says something and doesn't want to give their name it can't possibly be for fear of reprisals. It must be because they are self hating Jews or completely fictional inventions of the liberal media elite.
-
I just read in the newspaper this morning that Israel did an investigation into all this, and they found out it was a bunch of bullsh*t. Rumors and hearsay.
-
Well there's a ****ing surprise.
Do the words whitewash mean anything to you?
-
I just read in the newspaper this morning that Israel did an investigation into all this, and they found out it was a bunch of bullsh*t. Rumors and hearsay.
Good, then they won't mind a third party investigating it?
-
I just read in the newspaper this morning that Israel did an investigation into all this, and they found out it was a bunch of bullsh*t. Rumors and hearsay.
what a ****ing surprise doop doop do doo
-
Because it doesn't happen to any other country. Honestly, what countries besides the U.S. and Israel are involved with modern wars?
Russia, NATO (In for example Afghanistan, Yugoslavia before that), Maracco VS western Sahara rebels, and then a dozen other conflicts I have forgotten.
I just read in the newspaper this morning that Israel did an investigation into all this, and they found out it was a bunch of bullsh*t. Rumors and hearsay.
That is what I would have ...
No wait, I am actually a honest person. Anyway, that is what most people say: I am not guilty! My own obviosly unbiased researching, funded and led by myself, has proven it!
-
I just read in the newspaper this morning that Israel did an investigation into all this, and they found out it was a bunch of bullsh*t. Rumors and hearsay.
MY DOG REALLY DID EAT ME HOMEWORK. I DID AN INVESTIGATION.
-
The report did however find that Israel were responsible for the assassination of Kennedy, the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and the death and subsequent resurrection of Elvis Presley.
I guess they wanted something that sounded at least a little bit plausible in there.
-
The report did however find that Israel were responsible for the assassination of Kennedy, the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and the death and subsequent resurrection of Elvis Presley.
I guess they wanted something that sounded at least a little bit plausible in there.
Wat
-
This thread has become a whole lot more entertaining with the current word filter.
-
Wat did ya expect?
-
This thread has become a whole lot more entertaining with the current word filter.
Must admit that was the first thought that came to my mind too...
-
Of course you're at loss for words - you realise you're driven into a corner
Explain to me PLEASE, how come that journalists are no big deal to any other country doing warfare?
Can you PLEASE show me examples of horrible losses the other countries suffered because of journalists?
I don't know why they aren't a big deal. Maybe the other countries haven't experienced losses they can trace back to unchecked media coverage. Maybe their enemies don't have the time to waste staring at a screen trying to guess what the backdrop is behind that reporter so it's not an issue. Maybe because their enemies are so poorly equipped that it doesn't matter that little bit of intel you can gather from your TV. Maybe other countries don't have the balls or are unable to tell reporters to bug off because they aren't fighting in their own country. There is 101 reasons why it isn't a problem for any other country... or at least not a known problem.
And no I can't. I wasn't present for anyone else's wars. I wouldn't know where to begin.
Wait..so now you trust Hezbollah? What if they said that only cause they knew Israel would overreact (as usual)?
Umm... when opposing sides in a conflict corroborate on a story it tends to be because it's true.
So, a journalist traveling with a military force is generally allowed to transmitt only at specific times (like after the attack has already started, so the position of the troops is pretty much useless to the enemy since they already know).
Not to mention that I've yet to see a news report that shows a military force in any detail. A cammera might pan and you might see a APC and some soldiers, a tank passing by. But that's only a fraction of a force and any info you get is sketchy at best.
Finally, you still fail to explain how no other country has problems with it.
Or are you saying that all other countries are moronic? Or that the forces they fought against are idiotic?
Most reports aren't real time. And when they are they are made in the base camp or after the force has already made an attack.
Again, how come other countries don't have so big problems with it?
“I'm standing here on (name) hill where down below in the valley (country) troops, tanks and APC's, are making their way (direction) towards (town) which is said to be an Enemy stronghold”
I don't know how many times I saw live transmissions exactly like that during 2nd Lebanon war. Yeah they don't show how many when they will arrive or specifics but believe me when your front line is crushed and you don't have to waste scouts to find out where the enemy is heading it really helps.
I don't know why you think you know standard operating procedures for Media crews... are you a part of one in your country. Maybe it does things differently.
So I guess Hamas didn't build hospitals and schools and didn't help feed and clothe people?
If there's anyone with his head in the sand, it's you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9MmaP5VAk4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LaAvZp7EP4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcs64YLbuGU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR8Tfd0i4lY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBNRVgq59Y&feature=related
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=nvN&q=hamas&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=IJHTSZb1Ic3RjAeRx7jyBg&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=5&ct=title#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OGhj43GAE
They build schools and booby trap them teach the children that martyrdom is their highest aspiration. Thank you Hamas for all you have done for the Palestinian people.
“When children attend their schools and mosques, parents are required to sign oaths of allegiance.”
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/media/78u409g64p5jvh491v5m/contributions/x/2/6/5/x26530218g04pll8.pdf
Your looking at an abused animal (Palestinian people) who when given scraps by it's master (Hamas) it wags it's tail and since he gives it food to keep it barley alive he is a great caretaker of that animal.
And spare me the “he called Palestinians animals” It's clear what I mean.
Nice attempt at dodging the issue, but I'm not falling for it. you know very well what I mean with that post.
"If they loved each other more than hated us they wouldn't have any problems with Israel." is the whole point, don't try to dodge it.
"Them" and "us" - doesn't matter if those terms describe all Israeli/Arabs or just a smaller sub-set, the point remains the same.
Uhh yeah. How can I be dodging what I brought up?
"If you loved eachother more than you hated them, you wouldn't have any problems with Gaza." is just as retarded a statement as yours is. But works just as much as yours. It's an "argument" (and I use the term jokingly) that can be used by anyone, anywhere, against anyone. Thus making it completley useless.
If the US loved each other more than they hated Taliban they wouldn't have any problems... oh wait no because the Taliban has sworn to attack and kill and murder them wherever they are found so instead of “live and let live” they adopt a policy of “kill in the name of our religion”. Just the same as Hamas. What is holding the Palestinians back from realizing independence? What exactly is Israel going to do if no one is attacking it from Gaza? The same thing it's doing right now in the West Bank, leaving it the F alone. And if things are quiet maybe we can start working on getting our Pals a State. As it is they spend all their funding and time trying to attack Israel and survive on just the basics if they would take an ounce of that and implement it towards building up a civilized society maybe things would be better for them. But hey call me crazy it's just a thought.
In short my point stands and is very valid they are consumed with destruction. They need to concentrate on what is best for their future and their children because believe me everyone is doing what they believe is best unfortunately our Pals believe holy Jihad and the destruction of Israel is what is best.
This is a terrorist organization recognized as such by most of the world. Except you apparently.
Slavery can also be part of war. Dodge all you want, you won't escape the issue.
Where do you draw the line in the sand?
And yes, I would charge them. you know why? Cause the German war machine was broken. They were pushed out of all occupied territories, with not nearly enough force to take them over again.
The allies could have effectively stopped at the borders of Germany and just dig in. Hitler would have fallen on it's own.
I don't need to draw a line in the sand it's already been drawn. Something about international law rules or engagement etc. etc. I don't really know how slavery has come into this now but as for it being a part of war? You mean slaves fought in wars against their masters? Or slaves fought in wars for their masters against enemies? Or war was fought over if slaves was even a good thing? I don't know what I'm supposed to understand from your statement.
Riiight okay well you have your own views on WWII I personally don't assume to know that things would have happened the way you say.
Did they now?
Yup. They never targeted civilians.
For which, again, you have no proof.
Why should I trust any Israeli source? They have just as much reasons to lie as everyone else on this planet.
"Everyone of "them" lies" gets real old, real soon.
In 2004, the BBC's Fayad Abu Shamala was exposed as a possible Hamas member after Ha'aretz reported on a Hamas preacher caught on tape stating "that Hamas man Faiz Abu Smala works for the BBC, and that way he writes the story in favor of the Islam [sic] and Muslims."
“This was the same BBC employee who, in 2001, told a Hamas rally in Gaza (attended by the then Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin) that journalists and media organizations in Gaza, including the BBC, are "waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."
Following the kidnapping of BBC reporter Alan Johnston, a Hamas member who worked for the BBC (confirmed as Abu Shamala) was allowed to enter Gaza to assist in efforts to free Johnston. This raised serious questions concerning the BBC's hiring policies.
As a result of the kidnapping, the foreign media fled Gaza and the vacuum was filled by local Palestinian stringers. In 2007, the Jerusalem Post noted the problems of using only Palestinian stringer-produced material:
"The people who use the stringers have to sift their material very carefully," says Jay Bushinsky, a veteran member of the Foreign Press Association. "You have to be naive to believe that in a place like Gaza you can be a fair-minded reporter. They have a mission and they don't give anything detrimental to their leadership."”
Look I'm not trying to convince you that everything that comes out of Gaza is a lie. I'm trying to convince you that everything coming out of Gaza has a large potential for being a lie or biased or slanted or whatever you want to call it because of past precedent and current reporting trends where everything is taken as fact from the mouths of those with the most interest to fabricate. All I want is for people not to take everything they hear as fact especially not from these kinds of sources with a history of lying. I can only assume people who accept what is told to them by a terrorist organization with a proven history of lying to the media for a better story are either
A. Gulible
B. Mentally handicapped
C. Too lazy to look and see if that is the truth
D. Don't care enough about the situation to see if things are truth or not but they still like to whine about it
or
E. Has a serious bias against Israel and will accept any negative thing written about it.
The Vulcans are rolling over in their graves. It's just not logical to believe everything they say is absolute fact period.
I'm also impressed with how any source in Palestine must have been bullied into saying it or must be saying it cause they hate Israel. But when an Israeli soldier says something and doesn't want to give their name it can't possibly be for fear of reprisals. It must be because they are self hating Jews or completely fictional inventions of the liberal media elite.
Dude what reprisals? Israeli media is usually harder on the IDF than anyone. I would tell my officer all the time that he was wrong.
These soldiers were given the opportunity to really get the justice they felt should be had for what happened in Gaza because I don't know how it works in your country but here the MP's and the army are enemies. They hate each other. MP's are told that the more 'tickets' they can hand out the more leave they will get. So in an MP investigation these same soldiers said “wellllll... we didn't actually see this happen we only heard about it and also we embellished on what we heard for effect.” And when they further questioned the soldiers who told them the stories it turns out the Palestinian woman that was shot was done so because she was walking towards the soldiers not responding to calls to halt or to shots made in the air or by her feet. No hands raised no white flag and with a history of women attackers I would have put her down as well.
The story of the shooting of the woman and the 2 children is even more exaggerated. The woman and 2 children were told to go a certain direction and then 2 armed hamas members started firing from a different direction and there was return fire from the IDF but it wasn't even in the same direction as the lady and the 2 kids the 2 incidents happened one after the other but completely separate.
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3694477,00.html not that that will help anyone... but whatever.
A Paratroopers Brigade soldier who also participated in the war called the claims "nonsense". Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said, "It is true that in war morality can be interpreted in many different ways, and there are always a few idiots who act inappropriately, but most of the soldiers represented Israel honorably and with a high degree of morality.
"For instance, on three separate occasions my company commander checked soldiers' bags for stolen goods. Those who stole the smallest things, like candy, were severely punished," he said.
"We were forbidden from sleeping in Palestinians' beds even when we had no alternate accommodations, and we didn’t touch any of their food even after we hadn't had enough to eat for two days."
it would be hypocritical of me to present all that as fact and I don't assume you would take it as such in fact you will question it greatly because of its source but that is good and that is all I want you to do for the other side as well when you read it ask yourself do they have any reason to lie? And of course everyone could present things in a better light but especially people who have done it so many times before. At least be the slightest bit skeptical.
I don't accept all this is fact but I always reach my own conclusions of what was more likely based on both sides of the story based on the history relevance and motive of both sides of the story.
-
Side bar: I recommend that the 'your' filter be set to permanant. :lol:
-
I don't know why they aren't a big deal. Maybe the other countries haven't experienced losses they can trace back to unchecked media coverage. Maybe their enemies don't have the time to waste staring at a screen trying to guess what the backdrop is behind that reporter so it's not an issue. Maybe because their enemies are so poorly equipped that it doesn't matter that little bit of intel your mom can gather from your mom's TV. Maybe other countries don't have the balls or are unable to tell reporters to bug off because they aren't fighting in their own country. There is 101 reasons why it isn't a problem for any other country... or at least not a known problem.
And no I can't. I wasn't present for anyone else's wars. I wouldn't know where to begin.
So we're back to "everyone else is an idiot" and "There's no proof for it, but we're still banning all journalists".
“I'm standing here on (name) hill where down below in the valley (country) troops, tanks and APC's, are making their way (direction) towards (town) which is said to be an Enemy stronghold”
Isn't it already far too late the the enemy to so anything at that stage? When the troops are already moving into the town?
And again - news agencies can sign contracts with the government about news delay.
So just cause SOME agency MIGHT breach a contract and emit earlier, which MIGHT cause (no proof) some extra casualites, the proper way of dealing with it is to ban all journalists.
This is so wrong I can't even say how wrong it is. Such a word hasn't been invented yet.
You're looking at an abused animal (Palestinian people) who when given scraps by it's master (Hamas) it wags it's tail and since he gives it food to keep it barley alive he is a great caretaker of that animal.
Even if that were all true, it's still more than they get from Israel (namely death and destruction).
If the US loved each other more than they hated Taliban they wouldn't have any problems... oh wait no because the Taliban has sworn to attack and kill and murder them wherever they are found so instead of “live and let live” they adopt a policy of “kill in the name of our religion”. Just the same as Hamas. What is holding the Palestinians back from realizing independence? What exactly is Israel going to do if no one is attacking it from Gaza? The same thing it's doing right now in the West Bank, leaving it the F alone. And if things are quiet maybe we can start working on getting our Pals a State. As it is they spend all their funding and time trying to attack Israel and survive on just the basics if they would take an ounce of that and implement it towards building up a civilized society maybe things would be better for them. But hey call me crazy it's just a thought.
Strangely how you never given any thought why people from Gaza hate Israel?
In short my point stands and is very valid they are consumed with destruction. They need to concentrate on what is best for their future and their children because believe me everyone is doing what they believe is best unfortunately our Pals believe holy Jihad and the destruction of Israel is what is best.
I don't need to draw a line in the sand it's already been drawn. Something about international law rules or engagement etc. etc. I don't really know how slavery has come into this now but as for it being a part of war? Your mom mean slaves fought in wars against their masters? Or slaves fought in wars for their masters against enemies? Or war was fought over if slaves was even a good thing? I don't know what I'm supposed to understand from your mom's statement.
You're confusing me here. You claim Israel never comitted any war crimes and that bombing gaza to hell is justified. Next you say that the allied bombing of Berlin isn't a war crime or excessive use of force. Then you say international law and rules should be followed.
And when by the same international law the attacks in Gaza end up nothing BUT excessive use of force, then suddenly it doesn't apply?
Look I'm not trying to convince your mom that everything that comes out of Gaza is a lie. I'm trying to convince your mom that everything coming out of Gaza has a large potential for being a lie or biased or slanted or whatever your mom want to call it because of past precedent and current reporting trends where everything is taken as fact from the mouths of those with the most interest to fabricate.
Including Israeli media and soldiers and people. Everything coming from them ALSO has a large potential for being a lie/slander/coverup.
-
blargh drunk
-
call me israel
-
Someone please tell me this word filter is an April Fools joke. I hate it.
Isn't it already far too late the the enemy to so anything at that stage?
Shall I go into the differences between tactical and strategic surprise, and their consequences on the opposing force? Strategic surprise is acheived when the enemy has no idea that a unit is coming. None at all. Imagine how many lives of the attacking force that saves. Just the fact that they don't know they are coming is immensely helpful. Tactical surprise is acheived in the field by a skilled commander. it involves doing something that the enemy doesn't know is coming in a way he doesn't think of.
In that case, strategic surprise has been lost, resulting in an enormously high casualty rate - when compared to what would have happened with complete surprise.
So just cause SOME agency MIGHT breach a contract and emit earlier, which MIGHT cause (no proof) some extra casualites, the proper way of dealing with it is to ban all journalists.
So SOME soldiers just MIGHT go overboard, which MIGHT (no proof) have happened, the proper way of dealing with it is to get pissed at the entire military?
Even if that were all true, it's still more than they get from Israel
Because the government of Israel is shouting "Death to Gaza?" What they got from Israel they brought on themselves.
Including Israeli media and soldiers and people. Everything coming from them ALSO has a large potential for being a lie/slander/coverup.
Then why don't we just discard everything that comes from that region, and look at which country has the most to gain from lying to the world press, Gaza, or Israel?
Has anyone even remembered that Israel was actually warning the Gazan civilians by cell phone and text message to evacuate?
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/israel-calls-th.html (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/israel-calls-th.html)
Check the last paragraph.
Hamas has been sending Hebrew-language text messages to Israelis' phones, warning them that "all cities" will be threatened by the terror group's rocket attacks.
-
Didnt catch me a 2nd time with your gay-music-bomb!
-
(Is hoping that this post isn't ignored because all the other posts of this size are spam, and this is actually a relevant question)
You know... Ever wondered how Israel got there in the first place?
-
Terrorism due to the occupying power's refusal to grant unlimited Right to Return because it would result in the native population becoming a minority in their own country.
Yes. If irony had mass, Israel would collapse into a black hole at this point. :p
-
Karajorma beat me, but According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel), the modern state of Israel (well, before all those border changes) was created by the United Nations in 1947 after the British could not settle for a conclusion that both Arabs and Jews could agree on.
-
In that case, strategic surprise has been lost, resulting in an enormously high casualty rate - when compared to what would have happened with complete surprise.
Don't you mean tactical surprise? If the attack already started then the strategic surprise is still there.
So just cause SOME agency MIGHT breach a contract and emit earlier, which MIGHT cause (no proof) some extra casualites, the proper way of dealing with it is to ban all journalists.
So SOME soldiers just MIGHT go overboard, which MIGHT (no proof) have happened, the proper way of dealing with it is to get pissed at the entire military?
Haha! good one, but you missed the mark. I'm angry because of the stance Israel took (it's behavior and the journalist ban). Since Israeli military and govenment are responsible for that I am very right to be pissed at them.
The shelling/bombing of the city in gaza was overdone, no question about it. I find it hard to believe it happened without anyone in the higher echelons knowing anything about it. Too many resources were involved for that.
The individual incidents are another matter entirely. I'd love to hear more about it, but given that the journalist can't look into that there's not much that can be cleared at this point.
Because the government of Israel is shouting "Death to Gaza?" What they got from Israel they brought on themselves.
Again. "It's their fault that we are bombing them." Guilt transfer again. Tsk...
Then why don't we just discard everything that comes from that region, and look at which country has the most to gain from lying to the world press, Gaza, or Israel?
Israel :drevil:
-
So we're back to "everyone else is an idiot" and "There's no proof for it, but we're still banning all journalists".
No, at a string of maybes explaining why it COULD be that other countries don't do this. But again “I wasn't present for anyone else's wars. I wouldn't know where to begin.”
And there is past precedent here in Israel so that is where it is implemented. This is not that difficult a conclusion for them to have reached. Side A. anger many people by banning media but because they find a reason to get angry over anything anyway since they take the Pals words at face value and question ours with a microscope most Israelis have stopped hoping or caring for world approval. Side B. Protect the lives of your soldiers and the secrecy of your mission and deal with the inevitable media circus afterwards.
“I'm standing here on (name) hill where down below in the valley (country) troops, tanks and APC's, are making their way (direction) towards (town) which is said to be an Enemy stronghold”
Isn't it already far too late the the enemy to so anything at that stage? When the troops are already moving into the town?
And again - news agencies can sign contracts with the government about news delay.
Not really. This wasn't blitzkrieg since the enemy was hidden and entrenched withing the civilian infrastructure. Whether it was buildings or tunnels or caves or tents it was a very slow going clearing the area so that you didn't have enemies popping up behind you. Plenty of time for reinforcements to arrive or traps to be laid in the next building and that is assuming that it is reported AS the troops are heading into the town/area and not before as was the case numerous times in Lebanon.
I have never heard of or seen these contracts and if any were signed they were clearly broken and it seems that they had no repercussions for the news agency anyway.
So just cause SOME agency MIGHT breach a contract and emit earlier, which MIGHT cause (no proof) some extra casualites, the proper way of dealing with it is to ban all journalists.
This is so wrong I can't even say how wrong it is. Such a word hasn't been invented yet.
I really was kinda not wanting to bring this up but it has become quite apparent that you are A. Purposefully ignoring this bit of information and your just hoping no one notices or B. You didn't bother looking in any detail into this issue and are just repeating what you heard on the news. Because as it stands you keep talking about a ban to all journalists repeating it in several different ways and that is simply not the truth because Israeli media was allowed in (Because the orders for them to hold off on a story could be enforced) as were BBC reporters but only on an imbed mission which prevented them from broadcasting live and therefore was not a threat.
Even if that were all true, it's still more than they get from Israel (namely death and destruction).
What they get from Israel? You mean the endless supply of aid trucks that are turned back by hamas every day? Or do you mean their electricity? Or Water? Or perhaps their fuel? No you choose to look at the consequences doled out on a terrorist group with unfortunate civilian casualties, as in all large scale military operations, and you say that is the norm you see it as the day to day and not the exception. When in reality who can blame you? After all a peaceful day is nothing to report about so why would you hear about it?
Strangely how your mom never given any thought why people from Gaza hate Israel?
Why they hate Israel or why they attack Israel? Because one came before the other and perpetrated a response that caused the other.
What I mean is that Israel a sovereign nation with the right to defend itself was attacked by other sovereign nations. And as a consequence of losing that/those wars families were destroyed on both sides. Unfortunately some extremists took this opportunity to wield some of the more inflammatory interpretations of the Koran to build up a religiously legitimate reason for Muslims to kill.
Like the ones about killing Jews how they are nothing but pigs and something else. How any land that was ever Muslim land will be just that for all eternity.
So I can live with them hating Israel because that started with losing a war and a hostile environment to live in as the losers of the war. I can't
Your mom're confusing me here. Your mom claim Israel never comitted any war crimes and that bombing gaza to hell is justified.
I don't claim Israel didn't commit any war crimes. I simply point out that the possibility of a made up story being the case here is actually larger then that a real war crime was committed. If Gaza was bombed to hell it wouldn't exist anymore. There was only one thing standing in Israels way from the total annihilation of the Gaza strip it's own sense or morality. But your right I do believe the bombing of Gaza was justified and I wish it had been as simple as bombing it to hell because it would have saved a lot of time money and effort. But fortunately for Hamas there are still lives down there worth preserving and as long as there are Israel will go for the drawn out more expensive more dangerous to itself route.
Next your mom say that the allied bombing of Berlin isn't a war crime or excessive use of force. Then your mom say international law and rules should be followed.
And when by the same international law the attacks in Gaza end up nothing BUT excessive use of force, then suddenly it doesn't apply?
Uhhh yeah because excessive force isn't part of the rules of war. Because there is not such thing in war. There is unacceptable collateral damage which also is relative since if 2 civilians were killed but out of negligence and because no one cares that is a war crime but if 200 are killed after you have taken every measure of precaution to try and preserve their life that is not a war crime. It's not good by any means. But you can't be charged for something you did your best to prevent. So charging excessive force against an enemy you are trying to kill is like saying the guy trying to lift 200kg used to much force because he lifted it before his muscles wore out.
Including Israeli media and soldiers and people. Everything coming from them ALSO has a large potential for being a lie/slander/coverup.
Well to you they do because you obviously have a bias against them. Don't get me wrong I have an obvious bias for them. The difference is my approach is to back mine up with past historic evidence and precedent instead of just assuming someone did something because you dislike them for whatever reasons.
-
What they get from Israel? You mean the endless supply of aid trucks that are turned back by hamas every day? Or do you mean their electricity? Or Water? Or perhaps their fuel?
Before the most recent assault, the entire border was CLOSED. Completely. No huminatarian could get in. At all. Only recently huminatarian aid trucks where allowed inside Gaza. Isreal said they would stop bombing for a few hours to allow the trucks to get through. And then they broke their own agreement.
(Small note: My opiniun on the conflict is that both sides are wrong, but I am currently providing arguments whcih state israel's wrongness as you seem to already believe in hamas wrongness and convincing you of that point is kinda pointless, as you already are)
What I mean is that Israel a sovereign nation with the right to defend itself was attacked by other sovereign nations. And as a consequence of losing that/those wars families were destroyed on both sides. Unfortunately some extremists took this opportunity to wield some of the more inflammatory interpretations of the Koran to build up a religiously legitimate reason for Muslims to kill.
And how was this sovereign nation formed?
Remember that Isreal still controls territories that are beyond those given to them by Armestice treaties and the UN partition plan. Remember that they suddenly all went there after the second world war and claimed it as their land by divine right. The problem with that theory is that that divine right includes that the Messiah should lead them there. Unfortanatly, also according to the Jew, he or she hasn't arrived yet.
-
(Small note: My opiniun on the conflict is that both sides are wrong, but I am currently providing arguments whcih state israel's wrongness as you seem to already believe in hamas wrongness and convincing you of that point is kinda pointless, as you already are)
That's pretty much my take on the matter too.
-
No, at a string of maybes explaining why it COULD be that other countries don't do this. But again “I wasn't present for anyone else's wars. I wouldn't know where to begin.”
And there is past precedent here in Israel so that is where it is implemented. This is not that difficult a conclusion for them to have reached. Side A. anger many people by banning media but because they find a reason to get angry over anything anyway since they take the Pals words at face value and question ours with a microscope most Israelis have stopped hoping or caring for world approval. Side B. Protect the lives of your soldiers and the secrecy of your mission and deal with the inevitable media circus afterwards.
If only it was so simple in reality. And if there only was anything substantial behind those claims.
"The world hates us. They will lie about us anyway. Let's no allow the media to see what we're doing!" - cry me a river, why don't you?
Not really. This wasn't blitzkrieg since the enemy was hidden and entrenched withing the civilian infrastructure. Whether it was buildings or tunnels or caves or tents it was a very slow going clearing the area so that you didn't have enemies popping up behind you. Plenty of time for reinforcements to arrive or traps to be laid in the next building and that is assuming that it is reported AS the troops are heading into the town/area and not before as was the case numerous times in Lebanon.
Reinforcements from where. Israel controls the sky. Israel has tanks and trucks and helicopters. If anyone is mobile, ti's Israel. How can any reinforcements come to the city from the outside if you monitor the sorroundings from the air?
Unless you mean reinforcements from the other side of the city? Which I'd assume would be even better for Israeli forces. Draw the enemy out of hiding, let them come to you.
I have never heard of or seen these contracts and if any were signed they were clearly broken and it seems that they had no repercussions for the news agency anyway.
Such contracts have been signed before and the reprocussions are big. While a news agency can still get their news by proxy, it looses much. No exclusives. News are late and unconfirmed by their own sources.
I really was kinda not wanting to bring this up but it has become quite apparent that you are A. Purposefully ignoring this bit of information and your just hoping no one notices or B. You didn't bother looking in any detail into this issue and are just repeating what you heard on the news. Because as it stands you keep talking about a ban to all journalists repeating it in several different ways and that is simply not the truth because Israeli media was allowed in (Because the orders for them to hold off on a story could be enforced) as were BBC reporters but only on an imbed mission which prevented them from broadcasting live and therefore was not a threat.
You just put your foot in your mouth. So contracts with news agencies DO exist and apparently DO work. What happened to the other media? You see, Israel only let in those it can control. I wonder why is that? Security of hte troops? Yeah, right. You can use the "security" excuse to suffocate any and all freedoms.
What they get from Israel? You mean the endless supply of aid trucks that are turned back by hamas every day? Or do you mean their electricity? Or Water? Or perhaps their fuel?
You mean ECONOMIC SLAVERY?
I don't claim Israel didn't commit any war crimes. I simply point out that the possibility of a made up story being the case here is actually larger then that a real war crime was committed.
According to what study?
If Gaza was bombed to hell it wouldn't exist anymore. There was only one thing standing in Israels way from the total annihilation of the Gaza strip it's own sense or morality. But your right I do believe the bombing of Gaza was justified and I wish it had been as simple as bombing it to hell because it would have saved a lot of time money and effort. But fortunately for Hamas there are still lives down there worth preserving and as long as there are Israel will go for the drawn out more expensive more dangerous to itself route.
So you only count total genocide as a war crime? :wtf:
Uhhh yeah because excessive force isn't part of the rules of war. Because there is not such thing in war. There is unacceptable collateral damage which also is relative since if 2 civilians were killed but out of negligence and because no one cares that is a war crime but if 200 are killed after you have taken every measure of precaution to try and preserve their life that is not a war crime. It's not good by any means. But you can't be charged for something you did your best to prevent. So charging excessive force against an enemy you are trying to kill is like saying the guy trying to lift 200kg used to much force because he lifted it before his muscles wore out.
Uuum..yeah, it is.
See, there have been numerous conflicts in the world recently. Even in far longer wars of bigger intensity and over bigger areas then the Gaza, destruction was still FAR LOWER. And people and sides involved were still accused of overshelling or war crimes. For 100 destroyed houses.
Gaza has thousands of structures destroyed, and mostly infrastructure. In a period of 3 weeks. That's an order of magnitude more.
Well to you they do because you obviously have a bias against them. Don't get me wrong I have an obvious bias for them. The difference is my approach is to back mine up with past historic evidence and precedent instead of just assuming someone did something because you dislike them for whatever reasons.
Do you have some proof my stance is a product of rumors and total bias without some checking or backing up? No? In that case, keep such comments to yourself.
-
I love when the genocidal anti-war nutjobs start complaining about banning journalists from active combat zones.
Up until Vietnam, the reporters went where command said they could, when they said they could. This policy was to keep civilians with no training out of situations where that lack of training will likely get them maimed or killed. There are several cases where a reporter snuck or found they're way to the front somehow ending up having to put down they're camera and pick up a weapon to defend themselves against an attacker(s) who don't care if they're a doctor, lawyer, carpenter or a god damned, uptight, bug up they're ass reporter. They're gonna kill the enemy.
Second thing, it's a very old concept that no plan survives contact with the enemy. It's WAR. Accidents happen. People get shot/stabbed/cut as a matter of course.
The enemy in the area in question has shown since they first showed up that they don't hold with Western ideas of the sanctity of life insofar as they will use children and the elderly as weapons and lookouts. I don't like shooting old women or children, but if you are going to put up with a leadership that tolerates or encourages random attacks of extreme violence against a neighboring nation. If you think for a second that the USA wouldn't roll over Canada if they started lobbing copious numbers of rockets and missiles into Michigan and Ohio, you are sadly mistaken.
The world in general seems to draw great intuitive leaps from pitiful amounts of information, and it's getting worse. You can not make an assumption about something that someone said that they heard from someone's brother who knows someone who is related to someone that was there. It's too disjointed. And as has been stated, there's a point where a source has to be revealed to enable the examination of it's veracity. An opinion based on 3 unnamed and unidentified sources is as untrustworthy as that rubber $3 bill in my wallet.
I see far too many people throwing around the term War Crime. The problem with this is if you have a military whose rank and file is more concerned with potential backlash from people who like to sit around and pontificate and huff and grumble, then they can't do they're jobs.
-
The enemy in the area in question has shown since they first showed up that they don't hold with Western ideas of the sanctity of life insofar as they will use children and the elderly as weapons and lookouts. I don't like shooting old women or children, but if you are going to put up with a leadership that tolerates or encourages random attacks of extreme violence against a neighboring nation. If you think for a second that the USA wouldn't roll over Canada if they started lobbing copious numbers of rockets and missiles into Michigan and Ohio, you are sadly mistaken.
The difference is that we wouldn't be shooting women or children. At least I don't THINK we've gotten that bad yet...
-
The difference is that we wouldn't be shooting women or children.
The other difference is that Canada wouldn't be using women or children as suicide bombers. It makes them combatants, in any but the most anti-war interpretations of international law.
-
Using women and children as suicide bombers doesn't make all women and children combatants you know.
-
Before the most recent assault, the entire border was CLOSED. Completely. No huminatarian could get in. At all. Only recently huminatarian aid trucks where allowed inside Gaza.
That's an interesting that you should make such a blanket claim because not even Hamas makes such a claim. Maybe you get information from the BBC?
Before the most recent 'assault' was a cease fire. A cease fire in which it was agreed that if Hamas would stop and help prevent rocket and mortar attacks Israel would in turn stop hunting Hamas and start to lift the blockade which at it's worst was limited to 'only' 70 trucks of aid per day.
During the 'cease fire' as the rockets decreased the trucks increased but Hamas claims this was a breaking of the deal since the blockade wasn't lifted Israel claims that it was a breaking of the deal since Hamas never during the 'cease fire' ceased firing and the smuggling of weapons increased as the blockade was gradually lifted. “The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reported a total of 223 rockets and 139 mortar shells fired from Gaza during the cease fire”
On December 24th after the complete deterioration of the cease fire Hamas launched operation 'Oil Stain' and Hamas claims it launched 87 rockets and mortar shells at Israel. On December 25th Israel finished preparations for a broad offensive and delivered a final warning by the PM of Al-Arabiya saying "I am telling them now, it may be the last minute, I'm telling them stop it. We are stronger."
The very next day, the 26th, Israel reopened 5 border crossings to provide fuel and 100 trucks of humanitarian aid and Hamas in response launched a dozen rocket and mortar attacks on Israel one even hitting a palestinian house in Gaza and killing 2 sisters and wounding a third.
The next day, the 27th, Operation Cast Lead started.
Isreal said they would stop bombing for a few hours to allow the trucks to get through. And then they broke their own agreement.
Umm you mean they broke the humanitarian cease fire after being shot at with rockets during the 3 hour break? Boo hoo. Hamas shouldn't have fired during the much needed humanitarian cease fire and still it didn't stop it from continuing so what's your point?
And how was this sovereign nation formed?
Remember that Isreal still controls territories that are beyond those given to them by Armestice treaties and the UN partition plan.
Yeah territories that even after losing a war continue to fight and are therefore legally occupied (but illegally settled). Hamas and Palestinian attacks only give legitimacy to the continued control of these areas. You really think if hostilities would stop Israel could stand up to the international pressure to release these territories? Do you really think Israel doesn't WANT to be rid of this headache?
There is an order of things that need to occur in order for there to be a 2 state solution and the first is for the Palestinians to get a government that isn't a terrorist organization or a government that doesn't support the targeting of civilians. Then they can cease attacking negotiations can resume the settlers can go cry that they are going to have to move or live under Palestinian rule and a second state can be formed.
Remember that they suddenly all went there after the second world war and claimed it as their land by divine right. The problem with that theory is that that divine right includes that the Messiah should lead them there. Unfortanatly, also according to the Jew, he or she hasn't arrived yet.
unless you are contesting the right for Israel to exist in the land of Israel his is no longer a relevant point really. The realists on the Palestinian side even know that they are going to have to live side by side with Israel. And for many it had nothing to do with divine right for many it was just a return to their ancestral homes.
If only it was so simple in reality. And if there only was anything substantial behind those claims.
"The world hates us. They will lie about us anyway. Let's no allow the media to see what we're doing!" - cry me a river, why don't you?
Okay Justin.
Reinforcements from where. Israel controls the sky. Israel has tanks and trucks and helicopters. If anyone is mobile, ti's Israel. How can any reinforcements come to the city from the outside if you monitor the sorroundings from the air?
Unless you mean reinforcements from the other side of the city? Which I'd assume would be even better for Israeli forces. Draw the enemy out of hiding, let them come to you.
”The army has been slowly neutralising tunnels one by one to avoid a repeat of the heavy casualties it suffered in Lebanon in 2006 when outflanked by Hizbollah gunmen hiding underground.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4229042/Israeli-soldiers-shocked-by-tunnel-network.html)
”I had been hunting for one of Hizbullah's bunkers since the end of the 34-day war. It had been a frustrating exercise, to be sure. The bunkers and rocket-firing positions had been constructed in great secrecy, the entrances cunningly camouflaged, in remote valleys along the Lebanon-Israeli border.” (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0511/p01s02-wome.html)
”NICOSIA — Hizbullah's massive tunnel network in Lebanon contains electricity, running water and food and could maintain Iranian-sponsored fighters for months.“ (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_lebanon_05_30.asp)
Such contracts have been signed before and the reprocussions are big. While a news agency can still get their news by proxy, it looses much. No exclusives. News are late and unconfirmed by their own sources.
What nations signed these with what news agencies? What repercussions? Any evidence that this kind of ban can be enforced on anyone but the local news outlets?
You just put your foot in your mouth. So contracts with news agencies DO exist and apparently DO work. What happened to the other media? You see, Israel only let in those it can control. I wonder why is that? Security of hte troops? Yeah, right. You can use the "security" excuse to suffocate any and all freedoms.
What contracts? Did I say contracts? Where do you see that they work? What part of “Israeli media was allowed in (Because the orders for them to hold off on a story could be enforced) as were BBC reporters but only on an imbed mission which prevented them from broadcasting live and therefore was not a threat.” was too hard for you to understand?
What they get from Israel? You mean the endless supply of aid trucks that are turned back by hamas every day? Or do you mean their electricity? Or Water? Or perhaps their fuel?
You mean ECONOMIC SLAVERY?
So before posting a response I looked albeit briefly at google for some references that determine that Palestinians have to pay for ANY of the aid they get from Israel. I couldn't find any but again it was a brief search. Can you provide some links?
The only reference to Palestinians having to Buy the aid given them was from the wiki article on Gaza aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008-2009_Gaza_Strip_aid) where it said “On 12 January, Hamas raided some 100 aid trucks entering Gaza, stole their contents and sold them to the highest bidders.[86] On 20 January, gunmen from Hamas' armed wing seized 12 trucks loaded with humanitarian aid that had been donated by the Jordanian government to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to Jordanian and Palestinian Authority officials.[87][88]” Which coincides with my view of Hamas anyway.
According to what study?
The study of the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict where again and again and again and again I have referenced and linked to numerous stories of failed attempts at propaganda by Hamas/Fatah/Islamic Jihad etc etc.
If Gaza was bombed to hell it wouldn't exist anymore. There was only one thing standing in Israels way from the total annihilation of the Gaza strip it's own sense or morality. But your right I do believe the bombing of Gaza was justified and I wish it had been as simple as bombing it to hell because it would have saved a lot of time money and effort. But fortunately for Hamas there are still lives down there worth preserving and as long as there are Israel will go for the drawn out more expensive more dangerous to itself route.
So you only count total genocide as a war crime? :wtf:
That's exactly what I said here have ANOTHER cookie. :rolleyes:
No a war crime is when you don't try and avoid civilian casualties when you disregard their presence as having any effect or whether or not you should launch your attack... or in the case of Hamas standpoint if civilians are not present they see no point in launching the attack since civilians ARE their target.
Uuum..yeah, it is.
See, there have been numerous conflicts in the world recently. Even in far longer wars of bigger intensity and over bigger areas then the Gaza, destruction was still FAR LOWER. And people and sides involved were still accused of overshelling or war crimes. For 100 destroyed houses.
Gaza has thousands of structures destroyed, and mostly infrastructure. In a period of 3 weeks. That's an order of magnitude more.
Sorry I was in a rush to exit the house and I did a quick google search for “international law excessive use of force” (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=fzC&q=international+law+excessive+use+of+force&btnG=Search) and found the words “According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force” and in my rush didn't explore the article which goes on to explain that there is such a law but that from a strictly legal standpoint Israel didn't break it. So that's my bad for being in a rush and to lazy to look into it futher. The full quote was “According to international law, Israel is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it (Israel is not expected to make Kassam rockets and lob them back into Gaza).”
With further looking however I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)#International_law):
“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).”
Do you have some proof my stance is a product of rumors and total bias without some checking or backing up? No? In that case, keep such comments to yourself.
Well lets look at it this way. If you have any proof that your stance on distrusting Israeli sources is based on anything but rumors and bias you have yet to proffer any evidence. And one would think that since you are a pretty smart person you would use all and any advantage you had to argue your point. So if you had proof or past president of Israel doing the same kind of propaganda and lies about what goes on here as I have already shown the Palestinians doing then why don't you produce it?
So based on lack of any evidence of the sort from you and the fact that Israeli media loves this kind of thing and would jump at the chance of exposing military propaganda in which case I would have heard about it... It's safe to say you are basing most if not all of this on your dislike and bias towards Israel and her policies. I would love to be proven wrong though.
Using women and children as suicide bombers doesn't make all women and children combatants you know.
Which is why there are women and children still alive in Gaza.
-
Yeah territories that even after losing a war continue to fight and are therefore legally occupied (but illegally settled). Hamas and Palestinian attacks only give legitimacy to the continued control of these areas. You really think if hostilities would stop Israel could stand up to the international pressure to release these territories? Do you really think Israel doesn't WANT to be rid of this headache?
I don't think Israel want to give the land back. They gave Gaza back but continued settling the West Bank.
-
Yahweh told them it was their land by divine right, so no, some of those people just won't give the west bank back...
-
Yeah territories that even after losing a war continue to fight and are therefore legally occupied (but illegally settled). Hamas and Palestinian attacks only give legitimacy to the continued control of these areas. You really think if hostilities would stop Israel could stand up to the international pressure to release these territories? Do you really think Israel doesn't WANT to be rid of this headache?
I think they want the land. Strategicly, they want all the land with lakes and rivers in their possession.
And weren't you the one telling a bit earlier how the West Bank is now peaceful and if only the people in Gaza could "behave" like that? Well, if the west bank is so peaceful now, why is it still occupied?
And, unfortunately for you, I don't believe in such a thing as a "legal" occupation.
What nations signed these with what news agencies? What repercussions? Any evidence that this kind of ban can be enforced on anyone but the local news outlets?
It seemed to work for the USA and pretty much any other war so far.
So before posting a response I looked albeit briefly at google for some references that determine that Palestinians have to pay for ANY of the aid they get from Israel. I couldn't find any but again it was a brief search. Can you provide some links?
Not aid, but other stuff. All of their industrial and manufacturing buildings are ruins. They can't really produce pretty much anything. Even the mill is destroyed. They have to import from Israel.
Well lets look at it this way. If you have any proof that your stance on distrusting Israeli sources is based on anything but rumors and bias you have yet to proffer any evidence. And one would think that since you are a pretty smart person you would use all and any advantage you had to argue your point. So if you had proof or past president of Israel doing the same kind of propaganda and lies about what goes on here as I have already shown the Palestinians doing then why don't you produce it?
Bah. I have been checking the links you posted. A vast majority of them are Israeli sites and sources. The rest are some youTube articles. As far as proof goes, all of that has little no no worth.
I could if I wanted to post links to you tube vids of IDF soldiers misbehaving or various new articles that tel la different story. But what's the poitn? Heck, I don't belive half of them, so why should you in any one? Not to mention that I don't really care much about why you think I should do.
B.t.w. - my goal is not to "win", since no victory is possible here, neither for you or for me.
I would love to be proven wrong though.
No you wouldn't. And you know it.
-
As far as proof goes, all of that has little no no worth.
But still worth at all. You have yet to come up with anything refuting this. Why shouldn't we be able use those as legitimate proof when this entire argument started as a discussion of some Palestinian hearsay story?
-
Because it can be as biased as any link saying the opposite. Articles like the one I posted at the beginning - you can find more like those. It's not a problem.
It doesn't matter how many links of crimes Hamas did you post. It's not about Hamas.
And you can't prove the links to be non-biased. Nor can I do for any links I post.
The whole thing - not just a specific incident - of how Israel does things in Gaza is flat out wrong.
-
The whole thing - not just a specific incident - of how Israel does things in Gaza is flat out wrong.
So..... You would have them be a good little country and get shot at without doing anything about it? I personally would lose respect for any nation that would not prevent harm to its own citizens like that.
-
I don't think Israel want to give the land back. They gave Gaza back but continued settling the West Bank.
I believe, again based on past precedent, that Israel will give away everything and anything for peace but at the same time they are not stupid and enemies that continue to seek her destruction get nowhere.
For example the Gaza strip was given back. The Sinai was given back. 200 to 1 ratios of returning terrorist prisoners just to get the dismembered remains of our dead soldiers back.
Yahweh told them it was their land by divine right, so no, some of those people just won't give the west bank back...
Those are the settlers and the public opinion, and mine, is that once the Palestinian attacks end and we broker a peace agreement we won't mess with the settlers if they want to continue to live there but under Palestinian rule they can go ahead they can die fighting their own war but don't cost Israel any more of it's sons and daughters.
I think they want the land. Strategicly, they want all the land with lakes and rivers in their possession.
Strategically we could care less about the land since Jordan is our most peaceful neighbor. As for lakes and rivers the only lake there is the dead sea which I'm sorry doesn't produce much drinking water. The Sea of Galilee isn't in the West Bank and there are no rivers that aren't simply tributaries of the Jordan River in the West Bank and Israel would still have access to the Jordan River above where the West Bank starts. As for aquifers of the 12 in the West Bank only 4 don't reach Israel. So basically water has nothing to do with it.
And weren't you the one telling a bit earlier how the West Bank is now peaceful and if only the people in Gaza could "behave" like that? Well, if the west bank is so peaceful now, why is it still occupied?
The reason it's still occupied is you need someone to give it back to. There is no one in charge right now sure Fatah is there but there is no stability it's not an instantaneous thing give me a break. And by the way in case you didn't read a terrorist entered a settlement in the West Bank a few days ago it was easy access because this settlement refused to put of fences because they were one of the ones that tried to live in peace with the Pals (unlike most the settlements who instigate violence) but they paid for it because a terrorist came in with an ax and dismembered a 14 year old boy and hit a 7 year old boy on the head with the ax before being spotted and running away. The 7 year old survived... and you know what the army did? Because this was a relatively isolated incident and because the government most in charge in the West Bank didn't instigate this and send him out and try and get others to cause more harm to civilians (like Hamas does) The IDF deployed to keep the Settlers from reacting.
And, unfortunately for you, I don't believe in such a thing as a "legal" occupation.
Why is it unfortunate with me that you don't believe in legal occupation? Are you someone of influence in this matter? It really doesn't affect any thing to do with anything I could think of ever having anything to do with. I would think it would be unfortunate for you since you can't change the situation.
What nations signed these with what news agencies? What repercussions? Any evidence that this kind of ban can be enforced on anyone but the local news outlets?
You misunderstand. Barring any evidence to the contrary I don't believe you in this matter and I want you to show me that it does happen. A news article like “Today CNN signed a media agreement on the content of their broadcasts in Iraq. This to keep soldiers protected from the enemies gathering information inadvertently revealed in live broadcasts.”
Something, anything.
Not aid, but other stuff. All of their industrial and manufacturing buildings are ruins. They can't really produce pretty much anything. Even the mill is destroyed. They have to import from Israel.
But they don't import from Israel. They are sent aid from Israel. They have no trade agreement with Israel this is not an import export deal. They are given all this stuff. It's aid, it's free. Whenever we destroy a factory or a mill Israel must pay the price to provide whatever it was that building was for. (Israel doesn't send building materials such as plumbing and electrical and concrete because such things can and have been used to make bombs and weapons.)
Well lets look at it this way. If you have any proof that your stance on distrusting Israeli sources is based on anything but rumors and bias you have yet to proffer any evidence. And one would think that since you are a pretty smart person you would use all and any advantage you had to argue your point. So if you had proof or past president of Israel doing the same kind of propaganda and lies about what goes on here as I have already shown the Palestinians doing then why don't you produce it?
Bah. I have been checking the links you posted. A vast majority of them are Israeli sites and sources. The rest are some youTube articles. As far as proof goes, all of that has little no no worth.
I could if I wanted to post links to you tube vids of IDF soldiers misbehaving or various new articles that tel la different story. But what's the poitn? Heck, I don't belive half of them, so why should you in any one? Not to mention that I don't really care much about why you think I should do.
B.t.w. - my goal is not to "win", since no victory is possible here, neither for you or for me.
This is not about who misbehaves and who did what. This is about showing that what a people said and what they did are two different things. That they influenced a story to benefit them with a complete fabrication of the truth. Let's remember the AP photo of the destruction in Lebanon. The public outrage at the “massacre” in Jenin. The Ambulance that was shelled in Lebanon. The aid worker posing with the same corpse of a child in different locations in Lebanon. The photo that started the second intifada. The school that never had any terrorists in or around it. The mosques that are places of worship and are sacred and it not allowed to have weapons there. Etc etc etc...
Get it? You don't need to care what I think you should do but you care about convincing me I'm wrong or you wouldn't be debating. Well the best way to do that is provide evidence sources articles. See what is different about all those things I just listed is even the new outlets that at first condemned Israel for all those things later admitted they were wrong. So it's not just Israel said and everyone else still believes the original story. It's that it was proven to even the most anti Israel sentimented new agencies that these were fabrications in a smear campaign.
No you wouldn't. And you know it.
Regular Sherlock Holmes.
It's a saying buddy and it's you who should love to prove me wrong. So why haven't you?
-
So..... You would have them be a good little country and get shot at without doing anything about it? I personally would lose respect for any nation that would not prevent harm to its own citizens like that.
There is a big gap between doing nothing and going apes*** insane. Not to mention a whole spectrum of options inside that gap.
-
I don't think Israel want to give the land back. They gave Gaza back but continued settling the West Bank.
I believe, again based on past precedent, that Israel will give away everything and anything for peace but at the same time they are not stupid and enemies that continue to seek her destruction get nowhere.
jesus christ you are ignorant
edit: the rest of your post really doesn't offer anything else
-
Let's avoid the name calling. If you feel his argument is deeply flawed, prove it.
-
I don't think Israel want to give the land back. They gave Gaza back but continued settling the West Bank.
I believe, again based on past precedent, that Israel will give away everything and anything for peace but at the same time they are not stupid and enemies that continue to seek her destruction get nowhere.
Give away anything and everything? When has Israel really done such a thing? What are you basing this on?
For example the Gaza strip was given back. The Sinai was given back. 200 to 1 ratios of returning terrorist prisoners just to get the dismembered remains of our dead soldiers back.
Oh now you are just distorting the history. You don't remember that Israel has been blockading and attacking Gaza for all the 2000s, and that there have been thousands of casualties on that strip even before the 2008 war. You seem to forget that the withdrawal from the West Bank is a sham, and that they are actually just slowly nipping away at water reserves and settlements. You seem to forget that Golan Heights are still under Israeli control, and they have been actively settling that area. You seem to forget that Gaza strip is actually still blockaded - you seem to forget that Israelis are actively removing Arab parties from their politics. Etc. etc.
Shortly put: you are lying.
Those are the settlers and the public opinion, and mine, is that once the Palestinian attacks end and we broker a peace agreement we won't mess with the settlers if they want to continue to live there but under Palestinian rule they can go ahead they can die fighting their own war but don't cost Israel any more of it's sons and daughters.
One of the reasons the Palestinians are pissed off are the settlers. This reasoning borders on insane.
Strategically we could care less about the land since Jordan is our most peaceful neighbor. As for lakes and rivers the only lake there is the dead sea which I'm sorry doesn't produce much drinking water. The Sea of Galilee isn't in the West Bank and there are no rivers that aren't simply tributaries of the Jordan River in the West Bank and Israel would still have access to the Jordan River above where the West Bank starts. As for aquifers of the 12 in the West Bank only 4 don't reach Israel. So basically water has nothing to do with it.
hmmmm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/taamallah
hmmm i also wonder why Israel demanded on controlling the West Bank water
The reason it's still occupied is you need someone to give it back to.
You had the PLO! What happened to them? You had the PLO, you had the Fatah, soon you'll have the Hamas there as well - you can't pull this ****, this is just unbeliavable. West Bank's control is nominally in PA hands, but the problem is the huge grey zone and Israeli creep in form of security fences, settlements and so on.
There is no one in charge right now sure Fatah is there but there is no stability it's not an instantaneous thing give me a break.
Yes, the occupation and settlements sure don't have any role in destabilizing the West Bank, noooo, I mean it's the Palestinians, it's them for the last 30 years yeah.
And by the way in case you didn't read a terrorist entered a settlement in the West Bank a few days ago it was easy access because this settlement refused to put of fences because they were one of the ones that tried to live in peace with the Pals (unlike most the settlements who instigate violence) but they paid for it because a terrorist came in with an ax and dismembered a 14 year old boy and hit a 7 year old boy on the head with the ax before being spotted and running away. The 7 year old survived... and you know what the army did? Because this was a relatively isolated incident and because the government most in charge in the West Bank didn't instigate this and send him out and try and get others to cause more harm to civilians (like Hamas does) The IDF deployed to keep the Settlers from reacting.
source
Not aid, but other stuff. All of their industrial and manufacturing buildings are ruins. They can't really produce pretty much anything. Even the mill is destroyed. They have to import from Israel.
But they don't import from Israel. They are sent aid from Israel. They have no trade agreement with Israel this is not an import export deal. They are given all this stuff. It's aid, it's free. Whenever we destroy a factory or a mill Israel must pay the price to provide whatever it was that building was for. (Israel doesn't send building materials such as plumbing and electrical and concrete because such things can and have been used to make bombs and weapons.)
Israel (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/world/middleeast/11nations.html) has (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/08/israel-and-egypt-allow-humanitarian-access-gaza) been (http://news.scotsman.com/world/Israeli-army-stands-accused-by.4859231.jp) actively blocking human aid from outside the Israel to Gaza.
What did you say again?
Oh they didn't import anything from Israel?
Assam Abu Taha, a wholesaler in the Gaza town of Rafah, said Gazans don't want handouts.
"When the borders are open, and everyone can work freely, we don't need aid," said Abu Taha, 48, whose flour imports from Israel dropped from 200 tons a day to 80 tons a week. "The situation will improve dramatically.
LINK: HAARETZ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067796.html
You are lying.
I will not waste any more time for someone who is obviously willing to lie the **** out of him on an internet discussion board and I seriously hope you'll be monkeyed for this kind of crap. You are a disgrace to this forum.
-
The reason it's still occupied is you need someone to give it back to.
You had the PLO! What happened to them? You had the PLO, you had the Fatah, soon you'll have the Hamas there as well - you can't pull this ****, this is just unbeliavable.
All of which are known terrorist organizations or know promoters there of. They are not, nor should they be considered to be, legitimate governments or proto-goverments.
Janos, let's remember that we are talking about people whose idea of warfare is to decapitate and dismember people, then broadcast it on the nightly news shouting and praising they're god. These are not civilized people who you can reason with and deal with fairly. No deal you strike with them can be considered binding because they don't recognize you or anyone else that does not adhere to they're perverse religion with equal or greater fervor.
In short, until there is a Palestinian organization whose express purpose is not the eradication of Israel, her people and supporters, my suggestion is to glass the area until it looks like the No Man's Land is it in practice if not effect. Then pave it over and build hotels for the supplicants making they're pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
-
All of which are known terrorist organizations or know promoters there of. They are not, nor should they be considered to be, legitimate governments or proto-goverments.
Luckily, that's not for you to decide.
Hamas have been elected by the people so that makes them legitimate. It doesn't matter how much you think their policy sucks.
In short, until there is a Palestinian organization whose express purpose is not the eradication of Israel, her people and supporters, my suggestion is to glass the area until it looks like the No Man's Land is it in practice if not effect. Then pave it over and build hotels for the supplicants making they're pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
"Until the government of the other country is to my linking, preferably just puppets under our control, we should glass the country."
I don't like your countries government. Mind if I bomb your house?
-
The reason it's still occupied is you need someone to give it back to.
You had the PLO! What happened to them? You had the PLO, you had the Fatah, soon you'll have the Hamas there as well - you can't pull this ****, this is just unbeliavable.
All of which are known terrorist organizations or know promoters there of. They are not, nor should they be considered to be, legitimate governments or proto-goverments.
Who designated them as so, and does that designation in fact nullify their legitimacy?
Oh by the way Fatah is not a terrorist organization so hmm, maybe your talking point does, in fact, suck and be blatantly false. Maybe I should call you a liar as well, because you cannot even do basic fact research before posting. But I won't. Take it as you will.
Janos, let's remember that we are talking about people whose idea of warfare is to decapitate and dismember people, then broadcast it on the nightly news shouting and praising they're god. These are not civilized people who you can reason with and deal with fairly. No deal you strike with them can be considered binding because they don't recognize you or anyone else that does not adhere to they're perverse religion with equal or greater fervor.
jesus christ you are completely insane
"THEY ARE EVIL. THEREFORE : NO NEGOTIATION."
In short, until there is a Palestinian organization whose express purpose is not the eradication of Israel, her people and supporters, my suggestion is to glass the area until it looks like the No Man's Land is it in practice if not effect. Then pave it over and build hotels for the supplicants making they're pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
... like PLO? oh i forgot you don't even know your basic facts about the different organizations involved in this conflict - you think that Fatah, PLO, Jihad, Hamas etc. are pretty much the same thing.
Or maybe you are just an abhorrent human being for proposing something like this.
-
jesus christ you are ignorant
edit: the rest of your post really doesn't offer anything else
Aren't you a pleasant fella.
Give away anything and everything? When has Israel really done such a thing? What are you basing this on?
The very next quote you have is the answer to this question.
Oh now you are just distorting the history. You don't remember that Israel has been blockading and attacking Gaza for all the 2000s, and that there have been thousands of casualties on that strip even before the 2008 war. You seem to forget that the withdrawal from the West Bank is a sham, and that they are actually just slowly nipping away at water reserves and settlements. You seem to forget that Golan Heights are still under Israeli control, and they have been actively settling that area. You seem to forget that Gaza strip is actually still blockaded - you seem to forget that Israelis are actively removing Arab parties from their politics. Etc. etc.
Shortly put: you are lying.
What history did I distort? I was talking about how for the chance of peace Israel has proven she will give almost anything and I said Israel gave back the Gaza strip and you start talking about what it did up until that point. I simply can't follow your train of thought I'm sorry.
What withdrawal from the West Bank?
Golan hieghts are a key strategic emplacement that has been used several time to launch attacks on Israel and considering the nation that it used to belong too still seeks the destruction of Israel I see no reason to give back what they lost in a war they started. Tough luck.
Gaza is blockaded against the thousands of tons of weapons that are being shipped in there or do you think we should simply allow them to get all those rockets from Iran. You know the ones. The ones they said they would use to hit Te-Aviv? Yeah you can put your city your people your family on the chopping block but you can't ask anyone else to do the same because of some false sense of moral superiority.
And you claim that Israel has been blockading the Gaza strip for all the 2000's? Yet Hamas seem to disagree with you. They wanted Israel to restore the influx of trucks and shipments into the Gaza strip back to 2005 levels which was between 500-600 trucks a day.
Is the West Bank blockaded? Hmm why not? Could it be they aren't actively seeking weapons to strike at Israel with? Gosh darn who would have thought a nation would try and stop it's enemies from acquiring weapons that they swore to use and have been using on your citizens? Maybe it's just too logical.
I have no doubts that life there is hard and not fair for many Palestinians who just want to live and let live. Unfortunately they elected a government who has the opposite policy. The next step in the wellbeing of their people lies solely with them. We withdrew they increased attacks we blocked. If they want to stop attacking we can start easing off the blockade they can start gaining back a semblance of what living life for anything besides death really is.
One of the reasons the Palestinians are pissed off are the settlers. This reasoning borders on insane.
What reasoning? The one where I don't agree with the settlers and I think that instead of wasting army money and lives to defend these people we should let them fend for themselves and see how well they do? That, if in the formation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, they refuse to leave they should be left for the wolves and either live under Palestinian law or rule or be kicked out by the Palestinians? That reasoning borders on insane?
hmmmm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/taamallah
hmmm i also wonder why Israel demanded on controlling the West Bank water
This is all still talking about now while there is still a wall still a separation still settlements still conflict. The point remains that 2 aquifers would not be what keeps Israel from giving back the West Bank if it means true and lasting peace. Until then you don't have to like the policy, Hell, I don't like the policy (assuming the Palestinian who wrote the article is a reliable source). However it still doesn't change the point that based on past precedent I believe Israel would give up the West Bank for peace. And you can say 'no' and I can say 'yes' but in the end only time will tell.
You had the PLO! What happened to them? You had the PLO, you had the Fatah, soon you'll have the Hamas there as well - you can't pull this ****, this is just unbeliavable. West Bank's control is nominally in PA hands, but the problem is the huge grey zone and Israeli creep in form of security fences, settlements and so on.
Fatah is part of the PLO. How can you so disrespectfully accuse Liberator of not knowing the facts when you yourself didn't know that very important nugget of information?
The PLO is comprised of:
Fatah - Largest faction, Left-Wing/nationalist.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) - Second largest, radically militant and communist
The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) - Third largest, communist
The Palestinian People's Party (PPP) - Ex-communist, non-militant
The Palestine Liberation Front (PLF, Abu Abbas faction) - Minor left-wing faction
The Arab Liberation Front (ALF) - Minor faction, aligned to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party
As-Sa'iqa - Syrian-controlled Ba'athist faction
The Palestine Democratic Union (Fida) - Minor left-wing faction, non-militant
The Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF, Samir Ghawsha faction) - minor left-wing faction.
The Palestinian Arab Front (PAF) - minor faction.
And lest we forget the militant wing of Fatah is.... drum roll please dunadundudndudndudn The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade. A worldwide recognized terrorists organization. Fancy that.
Soon we will have Hamas there? Is that supposed to be a good thing? This is the group that even Egypt considers a terrorist organization!
Yes, the occupation and settlements sure don't have any role in destabilizing the West Bank, noooo, I mean it's the Palestinians, it's them for the last 30 years yeah.
You have it partially right. The settlements really didn't help the area but then again if they could have simply ceased violence and concentrated on building up a real society the settlements would have been dismantled long ago. Hell we even tried doing that in Gaza BEFORE any progress was made to create a more stable less bloodthirsty government there and look how well that went.
source
Bah well I found the story it's all over but the only place I could find that the IDF deployed to keep the settlers from reacting was in the Israeli news paper I read that morning.
The closest I found was at the end of this article (http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3696625,00.html) it says that several agencies expressed concern that there would be attempts by the settlers to avenge the murder.
Some links to the story:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-04/02/content_7644323.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076390.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/04/200942112127779385.html
Israel (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/world/middleeast/11nations.html) has (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/08/israel-and-egypt-allow-humanitarian-access-gaza) been (http://news.scotsman.com/world/Israeli-army-stands-accused-by.4859231.jp) actively blocking human aid from outside the Israel to Gaza.
What does that have to do with importing?
What did you say again?
Oh they didn't import anything from Israel?
Assam Abu Taha, a wholesaler in the Gaza town of Rafah, said Gazans don't want handouts.
"When the borders are open, and everyone can work freely, we don't need aid," said Abu Taha, 48, whose flour imports from Israel dropped from 200 tons a day to 80 tons a week. "The situation will improve dramatically.
LINK: HAARETZ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067796.html
The guy is basically saying that the aid is free and he doesn't want it free he prefers to import for himself and hes frustrated that he can't import as much as he used to.
This still doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the aid is being paid for by Israel.
You are lying.
I will not waste any more time for someone who is obviously willing to lie the **** out of him on an internet discussion board and I seriously hope you'll be monkeyed for this kind of crap. You are a disgrace to this forum.
I hope you take a clue from the grownups on this forum and you realize that all this yelling and defamation of character only soils your own. I do believe the rules of the board concur.
Keep it civil or keep it to yourself.
-
All of which are known terrorist organizations or know promoters there of. They are not, nor should they be considered to be, legitimate governments or proto-goverments.
I'd suggest you take a long hard look at the previous governments of Israel before trying to making claims about who is and isn't a legitimate government. There are some terrorists in there too.
-
Western culture sucks.
:nod:
-
This is sure a lot of words
What history did I distort? I was talking about how for the chance of peace Israel has proven she will give almost anything and I said Israel gave back the Gaza strip and you start talking about what it did up until that point. I simply can't follow your train of thought I'm sorry.
What withdrawal from the West Bank?
.. Oslo accords?
Golan hieghts are a key strategic emplacement that has been used several time to launch attacks on Israel and considering the nation that it used to belong too still seeks the destruction of Israel I see no reason to give back what they lost in a war they started. Tough luck.
... so Israel has not been giving almost anything at all for peace. As a matter of fact they haven't been giving anything at all.
Or they give anything. Unless they don't want to. Then they won't. How come am I not convinced yet?
Gaza is blockaded against the thousands of tons of weapons that are being shipped in there or do you think we should simply allow them to get all those rockets from Iran. You know the ones. The ones they said they would use to hit Te-Aviv? Yeah you can put your city your people your family on the chopping block but you can't ask anyone else to do the same because of some false sense of moral superiority.
And you claim that Israel has been blockading the Gaza strip for all the 2000's? Yet Hamas seem to disagree with you. They wanted Israel to restore the influx of trucks and shipments into the Gaza strip back to 2005 levels which was between 500-600 trucks a day.
Sorry, they didn't blockade it since 2007. I mean, they only withdrew in 2005, it would've been quite stupid of them, right.
Could it be that Israel started to blockade Gaza right after the Hamas won the Palestinian civil war there?
Is the West Bank blockaded? Hmm why not? Could it be they aren't actively seeking weapons to strike at Israel with? Gosh darn who would have thought a nation would try and stop it's enemies from acquiring weapons that they swore to use and have been using on your citizens? Maybe it's just too logical.
Going to all lenghts to achieve peace seems to have a completely new angle here.
I have no doubts that life there is hard and not fair for many Palestinians who just want to live and let live. Unfortunately they elected a government who has the opposite policy. The next step in the wellbeing of their people lies solely with them. We withdrew they increased attacks we blocked. If they want to stop attacking we can start easing off the blockade they can start gaining back a semblance of what living life for anything besides death really is.
THEY ARE ATTACKING BECAUSE OF THE BLOCKADE
This is really stupid. "We will not do anything, except bomb them every now and then, until they stop attacking us because we bomb them every now and then."
What reasoning? The one where I don't agree with the settlers and I think that instead of wasting army money and lives to defend these people we should let them fend for themselves and see how well they do? That, if in the formation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, they refuse to leave they should be left for the wolves and either live under Palestinian law or rule or be kicked out by the Palestinians? That reasoning borders on insane?
Read you wrong there, sorry
hmmmm
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/taamallah
hmmm i also wonder why Israel demanded on controlling the West Bank water
This is all still talking about now while there is still a wall still a separation still settlements still conflict. The point remains that 2 aquifers would not be what keeps Israel from giving back the West Bank if it means true and lasting peace. Until then you don't have to like the policy, Hell, I don't like the policy (assuming the Palestinian who wrote the article is a reliable source). However it still doesn't change the point that based on past precedent I believe Israel would give up the West Bank for peace. And you can say 'no' and I can say 'yes' but in the end only time will tell.
Then why haven't they done so yet? I mean, this has been a stone in the shoe for the last 14 years, and the West Bank security fence only keeps growing. The life in there is ****, they are completely dependent on Israel, they can do nothing, and yet - well, nothing happens!
2 out of 14 or so aquifers is a lot, by the way.
You had the PLO! What happened to them? You had the PLO, you had the Fatah, soon you'll have the Hamas there as well - you can't pull this ****, this is just unbeliavable. West Bank's control is nominally in PA hands, but the problem is the huge grey zone and Israeli creep in form of security fences, settlements and so on.
Fatah is part of the PLO. How can you so disrespectfully accuse Liberator of not knowing the facts when you yourself didn't know that very important nugget of information?
I do! He didn't! He gladly confused them all together. You said you had no one to negotiate with. You had - you just completely bungled the chace to do so and alienated every single potential partner you could've had. And no, you cannot blame it all on Palestinians.
I know very well that Fatah is a part of PLO, but he claimed they all are beheading animals. This was disgusting.
Al-Aqsa's relationship with Fatah is quite possible, but they are an uncontrolled dog. Fatah, on the other hand, has been a reliable companion. Or hey, maybe a decade of chaos has something to do with the owner no longer controlling his dog? Maybe as if this had happened before... maybe even with a organization that is now at odds with Israel in Gaza Strip... hmmm
Soon we will have Hamas there? Is that supposed to be a good thing? This is the group that even Egypt considers a terrorist organization!
No it is not a good thing, but you cannot just *****slap the entire population and hope they still vote the party that is compliant in getting *****slapped. This is exactly what happened in Gaza!
Yes, the occupation and settlements sure don't have any role in destabilizing the West Bank, noooo, I mean it's the Palestinians, it's them for the last 30 years yeah.
You have it partially right. The settlements really didn't help the area but then again if they could have simply ceased violence and concentrated on building up a real society the settlements would have been dismantled long ago. Hell we even tried doing that in Gaza BEFORE any progress was made to create a more stable less bloodthirsty government there and look how well that went.
oh for ****'s sake you cannot be this naive
Complete control of airspace, roads, economy and traffic? Protection - and lately, funnily, expulsion - of rabid settlers? Continuous creep to take over parts of West Bank? Economic sanctions, blockades, barricades - and you claim that the west bank palestinians did not do enough? With what? Spitballs and hair?
source
Bah well I found the story it's all over but the only place I could find that the IDF deployed to keep the settlers from reacting was in the Israeli news paper I read that morning.
ok
The closest I found was at the end of this article (http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3696625,00.html) it says that several agencies expressed concern that there would be attempts by the settlers to avenge the murder.
Some links to the story:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-04/02/content_7644323.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076390.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/04/200942112127779385.html
[/quote]
Israel (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/world/middleeast/11nations.html) has (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/08/israel-and-egypt-allow-humanitarian-access-gaza) been (http://news.scotsman.com/world/Israeli-army-stands-accused-by.4859231.jp) actively blocking human aid from outside the Israel to Gaza.
What does that have to do with importing?
:eek2:
your goalposts are redshifting
Your complete failure to see the blockades, restrictions and sanctions as a meaningful whole means that you can pick up any single detail, no matter how minute, and use it to excuse any mess Israel has driven itself into.
What did you say again?
Oh they didn't import anything from Israel?
Assam Abu Taha, a wholesaler in the Gaza town of Rafah, said Gazans don't want handouts.
"When the borders are open, and everyone can work freely, we don't need aid," said Abu Taha, 48, whose flour imports from Israel dropped from 200 tons a day to 80 tons a week. "The situation will improve dramatically.
LINK: HAARETZ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067796.html
The guy is basically saying that the aid is free and he doesn't want it free he prefers to import for himself and hes frustrated that he can't import as much as he used to.
This still doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the aid is being paid for by Israel.
YOU SAID GAZA DIDN'T IMPORT ANYTHING
THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE
The goddamn article talks about imports
IMPORTS
you just said how a blockade has nothing to do with imports
are you now saying that the imports are not actually imports
What, pray tell me, are these imports that do not exist.
I hope you take a clue from the grownups on this forum and you realize that all this yelling and defamation of character only soils your own. I do believe the rules of the board concur.
grownups tsihihihihi
Your argument is basically "well Israel does anything it can (well actually not anything at all) but PALESTINIANS" and it's disgusting.
-
All of which are known terrorist organizations or know promoters there of. They are not, nor should they be considered to be, legitimate governments or proto-goverments.
I'd suggest you take a long hard look at the previous governments of Israel before trying to making claims about who is and isn't a legitimate government. There are some terrorists in there too.
well you see if the israel state labels the palestinian group that happens to be in nominal control as a terrorist group then they don't have to negotiate with them because they are terrorists
this is the best logic
-
Yep. Launching rockets at Israel = terrorism. Blowing up the King David Hotel = freedom fighting.
I've always loved how Israelis forget that they had the luxury of giving up that kind of overt terrorism cause they won. Had the Palestinians won the war I suspect we'd be in a similar situation with the sides reversed.
-
"THEY ARE EVIL. THEREFORE : NO NEGOTIATION."
You can't, by definition, negotiate with evil.
It's Evil, it lies, cheats, steals, sleeps with your wife, kills your dog, dismembers your child in front of you because you won't do what it says, anything it can to achieve it's agenda. That's what makes it Evil.
It's not a Point of View or a Shade of Gray or an Equivocation based on Circumstance.
I am sick and tired of the whole god damned world saying a apple is an orange, or this horrific act is acceptable because it might help someone down the road.
Evil is evil. Period. End of Line.
Now get your heads out of your collective asses and see things as they are, not as you think they are.
-
"THEY ARE EVIL. THEREFORE : NO NEGOTIATION."
You can't, by definition, negotiate with evil.
It's Evil, it lies, cheats, steals, sleeps with your wife, kills your dog, dismembers your child in front of you because you won't do what it says, anything it can to achieve it's agenda. That's what makes it Evil.
It's not a Point of View or a Shade of Gray or an Equivocation based on Circumstance.
I am sick and tired of the whole god damned world saying a apple is an orange, or this horrific act is acceptable because it might help someone down the road.
Evil is evil. Period. End of Line.
Now get your heads out of your collective asses and see things as they are, not as you think they are.
And then what? You claim that people are evil - even those who are not guilty to deeds you claimed. You take your arbitrary morality that applies to individual human beings that subscribe to said code, and try to apply it to situations far beyond the scope of individual ethics?
And what do you get?
Nothing at all.
-
The current Israel stratagy of blowing the crap out of "Hamas Militants" (which usually turns out in killing the families of people who suddenly have very good reasons to become "Hamas Militants") clearly DOESN'T work. So why does no-one consider an alternative strategy, such as making Palestina a sovereign country as well?
-
There is no good and evil in this world unless you're a naive *****.
-
The current Israel stratagy of blowing the crap out of "Hamas Militants" (which usually turns out in killing the families of people who suddenly have very good reasons to become "Hamas Militants") clearly DOESN'T work. So why does no-one consider an alternative strategy, such as making Palestina a sovereign country as well?
Well to be honest it really isn't quite that simple.
The "making Palestine a sovereign country" is the bones of the discussion: how to reach that and how to make Israel to be a good player in the game? Another solution would be the current solution which doesn't clearly work because of both ideologic and pragmatic reasons as well as gross power inequality between the two. Of course, the same reasons work against the one nation solution too, at least so far. The other options are either very complex or very ugly.
Right now the Palestine is split in two, downtrodden, unemplyoed, has nothing, is besieged and is in a not-so-solid grasp of groups that have wildly differing goals.
Then, on the other hand, we have Israel, paranoidly guarding it's sovereignity and, as a semilogical expansion of the Israeli school of thought, also of it's influence in the area. The Palestine question is the big question in hand. Well, Israel's attempts to pacify the area and protect it's citizens - not a bad thing, really - reek of domestic handwaving: first they support the Hamas, then the normal thing happen and they are mortal enemies, then they kinda sit by when Hamas and Fatah duke it out in Gaza, then blockade the Gaza, then get attacked by Hamas wackos, then bomb the infrastructure and police stations and then cry when infrastructure is in ruins and the criminals get a free run in Gaza. It's almost if they had lost the ability to follow things through. However, all this has to do with the birth or death of Palestine. So these questions are the ones you have to address before announcing a new Palestinian nation.
-
Is the West Bank blockaded? Hmm why not? Could it be they aren't actively seeking weapons to strike at Israel with? Gosh darn who would have thought a nation would try and stop it's enemies from acquiring weapons that they swore to use and have been using on your citizens? Maybe it's just too logical.
Judging by the number of trucks and convoys Israel stopped, it looks like the "bad guys" are insanely rich when they can bring in those ammounts of weapons!
Their houses must be made of gold bricks...
Unfortunately they elected a government who has the opposite policy. The next step in the wellbeing of their people lies solely with them. We withdrew they increased attacks we blocked. If they want to stop attacking we can start easing off the blockade they can start gaining back a semblance of what living life for anything besides death really is.
I could say the same. The people of Israel are to blame cause they elected a government that is stupid.
The guy is basically saying that the aid is free and he doesn't want it free he prefers to import for himself and hes frustrated that he can't import as much as he used to.
This still doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the aid is being paid for by Israel.
Wrong. There were reports in the news with some buisnissmen from the Gaza strip who complained at the inflated prices of goods they now have to import from Israel.
-
Could it be that Israel started to blockade Gaza right after the Hamas won the Palestinian civil war there?
Really, Hamas won a civil war? I would have sworn you were ranting about Hamas being the legally elected government earlier. War does not = election.
You take your arbitrary morality that applies to individual human beings that subscribe to said code, and try to apply it to situations far beyond the scope of individual ethics?
Alright, let's just throw subjective morality out the f*cking door if it makes people feel better. What does not change is this:
Negotiation can only occur between two groups that share, or at least recognize, the same values. It is impossible to negotiate with a group that clamors for your imminent destruction. Can you not wrap your head around that? "Ready to negotiate?" "Death to Israel" "Well, good morning to you too." Doesn't work too well.
So why does no-one consider an alternative strategy, such as making Palestina a sovereign country as well?
In case you forgot, Palestine was a sovereign country immediately before the formation of Israel. When Israel was formed, Palestine and the Arab League, including Iran, Transjordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon attacked. All of them were soundly defeated. The reason that they attacked was that Palestinians wanted the whole of the region to themselves. Palestine blew it by attacking Israel. Making it sovereign again will just have history repeat itself.
There is no good and evil in this world unless you're a naive *****.
You can say that. However, I can still judge for myself good and evil. I don't need you to tell me I am naive for thinking that somethings are evil, and others are good.
on the other hand, we have Israel, paranoidly guarding it's sovereignity
Justifiably paranoid as well. Since its inception, it has been invaded not less than four times, including its War for Independence, The Yom Kippur war (Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the Jewish calender. It's the equivalent to the Tet Offensive, or attacking on Easter Sunday), the Second Lebannon War (started because Hezbollah militants killed three and captured two in a border incursion), and the so-called War of Attrition launched by Egypt.
It's almost if they had lost the ability to follow things through.
Or as if a certain international organization keeps getting mad at them.
The people of Israel are to blame cause they elected a government that is stupid
This year's Israeli elections were bull****. One guy got to decide, because both favorite parties were deadlocked, and he held enough support to get either elected. That said, the guy who did so, Avigdor Leiberman, was a right-wing ultranationalist nutjob.
EDIT: added a word I forgot.
-
Could it be that Israel started to blockade Gaza right after the Hamas won the Palestinian civil war there?
Really, Hamas won a civil war? I would have sworn you were ranting about Hamas being the legally elected government earlier. War does not = election.
Okay, you need to stop posting on this thread now. You clearly do not know anything about the area and can't be bothered to look things up.
Here, educate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Presidential_and_Legislative_Elections) then come back and talk.
-
:lol: @ Scotty.
-
:blah: I was just
Could it be that Israel started to blockade Gaza right after the Hamas won the Palestinian civil war there?
Really, Hamas won a civil war? I would have sworn you were ranting about Hamas being the legally elected government earlier. War does not = election.
Okay, you need to stop posting on this thread now. You clearly do not know anything about the area and can't be bothered to look things up.
Here, educate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Presidential_and_Legislative_Elections) then come back and talk.
What are you getting mad at me for? :nervous: I was pointing out an inconsistency in the arguments presented.
Hamas have been elected by the people so that makes them legitimate.
Could it be that Israel started to blockade Gaza right after the Hamas won the Palestinian civil war there?
All I said was that civil war does not = election, and the story needed to be set straight.
@Snail :doubt:
-
@Snail :doubt:
:)
-
Anyone else find it odd that everytime I go to this thread there's an ad about learning Hebrew on the top of the page?
-
What are you getting mad at me for? :nervous: I was pointing out an inconsistency in the arguments presented.
Except that there isn't an inconsistancy. Anyone aware of what has been going on in Gaza over the last 4 years would know that. Yet you don't.
I warned you to stop posting until you'd bothered to actually get a basic understanding of the topic but instead you continue to flaunt your ignorance about it. I even linked you an explanation of how both statements can be true and it appears you didn't even bother to read it, preferring instead to repeat the claim of an inconsistency. It seems you actually believe that you've caught Janos in an error. You haven't.
But you obviously don't know something this basic about the conflict and that makes the rest of your commentary on this subject dubious too. If you don't know how Hamas came into power then you also probably don't understand how Israel was instumental in that happening or how both sides have missed chance after chance for peace with stupid policy decisions.
-
Anyone aware of what has been going on in Gaza over the last 4 years would know that.
True that. Being 16 right now, it wasn't that important to me back then.
But you obviously don't know something this basic about the conflict and that makes the rest of your commentary on this subject dubious too.
I understand that the conflict is over Hamas or part of its organization lobbing rockets into Israel. I understand that one of the root causes of those rockets is Israeli's occupation of Palestinian terriories. I also understand that about 1350 Gazans and ~20 Israelis were killed during the recent conflict. I further understand that one or both sides have violated the cease-fire repeatedly. I fail to see why my not being entirely clear on the exact reasons for Hamas' rise to power is reason to regard any of my previous commentary is an unfavorable light.
That's like saying that you fail an entire math test because you missed a single question that someone else thinks was obvious.
-
No, you claim to be pointing out an inconsistency in Janos's argument.
Janos said Hamas won the election, and he said that they won in a civil war.
THIS IS TRUE.
THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE WIKI ARTICLE IMMEDIATELY AFTER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Hamas-Fatah_conflict) what kara quoted for you.
THERE WAS AN ELECTION.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ELECTION WHICH HAMAS WON, THERE WAS A CIVIL WAR WHICH HAMAS WON.
Janos, let's remember that we are talking about people whose idea of warfare is to decapitate and dismember people, then broadcast it on the nightly news shouting and praising they're god. These are not civilized people who you can reason with and deal with fairly. No deal you strike with them can be considered binding because they don't recognize you or anyone else that does not adhere to they're perverse religion with equal or greater fervor.
BLARGHHHHHHHH THEY'RE ALL BARBARIANS THEY AREN'T HUMANS LIKE US BOMB THEMMMMMMM BLARGHHHHHHHHH
sorry just quoting rush limbaugh
i see you were too
-
There is no good and evil in this world unless you're a naive *****.
Someone's hiding...
Hmm...decapitation of a living person broadcast on live tv or released via video cassette to news outlets isn't evil?
What if someone went into your home and raped your sister in front of you because she was seen in the company of a man not in her family? What if they proceeded to kill and dismember her for the same offense?
Is that not evil?
I just want you to understand who and what you are defending. That stuff goes on in some areas of this world on a weekly, if not daily basis. The people you are defending rule they're neighbors through fear and gangs of thugs moving in the night to maintain that fear.
You sit there in your little flat or apartment or house or dorm room and pontificate about hour Israel is in the wrong and yet they don't rule they're people through fear or manipulation. Yet, the people you defend meet the definition of human only biologically, otherwise they're no better than the beasts you claim we came from.
I'm not saying there isn't some over-eagerness on the part of the Israel forces. But they're on guard almost constantly these days, so some slips are to be expected. But just remember who and what they fight on a near daily basis as you sit in your comfy chair swigging a brew or a cup of milk or whatever.
-
You seem to be under the delusion that people are defending Hamas Liberator. If you feel that Hamas is evil that's fine. But the way to fight evil is not with more evil. Yet that is exactly what Israel are doing.
Furthermore this thread was not about Hamas but about the killing of civilians. So unless you're going to claim that all Palestinians are evil you're going to have a hard time convincing me that anyone has been defending Hamas.
Anyone aware of what has been going on in Gaza over the last 4 years would know that.
True that. Being 16 right now, it wasn't that important to me back then.
Which is why if it is important enough for you to argue about it now, you should make some effort to learn about the subject at hand. Israel is constantly going on about how they can't talk to Hamas about peace and will only talk to Fatah. Yet when Fatah were in charge they refused to talk to them either and were directly responsible for the conditions that lead to Hamas being in charge.
Now that Hamas are in charge, Israel likes to claim that they couldn't see it coming. But that's nonsense. Israel was repeatedly warned exactly what would happen and chose to ignore it. And for those reasons I am very dubious about Israel's claims that they are willing to talk peace with Fatah. They never were before.
I understand that the conflict is over Hamas or part of its organization lobbing rockets into Israel. I understand that one of the root causes of those rockets is Israeli's occupation of Palestinian terriories. I also understand that about 1350 Gazans and ~20 Israelis were killed during the recent conflict. I further understand that one or both sides have violated the cease-fire repeatedly. I fail to see why my not being entirely clear on the exact reasons for Hamas' rise to power is reason to regard any of my previous commentary is an unfavorable light.
Because you've failed to appreciate that both sides are in the wrong here. You've failed to appreciate the reason behind the blockade. You've failed to realise why Israel's claims that Hamas are a terrorist organisation who can't be dealt with are laughable given their own choice of leaders (And I don't have to go back as far as Begin for that, Sharon is far enough).
If you look at the incident through a very narrow perspective it's very easy to get the wrong impression.
-
In case you forgot, Palestine was a sovereign country immediately before the formation of Israel. When Israel was formed, Palestine and the Arab League, including Iran, Transjordan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon attacked. All of them were soundly defeated. The reason that they attacked was that Palestinians wanted the whole of the region to themselves. Palestine blew it by attacking Israel. Making it sovereign again will just have history repeat itself.
It will? How do you know?
Contrary to what you believe a whole lot of militants don't fight Israel because of their religion, but because they percieve Israel as evil.
And since we're on the subject of history repeating itself, then why doesn't Israel learn already that the current approach doesn't work. I guess it only learns what it finds convenient to learn.
You can say that. However, I can still judge for myself good and evil. I don't need you to tell me I am naive for thinking that somethings are evil, and others are good.
So can I. So can the militants. So can everyone else. Guess what - there's plenty of people who believe Israeli government and military is the incarnation of the devil.
-
What are you getting mad at me for? :nervous: I was pointing out an inconsistency in the arguments presented.
Hamas have been elected by the people so that makes them legitimate.
Could it be that Israel started to blockade Gaza right after the Hamas won the Palestinian civil war there?
All I said was that civil war does not = election, and the story needed to be set straight.
The upper quote is mine, the one below is by someone else.
So technicly there is no inconsistency, since you took quotes from different people.
You sit there in your little flat or apartment or house or dorm room and pontificate about hour Israel is in the wrong and yet they don't rule they're people through fear or manipulation. Yet, the people you defend meet the definition of human only biologically, otherwise they're no better than the beasts you claim we came from.
they lord over the occupied territories with fear and manipulation. Not a big difference.
-
So technicly there is no inconsistency, since you took quotes from different people.
Wow, didn't even notice that.
@second part
:lol:
-
There is no good and evil in this world unless you're a naive *****.
Someone's hiding...
Hmm...decapitation of a living person broadcast on live tv or released via video cassette to news outlets isn't evil?
And this bull**** you spew started right after you showed that you didn't know who did and what did. You are demonizing your opponent because, well...
What if someone went into your home and raped your sister in front of you because she was seen in the company of a man not in her family? What if they proceeded to kill and dismember her for the same offense?
What if your aunt had balls? Then she would be your uncle!
Is that not evil?
I just want you to understand who and what you are defending. That stuff goes on in some areas of this world on a weekly, if not daily basis. The people you are defending rule they're neighbors through fear and gangs of thugs moving in the night to maintain that fear.
This is stupid, because you
A) assume people are defending ... someone, I don't even know who because you oh so surprisingly fail to even name who this evil is
B) just appeal to fear
C) don't still know what or who you are talking about
You sit there in your little flat or apartment or house or dorm room and pontificate about hour Israel is in the wrong and yet they don't rule they're people through fear or manipulation. Yet, the people you defend meet the definition of human only biologically, otherwise they're no better than the beasts you claim we came from.
hey hey hey
I have a better idea:
Liberator is a bad evil human being.
There, I did it, this is actually just as good an argument as your argument, and now I don't have to discuss with you at all because you are evil!
Whoa! Who would've guessed it was this easy!
Oh yes I can still ask WHO are these evil beings but I know you are already searching Wikipedia for beheadings which you will post here in your next reply to me and then you go on and on and on how EVIL some things are. And yet hey surprisingly actually talking to your enemy has historically had a good track record but guess we shouldn't care and just kill everyone because some people are evil
blargh
I'm not saying there isn't some over-eagerness on the part of the Israel forces. But they're on guard almost constantly these days, so some slips are to be expected. But just remember who and what they fight on a near daily basis as you sit in your comfy chair swigging a brew or a cup of milk or whatever.
There has to be a name for this stupid stupid discussion tactic but seriously man what the hell is this bull****
Are you fighting gallantly for the ghost of Moshe Dayan or what in the Gaza frontier? Why must I risk myself before making a value judgement, wait, I guess you haven't either. Are you some kind of a talking point generator?
This entire post gave me nosebleed and it's not of the sexy kind.
-
And yet hey surprisingly actually talking to your enemy has historically had a good track record but guess we shouldn't care and just kill everyone because some people are evil
Yeah, just look at its track record: Appeasement, the Yalta Conference, etc.
Once again, negotiations can only take place if both sides share or at least recognize the same values and objectives. It would be quite impossible to negotiate with someone screaming for your head.
-
Except they were willing to negotiate, and any time they unified enough and were willing enough, Israel pulled back or just offed the most vocal negotiator.
-
And yet hey surprisingly actually talking to your enemy has historically had a good track record but guess we shouldn't care and just kill everyone because some people are evil
Yeah, just look at its track record: Appeasement, the Yalta Conference, etc.
This is just ridiculous: negotiations have worked time after time and have pretty much always been the method the prolonged conflicts have been solved and what do you do? Pick up the Yalta conference! Yalta Conference! Yalta conference had **** to do with the type of negotiation we deal with here - it was a conference where the winners started to prepare for the situation after the war!
Seriously, you cherrypick and you choose... the Yalta conference .
I could be as intellectually dishonest as you and just say they always work because [A CERTAIN PLACE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA] but hey, no
Why did you only pick World War II examples, by the way? I mean, there are a lot better examples available.
Once again, negotiations can only take place if both sides share or at least recognize the same values and objectives. It would be quite impossible to negotiate with someone screaming for your head.
And this is just stupid for umpteen reasons. Negotiatons where both sides aim at same... objectives? What the **** do you think the negotiatons are for! WHAT DOES NEGOTIATION MEAN?
I don't seriously know why I bother with this. First Splinter, now you. Am I trapped in some kind of vortex where reality is built on anecdotal evidence and high-flying moral outrage
-
Seriously, you cherrypick and you choose... the Yalta conference .
Still, could be worse. He could have picked Versailles.
-
Israel can't negotiate with Hamas. Negotiation requires common ground. Both sides have to respect each other as equals. Hamas's stated goal is the destruction of Israel. They clearly have no respect for Israel or Israels' viewpoints. Israel negotiating with Hamas is like you negotiating with a man who has just broken into your house and has told you he wants to kill you and your family.
-
Am I trapped in some kind of vortex where reality is built on anecdotal evidence and high-flying moral outrage
Says the goose to the gander, if we were arguing something you thought was right you'd be on the other side of the argument.
Israel can't negotiate with Hamas. Negotiation requires common ground. Both sides have to respect each other as equals. Hamas's stated goal is the destruction of Israel. They clearly have no respect for Israel or Israels' viewpoints. Israel negotiating with Hamas is like you negotiating with a man who has just broken into your house and has told you he wants to kill you and your family.
THIS
-
That doesn't exactly justify blowing up a school.
-
Israel negotiating with Hamas is like you negotiating with a man who has just broken into your house and has told you he wants to kill you and your family while you hold a gun to his head.
That's a bit closer to the real situation.
Yes you can negotiate with Hamas, and even if you can't it's Israel's own fault for not negotiating with Fatah and the PLO when they had the chance.
-
Israel can't negotiate with Hamas. Negotiation requires common ground. Both sides have to respect each other as equals.
And Israel respects Hamas as equals? :rolleyes:
-
Ahh it's good to be home... sorry for the delay in response I see I missed a lot but I have been working my ass off. So now down to the real nitty gritty.
.. Oslo accords?
Is that even still relevant I thought the whole point of that was the partial handover of control of the West bank to the PLO and in turn they would start reigning in the terrorists.
In essence, the accords called for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and affirmed a Palestinian right of self-government within those areas through the creation of a Palestinian Authority. Palestinian rule was to last for a five-year interim period during which a permanent agreement would be negotiated (beginning no later than May 1996). Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, and security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided. Israel was to grant interim self-government to the Palestinians in phases. Until a final status accord was established, West Bank and Gaza would be divided into three zones:
Area A - under complete control of the Palestinian Authority.
Area B - under Palestinian civil control and Israeli security control.
Area C - under complete Israeli control, except over Palestinian civilians. These areas were Israeli settlements and "security zones."
Along with the principles, the two groups signed Letters of Mutual Recognition - the Israeli government recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO recognized the right of the state of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism as well as other violence, and its desire for the destruction of the Israeli state.
This was a partial withdrawal from the West Bank and it was a trial period. One that failed miserably. This whole agreement hinged on Israel withdrawing and the PLO renouncing violence and the destruction of Israel etc etc... which they still to this day have not since they either directly by way of the militant groups in their midst (al-aqsa martyrs brigade) or indirectly by simply not doing anything to stop the terrorists even after Israel gave them hundreds of weapons to combat terrorists and enforce their laws with more often than not any time after that an attack was carried out by a terrorist we found his body with a weapon Israel had given to the PLO.
This is like a family whose neighbors orphan child after being allowed to stay in the home next door under the families supervision decides he doesn't like the family because he believes for whatever reason all his troubles stem from them and so he rebels and throws a fit. And so the parents create restrictions on him for fear for their own safety cause he is lashing out violently at them. But he rebels more and they punish him and he rebels more but now he says it's because they are overbearing and because the punishments for his actions have somehow become unwarranted attacks. So the parents decide that maybe they are a bit overbearing and give him a car but he uses the car to try and run them down.
Just like children terrorists learn that if they get what they want with a temper tantrum or violence why stop?
... so Israel has not been giving almost anything at all for peace. As a matter of fact they haven't been giving anything at all.
Or they give anything. Unless they don't want to. Then they won't. How come am I not convinced yet?
Ummm Syria has not even conceded the point that Israel has the right to exist and is still in state of war in her relationship with Israel why exactly would any sane person give back a key strategic location to an enemy still hell bent, and not even hiding it, on destroying you? Are you suicidal or do you just expect us to be?
Sorry, they didn't blockade it since 2007. I mean, they only withdrew in 2005, it would've been quite stupid of them, right.
Could it be that Israel started to blockade Gaza right after the Hamas won the Palestinian civil war there?
Yes it is.
Israel left Gaza on Sept 1, 2005 as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. A blockade was imposed after Hamas defeated Fatah in the Battle of Gaza (2007), when Egypt and Israel partially sealed their border crossings with Gaza, on the grounds that Fatah had fled and was no longer providing security on their side. Egypt [5] feared a spill-over of Hamas-style militancy into Egypt.[6]The sanctions have been tightened in response to rocket attacks on southern Israel and Palestinian militant attacks on crossing points between Israel and Gaza.[7][8]
THEY ARE ATTACKING BECAUSE OF THE BLOCKADE
This is really stupid. "We will not do anything, except bomb them every now and then, until they stop attacking us because we bomb them every now and then."
So what were they attacking because of from 2000-2007? Or even from 1987 (the creation of Hamas) until 2007? On the one hand I can believe you that they are attacking because they are sad oppressed people who just want to live in peace with no one hanging over their heads. On the other hand I can believe what Hamas itself claims as it's goals and purposes.
Hamas's 1988 charter calls for the replacement of Israel and the Palestinian Territories with an Islamic Palestinian state. However, Hamas did not mention that goal in its electoral manifesto during the January 2006 election campaign,[42] though the manifesto did call for maintaining the armed struggle against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.[42]
After the elections, in April, 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar did not rule out the possibility of accepting a temporary two-state solution, but also stated that he dreamed "of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it . . . . I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize). . . . This dream will become real one day. I'm certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land".[43] Al-Zahar added that he did not rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state, stating that the Palestinians had never hated the Jews and that only the Israeli occupation was their enemy.[43]
Then why haven't they done so yet? I mean, this has been a stone in the shoe for the last 14 years, and the West Bank security fence only keeps growing. The life in there is ****, they are completely dependent on Israel, they can do nothing, and yet - well, nothing happens!
2 out of 14 or so aquifers is a lot, by the way.
Because there is no one to give it up to! The Hamas are terrorists who won't recognize Israel's right to exist the Fatah support terrorists and guess what? Fatah also don't recognize Israels right to exist. The PLO is made up of these groups and can't control them even if they wanted to (which they have shown they don't)
Who exactly is our partner for peace here? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTQ5CNYLoXE)
I know very well that Fatah is a part of PLO, but he claimed they all are beheading animals. This was disgusting.
Al-Aqsa's relationship with Fatah is quite possible, but they are an uncontrolled dog. Fatah, on the other hand, has been a reliable companion. Or hey, maybe a decade of chaos has something to do with the owner no longer controlling his dog? Maybe as if this had happened before... maybe even with a organization that is now at odds with Israel in Gaza Strip... hmmm
You know it very well yet you listed them as separate candidates for peace.
They are an uncontrolled dog... so why should we assume that Fatah can control other terrorist groups when it can't even control the one claiming to be a part of it? Fatah is a reliable companion? The group that supports Hamas in not recognizing Israel's right to exist and follows suit? Maybe in these decades the owner never has controlled his dog. And there is no organization that is now at odds with Israel in the Gaza strip there is however an organization that was created to be and has always been and continues to be “at odds” (nice way of saying 'targeting civilians for mass murder') with Israel.
No it is not a good thing, but you cannot just *****slap the entire population and hope they still vote the party that is compliant in getting *****slapped. This is exactly what happened in Gaza!
What ***** slap? The pulling out of Gaza in 2005? the targeted killings of terrorist leaders? The 500-600 trucks of aid per day? Or maybe your talking about the blockade... nah. That couldn't be... because whatever this ***** slapping is, it caused the people to vote for Hamas, and the blockade only started... let me see here... oh yeah! After the vote. Interesting.
Complete control of airspace, roads, economy and traffic? Protection - and lately, funnily, expulsion - of rabid settlers? Continuous creep to take over parts of West Bank? Economic sanctions, blockades, barricades - and you claim that the west bank palestinians did not do enough? With what? Spitballs and hair?
how about before all the sanctions restrictions checkpoints etc? What did they do time and time again with those freedoms? Try and create a peaceful loving state or annihilate the Jewish presence from holy Muslim land?
But hey don't let the past cloud your judgment let's look at today. Who provided them with weapons and unfroze their finances when they swore to fight the terrorists? No you are right. Spitballs and hair killed thousands Israelis for decades if only we had an anti spitball defense system we could simply ignore their measly attacks.
Your complete failure to see the blockades, restrictions and sanctions as a meaningful whole means that you can pick up any single detail, no matter how minute, and use it to excuse any mess Israel has driven itself into.
Yeah we weren't talking about this we were addressing whether the aid sent by Israel was paid for by the Israeli government or if the Pals were being charged for it.
YOU SAID GAZA DIDN'T IMPORT ANYTHING
THIS IS PATENTLY FALSE
The goddamn article talks about imports
IMPORTS
you just said how a blockade has nothing to do with imports
are you now saying that the imports are not actually imports
What, pray tell me, are these imports that do not exist.
We are misunderstanding each other somewhere here I am sure. I made the claim that Israel was the one providing aid to Gaza then someone (Trashman I believe) made the claim that what good is that if the Palestinians have to pay for it all it just means they are financially bound to support Israel. Which if this were the case that would be true however what I pointed out was that the aid was free. And the aid itself isn't something they send in orders for therefore if it's not a specified order and not paid for it's not an import. That's the aid trucks. Allot of these people DO try and import from Israel but are restricted by the blockade like this man claims and are either unable to or are very limited. In short all I was addressing was the claim that the aid was not that great because the Pals still had to pay for it... which, as far as I know, they don't.
grownups tsihihihihi
Your argument is basically "well Israel does anything it can (well actually not anything at all) but PALESTINIANS" and it's disgusting.
Israel doesn't 'do' Palestinians? What the hell does that mean? I mean I'm dating an Arab girl that if not for her Israeli citizenship would be considered “Palestinian”. Does that count?
Yep. Launching rockets TARGETED at Israeli civilians = . Blowing up the King David Hotel an attack targeted at the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan and not it's civilians including 3 warning calls to evacuate the building which went ignored = Nothing I would support but miles away from seeing a soldier and a baby in your cross hairs and going for the baby.
Fixed.
The current Israel stratagy of blowing the crap out of "Hamas Militants" (which usually turns out in killing the families of people who suddenly have very good reasons to become "Hamas Militants") clearly DOESN'T work. So why does no-one consider an alternative strategy, such as making Palestina a sovereign country as well?
Whatever happened with “we do not negotiate with terrorists”? Now it's “We do not negotiate with terrorists unless they don't stop for years and years and we can't kill them all because it's a very difficult organization to weed out from among the population so then we just give them a country and hope they renounce everything they think their religion teaches them and everything they claim they believe and don't try and destroy us anymore.
Look I have always said I wished they would get their own state their own government and police etc etc etc that way when they use that to continue to attack Israel people will realize “hey they actually meant what they said when they claimed their goals were the removal of the Jewish state from the map. Fancy that!”
There is no good and evil in this world unless you're a naive *****.
ummmm k. there is no Obama and chocolate jelly beans unless you're a naive *****. See I can make stuff up to isn't it fun?
Judging by the number of trucks and convoys Israel stopped, it looks like the "bad guys" are insanely rich when they can bring in those ammounts of weapons!
Their houses must be made of gold bricks...
Unfortunately Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc etc all these places WANT this conflict they always have supported it and if you think the Palestinians are placing orders online for this stuff and paying for it you are mistaken.
I could say the same. The people of Israel are to blame cause they elected a government that is stupid.
You could but I don't recall the Israeli government ever saying “We desire death as much as they desire life”.
Wrong. There were reports in the news with some buisnissmen from the Gaza strip who complained at the inflated prices of goods they now have to import from Israel.
Goods they chose to import. The whole point was the aid that is sent is free that is not being ordered and then shipped over there anything extra that is ordered of course prices will go up under a blockade and a state of war.
-
This was a partial withdrawal from the West Bank and it was a trial period. One that failed miserably. This whole agreement hinged on Israel withdrawing and the PLO renouncing violence and the destruction of Israel etc etc... which they still to this day have not since they either directly by way of the militant groups in their midst (al-aqsa martyrs brigade) or indirectly by simply not doing anything to stop the terrorists even after Israel gave them hundreds of weapons to combat terrorists and enforce their laws with more often than not any time after that an attack was carried out by a terrorist we found his body with a weapon Israel had given to the PLO.
You think a few guns and police patrols can actually stop terrorists? the USA couldn't stop a handful of terrorists in their own country, with all the technical gizmos at their disposal. Israel can't stop terrorist attacks no matter how many guns it deploys.
And you SERIOUSLY expected the PLO to be able to completley stop any and all attacks? you're asking for the impossible. Israel should withdraw first. Once the situation in the region gets better, then and only then can you expect a decline in terrorist activity.
Ummm Syria has not even conceded the point that Israel has the right to exist and is still in state of war in her relationship with Israel why exactly would any sane person give back a key strategic location to an enemy still hell bent, and not even hiding it, on destroying you? Are you suicidal or do you just expect us to be?
Cause Israel don't have any rights to hold it under pretenses of possible future invasions. The location is important for other reasons - resources and territorial expansion of Isreal.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Isreal actually helped push thing during the first war, so it could grab some more territory.
Because there is no one to give it up to! The Hamas are terrorists who won't recognize Israel's right to exist the Fatah support terrorists and guess what? Fatah also don't recognize Israels right to exist. The PLO is made up of these groups and can't control them even if they wanted to (which they have shown they don't)
A eternal argument. Israel can accuse any government of supporting terrorism or extrmism and simply avoid giving back territory till the end of time. Catch 22.
They are an uncontrolled dog... so why should we assume that Fatah can control other terrorist groups when it can't even control the one claiming to be a part of it? Fatah is a reliable companion? The group that supports Hamas in not recognizing Israel's right to exist and follows suit? Maybe in these decades the owner never has controlled his dog. And there is no organization that is now at odds with Israel in the Gaza strip there is however an organization that was created to be and has always been and continues to be “at odds” (nice way of saying 'targeting civilians for mass murder') with Israel.
Waiting for the whole populace to miracolousy start loving Israel is idiotic.
You make deals with whom you can, and try to help those that are willing to negotiate. F'course, Israel doesn't do that.
We are misunderstanding each other somewhere here I am sure. I made the claim that Israel was the one providing aid to Gaza then someone (Trashman I believe) made the claim that what good is that if the Palestinians have to pay for it all it just means they are financially bound to support Israel. Which if this were the case that would be true however what I pointed out was that the aid was free. And the aid itself isn't something they send in orders for therefore if it's not a specified order and not paid for it's not an import. That's the aid trucks. Allot of these people DO try and import from Israel but are restricted by the blockade like this man claims and are either unable to or are very limited. In short all I was addressing was the claim that the aid was not that great because the Pals still had to pay for it... which, as far as I know, they don't.
Which again is a lie or misunderstanding, since I never said that.
There is some basic aid sent to Gaza.
But the majority of stuff is imported. Aid and import and not mutually exclusive.
You could but I don't recall the Israeli government ever saying “We desire death as much as they desire life”.
Actions speak louder than words...
Goods they chose to import. The whole point was the aid that is sent is free that is not being ordered and then shipped over there anything extra that is ordered of course prices will go up under a blockade and a state of war.
Goods they HAVE to import because thanks to Israel they can't make them themselves. And you can bet your ass they wont' be allowed to import them from somewhere else at normal prices.
-
The situation in question will not get better until certain parties begin acting like responsible adults, instead of petulant children and begin censuring the parties within they're own countries who are fomenting terrorism and anti-west education from "religious" people.
I don't think you guys are going to believe this coming from me but anyway
Religions should concern themselves with politics only so much as the polices of the government impact the spiritual well being of her people. I wouldn't support the Southern Baptist Convention educating and ordering it's Young People ministries to carry out suicide bombings and guerilla attacks against the United Methodist Church or the local courthouse. We know what is required for our spiritual wellbeing. As Christ said, "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, render unto God, what is God's.
-
The situation in question will not get better until certain parties begin acting like responsible adults, instead of petulant children and begin censuring the parties within they're own countries who are fomenting terrorism and anti-west education from "religious" people.
I don't think you guys are going to believe this coming from me but anyway.
Actually you're correct. You just don't go far enough. The situation won't improve until certain parties on both sides begin acting like responsible adults. The problem is that both sides insist on arguing like children about who started it.
-
You think a few guns and police patrols can actually stop terrorists? the USA couldn't stop a handful of terrorists in their own country, with all the technical gizmos at their disposal. Israel can't stop terrorist attacks no matter how many guns it deploys.
With all the technical gizmos and the security allertness of a shoe. I'm sorry but the U.S. When it was attacked was living in a dream world. It's a very different situatio now. Israel has been able to pretty much stop all terrorist attacks that require a human presence in the area of attack. When is the last suicide bombing? The tractor attacks were from people already living inside the secure area and the ax attack was on a settlement outside the secure area... so Israels success rate at stopping or catching in time everything but the rocket attacks is pretty high. And soon with the completion of Iron Dome Israel will become the first nation with short medium and long range missle defense systems.
And you SERIOUSLY expected the PLO to be able to completley stop any and all attacks? you're asking for the impossible. Israel should withdraw first. Once the situation in the region gets better, then and only then can you expect a decline in terrorist activity.
All? No. Any? Yes. Effort? Absolutely! Israel should withdraw handing over the reigns to... absolutely no one and hoping that in time they come around. You should run for office. You don't get to decide when there will be a decline in terrorist activity and Unfortunately for you the terrorists disagree with your schedule for when they should cease and desist. See, their schedule calls for the erasing of the Jewish state from the map and a Muslim banner over all of 'Palestine' and THEN there will be stop to the attacks.
See what many people seem to forget is that the average Palestinian may want peace and their own country side by side with Israel however the people they are allowing to fight for them have very different goals.
Cause Israel don't have any rights to hold it under pretenses of possible future invasions. The location is important for other reasons - resources and territorial expansion of Isreal.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Isreal actually helped push thing during the first war, so it could grab some more territory.
until you have been up to the Golan heights you cannot imagine what kind of a valuable emplacement that is. You look out from there over the entire Galilee all of Israel open to any invading force. We are still in a state of war with Syria and so we don't have to give up anything. They still don't recognize our right to exist and they still work towards and talk about and equip and ready themselves towards another war with Israel. Why you would give a sniper who is trying to shoot you and your family the keys to the church tower right across the street is beyond me.
A eternal argument. Israel can accuse any government of supporting terrorism or extrmism and simply avoid giving back territory till the end of time. Catch 22.
There is no catch 22 here. Egypt doesn't support terrorism anymore and we gave back the Sinai. We thought maybe that Fatah would try and quell the violence in the Gaza strip and so we pulled out of there even while rockets were falling on our towns and what happened? The violence increased immediately. Did you see bee movie? At least watch the trailer. The scene where the bee tries to fly away and hits the glass and then he does it ten more times saying “maybe this time, this time, this time, this time, this time.” this is exactly what you are telling us to do.
They are an uncontrolled dog... so why should we assume that Fatah can control other terrorist groups when it can't even control the one claiming to be a part of it? Fatah is a reliable companion? The group that supports Hamas in not recognizing Israel's right to exist and follows suit? Maybe in these decades the owner never has controlled his dog. And there is no organization that is now at odds with Israel in the Gaza strip there is however an organization that was created to be and has always been and continues to be “at odds” (nice way of saying 'targeting civilians for mass murder') with Israel.
Waiting for the whole populace to miracolousy start loving Israel is idiotic.
You make deals with whom you can, and try to help those that are willing to negotiate. F'course, Israel doesn't do that.
They don't need to love us. They don't even need to like us. All they need to do is live and let live.
Which again is a lie or misunderstanding, since I never said that.
There is some basic aid sent to Gaza.
But the majority of stuff is imported. Aid and import and not mutually exclusive.
you called it “economic slavery”. Which is not true since they don't pay for the aid they get it free.
The majority of what stuff is imported? Food and clothing and medical supplies and fuel is by the aid trucks I doubt people could import more even if they did pay. The rest of it... like building materials is not being allowed into the strip imported or not because of it's potentials uses. So what exactly is the “majority of stuff” you are talking about?
Actions speak louder than words...
Your absolutely right. And not only did Hamas leader say that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWIDZ7Jpdqg) but they also practice it in day to day life for the past few decades. So what here is so hard to understand?
Goods they HAVE to import because thanks to Israel they can't make them themselves. And you can bet your ass they wont' be allowed to import them from somewhere else at normal prices.
Again the stuff they NEED food, medical supplies, clothing, and fuel all comes in the aid trucks. Besides that... stuff like building materials are restricted so again what do they HAVE to import?
-
All? No. Any? Yes. Effort? Absolutely! Israel should withdraw handing over the reigns to... absolutely no one and hoping that in time they come around. You should run for office. You don't get to decide when there will be a decline in terrorist activity and Unfortunately for you the terrorists disagree with your schedule for when they should cease and desist. See, their schedule calls for the erasing of the Jewish state from the map and a Muslim banner over all of 'Palestine' and THEN there will be stop to the attacks.
There was PLO. Then there was Fatah. Then there is Hamas. Israel has and still has someone to hand the reigns over. It just doesn't want to. It expect immediate results and goes ape*** insane when it doesn't get it.
Heck, if I were elected as leader of the palestinians, not even I would want to talk to Isreal now - after their magnificent track record of assisaniting and demonizing anyone who wants to actually talk to them, I'd just be making myself a target.
See what many people seem to forget is that the average Palestinian may want peace and their own country side by side with Israel however the people they are allowing to fight for them have very different goals.
Allow? Strange choice of words. People who fight against Israel didn't ask anyones permission.
until you have been up to the Golan heights you cannot imagine what kind of a valuable emplacement that is. You look out from there over the entire Galilee all of Israel open to any invading force. We are still in a state of war with Syria and so we don't have to give up anything. They still don't recognize our right to exist and they still work towards and talk about and equip and ready themselves towards another war with Israel. Why you would give a sniper who is trying to shoot you and your family the keys to the church tower right across the street is beyond me.
Because it's his tower, it has valubales in it, and I don't have any proof that he will attack at all.
You do realsie that some people/leaders are full of hot air and are just strong on words.
you called it “economic slavery”. Which is not true since they don't pay for the aid they get it free.
I called the imports economic slavery. I mean...really :rolleyes:
The majority of what stuff is imported? Food and clothing and medical supplies and fuel is by the aid trucks I doubt people could import more even if they did pay. The rest of it... like building materials is not being allowed into the strip imported or not because of it's potentials uses. So what exactly is the “majority of stuff” you are talking about?
Whatever it is that is needed. I doubt the aid is enough by itself, so things have to be imported. Yes, that includes food. It was in the papers.
Flour to be more precise. And other things. All imported. All paid.
So what here is so hard to understand?
I can ask you the same question.
Again the stuff they NEED food, medical supplies, clothing, and fuel all comes in the aid trucks. Besides that... stuff like building materials are restricted so again what do they HAVE to import?
and that's wrong. There have been numerous reports, interviews with palestinian buisnismen who talk about these things. they import a lot of stuff, including food.
And building materials outlawed? So they can't rebuild their factories and homes? Way to go Isreal! :no:
-
here was PLO. Then there was Fatah. Then there is Hamas. Israel has and still has someone to hand the reigns over. It just doesn't want to. It expect immediate results and goes ape*** insane when it doesn't get it.
Actually, it's been going on for about 40 years.
If the Palestinians, most of which are actually Syrian, actually wanted peace, it could happen tomorrow.
-
The same could be said about Israel. I doubt they'd like the conditions but then neither would the Palestinians like them for your peace tomorrow idea.
-
Actually, it's been going on for about 40 years.
If the Palestinians, most of which are actually Syrian, actually wanted peace, it could happen tomorrow.
Have you actually read the thread at all?
-
Yeah, I have. I see a lot of defending of the palestinians, most likely because they are the "downtrodden"(nevermind it's they're own fault), and a lot of attacks and hatred leveled at Israel, most likely since the left tends to view Israel as an aggressor state who's trying to take land from the downtrodden. That and you aren't letting facts get in the way of your argument against Israel.
The Palestinians need several things, but mostly, they need stability. Stability is not provided by lobbing rockets or sending your young to blow themselves up in a crowded market/disco/resturant. If the attacks stopped, I'm sure Israel would cease her retaliation.
Of course, I would glass the whole area and let Allah sort them out.
Also, their fight isn't whether God exists or who has the right to the resources in the area. They're fighting, and have alway fought, over what God's name is, how he should be worshipped and what his commands for humanity are. My opinion on those is as follows, God's name is irrelevant, he's God. He is worshipped by praising Him and His works as well as how you live and follow His commands, which for me are laid out in the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament of the Holy Bible.
I'll say this though, based on my readings, God does not want us killing each other like has been going on over that particular stretch of land for the past 1400 years.
-
You've obviously read it without understanding a single thing.
-
I'll say this though, based on my readings, God does not want us killing each other like has been going on over that particular stretch of land for the past 1400 years.
Of course, I would glass the whole area and let Allah sort them out.
:doubt:
-
You've obviously read it without understanding a single thing.
That actually seems to me like a very reasonable estimate of the last 12 pages of arguing. I'll go ahead and say this could go with the "won't let facts get in your way" section.
-
Yeah, I have. I see a lot of defending of the palestinians, most likely because they are the "downtrodden"(nevermind it's they're own fault), and a lot of attacks and hatred leveled at Israel, most likely since the left tends to view Israel as an aggressor state who's trying to take land from the downtrodden. That and you aren't letting facts get in the way of your argument against Israel.
So, what exactly would you call the 1967 War? Israel defending itself? :doubt:
There's no hate being levied at Israel, except what is due it. Israel might have been the underdog at one point in the Middle East, and deserved such sympathy, but as the sole nuclear power in the Middle East with one of the most advanced militaries in the world, it doesn't anymore.
The Palestinians need several things, but mostly, they need stability. Stability is not provided by lobbing rockets or sending your young to blow themselves up in a crowded market/disco/resturant. If the attacks stopped, I'm sure Israel would cease her retaliation.
So the Palestinians have to be the first to act?
Of course, I would glass the whole area and let Allah sort them out.
Yeah, nuke the Holy Land. Fantastic idea.
Also, their fight isn't whether God exists or who has the right to the resources in the area.
Actually, that's exactly what it's about. The resources and land part, at least. The resistance movements exist to liberate Palestine from Israel, not because of the "name of God". Judaism and Islam have far too much in common for it to be about that.
-
Except that most Jews don't think God has ordered them to kill everyone not a Jew.
Also, you realize it's less than 40 miles from Jerusalem to Gaza? And look at the difference in landscape...who's the better steward of said resources.
-
Somethings that we should consider:
1.) Israel has totally carved up the West Bank and Gaza Strip with illegal settlers and outposts. Because of this it takes many hours to go 10 km.
2.) There are a great many extremists on both sides and in the US who, for religious reasons believe this is the "End Times" and so they want this conflict to continue so it brings about the end of the world.
Because of number 2, the conflict will not end either until religion is destroyed or the holy lands are destroyed.
-
I'll take the Solomon approach, cut the baby in half and give it to each then, create a line of demarcation where no life can exist, (sterilize the soil, irradiate the water ect.)and put Israel on one side and Palestine on the other. Put Jerusalem in the middle as an unaffiliated location and be done with it.
If it is about resources then split them and be done with it. You've got hundreds of millions of people who want to go to the Holy Land and worship as they have been taught. Instead of holy worship of God, you've got one side trying to wipe out the other by hook(rockets, suicide bombs, ect.) or crook(looking pathetic and sounding abused to the brain dead media), and the other side retaliating in a "civilized" way by deploying they're military forces in defense of EVERYONE living in the rocket areas and bomb locations, Israeli AND Muslim.
Basically you are telling me that because The Trapster is sucker punching the Silver Surfer the Surfer shouldn't hit back because he's so much stronger and in control of himself?
-
If it is about resources then split them and be done with it.
It's not, it's about religion.
I'll take the Solomon approach, cut the baby in half and give it to each then, create a line of demarcation where no life can exist, (sterilize the soil, irradiate the water ect.)and put Israel on one side and Palestine on the other. Put Jerusalem in the middle as an unaffiliated location and be done with it.
That's what the UN did in '48.
-
Basically you are telling me that because The Trapster is sucker punching the Silver Surfer the Surfer shouldn't hit back because he's so much stronger and in control of himself?
No.
We're saying Israel went over the bounds of acceptable when they attacked Gaza. They should retaliate, but plenty of conditions which led to the problems there were from Israel's actions.
Also, you realize it's less than 40 miles from Jerusalem to Gaza? And look at the difference in landscape...who's the better steward of said resources.
You're comparing the Palestinian territories management of resources to Israeli management of resources?
Don't think you've noticed, but there's a tad bit of a difference in how much money each side gets to spend on managing resources and developing them. And, frankly, no matter how many rockets Hamas fires, none damage the Israeli infrastructure badly enough to affect its management of resources. It's still a highly-advanced and stable country whose quality of life is very high for the Middle East outside of the Gulf states.
Gaza, on the other hand, has been blockaded, devastated, and starved into being a third world country. Of course they're not going to be able to use their resources in a better manner--Israel destroyed every way they can! Mills, sewage treatment plants, farms...Israel blew it all up or prevented them from treating them!
I mean, what you're doing is tantamount to saying Chechnya is unworthy of its resources and should give it all to Russia, or comparing the US farm production to the Sudan! Golly gee willickers! No wonder there's such a difference! :rolleyes:
you've got one side trying to wipe out the other by hook(rockets, suicide bombs, ect.) or crook(looking pathetic and sounding abused to the brain dead media)
Palestine looks like its been down-trodden and abused because, well...it has been. At the hands of the terrorist organizations and Israel. Those collapsed buildings you see on the news? You seem them because, well, they exist. The overcrowded refugee camps? You seem them, because, well, they exist.
and the other side retaliating in a "civilized" way by deploying they're military forces in defense of EVERYONE living in the rocket areas and bomb locations, Israeli AND Muslim.
For Israeli citizens.
How much regard do you think they paid to the residents of Gaza?
-
Except that most Jews don't think God has ordered them to kill everyone not a Jew.
You sure about that? Cause I can quote chapter and verse. Christians can hide behind the whole "Jesus made another contract for us" but Jews certainly can't.
-
Most muslims also don't believe that god has ordered them to kill everyone not muslim, and yes, one can quote chapter and verse there too.
So please, people, don't start arguing about that, will you?
-
There was PLO. Then there was Fatah. Then there is Hamas. Israel has and still has someone to hand the reigns over. It just doesn't want to. It expect immediate results and goes ape*** insane when it doesn't get it.
Heck, if I were elected as leader of the palestinians, not even I would want to talk to Isreal now - after their magnificent track record of assisaniting and demonizing anyone who wants to actually talk to them, I'd just be making myself a target.
Again Fatah is PLO. And again these are parties that to this day say they don't recognize our right to exist. So for whatever reason you choose to glaze over this issue which btw is a big freaking issue and just say hey look they are alive and not deaf dumb and mute they must be legitimate partners for peace. Awesome!
Uuuh yeah in Gaza when we had the 'ceasefire' and we expected immediate results was because the people we were negotiating with were not a party that had to go out and find and stop the terrorists from shooting rockets THEY ARE THE TERRORISTS SHOOTING ROCKETS! Negotiating with terrorists isn't a policy most countries would undertake but when you do you best be damn sure you expect immediate results.
I can just see if you were there. Nah go right ahead shooting rockets just launch a couple less every day and we will be just fine. You either are too far removed from this situation to appreciate the severity or you have a death wish.
Allow? Strange choice of words. People who fight against Israel didn't ask anyones permission.
And yet they get the peoples permission.
Because the people don't protest or act against these groups and their methods and they claim them as their freedom fighters and elect them to government and they revere the ones that gave their lives to spill Jewish blood. So yeah. They allow them to fight for them.
Because it's his tower, it has valubales in it, and I don't have any proof that he will attack at all.
You do realsie that some people/leaders are full of hot air and are just strong on words.
Don't have any proof that he will attack? Just full of hot air? Am I on punked?
1948 war with Syria
1967 war with Syria
1973 war with Syria
1982 war with Syria
2006 war with Syrian armed and trained group.
1948 – present: Syria doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist and their political dialog consists of much the same rantings as Iran. Wipe Israel off the map. Cleanse the Muslim holy land from the Zionist scourge etc etc.
So full of words backed with 61 years of actions you really ARE suicidal.
I called the imports economic slavery. I mean...really :rolleyes:
Whatever it is that is needed. I doubt the aid is enough by itself, so things have to be imported. Yes, that includes food. It was in the papers.
Flour to be more precise. And other things. All imported. All paid.
So they choose to import more of what they already get for free? Which is their right they can do that if they want but that is not economic slavery. And show me how many Palestinians in Gaza died of starvation then we can talk about how you doubt the aid is enough. Enough is relative.
Again the stuff they NEED food, medical supplies, clothing, and fuel all comes in the aid trucks. Besides that... stuff like building materials are restricted so again what do they HAVE to import?
and that's wrong. There have been numerous reports, interviews with palestinian buisnismen who talk about these things. they import a lot of stuff, including food.
Which brings us back to one of our original arguments why exactly do you take their word for it? Because of their golden track record of NOT distorting the truth?
If they only food they could get was by importing that would be economic slavery. But it's not and it's not.
And building materials outlawed? So they can't rebuild their factories and homes? Way to go Isreal! :no:
They really should have thought of that before allowing those factories and homes to be used to store launch and hide weapons and the terrorists who use them. Tough luck. You reap what you sow. Oh yeah I forgot the residents who want to refuse can't because they will be killed or maimed or imprisoned... awesome. Again who elected these people to leadership? Again you reap what you sow.
-
I can just see if you were there. Nah go right ahead shooting rockets just launch a couple less every day and we will be just fine. You either are too far removed from this situation to appreciate the severity or you have a death wish.
If I had a death wish I'd try to negotiate with Isreal.
I'd be assasinated with a guided missile the next morning.
Because the people don't protest or act against these groups and their methods and they claim them as their freedom fighters and elect them to government and they revere the ones that gave their lives to spill Jewish blood. So yeah. They allow them to fight for them.
And you allow IDF to buldoze refugee camps and bomb whole cities to stone age. You're a bigger terrorist supporter than the plaestinian people.
Which brings us back to one of our original arguments why exactly do you take their word for it? Because of their golden track record of NOT distorting the truth?
If they only food they could get was by importing that would be economic slavery. But it's not and it's not.
And you know that how? Cause you're sources never lie?
Buisnessman generally want to do buisness. They didn't have a beef with Israel until it started blowing their factories/mills/offices.
I suppose it is possible for them to lie now that they have a grudge...Oh, wait. I just remembered! No one on the Israeli side has any grudges or reasons to lie!
And building materials outlawed? So they can't rebuild their factories and homes? Way to go Isreal! :no:
They really should have thought of that before allowing those factories and homes to be used to store launch and hide weapons and the terrorists who use them. Tough luck. You reap what you sow. Oh yeah I forgot the residents who want to refuse can't because they will be killed or maimed or imprisoned... awesome. Again who elected these people to leadership? Again you reap what you sow.
For which again Israel offered 0 proof. It's blowing up schools, mosks, factories, mills, homes. Never has it offered any proof that it actually housed or stored anything. So I should just take their word for it? That every rock is housing a terrorist artillery?
With the number of structures destroyed, even if only half were actually weapon storages, then the palestinians have enough weapon stockpiles for World War 3 + extra. And I had to be pretty retarded to buy that bulls***.
-
I was going to report that post of yours Kara, but apparently this forum has no rules about such things. Don't get me wrong, I hate religion as much as the next guy, but holy **** are you ignorant. Sure you don't want to start up your own little dictatorship there in Britain and start cooking these people in ovens? A part of me really thinks you would, if given the chance.
Wow, just, wow.
-
I was going to report that post of yours Kara, but apparently this forum has no rules about such things. Don't get me wrong, I hate religion as much as the next guy, but holy **** are you ignorant. Sure you don't want to start up your own little dictatorship there in Britain and start cooking these people in ovens? A part of me really thinks you would, if given the chance.
Wow, just, wow.
Seriously, no one cares about your stupid little vendetta, least of all me. Give it up. :rolleyes:
-
I was going to report that post of yours Kara, but apparently this forum has no rules about such things. Don't get me wrong, I hate religion as much as the next guy, but holy **** are you ignorant. Sure you don't want to start up your own little dictatorship there in Britain and start cooking these people in ovens? A part of me really thinks you would, if given the chance.
Wow, just, wow.
Seriously, no one cares about your stupid little vendetta, least of all me. Give it up. :rolleyes:
It's not about YOU it's about the way you do things god dammit. Saying all Jews want everyone who's not a Jew to die is like saying all Pakis are dirty terrorists. DO YOU GET IT?
-
Except he's not saying that all Jews want everyone who's not a Jew to die, he's just saying that the text telling them so is present in their religious book.
If everyone followed their religious book, there'd be no humans left.
-
Turambar gets it. :yes:
-
Hellstryker, that was uncalled for. Kara clearly wasn't saying that.
I understand (though do not empathize with) hard feelings towards Kara, but selective reading and interpretation of his posts is unfair.
-
Except he's not saying that all Jews want everyone who's not a Jew to die, he's just saying that the text telling them so is present in their religious book.
If everyone followed their religious book, there'd be no humans left.
Yeah, but they don't, therefor he has no point. people cannot be generalized by a book. My grandma is a Christian, and I don't see her screaming that every Muslim is evil. Stupid thing to say in the first place.
Hellstryker, that was uncalled for. Kara clearly wasn't saying that.
I understand (though do not empathize with) hard feelings towards Kara, but selective reading and interpretation of his posts is unfair.
Stop trying to be a moderator, you can do it when you are one.
You cannot understand my feelings towards Kara, because clearly you agree with the way he runs things. So to you I appear to be acting like an irrational idiot.
There were two ways of interpreting that post of his. One would be that he hates Jews, one would be that he was merely pointing out a point made in a stupid ancient book. He made it sound like the former.
-
You do understand that when using sarcasm you say something stupid in order to make your point? :rolleyes:
-
Again, Hellstryker, he was making reference to an earlier point which suggested that Muslims were motivated by their own holy text (the Quran) to destroy non-Muslims. It was a valid comparison meant to undermine that argument.
I respect you and your work, and you don't seem irrational to me. However, there's no need to snap; personal opinions on behavior aren't restricted to moderators.
It's always tempting to draw battle lines between 'us' and 'them', particularly when you feel like the only one on the 'us' team. But I'm just rebuking you in this one case, not providing any kind of general criticism of your behavior or opinions.
The fact that Kara has said he thinks both sides of the conflict are wrong -- explicitly, and in just those words -- indicates an admirable degree of detachment and rationality.
-
Thing is, some Christians do have grandmas who scream that all Muslims should be killed, just as some Muslims do have grandmas who scream that all Christians should be killed, I think that's the point that needs to be made here, people have a choice.
-
I'm sure that there's an allegory in here somewhere about always assuming the worst of people that applies to the situation in Palestine.
Buggered if I can find it though. :p
-
If I had a death wish I'd try to negotiate with Isreal.
It wouldn't matter if you weren't some idiot lobbing rockets at them.
bomb whole cities to stone age.
stone age = stone tools the height of technology. bombed to maybe pre-modern age. They still have cars, cell phones and the like. Find a different analogy.
And you know that how? Cause you're sources never lie?
Buisnessman generally want to do buisness. They didn't have a beef with Israel until it started blowing their factories/mills/offices.
I suppose it is possible for them to lie now that they have a grudge...Oh, wait. I just remembered! No one on the Israeli side has any grudges or reasons to lie!
:wtf:
With the number of structures destroyed, even if only half were actually weapon storages, then the palestinians have enough weapon stockpiles for World War 3 + extra. And I had to be pretty retarded to buy that bulls***.
Honestly? You have no f*cking idea what you are talking about. In WWII, the U.S. alone had 16.1 million men serve. Russia had 50+ million. Germany had around 22 IIRC. WW3 my ass! You could fill the entirety of Palestine several times over with equipment and weapons to fight a major world war. Numbers that come out seem to be the sort of numbers that would support a force of about 50,000.
-
I love it when silly members start trying to go against the admins.
-
Trashman's post
Detox then post...I couldn't understand that.
stone age = stone tools the height of technology. bombed to maybe pre-modern age. They still have cars, cell phones and the like. Find a different analogy.
It's just a phrase. Doesn't require analysis. You understood what he meant right? Bomb their infrastructure to the point where they revert quite a bit.
-
I've seen no evidence of any reversion. It only exists in that phrase, as such, I ventured to debunk that phrase.
Maybe it's the professional debater in me, but I like to argue the smallest things.
-
I love it when silly members start trying to go against the admins.
Better to not take it in the ass willingly so far as I'm concerned, even if it does amount to nothing.
-
If I had a death wish I'd try to negotiate with Isreal.
It wouldn't matter if you weren't some idiot lobbing rockets at them.
Except that everyone is labeled as an "rocket lobbing idiot"...if not directly then by association. Which leaves you nobody to talk to.
I mean ....really.
you're a wrongulartiy from which no right can escape!
-
ahh war sucks. except the shivan incursion.
-
Thought I could write some thoughts that reading the thread gave me, this is especially good time to heal the world as it's Saturday and I'm approaching one promille fast!
First Kara, I thought quite a lot of British Empire was based on the idea of Divide and Conquer, nothing short of terrorist activity in itself so the irony is back on UK. Though I view that all as irrelevant and label it as "HAPPENED IN PAST" and discussing it doesn't really help to solve any nowadays problems.
Splinter, I think you're doing quite well, according to what I have heard from the Finnish peacekeepers that have been stationed in the area. The only problem what I have heard of is the sometimes heavy-handiness of Israeli war machine, though the main complaint has nothing to do with Israel. If some Israeli would like to give me a tour along some of the border, I could actually book a flight to see the situation with my own eyes during the summer. I'm already too old to become a peacekeeper, unfortunately (nor would my working place appreciate me becoming one). In the hindsight, I should have done that when I had the chance, but when I was 19 I had other things in mind.
Now that the equal response was mentioned, wasn't it US itself that found out in 1960's that this kind of approach really doesn't work? After the dogma of smoothly increasing the intensity of the attack was noted to be a failure, it shifted to a total domination right from the start, which sounds reasonable to an infantry grunt also.
What I have noticed is that very few people have ideas how this mess could be solved. My proposal is enforcing to peace using superior strength and numbers. Simply send an international force large enough to dwarf IDF and also to be able to track down those mortar and rockets firing militants. The large force is needed to prevent IDF from taking UN personnel hostages (unlikely, but even this has to be considered) and also to cover as large land area as possible. Replacing the UN operatives in that area by operatives that come from neutral countries should be among the first priorities.
Mika
-
Sending in a UN operation like that would be a disaster. It would simply be viewed as a different invading army.
As for why I talk about the past... Something has to penetrate the smug Israeli position that they are the good guys and the Palestinians are lead by terrorists who can not be reasoned with. They need to realise that their entire country was founded on terrorism and once those terrorists held official positions in the Israeli government the rest of the world did deal with them. Even the UK.
And speaking of the UK, had someone reminded the British politicians why they needed to talk we probably could have saved years worth of bloodshed in Northern Ireland.
-
Sending in a UN operation like that would be a disaster. It would simply be viewed as a different invading army.
How would it actually be a disaster? The outcome depends on how the army in itself acts. It is quite clear that Israeli army is not considered as good thing in Gaza, while an international army that occupies BOTH Israel and disputed zones is invading them both. There cannot be a claim from either sides that it is unfair. If there is unrest on either side, more international forces can be applied there. My personal view is that if above for some reason fails, the next best option for international community is to glass the whole place in common understanding of bettering the human race (yeah, you can call me a racist for that one) and declaring it as international no-entry zone for the rest of eternity.
What it comes to negotiating with terrorists in Middle East, I think that should have happened circa 40 years ago (and that also did happen according to my understanding). Nowadays after that much of misery and destruction on both sides it is pretty much impossible. Doing normal job in order to gain respect from the society has to be easier than committing terrorist acts.
What it comes to a smug position of Israel being always right, I think the Israeli are the good guys today, while it may not have been true always hence the comment "HAPPENED IN PAST". Simple fact is that they could have destroyed and cleansed the whole place whenever they wanted to, but didn't and haven't. They also have a track record of being able to have peace with their neighbors if the neighbors leave them alone.
The bottom line is, you cannot expect the same things to work with Israel and Palestinians that worked with UK and Ireland. I seem to recall UK was not able to stop the Falklands from escalating into full scale conflict despite their experience with Ireland, nor did any of that work with Pakistan or India. I also seem to recall some innocent person getting shot at the tub despite all the UK experience of dealing with terrorists. Every conflict is a separate thing and there is simply no general rules how to solve something that works everywhere on Earth.
It is possible to read between the lines that I'm totally fed up with seeing news about conflicts between Israel and Palestinians.
Mika
-
The problem with an UN engagement would be the nationality of the troops involved. German troops? In ISRAEL? British or American? Not a good idea. Predominantly Christian? Predominantly Muslim? Either one of those choices would be seen by some to be a slight against the underrepresented confession.
-
The problem with an UN engagement would be the nationality of the troops involved. German troops? In ISRAEL? British or American? Not a good idea. Predominantly Christian? Predominantly Muslim? Either one of those choices would be seen by some to be a slight against the underrepresented confession.
Why is this a problem? You could have American military force flying CAP and providing naval support while the more impartial nations take care of the ground policing. If German troops would become a problem when stationed in Israel, then that would reveal for me at least that Israeli themselves would not want peace. The current generation of Germans had nothing to do with anything that happened to Israeli grandfathers and -mothers.
Mika
-
you could put German troops in Israel and christian troops in the west bank, then everyone's unhappy :).
-
The bottom line is, you cannot expect the same things to work with Israel and Palestinians that worked with UK and Ireland. I seem to recall UK was not able to stop the Falklands from escalating into full scale conflict despite their experience with Ireland
:wtf:
I can't see how you can claim one has anything to do with the other. That's like saying that the US's experience with making nuclear bombs didn't help them in Vietnam so therefore they'd have been useless in a war against the USSR.
Sure every conflict is different but the Northern Ireland one is one of the most similar ones to that in Gaza.
And I've never believed in the "But we haven't committed genocide so therefore we must be the good guys" argument.
-
Well it was to counter your claim it could be something similar like UK was having with Ireland. I don't see much that kind of connection. What makes you think they are similar? Also, if UK had so much experise in dealing with terrorists, I would expect from such civilized nation that it could negotiate a peaceful solution to Falklands conflict. Apparently, it failed. Why?
And I've never believed in the "But we haven't committed genocide so therefore we must be the good guys" argument.
You can believe whatever the hell you want. I base my opinions on Finnish peacekeepers' accounts.
Mika
-
Well it was to counter your claim it could be something similar like UK was having with Ireland. I don't see much that kind of connection. What makes you think they are similar?
You don't?
Well if you can't see how Northern Ireland and the IRA campaign against mainland UK is a somewhat similar situation to the situation between Israel and Palestine I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it.
Also, if UK had so much experise in dealing with terrorists, I would expect from such civilized nation that it could negotiate a peaceful solution to Falklands conflict. Apparently, it failed. Why?
:lol: You forget that Mrs Thatcher was in charge for the Falklands war and she absolutely refused to talk to terrorists. Expecting her to talk to the Argentinians in the same way that she talked with the terrorists and thinking that this would lead to peace is hilarious.
As a matter of fact I was thinking of Mrs Thatcher specifically when I said had someone reminded the British politicians why they needed to talk we probably could have saved years worth of bloodshed in Northern Ireland.
And I've never believed in the "But we haven't committed genocide so therefore we must be the good guys" argument.
You can believe whatever the hell you want. I base my opinions on Finnish peacekeepers' accounts.
Link? Cause I've heard UN accounts that are much less favourable of Israel.
-
You can believe whatever the hell you want. I base my opinions on Finnish peacekeepers' accounts.
Mika
What, the ones Israel bombed?
Mika
-
Now that I can be arsed to write something down here again:
In case you wondered, the UN peacekeepers actually understood too well why Israel had to attack and actually condemned Hezbollah for doing what it was doing. The reason the monitoring station was bombed was because the people inside did not have weapons to repel the Hezbollah away from the station. In other words, they were held as hostage. Finnish government requested a clarification of the incident from Israel and the report has been accepted as the reason of the bombing.
You don't?
Well if you can't see how Northern Ireland and the IRA campaign against mainland UK is a somewhat similar situation to the situation between Israel and Palestine I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it.
Oh no, I'm not gonna let you squirm out of that so easily! Explain your reasoning. First of all, I see relatively large sea between England and Ireland. And that is just for the starters.
Link? Cause I've heard UN accounts that are much less favourable of Israel.
I said that you can believe in whatever you want. My reasons are discussions with peacekeepers on several occasions during and after my service time. What it comes to links, I don't have them, this kind of information is not available via internet. Also, it is bordering what I consider classified information for several reasons that I will NOT discuss here. You either take my word for it or you don't, it doesn't make any difference to me. Have you considered that the exact situation when and where the UN official is asked about something affects the answer heavily?
You forget that Mrs Thatcher was in charge for the Falklands war and she absolutely refused to talk to terrorists. Expecting her to talk to the Argentinians in the same way that she talked with the terrorists and thinking that this would lead to peace is hilarious.
Would this mean that Thatcher is the main reason for Falklands conflict?
Mika
-
Would this mean that Thatcher is the main reason for Falklands conflict?
I'm not going to lay the blame for the conflict at her feet because the first the British knew about it was when the Argentinians had already invaded. Which meant a quick resolution of some sort was needed. Could a different prime minister have solved the problem without a war? Possibly. But to claim that because a different prime minster was able to solve the conflict in N. Ireland after the Falklands War was over should mean that Mrs Thatcher should therefore have been able to solved the Falklands War diplomatically is ludicrous. It's like claiming that cause the Cuban Missile Crisis ended without the launch of nuclear weapons that the Americans should have been able to end WWII without using them.
You've got your timeline completely arse about face there. Claiming that you can learn from events that haven't happened yet is nonsense.
On the other hand claiming that you can learn from events in the past is a completely different matter. I've said many times that the Palestinians would get much further taking a leaf out of Gandhi's book. Similarly Israel would do a lot better to pay attention to the British attempts at peace in Northern Ireland in the late 90s than the early 80s. Saying that you won't talk with terrorists sounds great on the news, but it doesn't get you anywhere.
It never did when Mrs Thatcher said it. And it won't for Israel. Which is why I keep pointing out how Northern Ireland did manage to (mostly) end the troubles.
-
If I had a death wish I'd try to negotiate with Isreal.
I'd be assasinated with a guided missile the next morning.
Wow. Heh. You got us there. You uncovered Israel's master plan. Whenever there arose a Palestinian leader to political power we rocketed his ass. Abbas... Arafat... Ismail Haniyeh... etc etc... oh yeah I heard about rocket attacks on cars of leaders... hmm but I seem to recall those were leaders of the terrorist factions. Funny that you didn't mention that... seems like an important note.
And you allow IDF to buldoze refugee camps and bomb whole cities to stone age. You're a bigger terrorist supporter than the plaestinian people.
an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants.
And you know that how? Cause you're sources never lie?
Buisnessman generally want to do buisness. They didn't have a beef with Israel until it started blowing their factories/mills/offices.
I suppose it is possible for them to lie now that they have a grudge...Oh, wait. I just remembered! No one on the Israeli side has any grudges or reasons to lie!
See there's the difference. I never said that no one of my sources lied. In fact I said again and again don't believe what you read because it's all a slant you have to see it for yourself and come to your own conclusions or barring that at least read both sides realize that the truth may be hiding in the gray area in between and at the very least be as skeptical of one side as you are of the other.
I'm gonna keep saying it. People who read this stuff and get all preachy and condemn everything need to get their heads out of the sand and stop taking what they read at face value and think they know everything because they read an article from the UN (impartial... oh wait no because 99.9% of the UNRWA employees are the locals... oops) and think that they would never lie. They have been caught in lies already and yet still they say one thing and people jump down our throat not even suspecting that maybe it could be a little tainted. It's just sickening.
For which again Israel offered 0 proof. It's blowing up schools, mosks, factories, mills, homes. Never has it offered any proof that it actually housed or stored anything. So I should just take their word for it? That every rock is housing a terrorist artillery?
my point in case. They have offered up a multitude of videos and reports about these places being used to store weapons but you choose to ignore them. Why? Because you think there was nothing stopping them from photoshopping the videos or from planting the weapons in the mosques and schools before filming the troops moving through and finding them. The only way you would believe it was if you were there to see it for yourself. So instead you just assume that you are being lied to which is fine you shouldn't believe everything however you only do it for one side and that is hypocritical and ignorant. Think about it.
With the number of structures destroyed, even if only half were actually weapon storages, then the palestinians have enough weapon stockpiles for World War 3 + extra. And I had to be pretty retarded to buy that bulls***.
You would be sadly surprised and mistaken. And a house doesn't have to be weapons storage to be targeted. It could be a rocket launching pad. A Mortar launching station. A building with a sniper position. Any militants firing from the building and using it for cover. Weapons storage. Tunnel entrance. A million and 1 reasons and it's sad that people allowed their houses to be turned into tools of violence because they end up losing them. They elected Hamas to power who have always used civilian structures as cover for their operations and then when their houses are used for terrorist activity they don't protest and then when it gets blown to hell they are like “HEY! What did I do?” I do feel bad that so many houses were destroyed but now they have to lay in the bed (of rubble) they made. Maybe they will take that into consideration next time they elect a terrorist organization into power who is trying to eradicate their neighbors by any means necessary.
-
an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants.
Yes, I'd say that describes the Israeli governement quite well.
I'm gonna keep saying it. People who read this stuff and get all preachy and condemn everything need to get their heads out of the sand and stop taking what they read at face value and think they know everything because they read an article from the UN (impartial... oh wait no because 99.9% of the UNRWA employees are the locals... oops) and think that they would never lie. They have been caught in lies already and yet still they say one thing and people jump down our throat not even suspecting that maybe it could be a little tainted. It's just sickening.
Boith sides have lied on many occasions. Taht is pretty muhc irrelevent.
Unless you can actually offer proof that those buisnissmen are lying?
my point in case. They have offered up a multitude of videos and reports about these places being used to store weapons but you choose to ignore them. Why? Because you think there was nothing stopping them from photoshopping the videos or from planting the weapons in the mosques and schools before filming the troops moving through and finding them. The only way you would believe it was if you were there to see it for yourself. So instead you just assume that you are being lied to which is fine you shouldn't believe everything however you only do it for one side and that is hypocritical and ignorant. Think about it.
99% of the videos I've seen is utter crap. Green blobs and shapes that can be pretty much anything. Videos and images that make it hard to see what the structure is or even where it is.
I could use the same videos to justify blowing up Notre Dame
Maybe they will take that into consideration next time they elect a terrorist organization into power who is trying to eradicate their neighbors by any means necessary.
Isreali government is a terrorist organization. You deserve to have your house rocketed. Take that into account the nexst time.
-
Wow. Heh. You got us there. You uncovered Israel's master plan. Whenever there arose a Palestinian leader to political power we rocketed his ass. Abbas... Arafat... Ismail Haniyeh... etc etc... oh yeah I heard about rocket attacks on cars of leaders... hmm but I seem to recall those were leaders of the terrorist factions. Funny that you didn't mention that... seems like an important note.
Yes it is. But not for the reasons you think.
Didn't you try to claim that Fatah and the PLO were also terrorist factions earlier? Now you say that Abbas and Arafat aren't the leaders of terrorist factions and therefore weren't attacked with rockets?
So which one is it?
-
Hmm, I have an idea...
I hearby form the Celtic Liberation Front, my declared goal is the complete destruction of the United Kingdom and the restoration of the lands of my forbears! We will also be offering support services to fellow Celts who are displaced in the north and suffer daily under the heavy hand of the damnable Saxon bastards.
See how I can turn it around and make you sound like a creep over something that happened that long ago?
-
Turn it around? That's exactly what the Jews did!
In the case of the Palestinians we're talking about living people who may have actually been born in what is now Israel (or the 1st or 2nd generation descendants). In the case of the Jews we're talking about people who didn't live there for nearly 2000 years!
Thanks for showing how blatantly ridiculous any Jewish claim to have a right to Israel prior to the British giving them one really is.
-
I'm sorry, I thought UK had a far more longer history dealing with IRA than it seems. I thought the conflict was a lot older, but only escalated in 1980s.
What it comes to reason of Falklands war, why did Argentina attempt to annex the islands? My interpretation is simply that UK was seen as a far distant power that was estimated as unable to project enough power or resources to Falklands to attempt the retake. The militaristic factions must see Israel in the same way in order to keep on fighting.
The reason why UK could negotiate with IRA is simply because it was possible to reach a compromise, i.e. UK had something to fall back on. I don't see the same thing possible in Israel as long as the Palestinians do not accept the existance of Israel. That would mean Jews would be driven back to Mediterranean sea, hence my comment of relative dissimilarity of the theaters.
More equivalent thing between UK and IRA would be that IRA would request English people to move back to France and leave the English land area for them. Or at least that is my take of it.
Mika
-
Excepts the palestinians were willing to talk on different terms. Several times.
If I had an Orion destroyer right now, I'd park it in orbit above Israel and demand their uncoditional surrender...or else! :beamz:
-
That's a bit much.
Letting these problems become emotional (trite as that sounds) is part of what's prolonged this conflict.
-
It wasn't much of a fallback position though. All that would have happened would be that instead of the UK being bombed by the Catholics it would have been Ireland being bombed by the Protestants.
Besides I question your assertion that all the Palestinians want is to drive Israel into the sea.
-
Excepts the palestinians were willing to talk on different terms. Several times.
But I do recall that the Israeli have also been prepared to negotiate with them several times. Also, it is indeed Israeli that have actually tried the diplomatic approach and made concessions towards Palestinian people in the recent years.
Mika
-
But I do recall that the Israeli have also been prepared to negotiate with them several times. Also, it is indeed Israeli that have actually tried the diplomatic approach and made concessions towards Palestinian people in the recent years.
And cause they failed that HAS to be the Palestinians fault?
-
Besides I question your assertion that all the Palestinians want is to drive Israel into the sea.
I don't think I have said that all of them would. Point me where exactly I have stated that all of them would.
For me it seems that the people participating in launching rockets and mortars over the border either get a silent approval from general population, or, that the general population has been scared in to accepting them doing this and thus do not report them to authorities. Authorities could easily be part of this.
I have already said my opinion on how to solve this deadlock. On the other side of the fence, you have a bunch of settlers that need to be watched just as carefully.
Mika
-
Besides I question your assertion that all the Palestinians want is to drive Israel into the sea.
I don't think I have said that all of them would. Point me where exactly I have stated that all of them would.
I didn't say you had. Reread that sentence carefully.
-
Ah the joys of speed-reading English and forgetting one sentence structure...
And cause they failed that HAS to be the Palestinians fault?
Could you please clarify this comment a little more carefully?
Mika
-
My point is that the failure of diplomatic efforts in the last few years can not be laid at the feet of either Israel or Palestine. It's the fault of both sides.
-
For me it seems that the people participating in launching rockets and mortars over the border either get a silent approval from general population
hell, if someone had bulldozed my house and livelihood in order to "settle" it, I'd silently approve of launching rockets at them too
-
For me it seems that the people participating in launching rockets and mortars over the border either get a silent approval from general population
hell, if someone had bulldozed my house and livelihood in order to "settle" it, I'd silently approve of launching rockets at them too
hey they don't even bulldoze the houses
they just drive people away and live in their homes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cAeIvbMgFg
"try to avoid awkward situations"
-
That's a bit much.
Letting these problems become emotional (trite as that sounds) is part of what's prolonged this conflict.
Maybe...but if Israel continues to pull crap, I fear I will end up as a anti-semite one day despite my better judgment.
-
That's a bit much.
Letting these problems become emotional (trite as that sounds) is part of what's prolonged this conflict.
Maybe...but if Israel continues to pull crap, I fear I will end up as a anti-semite one day despite my better judgment.
So, you're going to hate all Jews... because of one country. That's just about as stupid as hating all communists because Russia was communist. I may not agree, but I don't hate them.
-
Maybe...but if Israel continues to pull crap, I fear I will end up as a anti-semite one day despite my better judgment.
you don't become an anti-semite if you dislike israel
you become anti-israeli if you dislike israel.
you become an anti-semite if you hate all jews
israel != all jews
-
I'm sorry, I thought UK had a far more longer history dealing with IRA than it seems. I thought the conflict was a lot older, but only escalated in 1980s.
Technically, you're correct. There is, for example, the Easter Rising around WW1.
-
My point is that the failure of diplomatic efforts in the last few years can not be laid at the feet of either Israel or Palestine. It's the fault of both sides.
Then explain what is the mistake from Israeli side during the last eight years?
I'm not saying Israel has never done anything wrong, the early 1950s to 1960s appear as extraordinarily dirty to me. But current day, I don't see much things that could have been done otherwise with respect to Gaza and West Bank.
hey they don't even bulldoze the houses
they just drive people away and live in their homes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cAeIvbMgFg
"try to avoid awkward situations"
THAT is one of the things I see wrong from the Israeli side. For all those religious connections, I think UN declared Jerusalem as international land. It was probably never truly ratified, though.
Yeah, an important distinction is that being critical towards Israel does not equal anti-semitism. This kind of connection to silence criticism is used time by time in the media.
Mika
-
Then explain what is the mistake from Israeli side during the last eight years?
I'm not saying Israel has never done anything wrong, the early 1950s to 1960s appear as extraordinarily dirty to me. But current day, I don't see much things that could have been done otherwise with respect to Gaza and West Bank.
You're kidding me right?
I've already made the point about a dozen times that it was Israel's side lining of the PLO and Fatah that opened the door for Hamas to be elected.
-
you don't become an anti-semite if you dislike israel
you become anti-israeli if you dislike israel.
you become an anti-semite if you hate all jews
Yes, but the brain creates the connection anyway, since the state is jewish. And it would not only be Israels fault if that were to happen. That organization led by that natzi-hunter...whatshisname...pulls all sorts of stupid crap too.
All it takes is a few very vocal and very irritating members of X to paint a very negative picture of all X. You know..like the media are demonizing gamers and turning games into kill/rape simulators.... The world is full of examples.
-
You're kidding me right?
I've already made the point about a dozen times that it was Israel's side lining of the PLO and Fatah that opened the door for Hamas to be elected.
I don't think you have explained this with much of detail yet. How did they side line PLO? Why did they side line them?
One additional comment: reading through your posts, I get the impression that the mentioned side lining was a calculated move by Israel as if they would have wanted the Hamas power to increase. Is this correct or incorrect?
Mika
-
you don't become an anti-semite if you dislike israel
you become anti-israeli if you dislike israel.
you become an anti-semite if you hate all jews
Yes, but the brain creates the connection anyway, since the state is jewish. And it would not only be Israels fault if that were to happen. That organization led by that natzi-hunter...whatshisname...pulls all sorts of stupid crap too.
All it takes is a few very vocal and very irritating members of X to paint a very negative picture of all X. You know..like the media are demonizing gamers and turning games into kill/rape simulators.... The world is full of examples.
So because Black individuals are more often criminals, you've started to become anti-Black?
-
I don't think you have explained this with much of detail yet. How did they side line PLO? Why did they side line them?
One additional comment: reading through your posts, I get the impression that the mentioned side lining was a calculated move by Israel as if they would have wanted the Hamas power to increase. Is this correct or incorrect?
Israel deliberately made the PLO and Fatah seem ineffectual (via blockades, etc) in order to get the Palestinians to pick different leaders. They hoped that they would get someone that they were able to deal with. They continued this policy despite several warnings that it was only leading to more extremism in Gaza and the West Bank.
The end result was that Hamas were seen as the party who could get things done. When Hamas won the election, Israel immediately refused to talk to them, claiming that they were a terrorist organisation and therefore it wouldn't deal with them. That of course simply had the effect of convincing the average Palestinian that they'd made the right choice by picking someone who pissed off Israel.
The saddest thing about it is that I saw it coming. Hamas were building schools and hospitals while the PLO, under siege from an Israel absolutely convinced that they'd never see peace while Arafat was alive couldn't do anything. I'm sure they thought it was perfectly logical but anyone sensible could see that sooner or later this policy was going to blow up in their face.
-
So because Black individuals are more often criminals, you've started to become anti-Black?
Not yet.
Not many black folk where I live and those I do know are rather nice. So I'm not bombarded by negative experience with them.
-
So because Black individuals are more often criminals, you've started to become anti-Black?
Not yet.
Not many black folk where I live and those I do know are rather nice. So I'm not bombarded by negative experience with them.
Actually, to be fair, you're describing the mechanism by which most people form stereotypic associations.
So here I'd say you're actually being rather scientific.
-
Yes, I'd say that describes the Israeli governement quite well.
Nice use of examples and facts there. I am totally busted now.
Deliberately targets or deliberately disregards the safety of non combatants. All the proof you need is the fact that there is anyone left alive in Gaza. If Israel was deliberately trying to kill or deliberately disregarded civilians the fighting would have been over before it began. We wouldn't have spent millions and billions of dollars planning and executing a 22 day operation. It would have been quick and painless (for Israel) and it would have been done 8 years ago when the rockets started.
Do you have any idea what their capabilities are? Because I have security clearance for top secret and I don't even know half the things that my own tank was capable of. Before the war in Iraq my friend in a certain unit was tasked with whipping the US navy seals into shape before they were allowed to go in. Marines are here all the time for their CT training. Israel exports more weapons per capita than any other nation in the world beating out russia in 2nd place and the U.S. In 7th. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con_arm_exp_percap-conventional-arms-exports-per-capita) Not to mention microwave weapons and the first military to be fully integrated into a digital battlefield (C&C anyone?). An air force with a 687 to 23 kill in dogfights. And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what I can tell you let alone what I can't tell you and beyond that what I don't have clearance to know.
So again who the hell do you think you are talking about when you say that Israel disregards non combatants? It's more of an effort for the IDF to sneeze then to wipe their problems from the present into the past.
Boith sides have lied on many occasions. Taht is pretty muhc irrelevent.
Unless you can actually offer proof that those buisnissmen are lying?
How is that irrelevant? So you agree that both sides are untrustworthy and yet you will take these businessmen at their word because? Businessmen don't lie? Are not politically motivated? Do not have their own reasons to gain from media attention? What exactly gives you the sense that you can trust them above anyone else's word bar none? The point is you dislike Israel and that is your right however you do it to the extent where you WANT to believe the other side and you will take them at their word until proven otherwise and look at everything Israel says with a magnifying glass instead of doing that to both sides and realizing you can't really know where the truth lies from your high and lofty pearch.
99% of the videos I've seen is utter crap. Green blobs and shapes that can be pretty much anything. Videos and images that make it hard to see what the structure is or even where it is.
I could use the same videos to justify blowing up Notre Dame
You see what you want. You want to believe Israel is wrong and will lie about stuff and so you see what it does as suspect and that is fine. But what isn't cool is you do that only for one side. You need to be foxified (not that I think they are fair and balanced but the idea is the right one). Be as suspicious of one side as you are of the other because as YOU said “Boith sides have lied on many occasions.” So to take one side as absolute truth is hypocritical... think about it.
Maybe they will take that into consideration next time they elect a terrorist organization into power who is trying to eradicate their neighbors by any means necessary.
Isreali government is a terrorist organization. You deserve to have your house rocketed. Take that into account the nexst time.
Well thank you. I appreciate the death wish you have for me and my family. Even though I can't reciprocate because I wish you only a good life and happiness and hope you never have to be personally involved in the mess going on here.
First of all let's assume you were right and the Israeli government is a terrorist organization. Do I allow them to come into my house store weapons and use it as a launching ground for attacks targeted at civilians on the other side? Do I run in the street singing praises to my god every time a bus gets suicide bombed in Gaza? Do we condemn our own government and military to account for their actions and strive to do better? Israelis are more judgmental of themselves than anyone else. but they get defensive about it when outsiders who don't know their face from a hole in the ground come and try and tell us what is happening here. In short that was a really good comparison and I'm going to go prepare my family for the afterlife because we deserve to die. Peace out.
Wow. Heh. You got us there. You uncovered Israel's master plan. Whenever there arose a Palestinian leader to political power we rocketed his ass. Abbas... Arafat... Ismail Haniyeh... etc etc... oh yeah I heard about rocket attacks on cars of leaders... hmm but I seem to recall those were leaders of the terrorist factions. Funny that you didn't mention that... seems like an important note.
Yes it is. But not for the reasons you think.
Didn't you try to claim that Fatah and the PLO were also terrorist factions earlier? Now you say that Abbas and Arafat aren't the leaders of terrorist factions and therefore weren't attacked with rockets?
So which one is it?
Both. Both the PLO and Fatah (being a part of the PLO) have engaged in terrorist acts one way or another, directly or indirectly. So it really depends on if you view the PLO or Fatah as having responsibility for the terrorist factions that swear allegiance to them or not. Therefore the leaders of those groups were mostly indirectly responsible for terrorist acts and they were the closest we ever got to a moderate Palestinian leadership to deal with and because they publicly denounced violence (even though the organizations they were at the head of continued to perpetuate it most of the time) Israel accepted them as the 'lesser evil'.
-
Deliberately targets or deliberately disregards the safety of non combatants. All the proof you need is the fact that there is anyone left alive in Gaza. If Israel was deliberately trying to kill or deliberately disregarded civilians the fighting would have been over before it began. We wouldn't have spent millions and billions of dollars planning and executing a 22 day operation. It would have been quick and painless (for Israel) and it would have been done 8 years ago when the rockets started.
Hheh...nice joke. Of'course, that proves nothing...since Israel can't do that even if it wanted to, due to the political consequences.
If you keep the killing on a smaller scale, and hide it, you can get away with a lot of things tough.
How is that irrelevant? So you agree that both sides are untrustworthy and yet you will take these businessmen at their word because? Businessmen don't lie? Are not politically motivated? Do not have their own reasons to gain from media attention? What exactly gives you the sense that you can trust them above anyone else's word bar none? The point is you dislike Israel and that is your right however you do it to the extent where you WANT to believe the other side and you will take them at their word until proven otherwise and look at everything Israel says with a magnifying glass instead of doing that to both sides and realizing you can't really know where the truth lies from your high and lofty pearch.
So you saying I should believe the opposite, like you? The view from your lofty pearch must be nice too.
As I said, anyone can lie..but sooner or later I will have to start believing someone.
Given that multiple news agencies reported the same and the buisnissmen have little to gain, given that they ferry goods trough Israel...I'm inclined to believe them.
You see what you want. You want to believe Israel is wrong and will lie about stuff and so you see what it does as suspect and that is fine. But what isn't cool is you do that only for one side. You need to be foxified (not that I think they are fair and balanced but the idea is the right one). Be as suspicious of one side as you are of the other because as YOU said “Boith sides have lied on many occasions.” So to take one side as absolute truth is hypocritical... think about it.
I'm not being hypocritical. I filter and weight everything I hear as best as I can. The terrorists are a bunch of retarded rednecks that I would gladly strap to a rocket and shoot at the sun if I could.
There are many (negative for Israel) reports and stuff I heard that I don't believe, and thusly I haven't brought them up.
First of all let's assume you were right and the Israeli government is a terrorist organization. Do I allow them to come into my house store weapons and use it as a launching ground for attacks targeted at civilians on the other side? Do I run in the street singing praises to my god every time a bus gets suicide bombed in Gaza? Do we condemn our own government and military to account for their actions and strive to do better? Israelis are more judgmental of themselves than anyone else.
Israel has a large, advanced, full-blown military. It doesn't NEED to stock weapons inside your house. You support your troops and their actions. You support the bombing of gaza. you feel it justified just as some retard in Gaza feels it's justified that a bus was blown up. Same difference.
civilians may be more critical towards the IDF, but the government and military aren't even close to being critical enough.
The only difference between Isreal and Gaza strip is the military and technological capability. The all-out-warfare mentality is the same.
If the tables were turned, you'd be fighting a guerrila/terrorist warfare, hiding weapons in houses and fully supporting it.
-
Hheh...nice joke. Of'course, that proves nothing...since Israel can't do that even if it wanted to, due to the political consequences.
If you keep the killing on a smaller scale, and hide it, you can get away with a lot of things tough.
For me, this doesn't make any sense from militaristic or from the economical point of view.
Israel deliberately made the PLO and Fatah seem ineffectual (via blockades, etc) in order to get the Palestinians to pick different leaders. They hoped that they would get someone that they were able to deal with. They continued this policy despite several warnings that it was only leading to more extremism in Gaza and the West Bank.
Two questions: has this been official policy of Israel and are you sure that the blockades weren't there to stop something else?
The end result was that Hamas were seen as the party who could get things done. When Hamas won the election, Israel immediately refused to talk to them, claiming that they were a terrorist organisation and therefore it wouldn't deal with them. That of course simply had the effect of convincing the average Palestinian that they'd made the right choice by picking someone who pissed off Israel.
Well, isn't Hamas a terrorist organisation by EU terms also? And are you claiming that it is acceptable for Palestinian people to vote for Hamas on the basis that Hamas means pay back time for Israel?
The saddest thing about it is that I saw it coming. Hamas were building schools and hospitals while the PLO, under siege from an Israel absolutely convinced that they'd never see peace while Arafat was alive couldn't do anything. I'm sure they thought it was perfectly logical but anyone sensible could see that sooner or later this policy was going to blow up in their face.
I interprete this as that you are implying that the current problem is caused by Israeli government and is carefully planned and implemented so that Israel can retain the status quo in Palestinian issue and does not need to act or correct the situation.
Mika
-
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
Israel backed the Fatah into a corner cause they were dumb enough to think that it would result in someone more to their liking coming along. It was a pretty stupid plan as you can see it blew up in their faces.
-
This thread still gives me that learning Hebrew ad. Every single time I go here.
-
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
Israel backed the Fatah into a corner cause they were dumb enough to think that it would result in someone more to their liking coming along. It was a pretty stupid plan as you can see it blew up in their faces.
Gray's Law.
Any sufficently advanced stupidity is indistingushable from malice.
-
Anti-Zionist
-
Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
Israel backed the Fatah into a corner cause they were dumb enough to think that it would result in someone more to their liking coming along. It was a pretty stupid plan as you can see it blew up in their faces.
Before you said you blame both sides equally. But for me it seems you are not as neutral to this conflict as you think you are. The above quote leaves the blame solely to Israeli hands.
I think one of the big problems is that the Palestinians should really be treated as a separate nation in UN. If so, the international law would be much more clear. All crossings of the borderline from both sides could be seen as international incidents and perhaps acts of war as they should be.
The difficulty arises when borderlines have to be drawn to map. But it could be possible to construct an agreement that when certain amount of time (5 years?) has passed without incidents, more strategically important land area could be given back.
Then you would also need to solve the internal conflicts of the Palestinians. That is where a lot of UN personnel from impartial countries are needed. You need quite a lot to monitor the settlers also.
Mika
-
Before you said you blame both sides equally. But for me it seems you are not as neutral to this conflict as you think you are. The above quote leaves the blame solely to Israeli hands.
No it doesn't.
If I walk into a pub, find the biggest guy and tell him I ****ed his mum, that's a pretty stupid plan too. But that doesn't mean that he's not responsible for the ensuing assault.
The discussion between us was about Israel's attempts at diplomacy. You claimed that they have attempted to solve the conflict recently by diplomatic means while I say that neither side has made any serious attempts since Oslo. The attemps Israel has made are pretty hollow. Hamas has itself offered a 10 year truce with Israel if they'll leave the occupied territories but without a pledge to give up violence that is pretty much pointless too.
They really are both as bad as each other. Hamas is responsible for all kind of xenophobia about Israel and for launching terrorist attacks against Israel while Israel is responsible for practising a doctrine of collective guilt against Gaza, the West Bank and even other nations like Lebanon and Syria.
I think one of the big problems is that the Palestinians should really be treated as a separate nation in UN. If so, the international law would be much more clear. All crossings of the borderline from both sides could be seen as international incidents and perhaps acts of war as they should be.
How the hell would you enforce that with one country currently occupying the other though? Not to mention that it would make Israel's blockade of Gaza from the sea illegal. As well as making attempts by Gaza to buy weapons perfectly legal.
-
Hheh...nice joke. Of'course, that proves nothing...since Israel can't do that even if it wanted to, due to the political consequences.
If you keep the killing on a smaller scale, and hide it, you can get away with a lot of things tough.
There is only one flaw in this logic. And that is if killing on a smaller scale bit by bit is what Israel has been doing then first of all it would be doing it a little more often with excuses of rabid terrorists etc. Secondly if Israel wanted to get rid of the Palestinians what political consequences would there be? Yeah short term everyone would be pissed then we would switch governments and no one could blame the new one cause they didn't do it and everything would go back to normal. It would sadly be a lot easier than you think. All Israel needs to do is take its cue from Russia and do whatever the hell she wants and then say “What are you going to do about it? I dare you.”
So you saying I should believe the opposite, like you? The view from your lofty pearch must be nice too.
As I said, anyone can lie..but sooner or later I will have to start believing someone.
Given that multiple news agencies reported the same and the buisnissmen have little to gain, given that they ferry goods trough Israel...I'm inclined to believe them.
I didn't say you should believe like me. I said you should not take untrustworthy people and sources at their word. So what if multiple agencies reported the same story? This makes it true? It's usually one agency reports it and then the rest just copy the story. So how is this proof exactly? How does that smidgen of not even fact but possibility of fact give you the right to condemn a whole people of wrongdoing? The view is nice from up here it looks right onto the whole situation unfolding first hand but I suppose that is irrelevant when you can find out everything you need to know from your TV right?
And they have little to gain? Because, again, “Businessmen don't lie? Are not politically motivated? Do not have their own reasons to gain from media attention?” Tell me dearest. Does the businessman not also want Hamas endorsement or at least their blessings so they leave him alone? Does the businessman not also have a cousin or a son or daughter or uncle or nephew who is fighting Israel or is maybe imprisoned in Israel? No. He has the title businessman so that removes him from the society he lives in so he can live with his head in the clouds and all he cares about is his business. Silly me.
I'm not being hypocritical. I filter and weight everything I hear as best as I can. The terrorists are a bunch of retarded rednecks that I would gladly strap to a rocket and shoot at the sun if I could.
There are many (negative for Israel) reports and stuff I heard that I don't believe, and thusly I haven't brought them up.
What filter do you have? What kind of scales are you weighing these accounts and stories on? Because so far even though I have shown you at reports if nothing else of how the Palestinians flat out lied about what they were doing when they were doing why they were doing etc you have yet to show me any about Israel and above and beyond that you still take their word over Israels no questions asked just because more than one media outlet reported it so it must be true. I'm glad you hate the terrorists... what about those that support them? Shelter, food, lgoistics, intel, hiding, storage? They bad people too?
First of all let's assume you were right and the Israeli government is a terrorist organization. Do I allow them to come into my house store weapons and use it as a launching ground for attacks targeted at civilians on the other side? Do I run in the street singing praises to my god every time a bus gets suicide bombed in Gaza? Do we condemn our own government and military to account for their actions and strive to do better? Israelis are more judgmental of themselves than anyone else.
Israel has a large, advanced, full-blown military. It doesn't NEED to stock weapons inside your house. You support your troops and their actions. You support the bombing of gaza. you feel it justified just as some retard in Gaza feels it's justified that a bus was blown up. Same difference.
civilians may be more critical towards the IDF, but the government and military aren't even close to being critical enough.
I supported the bombing of Gaza but I cringed every time they reported the civilian deaths even though they were initial reports and not solid numbers that is always truth somewhere to be found. They support the bombing of buses and hotels and businesses where the mission was to create civilian casualties and they dance in the street after and create images of the guys that did it and hang them on the wall. But that is the difference the IDF went on a military mission and sought out and killed terrorists and others who were not targets were also killed cause war sucks. The Hamas goes in looking to kill the civilians and ignoring the legitimate military targets and then the civilians dance in the streets.
The only difference between Isreal and Gaza strip is the military and technological capability. The all-out-warfare mentality is the same.
If the tables were turned, you'd be fighting a guerrila/terrorist warfare, hiding weapons in houses and fully supporting it.
No one can say what would or wouldn't be. As much as the world loves to think that they know what the right society should function like when given the chance they usually really cannot fathom what an absolute different planet it is in the ME. I don't believe that this situation would be the same elsewhere or if the roles were reversed I really don't. In what way I'm not sure but if wouldn't be the same thing just switched.
The difference between Israel and the Gaza strip is that one supports the purposeful targeting of civilians as a legitimate means to an end.
If I walk into a pub, find the biggest guy and murder his mum right then and there, that's a pretty stupid plan too. And that does mean that he's responsible for the ensuing assault.
Fixed
-
It's not fixed at all. You'd only say that if you didn't understand my point at all. How does that comment correspond to Israel's attempts to push Fatah out of power and replace them with someone more to their liking?
It doesn't. You simply took a cheap shot without any way of backing up the meaning in the context in which it was stated.
Israel spent years blockading the PLO and Fatah but the second Hamas are in charge they say that they're only willing to talk peace with Fatah (when they weren't willing with Fatah in charge). And now Israel are trying to do the same thing with Hamas even though it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the same strategy that deposed moderates to put extremists in power is going to have no effect once you already have extremists in power.
The more you squeeze Hamas, the more they will point out to the Palestinians that it's Israel squeezing them.
-
Now that I found the inspiration to write again...
The discussion between us was about Israel's attempts at diplomacy. You claimed that they have attempted to solve the conflict recently by diplomatic means while I say that neither side has made any serious attempts since Oslo. The attemps Israel has made are pretty hollow. Hamas has itself offered a 10 year truce with Israel if they'll leave the occupied territories but without a pledge to give up violence that is pretty much pointless too.
Yes it was and at least from what I have gathered, Israel has actually recently trying to be doing what the rest of the world has told it to do (i.e. withdraw and see what happens). Unfortunately, this clearly has not worked as the rocket or mortar fire did not stop. I sure didn't get to read about this stuff on my local newspaper when it did happen, it was only mentioned in side sentences after ISRAEL INVADED GAZA!!!
There is another reason why I don't believe that Israel wouldn't have been doing its best in the recent years (meaning the time period between the end of 1990s to this day). The whole thing with Palestinians costs hell a lot of money and causes lots of different kinds of problems for Israeli imago, including the occasional embargoes. As Splinter said, the best solution for the Israeli would be to wipe it off the map, but the only thing stopping it from happening is that the Israeli have gone through the same themselves.
However, when Israel gets frustrated and ignores the UN more often (for reasons mentioned in this thread before), it is really a warning call for international community to take a good look on both sides again. The more ignoring the rest of the world happens from both sides, the greater the likelihood for total genocide IMO.
Also, I see a pattern in your texts that you do understand and have compassion towards Gazan people more often than towards Israeli people. My personal thoughts are that if the region is ever going to see peace, Gazan people should be hold just as accountable as the Israeli and should make exactly the same sized headlines whenever they don't do whatever they promised and were supposed to do, currently they don't.
They really are both as bad as each other. Hamas is responsible for all kind of xenophobia about Israel and for launching terrorist attacks against Israel while Israel is responsible for practising a doctrine of collective guilt against Gaza, the West Bank and even other nations like Lebanon and Syria.
Now, what does "collective guilt" mean in this context? I mean, it is pretty nice term to throw around, but I think that we should take a more through look at it.
How the hell would you enforce that with one country currently occupying the other though? Not to mention that it would make Israel's blockade of Gaza from the sea illegal. As well as making attempts by Gaza to buy weapons perfectly legal.
Well is Israel actually occupying Gaza? I thought the region was surrounded by a wall with checkpoint, but the police work is left for Palestinians. If it is actually occupied, then I apologize for spreading false information. The answer would be the same in both cases: replace the whole bunch with impartial UN operatives. I think Israeli are aware that if they manage to get a lasting peace with Gazans, they need to allow the free trade to that area at some point of future when the relationships have returned to less heated.
Mika
-
Yes it was and at least from what I have gathered, Israel has actually recently trying to be doing what the rest of the world has told it to do (i.e. withdraw and see what happens). Unfortunately, this clearly has not worked as the rocket or mortar fire did not stop.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Number_of_Morter_and_Rocket_Attacks_2001_Through_2008V5.jpg)
Take a good long look at the figures for 2004 compared to the years afterwards. Notice how 2005 was much lower. Do you really believe that it's a coincidence that this coincides with peace talks between the two sides and Abbas having his police try to prevent rocket attacks?
You think it's a coincidence that the number spiked upwards in 2006 after the War with Lebanon started?
Peace talks were having an effect but Israel seem to believe that they can wave a magic wand and it will all stop. Again I must point at Northern Ireland. No one in the UK really expects that it's all over forever but just because the Real IRA continued with violence after the Provisional IRA stopped is no reason to blame the Provisionals for the on-going violence and tear up the peace treaties.
Israel should have spent their time and effort supporting Abbas' attempts for peace. Instead they ignored and sidelined him hoping someone better would come along.
There is another reason why I don't believe that Israel wouldn't have been doing its best in the recent years (meaning the time period between the end of 1990s to this day). The whole thing with Palestinians costs hell a lot of money and causes lots of different kinds of problems for Israeli imago, including the occasional embargoes.
By that logic the war in Iraq never happened either.
As Splinter said, the best solution for the Israeli would be to wipe it off the map, but the only thing stopping it from happening is that the Israeli have gone through the same themselves.
And the fact that it would be the end of American support for Israel. Cause even America couldn't turn a blind eye to that.
Also, I see a pattern in your texts that you do understand and have compassion towards Gazan people more often than towards Israeli people.
My compassion for both sides is equal. But there are more dead Gazans and no one is arguing that they are blameless. If someone is stupid enough to try to argue that they are you'd hear the other side of the argument.
My personal thoughts are that if the region is ever going to see peace, Gazan people should be hold just as accountable as the Israeli and should make exactly the same sized headlines whenever they don't do whatever they promised and were supposed to do, currently they don't.
Agreed. But one thing you have to remember is that on one side you have an elected government that is responsible for their military while on the other you have at best a loose affiliation of terrorist groups who for the most part hate each other but are linked by a common hatred of Israel. Expecting a truce with any particular group to be binding on the others is pretty silly.
Now, what does "collective guilt" mean in this context?
Collective guilt is the Israeli view (which I've seen parroted on this thread several times) that the Palestinians started it so any accidental deaths of civilians will help them realise that they shouldn't start it again.
That is of course nonsense as the extremists who commit the violence care very little for civilian deaths beyond their ability to use them as PR for why the fight must continue.
Israel need to realise that every dead civilian makes peace less likely, not more.
Well is Israel actually occupying Gaza? I thought the region was surrounded by a wall with checkpoint, but the police work is left for Palestinians. If it is actually occupied, then I apologize for spreading false information.
You do realise that the West Bank would have to be part of any Palestinian state and it most definitely is occupied, right? :p
-
@Splinter
I have to say that I do sympathize with you on a level.
I know how it is to have the truth distorted by foreign news agencies, since it happened here a lot too. Not a nice feeling.
That said, while the situation is similar it also have a few destinct differences, most notably that the fight isn't going on inside your city, inside your country. You're troops are fighting on the other guys turf. And I doubt you as a civilian have gone driving trough Gaza during the bombing to see what's going there with your own eyes.
So I doubt you have personally confirmed information on exactly what was going on in Gaza city.
While I conciede that the information I have may not be completely trustworthy, again, I have to start with something. And in this I draw on the experiences from the conflict here and make comparisons.
If here, in years of conflict, no city was bombed even remotely as much as Gaza city, if in shelling of cities here the death count was not even close to the one there...what do you expect me to conclude?
If 100 destroyed houses and 20 dead are considered "overshelling" and a war crime, when the hell should the bombardment of Gaza city be in comparison? You tell me.
-
I guess I have to answer now cause I cannot be bothered on May Day due to the probable resulting hangover...
Take a good long look at the figures for 2004 compared to the years afterwards. Notice how 2005 was much lower. Do you really believe that it's a coincidence that this coincides with peace talks between the two sides and Abbas having his police try to prevent rocket attacks?
You think it's a coincidence that the number spiked upwards in 2006 after the War with Lebanon started?
Well, I actually don't believe in the implied causation. Maybe if you could explain it a little bit better I might notice it.
The only thing I can see from the graph is that the number of long range military grade attacks has increased since the pullover. Also seen is that since Hamas has came to power, the number of those kind of attacks have increased. Also seen is that averagely 8.5 rockets/mortar shells landed in Israel each day for every day of the year. Yet this is not the whole picture, more can be found at:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+before+2000/Fatal+Terrorist+Attacks+in+Israel+Since+the+DOP+-S.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm
What does war with Lebanon have to do with Gaza? Or maybe more to the point, what should the war with Lebanon have to do with Gaza?
Israel should have spent their time and effort supporting Abbas' attempts for peace. Instead they ignored and sidelined him hoping someone better would come along.
OK, this is the second time you brought this one up. Since this is a national level strategy, I would expect that it is public information in Israel and thus it should be mentioned in the news also. Can you find me a link for it? I also expect to see the reason what benefits are there for choosing somebody else than Abbas.
By that logic the war in Iraq never happened either.
If considered by mathematical logic only, answer would probably be yes, but real life differs considerably from such simplifications. As I said before, different theaters have to be considered separately.
And the fact that it would be the end of American support for Israel. Cause even America couldn't turn a blind eye to that.
I have many times wondered how big influence does USA have in this region by having Israel as an ally. But I'm not sure if that would be the end, US people like Nuclear here could probably answer this question better. Obama could cause differences here, though.
But one thing you have to remember is that on one side you have an elected government that is responsible for their military while on the other you have at best a loose affiliation of terrorist groups who for the most part hate each other but are linked by a common hatred of Israel. Expecting a truce with any particular group to be binding on the others is pretty silly.
It all comes back to question do you think that Palestinians have a functional government? I see Israel tried to give space for the Palestinian authority to deal with the problems (which is what the UN has requested).
Collective guilt is the Israeli view (which I've seen parroted on this thread several times) that the Palestinians started it so any accidental deaths of civilians will help them realise that they shouldn't start it again.
That is of course nonsense as the extremists who commit the violence care very little for civilian deaths beyond their ability to use them as PR for why the fight must continue.
Israel need to realise that every dead civilian makes peace less likely, not more.
Were the people saying it Israeli? Splinter has already given enough input to show that Israel does the what it can do to prevent civilian deaths. Of course, it is debatable if the best way is to use Air Forces. While good for minimizing your own casualities, I doubt that they are as effective in stopping terrorists as boots on the ground.
You do realise that the West Bank would have to be part of any Palestinian state and it most definitely is occupied, right?
I think bigger problem is how should the two separate areas be handled if there is ever going to be peace. One solution (UN level solution) could be to have a single Palestinian state and transfer Palestinian people from Gaza to West Bank and giving the control of Gaza area to Israel, while decreasing the Israeli settlements in the West Bank by the same amount. This would also remove the apartheid style divisions between roads for Palestinians and roads for Israeli.
Enough for today,
Mika
-
Well, I actually don't believe in the implied causation. Maybe if you could explain it a little bit better I might notice it.
Well the most important thing that is obvious from the graph is that attacks were commonplace before the pullout. Rocket attacks only went up after Hamas were elected and actually went down under Fatah.
So simplistic comments about how the Gazans rewarded Israel for the pullout by immediately starting attacking them are quickly revealed for the nonsense they are. The true story is that there were moves from Fatah to try to limit the attacks by terrorists. The attacks didn't stop but anyone who thinks that the government of Gaza could make a few phone calls and stop the attacks is an idiot.
The only thing I can see from the graph is that the number of long range military grade attacks has increased since the pullover. Also seen is that since Hamas has came to power, the number of those kind of attacks have increased. Also seen is that averagely 8.5 rockets/mortar shells landed in Israel each day for every day of the year.
Want to find the same figures for the other side instead of simply assuming that the this is all aggression from the Palestinian side?
What does war with Lebanon have to do with Gaza? Or maybe more to the point, what should the war with Lebanon have to do with Gaza?
What should it have to do with Gaza? Nothing. What does it have to do with Gaza? Well it's pretty obvious that an attack on Lebanon is going to result in an increase in terrorist action against Israel. Again only a fool would expect terrorists who already hate Israel to sit on their hands and do nothing while that was going on.
OK, this is the second time you brought this one up. Since this is a national level strategy, I would expect that it is public information in Israel and thus it should be mentioned in the news also. Can you find me a link for it? I also expect to see the reason what benefits are there for choosing somebody else than Abbas.
Cause of course politicians announce the real reason behind their actions all the time. I sure you can find news stories where Bush explains he invaded Iraq for a complex set of reasons that had very little to do with WMDs and much more to do with revenge. :rolleyes:
I can however find plenty of debate and op-ed on the matter. For instance the fact that they tried to do it to Yasser Arafat which you asked for proof of earlier is so obviously a fact that it's uncontested in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat#Attempts_to_marginalize).
Those actions gave Hamas lots of time to get their foot in the door.
As for Abbas his marginalisation was due to him being seen as an Israeli stooge. While he made lots of efforts towards peace he was unable to stop the terrorism against Israel. Israel responded to them in their typical heavy-handed manner. The result was that Abbas came over as bending over backwards to please Israel while unable to stop the civilian deaths.
The marginalisation of Abbas is still on-going (http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/01/mahmoud_abbas_is_political_vic.html) BTW. And it will continue to backfire on them. Israel need to talk to Hamas quickly so that Abbas isn't seen as a lame duck. It's doubtful they will and when Hamas get their presidential candidate elected Israel will probably claim that it's proof that the Palestinians don't want peace same as they did when Hamas were elected to government.
I have many times wondered how big influence does USA have in this region by having Israel as an ally. But I'm not sure if that would be the end, US people like Nuclear here could probably answer this question better. Obama could cause differences here, though.
I find it rather hard to believe that the American people would turn a blind eye to genocide. I know for a fact that Europe wouldn't want to have anything to do with them. So let's not continue with the pretty silly argument that Israel could simply wipe out the population of Gaza with no political repercussions.
It all comes back to question do you think that Palestinians have a functional government?
Of course they don't. The second Hamas were elected all the western nations decided that they wouldn't talk to them. You can't do that with a real government. Besides I wouldn't trust Hamas to run a piss up in a brewery anyway.
Splinter has already given enough input to show that Israel does the what it can do to prevent civilian deaths.
Sometimes they try, sometimes they act with blithe disregard for civilian casualties. That was the whole crux of this debate. It probably depends on the soldiers and units involved.
Of course, it is debatable if the best way is to use Air Forces. While good for minimizing your own casualities, I doubt that they are as effective in stopping terrorists as boots on the ground.
I very much doubt it too.
I think bigger problem is how should the two separate areas be handled if there is ever going to be peace. One solution (UN level solution) could be to have a single Palestinian state and transfer Palestinian people from Gaza to West Bank and giving the control of Gaza area to Israel, while decreasing the Israeli settlements in the West Bank by the same amount. This would also remove the apartheid style divisions between roads for Palestinians and roads for Israeli.
That's never going to work. Maybe if you can get Israel to give up an amount of land equal in size to Gaza. But offering to remove settlers who really never should have been there in the first place isn't a solution.
-
My solution:
Create a Holy Land Maintenance Organization, transfer ownership to this group and pave over the whole stinking mess and build hotels. I mean think about it, people make pilgrimages to the Holy Land. They need a place to stay.
This way everyone wins. The palestinians get a place to live, food to eat, honest jobs. Israel gets what it wants which is peace and prosperity.
This has the added benefit of wiping any potential grivances related to where the Israelis live and where the Palestinians live.
-
Sounds good if you turn it into the Holy Land amusement park too. In an effort to cut down on global warming you could ban cars and have a guy dressed as Saladin give out horses at the airport. :p
-
It's not fixed at all. You'd only say that if you didn't understand my point at all. How does that comment correspond to Israel's attempts to push Fatah out of power and replace them with someone more to their liking?
It doesn't. You simply took a cheap shot without any way of backing up the meaning in the context in which it was stated.
Now that I read back the whole analogy is messed up... who is taunting whom? You claim Israel sidelined Fatah so does that mean that the guy saying he fudged the other guys mom is Israel or is it somehow reversed in your analogy?
How is this: “Israel backed the Fatah into a corner cause they were dumb enough to think that it would result in someone more to their liking coming along. It was a pretty stupid plan as you can see it blew up in their faces.”
Represented by this: “If I walk into a pub, find the biggest guy and tell him I ****ed his mum, that's a pretty stupid plan too. But that doesn't mean that he's not responsible for the ensuing assault.”
Really confusing.
Israel spent years blockading the PLO and Fatah but the second Hamas are in charge they say that they're only willing to talk peace with Fatah (when they weren't willing with Fatah in charge). And now Israel are trying to do the same thing with Hamas even though it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the same strategy that deposed moderates to put extremists in power is going to have no effect once you already have extremists in power.
The more you squeeze Hamas, the more they will point out to the Palestinians that it's Israel squeezing them.
“Hamas has refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Hamas refused to participate in the 1996 elections because it viewed the Palestinian Authority as illegitimate due to its negotiations with Israel; while it has not changed that stance, it fielded candidates in 2006. Going into the election it had considerable momentum due to unexpected electoral success in the municipal elections in 2005.”
“However, Fatah had been beset by internal strife in advance of the elections, with younger and more popular figures like Mohammed Dahlan, who took part in the negotiations of the 1993 Oslo Accords, and Marwan Barghouti (the latter currently serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail on terrorism charges) levelling allegations of corruption against Fatah leadership.”
“Fatah is "widely seen as being in desperate need of reform", as "the PA's performance has been a story of corruption and incompetence - and Fatah has been tainted." Political analyst Salah Abdel-Shafi told BBC about the difficulties of Fatah leadership: "I think it's very, very serious - it's becoming obvious that they can't agree on anything."”
Seems like the Palestinians have a different view as to why they were elected. Oh And who did we pull out of Gaza for? Who did we open up the supply routes for? Who did we arm?!? Fatah? After the Gaza pullout? That doesn't sound like sidelining to me... so what gives?
The less you squeeze Hamas the more they say “hey look our violent tactics work! Increase the attacks until they pull out completely!” If they can get what they want and get it through “winning” a war that will be a great moral victory as well to say they defeated Israel through violence. Do you even understand Arab culture? If you show weakness you are weak and ripe for replacement. Did you know that they will wear tighter pants because they judge if they can beat someone in a fight by the size of their legs? This is a culture based on domination rule by fear and by might. I'm sorry that doesn't line up with Western views of how “normal people” act but the fact is it's a different world and your right and wrong aren't worth 2 ****s in the ME.
@Splinter
I have to say that I do sympathize with you on a level.
I know how it is to have the truth distorted by foreign news agencies, since it happened here a lot too. Not a nice feeling.
That said, while the situation is similar it also have a few destinct differences, most notably that the fight isn't going on inside your city, inside your country. You're troops are fighting on the other guys turf. And I doubt you as a civilian have gone driving trough Gaza during the bombing to see what's going there with your own eyes.
So I doubt you have personally confirmed information on exactly what was going on in Gaza city.
Heh. Well first of all just on my bus route from home to downtown I pass by 10 suicide bombing attacks sites.
2000 November 2nd. - Israel, Jerusalem: a Islamic Jihad car bomb exploded near the Mahane Yehuda market; 2 people died and 10 were injured.
2001 August 9th. - Israel, Jerusalem: Suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria on the corner of King George Street and Jaffa Road; 15 people, including 7 children, died and around 150 were injured.
2001 December 1st. - Israel, Jerusalem, Ben Yehuda Street: explosive devices were detonated by two Hamas suicide bombers close to 11:30 p.m on Saturday night at the pedestrian mall in the center of the city. A car bomb exploded nearby 20 minutes later; 11 people died and up to 180 were injured.
2002 January 27th. - Israel, Jerusalem, Jaffa: a female terrorist, identified as a Fatah member, armed with more than 10 kilos of explosives, blew herself up; 2 people died and more than 150 were injured.
2002 March 9th. - Israel, Jerusalem, Rehavia neighborhood: a Hamas suicide bomber blew himself up at 22:30 h Saturday night in the crowded Moment cafe at the corner of Aza and Ben-Maimon streets in the center of the city; 11 people died and 54 were injured.
2002 March 21st. - Israel, Jerusalem, King George Street: a Fatah al-Aqsa Brigades terrorist detonated a bomb, packed with metal spikes and nails, in a crowd of shoppers; 3 people died and 86 were injured.
2002 April 12th. - Israel, Jerusalem, Jaffa road: a female Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide bomber detonated a powerful charge at a bus stop near the entrance to Mahane Yehuda open-air market; 6 people died and 104 were injured.
2002 June 18th. - Israel, Patt junction: Hamas suicide bombing in Egged bus no. 32A traveling from Gilo to the center of Jerusalem with many schoolchildren aboard; 19 people died and 74 were injured.
(That is the 2nd bus stop from my house and my friend just missed that bus... unfortunately five of her school friends weren't so lucky and they are all dead.)
2003 June 11th. - Israel, Jerusalem, Egged bus #14A outside the Clal building on Jaffa Road: suicide bombing; responsibility claimed by Hamas; 17 people died and more than 100 were injured.
So to say that I have not had danger at my doorstep is a grave misunderstanding of what I have gone through.
And you are right. As a civlian I havn't gone driving through Gaza city to see what is going on. I did however serve 3 and a half years in the IDF and I have seen enough of the Gaza strip and Gaza city and the West Bank and Lebanon to last me a lifetime. I also have friends still in these areas now. There is no shortage of “first hand knowledge” of the situation here on my part.
While I conciede that the information I have may not be completely trustworthy, again, I have to start with something. And in this I draw on the experiences from the conflict here and make comparisons.
If here, in years of conflict, no city was bombed even remotely as much as Gaza city, if in shelling of cities here the death count was not even close to the one there...what do you expect me to conclude?
If 100 destroyed houses and 20 dead are considered "overshelling" and a war crime, when the hell should the bombardment of Gaza city be in comparison? You tell me.
Were 100 houses being used as military installations? I don't know the situation where you are. I don't know who was fighting who and for what? Who started it? Did they target non combatants? Did they use human shields by placing themselves among a civilian population? What are their goals? What were they fighting for? Who considered it “overshelling” and a war crime? These are all things that come into play I cannot tell you anything until I know what the situation was. The fact of the matter is depending on the answers to those questions it may or may not have been a war crime and it may or may not have been overshelling.
And you really cannot tie any situation that has been before to this one since it is unlike any situation that has been before. Every situation is unique and has it's own variables and different factors and no one can come and say well it was like this here so that's how it must be here as well.
-
Really confusing.
Not really. Mika was claiming that I was absolving the Palestinians of any guilt due to the actions of Israel. I was pointing out that there are situations where one person can goad another into an action but that this doesn't absolve both parties of their responsibility.
Israel made Fatah look like they were incapable of running Gaza by not giving them more breathing space to actually do something about Hamas themselves. It was a stupid idea and they were warned repeatedly about doing it. They choose to do it anyway. The result was Hamas being elected and an increase in violence. Is that only Israel's fault? Of course not. Is Israel at least partially responsible for it? Of course it is.
Do you even understand Arab culture?
:lol: I find your assumptions about me not understanding Arabs ****ing hilarious for reasons that are fairly obvious to anyone who has been paying attention.
Seems like the Palestinians have a different view as to why they were elected. Oh And who did we pull out of Gaza for? Who did we open up the supply routes for? Who did we arm?!? Fatah? After the Gaza pullout? That doesn't sound like sidelining to me... so what gives?
You sidelined the PLO, Fatah on the the other hand were made to seem ineffectual. As I pointed out to Mika he was left in a situation where no one believed he was actually in charge or that he had the ability to stop the deaths of civilians. That opened the door for Hamas.
You should have left Abbas to run his own country instead of responding to every single rocket attack by shelling or bombing the positions and then claiming that civilian casualties are simply collateral damage. You should have helped Fatah more with the policing of Gaza. Yes it's true that Hamas don't recognise the state of Israel. Guess what? The IRA didn't recognise British jurisdiction over Northern Ireland and still don't now. Whether they recognise you or not is unimportant. You need to get the entire state of Palestine to the situation where their lives have gotten better through peaceful means. "Arab mindset" or not no one is going to want to go back to violence once that happens except the extremists.
You like to claim you understand the Arab mindset but let's put it this way, what do you really think would have happened if following Fatah's rise to power the deaths of civilians had stopped?
Of course that's never going to happen cause you believe you can "win" this war.
-
Heh. Well first of all just on my bus route from home to downtown I pass by 10 suicide bombing attacks sites.
*SNIPPED LIST*
Why is it that every time I want to discuss the bombing of Gaza city, people insist of bringing up prior terrorist actions? (that have completely no bearing on the issue at hand)
And you are right. As a civlian I haven't gone driving through Gaza city to see what is going on. I did however serve 3 and a half years in the IDF and I have seen enough of the Gaza strip and Gaza city and the West Bank and Lebanon to last me a lifetime. I also have friends still in these areas now. There is no shortage of “first hand knowledge” of the situation here on my part.
I wasn't asking about the "specific situation", but the very attack on Gaza City. Which you just confirmed you weren't there to witness.
Were 100 houses being used as military installations? I don't know the situation where you are. I don't know who was fighting who and for what? Who started it? Did they target non combatants? Did they use human shields by placing themselves among a civilian population? What are their goals? What were they fighting for? Who considered it “overshelling” and a war crime? These are all things that come into play I cannot tell you anything until I know what the situation was. The fact of the matter is depending on the answers to those questions it may or may not have been a war crime and it may or may not have been overshelling.
Yes, houses were used for military purposes. Yes, there were non-uniformed combatants present too.
The war started when croatian people declared independence but Seriba didn't like it, so it invaded under the pretense of protecting the serbs in croatia from prosecution and violence (informational warfare).
The EU and Haag considered it overshelling.
Any more questions?
And you really cannot tie any situation that has been before to this one since it is unlike any situation that has been before. Every situation is unique and has it's own variables and different factors and no one can come and say well it was like this here so that's how it must be here as well.
Bollocks. You're not special. Get that in your head.
Thousands of dead people - women and children - cannot be justified in any shape, way or form.
The "but it's a special case" is nothing more than an excuse to validate any excessive use of force or any civilian casualties.
-
Thousands of dead people cannot be justified in any shape, way or form.
I find this naive.
-
Thousands of dead people cannot be justified in any shape, way or form.
I find this naive.
I find every other way of thinking morally sick and arrogant.
-
So if a thousand soldiers die to save a million civilians, you would find that sick and arrogant if I said that it justified their sacrifice?
-
AHEM!
Thousands of dead people - women and children - cannot be justified in any shape, way or form.
While I do consider wars a terrible and stupid affair, soldiers are combatants, and even if their deaths are also tragic, they did go into this willingly with full knowledge of the consequences. And they were armed.
And it's not only a matter of the number of civilians killed - it's also the timeframe and method.
-
So if a thousand soldiers die to save a million civilians, you would find that sick and arrogant if I said that it justified their sacrifice?
Let's try reversing that though. What if a million civilians die to save a thousand soldiers?
-
What if fifty Palestinians have to die so that 10 Israelis can build houses where the rubble of the Palestinian houses used to be?
-
What if fifty Palestinians have to die so that 10 Israelis can build houses where the rubble of the Palestinian houses used to be?
There were two, if I recall, and it was in retaliation for the killing of four Israeli troops. Granted, not constructive (lol), but also not for Israelis to build there.
Link. (http://ie.indymedia.org/article/19969)
-
Ima be a hard-case.
Civilian casualties are tragic, no matter what, but it's war, they are also unavoidable.
Nobody quotes civilian vs. soldier casualty rates for WW2 or Korea or Vietnam. BTW, at last count, the USA and coalition forces in Iraq had lost about 6000 soldiers to around 15000 or 2000 enemy combatants with something like 3000 civilian deaths, accidental or otherwise.
When you are running a check point and a car comes running up, not slowing down and seemingly ignoring your hails, in a wartime situation, you always assume the worst. Try and disable the vehicle sure, but these days that's not enough since the vehicle is probably the weapon.
-
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&Do=&ID=37451
their farmland was coming right for us! we had no choice!
-
Civilian casualties are tragic, no matter what, but it's war, they are also unavoidable.
Only if you don't avoid the war in the first place. The invasion of Lebanon resulted in over one thousand civilian deaths to save the lives of two soldiers who weren't even saved in the end anyway.
Even after 9/11 America tried diplomacy with Afghanistan first. Considering that the action was from terrorists and not the Lebanese government maybe an invasion shouldn't have been the first response.
-
All things being equal kara, I'd agree, avoiding the war is preferable, but crying over what amounts to spilled milk after you have the cake baking is kinda petty.
Let's be clear, I DON'T like civvie deaths. I do, however, accept that once conflict has started, they are unavoidable.
Of course, we could be civilized about it like Eminiarrs and the Vendikans from A Taste of Armageddon, then war would never stop and you could have your perfect society all at the same time. WIN WIN!
-
All things being equal kara, I'd agree, avoiding the war is preferable, but crying over what amounts to spilled milk after you have the cake baking is kinda petty.
And what exactly is the cake in this analogy?
-
Cake = Open conflict
Continuing with the analogy before I go to bed, spilling the milk is messy and deplorable. And as a good cook, you can make every effort to clean it up and not spill milk in the future. But, it will eventually happen again, and crying over it doesn't achieve anything, except to make you feel bad for a little bit then vow to never do it again.
Stepping out of the analogy for bit. This is what makes us better than the people we are fighting, we actually care about what happens to the people around us and between us and them. They don't, they'll plow threw how ever many civilians, innocent bystanders and whatever else to kill and maim and torture(ooo I said a bad word)and convert by the sword(something Christianity doesn't do now and hasn't done for centuries), simply because they are barbarians. And they are at our gates.
The trick will be to see if we allow ourselves to be starved out like the Romans did.
-
How about simply not having open conflict in the first place then? Don't make that cake in the first place. There are tastier ones that don't involve spilling milk.
You agree that avoiding the war is preferable but I've not actually heard you claim that Israel should have avoided the war in Lebanon. Hell, they didn't even try.
-
Nobody quotes civilian vs. soldier casualty rates for WW2 or Korea or Vietnam. BTW, at last count, the USA and coalition forces in Iraq had lost about 6000 soldiers to around 15000 or 2000 enemy combatants with something like 3000 civilian deaths, accidental or otherwise.
Things changed since WW2. Our standards got higher.
Not to mention that the conflict in Iraq has been ongoing for years. If the USA has killed 3000 civilians in a WEEK, i'd be the first one to scream bloody murder.
-
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46682
Their natural resources were coming right for us!! We had no choice!
-
kara, I'm not going to pretend to understand why Israel went to war with Lebanon.
But don't follow in your countryman's shoes and try to shake the paw of the bear while it chews out your guts.
Sometimes, the compromises required to avoid conflict are an unacceptable alternative to whatever can be guaranteed in a conflict.
-
Sometimes, the compromises required to avoid conflict are an unacceptable alternative to whatever can be guaranteed in a conflict.
Alright, name a conflict waged by Israel in the last thirty years that can fit these terms.
-
kara, I'm not going to pretend to understand why Israel went to war with Lebanon.
Then don't make silly comments about how it is "trying to shake the paw of the bear while it chews out your guts" about it.
If you don't understand either learn or stay out of it.
-
I haven't tried to fusion three replies into a single post for a long time... the result will probably be a horrible mess.
Well the most important thing that is obvious from the graph is that attacks were commonplace before the pullout. Rocket attacks only went up after Hamas were elected and actually went down under Fatah.
So simplistic comments about how the Gazans rewarded Israel for the pullout by immediately starting attacking them are quickly revealed for the nonsense they are. The true story is that there were moves from Fatah to try to limit the attacks by terrorists. The attacks didn't stop but anyone who thinks that the government of Gaza could make a few phone calls and stop the attacks is an idiot.
I simply don't believe that this information is available from the referred graph only. First thing I noted is that the level of incidents is pretty constant, until there is a single spike just before the pullout. Unless there is something else to back that one up, I would consider it statistically insignificant. Also the links I provided mention of Fatah personnel themselves doing attacks in Israel that will not be visible in the graph as they are not mortar or rocket attacks.
The other thing that I could deduce from the graph is that the Palestinians had targets closer before the pullout, hence the requirement of weapons with a longer range. However, I have no way of knowing if this is true, but this would look reasonable and would make sense according to some training in Army.
Want to find the same figures for the other side instead of simply assuming that the this is all aggression from the Palestinian side?
If you can find a reliable list, please do so.
What should it have to do with Gaza? Nothing. What does it have to do with Gaza? Well it's pretty obvious that an attack on Lebanon is going to result in an increase in terrorist action against Israel. Again only a fool would expect terrorists who already hate Israel to sit on their hands and do nothing while that was going on.
OK, I'm starting to see an interesting pattern here. I consider Palestinian state already as a separate country which has central government and thus should be able to reduce the terrorism by some amount [which, what I think, it should be and probably it is also how Israel is recommended to view it]. However, the above snippet and our earlier discussions suggest that it is more like a decentralized command structure which each faction controlling some part of the area [which is probably what it actually is].
This leads me to a single conclusion: at the current state Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves. That means either UN or Israel (preferably UN) will have to provide the basic building blocks of society until Palestinians can do it themselves. And this also makes the Palestinian occupation by Israel seem a lot more reasonable policy despite the condemnations of the international community.
Your later comment:
You should have helped Fatah more with the policing of Gaza.
in this respect sounds like hypocrisy at best. I thought Israel pulled out of Gaza due to negotiations with Fatah and allowed Fatah to act like a party in charge as it should be and was required. International community condemned the Gaza occupation (includes policing), but now you are suggesting Israel actually shouldn't have left? Which way is it as you can't have both?
I can however find plenty of debate and op-ed on the matter. For instance the fact that they tried to do it to Yasser Arafat which you asked for proof of earlier is so obviously a fact that it's uncontested in Wikipedia.
Those actions gave Hamas lots of time to get their foot in the door.
I thought we were talking about current day and thus Abbas. I note Arafat was certainly being pushed away by both US and Israel, but Abbas? I don't think so, also for the reasons Splinter provided. The way I see it is simply that some of the power structure in Palestinian regions require violence to exist, which is a factor of Abbas being unable to stop it. Perhaps he appeared ineffectual because Palestinian themselves were also a factor? Forgive me if I'm not too familiar with the nuances of English, but I thought the word "goad" implies intentional malice behind the actions and not a chain of events that led to each other.
I also recall Israel shouting they don't negotiate with PLO and Fatah but if you look at it, they actually did and managed to get some agreements from both sides. Are you claiming they didn't negotiate seriously and fully committed?
What it comes to your analogy, I also had difficulties to interprete it. Over the years, I have found that the imaginary examples are unfruitful to discussion in many occasions and suggest you don't use them. Or do it very carefully. It is highly likely that the analogy is actually oversimplification and/or out of context window.
You like to claim you understand the Arab mindset but let's put it this way, what do you really think would have happened if following Fatah's rise to power the deaths of civilians had stopped?
This comment strikes me as odd. If I were nastier person, I would say it is designed to win an argument by being impossible to check. I remind you that predicting future is difficult, but predicting or interpolating the past has proven to be just as difficult. It is impossible to know what would have happened.
That's never going to work. Maybe if you can get Israel to give up an amount of land equal in size to Gaza. But offering to remove settlers who really never should have been there in the first place isn't a solution.
I'm not clear about the legal status of West Bank. I recall some resolution back then which said it was not legal, but there were some comments about it being legal later. In any case, I think it is absolutely necessary to place Palestinians into a united piece of land. Israel has pulled settlers from Gaza. It could do so also in West Bank if the region stabilises.
I find it rather hard to believe that the American people would turn a blind eye to genocide. I know for a fact that Europe wouldn't want to have anything to do with them. So let's not continue with the pretty silly argument that Israel could simply wipe out the population of Gaza with no political repercussions.
The problem is that Israel is already doing something despite the international repercussions, as, like Splinter says will happen in any case. The bigger factor is US military aid that I suspect to decrease in coming years.
You sidelined the PLO, Fatah on the the other hand were made to seem ineffectual. As I pointed out to Mika he was left in a situation where no one believed he was actually in charge or that he had the ability to stop the deaths of civilians. That opened the door for Hamas.
You should have left Abbas to run his own country instead of responding to every single rocket attack by shelling or bombing the positions and then claiming that civilian casualties are simply collateral damage. You should have helped Fatah more with the policing of Gaza.
Well, since we seem to have an Middle East expert among us with good understanding of Arab culture, why don't you represent your solution to the problem and open it for the discussion? It is not that anybody from UN would ever read this, but this could serve some educational purposes from the region. At least I have learned something while reading this thread.
Mika
-
Your later comment:
You should have helped Fatah more with the policing of Gaza.
in this respect sounds like hypocrisy at best. I thought Israel pulled out of Gaza due to negotiations with Fatah and allowed Fatah to act like a party in charge as it should be and was required. International community condemned the Gaza occupation (includes policing), but now you are suggesting Israel actually shouldn't have left? Which way is it as you can't have both?
I'm only going to deal with this bit for now cause I'm rather busy today.
Do you honestly believe that Israel can only help with the policing of Gaza by direct intervention? Cause I can think of other ways and I even mentioned them in my posts. You then ignored them and chose to pick on the one version that I wasn't talking about.
Better information transfer would be the best way to help them. Israel did appear to be able to discover the location of Palestinian terrorists. Why not give that information to the Palestinian authorities so they could do something about them instead of launching rocket attacks on them? That didn't help Fatah at all.
If terrorists from your country launched an attack on Russia should the Russians respond by bombing your city until they kill them or should they respond by turning over the identities of the suspects to your country's police for arrest?
-
0
If terrorists from your country launched an attack on Russia should the Russians respond by bombing your city until they kill them or should they respond by turning over the identities of the suspects to your country's police for arrest?
My country responds by invading and dismantling a nation that didn't even have anything to do with the initial attack :-P
-
Do you honestly believe that Israel can only help with the policing of Gaza by direct intervention? Cause I can think of other ways and I even mentioned them in my posts. You then ignored them and chose to pick on the one version that I wasn't talking about.
Better information transfer would be the best way to help them. Israel did appear to be able to discover the location of Palestinian terrorists. Why not give that information to the Palestinian authorities so they could do something about them instead of launching rocket attacks on them? That didn't help Fatah at all.
If terrorists from your country launched an attack on Russia should the Russians respond by bombing your city until they kill them or should they respond by turning over the identities of the suspects to your country's police for arrest?
I think you are ignoring Splinter's comments of the functionality of Palestinian police force and about the possibilities of policing.
There are also other factors why I see bombing the mortar positions have occured. First is the timing question. By noting the mortar or rocket positions from aircraft, the response time is counted in minutes or tens of seconds. This is important especially when the Palestinian groups themselves take pride in how fast they can equip the mortars, fire and escape. This probably happens in two minutes or less. How do you think any kind of police force could respond to that? On best occasions, you only get confirmation of breaking the law after the mortar has been fired. Dismantling the whole thing takes only tens of seconds, after which the people have disappeared.
Second thing is that even Palestinian police force themselves have been found of doing attacks towards Israel. How much do you think giving information on these parties would help stopping the attacks? How likely is it that the information would be used against Israel?
Lastly, I warned about using imaginary examples that ignore the area and the culture. Given that police force actually works and that general population does not accept terrorist attacks towards Russia, the situation is already drastically different. I'm more worried about organized crime coming here from Russia.
Mika
-
Forget the responses to Gazan rocket and mortar attacks for a moment. Explain why the Israelis used rocket attacks against terrorist leaders when they were sat at home.
I simply don't believe that this information is available from the referred graph only. First thing I noted is that the level of incidents is pretty constant, until there is a single spike just before the pullout.
You read it as constant but it looks like a steady rise to me actually. Especially if you include mortar attacks too.
OK, I'm starting to see an interesting pattern here. I consider Palestinian state already as a separate country which has central government and thus should be able to reduce the terrorism by some amount [which, what I think, it should be and probably it is also how Israel is recommended to view it]. However, the above snippet and our earlier discussions suggest that it is more like a decentralized command structure which each faction controlling some part of the area [which is probably what it actually is].
This leads me to a single conclusion: at the current state Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves. That means either UN or Israel (preferably UN) will have to provide the basic building blocks of society until Palestinians can do it themselves. And this also makes the Palestinian occupation by Israel seem a lot more reasonable policy despite the condemnations of the international community.
However you don't seem willing to think about why the situation is like that. Could it possibly be due to the fact that Gaza has been constantly under attack for the last ten years? It's all very well saying that the Gazan's can't govern themselves but how much of a chance have they really been given?
I also recall Israel shouting they don't negotiate with PLO and Fatah but if you look at it, they actually did and managed to get some agreements from both sides. Are you claiming they didn't negotiate seriously and fully committed?
Yes. You can't withdraw from Gaza claiming that it is an independent while still retaining control of almost every single aspect of the daily running of the country. Even after the pull out from Gaza Israel still controlled every single route by air or sea out of Gaza. They still controlled Gaza's infrastructure too, retaining control over water, electricity, fuel and import/exports. Furthermore they reserved the right to interfere militarily whenever they saw fit.
Don't kid yourself into ever assuming that Fatah were in charge in Gaza.
As for why Israel would appear to be diplomatic. I find this article (http://mondediplo.com/2006/02/03sharon) quite interesting.
What it comes to your analogy, I also had difficulties to interprete it. Over the years, I have found that the imaginary examples are unfruitful to discussion in many occasions and suggest you don't use them. Or do it very carefully. It is highly likely that the analogy is actually oversimplification and/or out of context window.
I'll stop if you make more of an effort to actually try to understand what I'm on about. Otherwise I have to use simple analogies to get my point across since you misinterpret me when I do stay with the subject matter.
Well, since we seem to have an Middle East expert among us with good understanding of Arab culture, why don't you represent your solution to the problem and open it for the discussion?
Because I'm not stupid enough to believe that I could come up with a simple solution to the problems of the Middle East. Certainly not one that could fit within the context of a forum discussion. A solution would involve talks with both sides on trying to reach a compromise. It would be a lot of hard work. It isn't something you can simply hand down from on high and force both sides to accept.
-
Forget the responses to Gazan rocket and mortar attacks for a moment. Explain why the Israelis used rocket attacks against terrorist leaders when they were sat at home.
Because Palestinian authority did not capture them?
What it comes to the graph, the only significant part I can see is that after 2006 the number of rocket&mortar attacks has increased. Before that, I don't see a steady rise.
Do you think that I don't think why the conflict is going on? This is not true. I simply view the matter differently. Why the conflict started doesn't matter as long as people are flinging rockets towards each other. The only objective is to get them to stop. For this, I don't think you need to know whys, as the discussion will inevitably result in spirals of "But he started it!" and things will not progress anywhere. Hence "HAPPENED IN PAST"
I doubt you can make them stop at this stage without international intervention. After there is a cease fire that has actually lasted for a year or two, then you can start negotiating. And at that point it is possible to start talking about whys and whodunnits.
Yes. You can't withdraw from Gaza claiming that it is an independent while still retaining control of almost every single aspect of the daily running of the country. Even after the pull out from Gaza Israel still controlled every single route by air or sea out of Gaza. They still controlled Gaza's infrastructure too, retaining control over water, electricity, fuel and import/exports. Furthermore they reserved the right to interfere militarily whenever they saw fit.
Don't kid yourself into ever assuming that Fatah were in charge in Gaza.
As for why Israel would appear to be diplomatic. I find this article quite interesting.
Now you are contradicting yourself. Formerly, you said that Gazan independence would be a bad idea. Now you are telling they never had one from the start, which implies it would be a good thing. So, please clarify your meaning.
What it comes to Israel being diplomatic, the article doesn't list one thing, which is the Israeli motive for keeping the situation as it is. By looking at the articles written by the same person, it could be deducted that Israel has been wishing of the Greater Israel, intentionally pushing Palestinians away (which I think is true up to the point) to gain some land area. It doesn't mention that annexation of West Bank is a result of war that the surrounding nations started and lost. And also what I don't believe is that the same policy would have continued up to this day, nor do the current Israeli have anything to do with the decisions done at 1950s.
I'll stop if you make more of an effort to actually try to understand what I'm on about. Otherwise I have to use simple analogies to get my point across since you misinterpret me when I do stay with the subject matter.
And here I thought you don't understand what I'm trying to say. Using analogies, it is terribly easy to construct an example of "what would you do if..." where you either answer yes or no and tell it is analogous to the real world. It doesn't work that way. I can answer yes or no to analogy and still answer differently when the discussion is about real world.
Because I'm not stupid enough to believe that I could come up with a simple solution to the problems of the Middle East.
However, this doesn't stop you from telling people who live there how they should handle or should have handled the situations.
Off to have flue,
Mika
-
Busy again, so quick answers for now.
Because I'm not stupid enough to believe that I could come up with a simple solution to the problems of the Middle East.
However, this doesn't stop you from telling people who live there how they should handle or should have handled the situations.
If I can tell that a problem requires a complex well thought out answer and someone tells me that that have a simple answer it's pretty easy to point out the flaws in their argument.
I don't need to have a full answer to point to the direction in which it lies. Besides when I have pointed out analogous situations you've complained that they don't count. Which is funny considering that Hamas have been talking to the IRA and the ANC to find ways to resolve the conflict with Israel based on the way those two solved their problems.
I doubt you can make them stop at this stage without international intervention. After there is a cease fire that has actually lasted for a year or two, then you can start negotiating. And at that point it is possible to start talking about whys and whodunnits.
And exactly how do you propose to get a long-term cease-fire without negotiations? Cause that sounds like something pretty much unprecedented in history to me.
Now you are contradicting yourself. Formerly, you said that Gazan independence would be a bad idea.
When did I say that?
-
Ahh, got some of that slime out of my lungs, I'm currently almost operative...
If I can tell that a problem requires a complex well thought out answer and someone tells me that that have a simple answer it's pretty easy to point out the flaws in their argument.
I don't need to have a full answer to point to the direction in which it lies. Besides when I have pointed out analogous situations you've complained that they don't count. Which is funny considering that Hamas have been talking to the IRA and the ANC to find ways to resolve the conflict with Israel based on the way those two solved their problems.
Here is the second major difference. I see the conflict more as a war, where you see it differently. That is the reason why I say it is not at all the same, along with all the geographical differences. Seeing the number of daily mortar strikes; I really feel it isn't terrorism, it is war. Besides I don't know what to think about Hamas talking with IRA and ANC about peace and be still pushing out propaganda for war.
And, despite all the thinking and complexity, no plan survives intact in real world. It has to adapt to changes. What they taught me in the military was that quick decisions that are roughly correct are usually better than complex detailed plans that took longer time.
And exactly how do you propose to get a long-term cease-fire without negotiations? Cause that sounds like something pretty much unprecedented in history to me.
I meant you negotiate for the cease fire, but reserve further negotiations to a later time until the more violent part of the population has cooled down or has been arrested.
You mentioned about the independence being a bad idea some pages ago, saying something of the lines it would have been a fantastic idea since the Palestinians would have got more weapons. I'm too lazy to find the exact quote, but it is there.
Mika
-
Find the quote. Cause I very much doubt I said it.
-
I think here it is:
How the hell would you enforce that with one country currently occupying the other though? Not to mention that it would make Israel's blockade of Gaza from the sea illegal. As well as making attempts by Gaza to buy weapons perfectly legal.
-
And how the hell is that me claiming that independence for Gaza is a bad thing? :confused:
In case you're misinterpreting the weapons thing. Israel has constantly used the claim that Hamas are smuggling in weapons as a reason to blockade and periodically invade Gaza. But if the state of Palestine exists then that entire argument becomes moot. As an independent state they have the right to buy as many weapons as they can afford.
-
If Gaza were an independent state, then when they launched mortars and rockets into Israel it would be an act of war, and the entire world would have zero justification to yell at Israel for anything they did that wasn't a war crime. Israel would be free under the Geneva Convention to launch an all-out assault on Gaza and do a full military occupation.
And Hamas asking the IRA and ANC for advice on how to end this is meaningless. Those two groups wanted freedom. Hamas wants the destruction of Israel. The IRA could be negotiated with because they wanted freedom for Ireland, not the destruction of Great Britain. If the IRA had been dead-set on destroying the UK like Hamas is dead-set on destroying Israel, they never would have been negotiated with.
-
If Gaza were an independent state, then when they launched mortars and rockets into Israel it would be an act of war, and the entire world would have zero justification to yell at Israel for anything they did that wasn't a war crime. Israel would be free under the Geneva Convention to launch an all-out assault on Gaza and do a full military occupation.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
If you seriously believe that total war on another state is ok'd by the Geneva Convention, then you clearly have no ****ing clue.
And Hamas asking the IRA and ANC for advice on how to end this is meaningless. Those two groups wanted freedom. Hamas wants the destruction of Israel. The IRA could be negotiated with because they wanted freedom for Ireland, not the destruction of Great Britain. If the IRA had been dead-set on destroying the UK like Hamas is dead-set on destroying Israel, they never would have been negotiated with.
Actually the fact they're turning to the IRA and ANC for advice on how to end the conflict means everything. Like you said, IRA and ANC wanted freedom, and if Hamas is turning to those two for advice on how to end their conflict, then that may mean Hamas is gearing towards a more moderate solution with Israel--liberation of Gaza, but not destruction of Israel.
-
If Gaza were an independent state, then when they launched mortars and rockets into Israel it would be an act of war, and the entire world would have zero justification to yell at Israel for anything they did that wasn't a war crime. Israel would be free under the Geneva Convention to launch an all-out assault on Gaza and do a full military occupation.
It would indeed be allowed to declare war. But until Palestine is an independent state we'll never know if that is enough to actually stop the mortars and rockets so it's a rather moot point, isn't it?
And Hamas asking the IRA and ANC for advice on how to end this is meaningless. Those two groups wanted freedom. Hamas wants the destruction of Israel. The IRA could be negotiated with because they wanted freedom for Ireland, not the destruction of Great Britain. If the IRA had been dead-set on destroying the UK like Hamas is dead-set on destroying Israel, they never would have been negotiated with.
Nice try. Maybe you should look more closely at what is actually being said.
Hamas have never officially said that they want to drive the Jews out of their homes AFAIK. In fact a lot of them have said that they don't mind the Jews living in a Islamic state of Palestine. Their issue is with the existence of the state of Israel. They wish to turn back the clock to pre-1947 unpartitioned Palestine and have a single state under Muslim rule.
Now look at the IRA. What did they want? Well their issue was with the existence of a separate Northern Ireland. They wanted to turn back the clock to pre-1920 unpartitioned Ireland and have a single state under Catholic rule.
Now personally I have little patience for either argument. Both of them are a case of people arguing about stuff that happened so long ago that most of the people involved are dead. But I find it quite funny when people try to claim that Hamas want something very different from the IRA. Had Northern Ireland become an entirely separate nation instead of remaining part of the UK I doubt that we wouldn't have seen something like the IRA come along and try to use violence to reunite the country.
-
Nice try. Maybe you should look more closely at what is actually being said.
Hamas have never officially said that they want to drive the Jews out of their homes AFAIK. In fact a lot of them have said that they don't mind the Jews living in a Islamic state of Palestine. Their issue is with the existence of the state of Israel. They wish to turn back the clock to pre-1947 unpartitioned Palestine and have a single state under Muslim rule.
So what you are saying is that since Hamas wants to eliminate the nation of Israel, the nation of Israel can and should negotiate with Hamas? I'm not talking about the citizens of Israel here, I'm talking about the government of Israel. The government of Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas since Hamas wants to destroy the government of Israel.
Now look at the IRA. What did they want? Well their issue was with the existence of a separate Northern Ireland. They wanted to turn back the clock to pre-1920 unpartitioned Ireland and have a single state under Catholic rule.
Now personally I have little patience for either argument. Both of them are a case of people arguing about stuff that happened so long ago that most of the people involved are dead. But I find it quite funny when people try to claim that Hamas want something very different from the IRA. Had Northern Ireland become an entirely separate nation instead of remaining part of the UK I doubt that we wouldn't have seen something like the IRA come along and try to use violence to reunite the country.
Hamas does want something different from the IRA. You said yourself Hamas wants to remove the nation of Israel. The IRA did not want to eliminate England as a nation, they wanted a part of England to no longer be English.
-
Israel has no right to exist. None.
-
Neither does the United States, it just does.
-
:D
-
Israel has no right to exist. None.
Neither does the United States, it just does.
Or the human race for that matter. It'll be the cause of its own downfall. :P
-
So what you are saying is that since Hamas wants to eliminate the nation of Israel, the nation of Israel can and should negotiate with Hamas? I'm not talking about the citizens of Israel here, I'm talking about the government of Israel. The government of Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas since Hamas wants to destroy the government of Israel.
So because someone wants something different from you, you can never ever talk to them?
Again, take a look at Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement resulted in a power sharing government between people who want Northern Ireland to stay part of the UK and people who want it to be reunited with Ireland. According to you, that must be impossible since they want diametrically opposite things.
Hamas does want something different from the IRA. You said yourself Hamas wants to remove the nation of Israel. The IRA did not want to eliminate England as a nation, they wanted a part of England to no longer be English.
:lol:
Got a phone call here. It's 8 million angry Welsh and Scots. They want a word with you. :p
-
Actually, iirc, what the final intention of the IRA was, was to create all of Ireland as the sovereign nation of Eire.
-
Hamas does want something different from the IRA. You said yourself Hamas wants to remove the nation of Israel. The IRA did not want to eliminate England as a nation, they wanted a part of England to no longer be English.
:lol:
Got a phone call here. It's 8 million angry Welsh and Scots. They want a word with you. :p
In this imaginary world there are no Welsh or Scots or Cornish or Irish or United Kingdom, just England lol
(http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:K-enquzSIGtB9M:http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg) x 8,000,000
-
There are other people there? Are we sure? They never talk about them over here in Amurika.
-
The fact that he was talking about Northern Ireland should have been a hint that there was more to the UK than just England though. :p
-
Yes, but people usually call Great Britian just England for some dark and mysterious reason. I bet it is the English own fault, so the Scottish and the Welsh should get them...
Just like that we call the USA America, while the USA si only a small part of the northern part of America. But then again, they do like to pretend that they rule the whole continent (and more)...
And exactly how do you propose to get a long-term cease-fire without negotiations? Cause that sounds like something pretty much unprecedented in history to me.
The Versailles Treaty (WW1 edition)?
-
Huh? The armistice was a short term cease fire signed six months before the treaty. The fact that they needed a treaty pretty much proves my point that you can't simply just stop shooting at each other.
-
Nobody quotes civilian vs. soldier casualty rates for WW2 or Korea or Vietnam. BTW, at last count, the USA and coalition forces in Iraq had lost about 6000 soldiers to around 15000 or 2000 enemy combatants with something like 3000 civilian deaths, accidental or otherwise.
Things changed since WW2. Our standards got higher.
We just had the luxury of not having to fight fullscale wars with opponents that are on an equal footing.
Had the Cold War gone hot the fighting would have been just as brutal as during WW2, if not worse due to nukes.
-
While that is true, I doubt anyone could claim that Israel faces a full scale war with an opponents that is on an equal footing.
-
Huh? The armistice was a short term cease fire signed six months before the treaty. The fact that they needed a treaty pretty much proves my point that you can't simply just stop shooting at each other.
They needed the treaty to exact their revenge and bleed the Germans dry. Germany was not really involved in the negotiations...
But on the other hand, the losing side actually wasn't capable of shooting back, since it broke apart and the new government did not have any guns to begin with.
-
Which is why it didn't work in the end.
-
Neither does the United States, it just does.
Israel is the equivalent of Native Americans rising up and killing everybody because their ancestors lived on this land.
-
Everyones ancestors lived on everyone's land, most of Europe was a game of Geographical musical chairs for thousands of years, same in the Middle East.
I'd say Israel is more like people being bought in from another country and displacing the people who already lived there because they were more technologically advanced, which is exactly what happened in the USA. Yes, there are theological differences etc, but, in essence, the idea is the same.
In truth, any nations 'right to exist' is based on its ability to stop its neighbours from invading.
-
But the Jews in Israel went there specifically because it was their ancestors' land.
Israel can fall in a well and die.
-
I didn't expect to see this many replies. It gets harder to keep track...
And how the hell is that me claiming that independence for Gaza is a bad thing?
In case you're misinterpreting the weapons thing. Israel has constantly used the claim that Hamas are smuggling in weapons as a reason to blockade and periodically invade Gaza. But if the state of Palestine exists then that entire argument becomes moot. As an independent state they have the right to buy as many weapons as they can afford.
That argument came after I said Palestine should exist as a separate and independent country!
Whether Israel has right or not to exist is not for me to decide. I think UN has already made their view clear and the majority of countries has accepted it.
What it comes to Hamas, I'm still seeing major warcrimes being committed by them. The evidence is available in YouTube for everybody who read Splinter's posts. This fact makes it relatively difficult to believe they would be happy with the original Palestinian land area with Jewish people in it. Thus I don't see the fusion of West Bank and current Israeli state as any kind of solution to the conflict.
-
That argument came after I said Palestine should exist as a separate and independent country!
And it doesn't contradict that in any way.
You were trying to claim that the solution to the problem was for the UN to declare Palestine as a separate and independent country and I simply pointed out all the reasons why Israel wouldn't go for that right now.
1) They're still in control of the West Bank and aren't likely to give up control immediately just cause the UN say so.
2) They are blockading Gaza because they say they want to prevent Hamas arming themselves. Something that would be illegal for them to do if Palestine was an independent state.
How on Earth you're twisting that into me claiming that there shouldn't be a Palestinian state is beyond me but next time you think you've found a case of me contradicting myself perhaps you should ask for a clarification before going off, foaming at the mouth about how I'm saying something different to an earlier post.
Cause this is the second or third time you've done it on this thread alone and you haven't been right about it yet.
What it comes to Hamas, I'm still seeing major warcrimes being committed by them. The evidence is available in YouTube for everybody who read Splinter's posts. This fact makes it relatively difficult to believe they would be happy with the original Palestinian land area with Jewish people in it. Thus I don't see the fusion of West Bank and current Israeli state as any kind of solution to the conflict.
I have serious doubts about that working too. But then I had serious doubts about any chance of a lasting peace settlement in Northern Ireland.
Either way I brought up the subject to counter the claim that Hamas have said they want the Jews out of Israel. That doesn't appear to be their official policy, although I don't doubt that several of their more radical members have said just that.
Bear in mind that this entire thread started over accusations of the Israelis committing war crimes so it's not like they're whiter than white either.
-
It is crazy, the most difficult people to understand are the Englishmen when we are talking in English - as if they didn't understand their own language! I have never had same kind of problems with Americans. But don't worry, you are really not the first Englishman that appears as really vague. In fact I asked for a clarification because the contradiction did not make any sense to me.
Yes, it seems to be a misunderstanding, the following quote confused me even further:
In case you're misinterpreting the weapons thing. Israel has constantly used the claim that Hamas are smuggling in weapons as a reason to blockade and periodically invade Gaza. But if the state of Palestine exists then that entire argument becomes moot. As an independent state they have the right to buy as many weapons as they can afford.
The source of confusion is the bolded part. It is not clear to me where it refers to. I read it as in nullifying my argument one post ago, not as in nullifying the Israeli argument of blockading Gaza (in this case I was expecting "the reason" instead of "that entire argument").
You were trying to claim that the solution to the problem was for the UN to declare Palestine as a separate and independent country and I simply pointed out all the reasons why Israel wouldn't go for that right now.
Back to the quote from page 16:
How the hell would you enforce that with one country currently occupying the other though? Not to mention that it would make Israel's blockade of Gaza from the sea illegal. As well as making attempts by Gaza to buy weapons perfectly legal.
Ah, now it works. Funny that I needed the above quote to complement the quote from page 16 to understand it correctly. It has something to do with how sentences are constructed at the quote of page 16. The trail of thought breaks somehow when the second sentence starts with "Not to mention..." The point is I read them back then as separate entities.
What it comes to your argument number 1), I think I already wrote a concept how it could be done before you posted your question.
But then I had serious doubts about any chance of a lasting peace settlement in Northern Ireland.
AARGH! You are doing it again! I can read the above sentence in two different ways.
It might be interesting to start a new thread and post a little bit more complex English text for non-native English people to read and then ask how they understood it. Maybe this could give an idea what gives. And I don't mean slang, that would be just an example of bad taste.
Mika
-
To be frank, the reason why I tend to be unclear is cause when I write longer responses I get accused of being patronising. If someone misunderstands me I can quite clearly prove what I was saying. But if someone claims I'm patronising them it's much harder to prove my innocence. :p
However I'll be more than happy to write longer responses to you from now on as long as you keep the above in mind.
In case you're misinterpreting the weapons thing. Israel has constantly used the claim that Hamas are smuggling in weapons as a reason to blockade and periodically invade Gaza. But if the state of Palestine exists then that entire argument becomes moot. As an independent state they have the right to buy as many weapons as they can afford.
The source of confusion is the bolded part. It is not clear to me where it refers to. I read it as in nullifying my argument one post ago, not as in nullifying the Israeli argument of blockading Gaza (in this case I was expecting "the reason" instead of "that entire argument").
I'm referring to Israel's rational for blockading Palestine. Israel constantly makes the argument that the blockade is needed due to Hamas smuggling in weapons. As an independent nation Palestine would buy whatever (legal) weapons they wanted to and there wouldn't be a damn thing Israel could do about it without declaring war. Which is one of the major reasons I suspect that they don't ever want to give Palestine independence.
What it comes to your argument number 1), I think I already wrote a concept how it could be done before you posted your question.
I know. But I simply don't believe it is workable. I tend to think the method that the IRA and ANC used for peace in their countries is a much more workable plan for Palestine.
But then I had serious doubts about any chance of a lasting peace settlement in Northern Ireland.
AARGH! You are doing it again! I can read the above sentence in two different ways.
I'm simply saying that it is possible that Hamas might surprise us by being more reasonable than we both seem to expect them to be. The IRA after all have proved surprisingly reasonable since the Good Friday Agreement and the fear of the Afrikaans that they would be set upon the second the blacks were in charge also proved unfounded in the end.
Right now the situation in Northern Ireland is such that even if the IRA did want to go back to violence their entire support base for it is gone. The people like having peace. It could be that something similar might happen in Palestine.
I would rate the chance of Fatah doing it much higher than Hamas but right now Hamas are in charge. They are the only game in town. Israel can either talk to them, or they can carry on this **** for another 40 years.