[Nuclear1]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Hellstryker]

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.

[TrashMan]

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!

[bastionlover]

ahh war sucks. except the shivan incursion.

[Mika]

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

[karajorma]

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.

[Mika]

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 E]

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.

[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.

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

[Bobboau]

you could put German troops in Israel and christian troops in the west bank, then everyone's unhappy .

[karajorma]

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

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.

[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? 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

[karajorma]

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?

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.

[Janos]

You can believe whatever the hell you want. I base my opinions on Finnish peacekeepers' accounts.

Mika

What, the ones Israel bombed?

Mika

[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

[karajorma]

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.

[Splinter]

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[karajorma]

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?