|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Samadhi
+1
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:00 am Post subject: 201 |
 |
|
BTW
Where's the outrage about North Korea killing South Korean sailors in a submarine attack? Tell me how this one defense/aggression or however you want to define it by the IDF draws the ire of the world (except the US. And let's hope the world is right because otherwise we are in trouble.)
But in contrast North Korea by all forensic evidence torpedoes a ship, killing over 40 people, a clear act of war....and they get a pass? Where's the outrage? I'm outraged, I really don't understand why you guys aren't. Unless you haven't heard of it.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:50 am Post subject: 202 |
|
|
Maybe because the South Korean ship wasn't manned by volunteers taking aid to North Korea?
The two Koreas have been at, if not exactly war then hardly peace for, what, more than fifty years now? They've been attacking each other's ships regularly - and it's rarely reported - but I haven't noticed any major civilian involvement in these incidents, which probably would make the news (e.g. like when those two reporters stupidly tried to smuggle themselves into the country.)
Here's a piece by Fred Kaplan about it, which was posted last month.
(Note: I have been reading this thread with interest, but I have not participated, largely because I think that Israel and Palestine are trapped in a horrible vicious circle that it may not be possible to break, and I think the leaders of both sides are as guilty as each other. Attacking aid convoys is a stupid thing to do, but so are random rocket attacks. Antrax is right in that an alien invasion may be the only way out.)
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:16 am Post subject: 203 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
Appease the terrorists today, then what tomorrow? Peace? You're joking. |
Pay for another 50+ years of war that we can't afford while our country continues to fall apart? You're joking. Stay the course? Yeah, let's keep doing what we know for sure doesn't work. That's smart. |
Some of us know for sure what won't work. The situation there is not as bad as it might be. Suppose Israel had been conquered in what turned out to be the Six Day War? Again, your solution to conflict is not one you practice. You want to practice what you preach? Take a hike to the shore, and keep hiking. That will work.
You're the joke Pablo. Do you remember during the first Gulf War, when your friend Saddam was launching scud missiles into Israel? Israel was ready, willing, and able to take out Saddam. We told them not to. Look where it got us.
BTW, in the news today, your Taliban friends are reported to have hung a seven year old boy for being a spy. Are you still holding to your premise that both sides are equally to blame - neither is right or wrong? (or "good and evil", as you like to put it)
Face it Pablo, you don't believe in fighting any aggressor, and if there were people like you having their way, Hitler would have won, and even today, you won't - you can't - say that would have been a bad thing. Your "balanced view" is so far from reality, it's tragic.
| Pablo wrote: |
| You're a joke. |
Your bitterness ... take it elsewhere.
It's a struggle for survival, Israel will not surrender, and if they lose, the world will be in worse shape than your feeble mind can possibly imagine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:31 pm Post subject: 204 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
BTW, in the news today, your Taliban friends are reported to have hung a seven year old boy for being a spy. Are you still holding to your premise that both sides are equally to blame - neither is right or wrong? (or "good and evil", as you like to put it) |
I don't think I said "neither is right or wrong". I think I said something more like "It's not a matter of right v wrong or good v evil". At least that's what I meant. Both sides are evil and both sides are stupid.
Sure -You can find an example of some horrific act perpetrated by the Taliban that was "reported" and use that to "prove" they are evil which, I guess, is what you are attempting. And you think U.S. troops don't do things equally as evil in war situations? I have heard FIRST HAND stories from Viet Nam pilots that involve dozens of children aflame with napalm. Pilots who told me such stories were not remorseful. This was in a bar in the officer's club, where they were one-upping each other with acts of brutality they had seen or done. You think my friends the Taliban have a corner on the evil market? If so, it is you with the feeble mind. War is evil as are all participants. If you want to go back most of a century to find a war that history views as just, I would ask why you are not using the last 3 or 4 wars as such examples. Is it because the U.S. has lost her moral high ground in that period? Extro, the Hitler example no longer works. We have Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan that are much more relevant and reflective of what the U.S. has become......evil and corrupt.
| Quote: |
| Face it Pablo, you don't believe in fighting any aggressor, and if there were people like you having their way, Hitler would have won, and even today, you won't - you can't - say that would have been a bad thing. Your "balanced view" is so far from reality, it's tragic. |
Sure I can. Just listen: "If Hitler would have won, that would have been a bad thing." Oh, let me throw in, "I am glad we defeated the Third Reich. The good guys won".
But let me add, "If people like me had their way, there would have never been a Viet Nam war, an Iraq War, or the current Afghan war......and the world would now be a much better place. Unfortunately, there were not enough people like me, so people like you have had their way, and the world is now a stinking pile of shit. You don't seem to have the brain cells to separate WWII from more current events.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 1:35 pm Post subject: 205 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Pablo, the point I was trying to make is that "your way" was also tried several times and failed. |
Could you elaborate? What is "my way" and where has it been tried? I don't really want to "kill Antrax" or anyone else. That was evidently a lame attempt to lighten things up subsequent to DM's ridiculous question to me about killing Israelis. It was a reference to the fact that you frequently frustrate me during debates by not directly answering my questions. Admittedly poor judgment.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.
Last edited by Pablo on Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:10 pm Post subject: 206 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
I don't think I said "neither is right or wrong". I think I said something more like "It's not a matter of right v wrong or good v evil". At least that's what I meant. Both sides are evil and both sides are stupid.
Sure -You can find an example of some horrific act perpetrated by the Taliban that was "reported" and use that to "prove" they are evil which, I guess, is what you are attempting. |
With regard to the Israeli & Palestinian matter, I haven't used the word "evil", but I have cited more than "an example". Basically, the fact that they have institutionalized brainwashing of young children to believe that it is better to die in the effort to kill the Jews than to live in peace. And yes, it is one-sided. I can show you examples of commercials from Israeli television that attempt to promote peace, to defuse the situation. I'm not attempting to prove they are evil, but I can see how mentioning the mere facts could give you that impression, hence why you choose to stubbornly ignore the facts.
| Pablo wrote: |
| And you think U.S. troops don't do things equally as evil in war situations? |
I'm well aware. These are individuals. It is not representative of a longstanding agenda to commit genocide.
| Pablo wrote: |
| If you want to go back most of a century to find a war that history views as just, I would ask why you are not using the last 3 or 4 wars as such examples. Is it because the U.S. has lost her moral high ground in that period? Extro, the Hitler example no longer works. We have Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan that are much more relevant and reflective of what the U.S. has become......evil and corrupt. |
We are talking about Israel's struggle to survive while surrounded by enemies that have demonstrated and asserted the desire to wipe them off the planet. The Hitler example is relevant, and your assertion that the US is "evil" (using the word you derisively and wrongly attributed to me) is not relevant. So your "balanced view", wherein neither side is evil, has an exception. Taliban, the hanging of young children, Hamas, strapping bombs on brainwashed children - not evil. USA, evil.
| Pablo wrote: |
| You don't seem to have the brain cells to separate WWII from more current events. |
Right, just attribute everyone's failure to ignore facts you'd like to ignore as a lack of brain cells. Your buddies in the Arab world aren't ignoring the Holocaust. They're teaching the children that it happened, and was orchestrated by Zionists to garner sympathy. Imagine being surrounded by a generation of people who believe that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:20 pm Post subject: 207 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
I'm well aware. These are individuals. It is not representative of a longstanding agenda to commit genocide. |
To me it's splitting hairs. In our three most recent wars, we have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people while never being attacked or threatened by Viet Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. U.S. = just as evil as anyone you mention. Do we plot genocide? No. We just make war and kill lots of people. But at least we don't target specific races, I'll say that for us.
Yep - I blame the U.S. for a lot, including much of the trouble in the Middle East. I believe that if we quit funding it, it would INCREASE Israel's chances of peace, not decrease it.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:26 pm Post subject: 208 |
|
|
Pablo, you do realise the US started "funding" Israel only in 73, after three wars (and some lesser skirmishes) were already fought, right?
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:34 pm Post subject: 209 |
|
|
Thank you for the Hezbollah view.
Different matter, but as always he makes some really good points (RIP). It's also obvious how nutty Helen Thomas is in this clip.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:41 pm Post subject: 210 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Pablo, you do realise the US started "funding" Israel only in 73, after three wars (and some lesser skirmishes) were already fought, right? |
I didn't, so I do stand corrected on that.
Look, I don't think the U.S. has the evil intentions others may have, but we more than make up for it with the vast means that we employ. The evil DONE is what I'm talking about, not the evil intent. In any case, I've let my anger and bitterness towards the U.S. government and those who support their policies and activities around the world, go far beyond what I intended. I've said everything and more that I can or want to say on this subject and all I will do is continue offending people here. I'm going to drop out of this one and I expect the level of civility to improve. Of course, I'll be reading.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:07 pm Post subject: 211 |
|
|
Hey Pablo! maybe you could take Helen Thomas' seat. Somebody has to ask the hard questions. Better than just being the president's stenographer and calling it objective journalism.
Helen's statements may have been relevant 50 years ago, but time cannot be reversed and the response would have been the same then as it is now. Not possible, get over it. She should have gone a long time ago but she didn't outlive her usefulness because she was the only one that could call the press secretary a liar and get away with it and there was nobody else that had the courage to do it.
There have been many times where different decisions could have been taken that would have altered history and possibly resulted in a better outcome in the Middle East. But we can't go back. The U.S. has the tiger by the tail now and letting go is not the best option.
I saw nothing wrong in your question Pablo. Hard-hitting questions sometimes shake things up and the truth drops out. Not always. But sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:47 pm Post subject: 213 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| You cannot control the actions of others. What you need to do is get those people to decide to stop. If you think of it in these terms, then you will realise that engaging with Hamas is a necessary precursor to solving this problem. Of course, that means swallowing a very big pill, but do you want to be safe or righteous? The righteous path will result in continued rockets. You might say that showing such weakness in the face of an enemy will result in further blackmail in the future and you would be right. But showing such willingness to get along with your enemies will also turn many of them into your friends |
According to what you are saying “Israel has a right to defend itself” means nothing to you because what you actually describe is “Keep getting hit by rockets and do nothing about it until the other side changes its policy once they realize what they are doing is bad”.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| In order for the rockets to persist, the perpetrators need support from those around them. This support will wither, eventually, in the face of reasonable behavior from Israel. |
That was somewhat correct when Fatah was in control but it is not correct when Hamas is in control as they actually sponsor the terror/rockets. What does it matter if the population is against something if the government actually wants it.
Let me give you another scenario that can stop the rockets in the long term:
Israel continues to try hitting the rocket launchers using guided bombs and surgical strikes (these have been effective in reducing the number of rockets but certainly not enough to stop them completely). Whenever PS civilians get hurt (and they are bound too), you and the rest of the intl. community will say to them “Tough, but while you may think rockets are the only way to fight for your country, Israel also has the right to defend itself in the least possible damaging way they can. You the people of PS need to put pressure on your government to stop the rockets and until such time bear the consequences. Also, if you really want to get your state and finally have peace you should show your willingness towards peace by not retaliating. Show empathy towards the ILs because that empathy will absorb the Israeli hostility”. After enough of this when they realize their methods do not receive support from the international community I think they will stop.
Yes I know I’m dreaming 
| Termital wrote: |
| Antrax suggested that disruptive as they are, rockets are minimally fatal. Thus a lot of past military response has had grossly disproportional results, and rockets were still around. |
1) While it can’t stop the rockets completely, the military action is disruptive and reduces the number of rockets. On the other hand doing nothing changes nothing. Rockets have been fired on Israel for several years before we began operation cast lead.
2) When civilians get hurt that’s when it becomes disproportional. See above for that but also consider another option: What if PS stop firing rockets altogether. No rocket fire = no IDF military strikes = no civilians disproportionally hurt.
| Termital wrote: |
| Rockets need money and ground to launch them from… |
This is already being done but it will never be enough.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:48 pm Post subject: 214 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
There were the Mitchell Principles to which parties needed to sign up to before entering talks, but these were largely circumvented by the political wing of each organisation entering the negotiations. It was a fudge and had a very thin veneer, but there was enough substance to allow things to begin.
I wonder if Israel could sign such a document. |
I think Israel could sign this easily. It definitely should be able to sign these easily. Do you think otherwise? (BTW, as I see it some of these points only apply to the PA. e.g. disarmament of all paramilitary organisations)
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:50 pm Post subject: 215 |
|
|
| JF* wrote: |
| At what point would you consider the solution as reasonable? 50 more years of war? 250? Never? |
It will never happen period (not necessarily because I would not want it to happen but because it just wont). The corollary proposal which no one mentioned for some reason (move all PSs to the US – a much simpler solution btw) is also not going to happen.
Unlike your analogy, PS’s are not yellow jackets or if they are then IL’s are bees - although less aggressive there more that’s common than different.
| JF* wrote: |
| I noticed no one here wanted to answer the question of how many hundreds of years of fighting and bombing would be too much. |
I don’t think even several millennia will be enough and let me try to explain why. It is part of the holocaust mentality; we have tried blending in before and look where it got us. The end result is the perception that nowhere else will we be able to determine our own destiny (not that we are doing a great job at it but thats beside the point)
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:50 pm Post subject: 216 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| So don't give up hope |
Never have never will.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:08 pm Post subject: 217 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| In order for the rockets to persist, the perpetrators need support from those around them. This support will wither, eventually, in the face of reasonable behavior from Israel. |
Unless the people are so bombarded with anti-Israel propaganda that they never see the reasonable behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:59 pm Post subject: 218 |
|
|
| Nsof wrote: |
| I think Israel could sign this easily. It definitely should be able to sign these easily. Do you think otherwise? (BTW, as I see it some of these points only apply to the PA. e.g. disarmament of all paramilitary organisations) |
I would have suspected that "threatening force" would have been difficult to comply with. Also, being a sovereign nation, you become responsible for settler's violence too. It was easier for the terrorist organisations to get around these issues, as they had a political wing that agreed, while their terrorist "brothers" (or other closely related organisations) continued with violence. During negotiations, you would be very restricted in what you could do to counter this.
A solution could be that some international force handles policing during this period, but everything would have to be "softer" if the talks are to succeed.
Also there was no disarmament at the beginning, just a statement of commitment to disarm, some time in the future, should the negotiations reach a solution.
| Nsod wrote: |
| According to what you are saying “Israel has a right to defend itself” means nothing to you because what you actually describe is “Keep getting hit by rockets and do nothing about it until the other side changes its policy once they realize what they are doing is bad” |
Not at all. I was just saying that you cannot make them stop, you can only make it, so that they choose to stop. If you do not believe that the current solution will make them choose to stop, then you need to try another solution. Hamas will not choose to stop, as the current "solution" is increasing their membership and showing Israel to be "evil child murderers". I'm just saying stop thinking of it from your side. Think of their mindset and ask yourself, "If I was them, what would make me stop?" Then you have your solution, even if it's "They'll only stop when we kill them all".
| Nsof wrote: |
| …and finally have peace, you should show your willingness towards peace by not retaliating. |
Perhaps the region is not ready for peace, but certainly this would be necessary to achieve it. During the process there will be many provocations and the way towards peace will be to speak harshly about it. Not an easy thing to do.
| Nsof wrote: |
| What does it matter if the population is against something if the government actually wants it. |
Intelligence is one of the best weapons against terrorism. If people lose faith in the terrorists, then information will flow.
| Nsof wrote: |
| Whenever PS civilians get hurt (and they are bound too), you and the rest of the intl. community will say to them “Tough, but while you may think rockets are the only way to fight for your country, Israel also has the right to defend itself in the least possible damaging way they can. |
If Hamas launched rockets from inside Israel, say from the top of a hospital, would you think it OK for the Israeli air-force to launch a strike against them? I suspect there would be an outcry in Israel if they did. So what makes it OK to do it when only Palestinian children are in danger? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:29 pm Post subject: 219 |
|
|
Here's what Robert Fisk had to say about the flotilla.
Robert Fisk talking to Eamonn Dunphy (17 minutes [+ 2 of boring stuff at the end])
He also talks about some tunnels that he visited and the taxes that Hamas get from them. $350,000,000 per year  (no wonder Hamas want to keep the status quo) and some Israeli corruption to keep the tunnels open.
He also commends the Israeli press, which I was glad to hear as I consider it a sign of a good democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:02 pm Post subject: 220 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| If Hamas launched rockets from inside Israel, say from the top of a hospital, would you think it OK for the Israeli air-force to launch a strike against them? I suspect there would be an outcry in Israel if they did. So what makes it OK to do it when only Palestinian children are in danger? |
You can't let your enemies use of human shields make them invincible as they try to kill you. That's what makes it OK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:24 pm Post subject: 221 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| You can't let your enemies use of human shields make them invincible as they try to kill you. That's what makes it OK. |
So you would bomb the hospital? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:46 pm Post subject: 222 |
|
|
Yes. Without a second thought. If the attacks, and we're not talking about a single sniper style attack, but someone launching mortars from a great distance, were taking place from a hospital, school, mosque, Starbucks, brothel, soup kitchen, fairground, playground, whatever, it doesn't matter. If you let the attacks go unanswered, they will only increase, especially in wartime (which this is). You kill the ones attacking. It only makes you the "bad guy" in the eyes of ignorant 'useful idiots'. The "bad guy" is the one trying to use the hospital, school, mosque, whatever, as cover to attack with impunity. Period.
Ideally, the counter-attacks would be violent enough to convince the average civilian to take action themselves to prevent attackers from using those "safe" structures to fire from. If you are LETTING people attack from a hospital, school, mosque, etc, you are helping to kill those inside.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: 223 |
|
|
If that was really the case DM, then why bother with hostage negotiation?
Just bomb everyone, hostages included.
You did see the bit where I said it's an Israeli hospital, on Israeli soil with Israeli citizens in, didn't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:09 pm Post subject: 224 |
|
|
I admit, I missed that part. And it does change things. If the attack happens from inside the country's borders, then there are several other problems to deal with. Bombing your own buildings in wartime is impractical. But I would hope that the workers of the hospital at least call the authorities, if not do something themselves to stop the bomber.
And Jack, nobody [of authority, such as police etc.] tries to negotiate while being shot at.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:48 pm Post subject: 225 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| You can't let your enemies use of human shields make them invincible as they try to kill you. That's what makes it OK. |
So you would bomb the hospital? |
The Israeli government has a right and a duty to protects it's own citizens against aggressors. If it's an Israeli hospital, I'd have to question which course of action will cost more Israeli lives. If bombing the hospital would save more lives in the end, then that is the lesser evil to choose, and the blame for it all falls on the aggressor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:41 pm Post subject: 226 |
|
|
That's indeed very interesting
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:32 pm Post subject: 227 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| I would have suspected that "threatening force" would have been difficult to comply with. |
Not sure I got this one
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Also, being a sovereign nation, you become responsible for settler's violence too. |
Correct. And as such we should/would be able to control them like we did during the withdrawal.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| It was easier for the terrorist organisations to get around these issues, as they had a political wing that agreed, while their terrorist "brothers" (or other closely related organisations) continued with violence. During negotiations, you would be very restricted in what you could do to counter this. |
You are right and that’s exactly what happened every time we did negotiate.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Nsod wrote: |
| According to what you are saying “Israel has a right to defend itself” means nothing to you because what you actually describe is “Keep getting hit by rockets and do nothing about it until the other side changes its policy once they realize what they are doing is bad” |
Not at all. I was just saying that you cannot make them stop, you can only make it, so that they choose to stop. |
Can you please please please explain what you meant by “Israel has a right to defend itself”? What i feel is that whenever I try to put meaning into this sentence you turn it into something else. Seriously I dont understand what you mean by that.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Think of their mindset and ask yourself, "If I was them, what would make me stop?" |
- If I was them I would not resort to valance in the first place. If i had to resort to violence i would not fire from within civilian population and i would certainly not target civilians on purpose.
- The intl. community perhaps can do what I proposed and that will also put pressure on them to stop eventually.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Nsof wrote: |
| What does it matter if the population is against something if the government actually wants it. |
Intelligence is one of the best weapons against terrorism. If people lose faith in the terrorists, then information will flow. |
We have a problem because you just described a vicious circle. I hope thats not a try at a solution
I am still struggling with
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| In order for the rockets to persist, the perpetrators need support from those around them. This support will wither, eventually, in the face of reasonable behavior from Israel. |
What does it mean for support will wither? I thought you meant support from the populace but as i said that support (existent or not) is irrelevant because the rocket fire is supported by Hamas – the government.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Nsof wrote: |
| Whenever PS civilians get hurt (and they are bound too), you and the rest of the intl. community will say to them “Tough, but while you may think rockets are the only way to fight for your country, Israel also has the right to defend itself in the least possible damaging way they can. |
If Hamas launched rockets from inside Israel, say from the top of a hospital, would you think it OK for the Israeli air-force to launch a strike against them? I suspect there would be an outcry in Israel if they did. So what makes it OK to do it when only Palestinian children are in danger? |
I am not sure how your example is relevant to my ‘proposal’ and I’ll answer it below. Anyhow, my question to you is why cant the intl. community tell PS’s that their children are getting hurt because terrorists are using Mosques, Schools, etc. i.e. The equation is simple and should be echoed by everyone. If you fire rockets from within a school it is your responsibility that some kids have died!
To answer your hypothetical question. The rocket launchers should be stopped at any means possible (hospital or otherwise) while causing the least amount of damage. Whether its in Gaza or in Israel. Doing nothing is not an option when peace process hasn’t started!
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:36 pm Post subject: 228 |
|
|
|
Actually the fact that aid and violence correlate is to be expected. There is nothing that indicates a causative effect. Just because infant mortality rates closely match number of pregnancies does not mean that dead babies make women pregnant. Besides the people who make those reports have more than the average number of legs, so their bound to be weirdos. Average number of legs < 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:45 pm Post subject: 229 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
Here's what Robert Fisk had to say about the flotilla.
Robert Fisk talking to Eamonn Dunphy (17 minutes [+ 2 of boring stuff at the end])
He also talks about some tunnels that he visited and the taxes that Hamas get from them. $350,000,000 per year (no wonder Hamas want to keep the status quo) and some Israeli corruption to keep the tunnels open.
He also commends the Israeli press, which I was glad to hear as I consider it a sign of a good democracy. |
Heard it through.
First off: you are welcome to come here and stay at my place for as long as you like.
Second, i would like to find more info regarding the accusation that IL officials are making money from the tunnels. I have searched a bit (hebrew and english) but the only findings I had were of Egyptian officials receiving bribes for that.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:54 pm Post subject: 230 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
|
Actually the fact that aid and violence correlate is to be expected. There is nothing that indicates a causative effect. |
Are you saying there is no causative effect?
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:17 pm Post subject: 231 |
|
|
| Nsof wrote: |
| Can you please please please explain what you meant by “Israel has a right to defend itself”? What i feel is that whenever I try to put meaning into this sentence you turn it into something else. Seriously I dont understand what you mean by that. |
Just assume all civilians are Israeli civilians with powerful support in government and act accordingly. Nobody said asymmetric warfare was easy. Shelling their positions as if they were normal combatants on the field of battle is ridiculous and plays into their hands. If there was an effective government in Palestine and this government was firing rockets into Israel then it's simpler. Two countries at war. You occupy them and control them directly. If they want autonomy then they earn it by not declaring war. But there is no effective government in Palestine and the rockets are sent by independent cells that are only barely controlled by Hamas. You need to be far more subtle to defeat such enemies. Defense can take many forms, one of which is direct military action. Quit thinking it's the only one.
| Nsof wrote: |
| - If I was them I would not resort to valance in the first place. If i had to resort to violence i would not fire from within civilian population and i would certainly not target civilians on purpose. |
Then you haven't got into their mindset yet and you need to try harder. When you feel like shelling Israel, you've almost got there. These are people with living relatives that once had houses in places like Sderot until they were forced to leave by the Israeli military. Start there and add that nobody seemed to recognise your plight and that normal military response was not possible. Is it really so hard to imagine how that would drive some people to this kind of terrorist action? How hard would you fight to get your homeland back if it was taken from you by an invading force that killed your family?
| Nsof wrote: |
| I thought you meant support from the populace but as i said that support (existent or not) is irrelevant because the rocket fire is supported by Hamas – the government. |
Terrorism needs a vast network of collaboration in order to be successful on the scale of Hamas. They will have no difficulty getting this collaboration so long as Israel is seen as evil. Israel has done a lot to deserve this title, but only if you are willing to be blind to the good that Israel has done. Israel's aggressive actions encourage people who are downtrodden to assist Hamas, even if they do not agree with them, because they feel less powerless when they do it. It's the thousands of people that perform these small tasks along with the financial support from outside and within that makes Hamas successful.
Hamas will be destroyed when they are infiltrated from top to bottom with spies, when they cannot trust anybody to keep a secret and when their funds are cut off. Shooting bombs at them is ineffective, because each bomb gives them more recruits and encourages people on the sidelines to offer tacit support.
Israel's tactics remain the same and somehow you expect it to have a different outcome. People need hope. They need to see justice in action. Give them this and they will reject the terrorist path.
It seems both sides are trying to make the other as miserable as possible so that when a settlement finally comes, there will be more possibility of the other side given in to demands. The trouble is, this just prolongs the agony and realistically, the people of Gaza can't really be any more downtrodden then they already are.
Injustice + hopelessness + no effective political voice = terrorism
Do what you can to remove the left side of the equation and the terrorism will stop.
| Nsof wrote: |
| I wrote: |
| If Hamas launched rockets from inside Israel, say from the top of a hospital, would you think it OK for the Israeli air-force to launch a strike against them? I suspect there would be an outcry in Israel if they did. So what makes it OK to do it when only Palestinian children are in danger? |
I am not sure how your example is relevant to my ‘proposal’ and I’ll answer it below. Anyhow, my question to you is why cant the intl. community tell PS’s that their children are getting hurt because terrorists are using Mosques, Schools, etc. i.e. The equation is simple and should be echoed by everyone. If you fire rockets from within a school it is your responsibility that some kids have died! |
The Hamas tactic of using human shields is outrageous and wrong at every level. I would hope that the Palestinian government would consider these as crimes against its people should they ever have the power to act on it. However, given that they are using this tactic Israel then has to choose how to react. You can't really expect to get any sympathy for a surgical strike on a position where terrorists used to be, that just happens to now be surrounded by children. Even if this was the correct military solution (which I doubt), it is absolutely the wrong tactical solution. There is absolutely no doubt that more restraint would be shown if they were surrounded by Israeli children. You seem to be saying that these children are less important or are somehow to blame for their fate. Children are innocent. In the scenario I painted with rockets fired from within an urban Israeli area, if the military used a "surgical strike" to take them out and killed some innocent civilians in the process, there would be a great outpouring of grief for the innocent civilians. Perhaps also the actions of the military would be questioned, especially given the ineffectual nature of the terrorist attack. If the same reaction was seen for the dead Palestinian civilians, then you would be seen as taking the correct action. Instead, the deaths are dismissed with a "Not out fault! Blame Hamas". It's this apparent flagrant disregard for the life of innocent civilians that causes such outrage.
Incidentally, I hope you don't think I support Hamas or their actions in any way. I consider them to be a vile organisation that are hiding behind the Palestinian problem in order to further their own aims. But let's not get into that or I'll never get any work done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:29 pm Post subject: 232 |
|
|
| Nsof wrote: |
| Are you saying there is no causative effect? |
If there is, I don't think they made a credible case for it in that report. The evidence was all of an epidemiological nature. Statistics can be very confusing and it's easy to select data to match just about any proposition you wish. Even from that nature of the language used, it seems that they started with the answer and then went to prove it. It would be more credible if they were surprised by the results.
Having said that, given the ineffectual nature the Palestinian government at that time, it would be surprising if some of the funds did not get into the wrong hands. But that is an argument for better controls not less aid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:38 am Post subject: 233 |
|
|
I just finished watching a program on YouTube
Ross Kemp: Middle East - Gaza (5 parts) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Ross Kemp: Middle East - Israel (5 parts) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Not very hard-hitting. More like a fact finding mission. The people are not confronted, but rather just asked for their views. It would have been better with some harder questions, but it was still good nonetheless.
It's pretty typical of the kind of coverage that I'm used to seeing about the Middle East. It's the kind of program that shows me how the terrorist actions are made inevitable by Israeli actions and also how frustrating it must be for Israel to see no peace in sight.
One thing that seems clear though, is that settlements in the occupied territories are extremely divisive. How do you feel about these settlements?
Do you think the the peace wall is a land grab? There's no doubt that it improves the quality of life for those it protects, but should it be protecting illegal settlers that are contributing to war just as much as some guy launching a rocket? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:21 am Post subject: 234 |
|
|
Again, I'm skimming, but:
| Jack Ian wrote: |
| These are people with living relatives that once had houses in places like Sderot until they were forced to leave by the Israeli military. |
Where did you get this from? Beyond generally being a shithole, Sderot was founded after the war of 1948. I never heard a claim there was any settlement there prior to that. The entire area was is a shitty desert, that's why we sent Morrocan Jews there, because nobody else wanted it. (Nsof, is there an English word for Maabara?)
Secondly, you ask several times what would we have done in their place etcetera, ignoring the fact Jews were in that exact place a little over 60 years ago. I can tell you exactly how Jews resisted the British mandate: we abused some ottoman rules to expand illegally, and we performed terrorist attacks against military/police installations. We had two groups that were more extreme in their resistance: Lehi and Etzel. And here and here are two examples of how they were handled. You will not find any examples of attacks on British/Arab civilians. So, it's not a hypothetical, really. You can just read how it went down.
| Jack Ian wrote: |
| The Hamas tactic of using human shields is outrageous and wrong at every level. I would hope that the Palestinian government would consider these as crimes against its people should they ever have the power to act on it. |
The Hamas IS the majority of the "Palestenian government". They execute Fatah without a trial if that's what you mean by "acting on that".
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 11:51 am Post subject: 235 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Defense can take many forms, one of which is direct military action. Quit thinking it's the only one. |
Well, perhaps we are balancing each other because you make is seem as if defense is anything but military action.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Nsof wrote: |
| - If I was them I would not resort to valance in the first place. If i had to resort to violence i would not fire from within civilian population and i would certainly not target civilians on purpose. |
Then you haven't got into their mindset yet and you need to try harder. When you feel like shelling Israel, you've almost got there. These are people with living relatives that once had houses in places like Sderot until they were forced to leave by the Israeli military. Start there and add that nobody seemed to recognise your plight and that normal military response was not possible. Is it really so hard to imagine how that would drive some people to this kind of terrorist action? How hard would you fight to get your homeland back if it was taken from you by an invading force that killed your family? |
a) Were you a Palestinian would you resort to violence?
b) I don’t think anything you can say will convince me that resorting to terror is ok. “Sorry” for not being able to get into this kind of hatred mindset.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Injustice + hopelessness + no effective political voice = terrorism |
Perhaps that’s the equation that you and/or the Palestinians see. I can certainly see another less violent one:
Injustice + hopelessness + no effective political voice = a new political movement or government.
The left hand side of the equation has actually been a driving force for changes throughout the history. Further, if this equation was true then every person living in a ghetto/bad neighborhood would resort to terror. I think that while the left hand side can certainly promote crime, I and hopefully most others would not condone it or use it to justify terror.
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| The Hamas tactic of using human shields is outrageous and wrong at every level. I would hope that the Palestinian government would consider these as crimes against its people should they ever have the power to act on it. However, given that they are using this tactic Israel then has to choose how to react. You can't really expect to get any sympathy for a surgical strike on a position where terrorists used to be, that just happens to now be surrounded by children. |
I dont expect sympathy but the hypocritism is annoying.
Let us hope you don’t get into the following moral dilemma:
Imagine there is a criminal aiming a gun at you from within his home. If you do nothing it might hit your family. If you do something you might hit his/her family. Now what?
I know what 99% of the world would choose – perhaps you are better man than most and if so I commend you for it (while I can stand up for my beliefs, and as said went to prison for them, I would choose my children every time).
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:37 pm Post subject: 237 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Nsof, is there an English word for Maabara? |
Babylon translates it as transit camp which sounds fitting given the Hebrew etymology: maavar.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:47 pm Post subject: 238 |
|
|
I’ll try to summarize my thoughts, most on the Israeli side, and this will also include some answers to Jack_Ian’s questions from recent posts
- Gaza blockade: In its current form is unjustified and detrimental to peace
- Flotilla: Given there is a blockade then stopping it was justified but done in a very unprofessional way that resorted in unnecessary deaths. IMO blame belongs to several parties not just the Israelis.
- Settlements: Should be stopped. Will need to mostly be abandoned like Gaza settlements were. Any more investment in them is detrimental.
- Assassinations:Should be stopped. detrimental to peace.
- Wall: One of the best/most necessary things we did. It is very effective in reducing the terror and its passive. The epitome of “Israel has a right to defend itself”.
- It is not a land grab tactic but unfortunately you cannot build a wall wherever you want, rather you have to take into consideration geography and defensible position
- It can change and move as decided during peace talks when decisions regarding territories are being made.
- It will be torn down like other such walls after peace and confidence in it are established
- Peace process: reason for it being stuck lies on both sides
- World: putting pressure on both sides to move forward in peace process - Good. World being hypocrites – annoying while we have US support. Outright dangerous to our existence without it.
- End solution (not sure when or exactly how to get there)
- Two state solution. 67 borders
- Jerusalem: split in two
- Right of return: will only be “on paper”. Instead refugees will be given monetary reparations.
Edit: added assassinations to list.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gore Vidal*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:25 pm Post subject: 239 |
|
|
| I, Gore Vidal wrote: |
"Congratulations, Mr. President-Elect. Like everyone else, I'm eagerly looking forward to your inaugural address. As you must know by now, we could never get enough of your speeches during the recent election in which the best man won, as he always does in what Spiro Agnew so famously called "the greatest nation in the country"...
...It is my impression, Mr. President-Elect, that most Americans want our economy converted from war to peace. Naturally, we still want to stand tall. We also don't want any of our tax money wasted on health care because that would be Communism, which we abhor. But we would like some of our tax dollars spent on education...
...In any case, it is time we abandon our generally unappreciated role as world policeman, currently wasting Colombia, source of satanic drugs, while keeing Cuba, Iraq, and, until recently, Serbia "in correction," as policepersons call house arrest. This compulsive interference in the affairs of other states is expensive and pointless. Better we repair our own country with "internal improvements"...
...since we have literally targeted our enemies, the Pentagon assumes that, sooner or later, Rogues will take out our cities, presumable from spaceships. So to protect ourselves, the Ronald Reagan Memorial Nuclear Space Shield must be set in place at an initial cost of $ 60 billion even though, as of July, tests of the system, no matter how faked by the Pentagon, continued to fail. The fact that, according to polls, a majority of your constituents believe that we already have such a shield makes it possible for you to say you're updating it and then do nothing. After all, from 1949 to 1999 the United States spent $ 7.1 trillion on "national defense." As a result, the national debt is $ 5.6 trillion, of which $ 3.6 trillion is owed to the public, and $ 2 trillion to the Social Security-Medicare Trust Funds, all due to military spending and to the servicing of the debt thus incurred...
...fifty years ago, Harry Truman replaced the old republic with a national-security state whose sole purpose is to wage perpetual wars, hot, cold, and tepid. Exact date of replacement? February 27, 1947. Place: The White House Cabinet Room. Cast: Truman, Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson, a handful of congressional leaders. Republican senator Arthur Vandenberg told Truman that he could have his militarized economy only IF he first "scared the hell out of the American people" that the Russians were coming. Truman obliged. THe perpetual war began. Representative government of, by, and for the people is now a faded memory. Only corporate America enjoys representation by the Congress and presidents that it pays for in an arrangement where no one is entirely accountable because those who have bought the government also own the media. Now, with the revolt of the Praetorian Guard at the Pentagon, we are entering a new and dangerous phase. Although we regularly stigmatize other societies as rogue states, we ourselves have become the largest rogue state of all. We honor no treaties. We spurn international courts. We strike unilaterally wherever we choose. We give orders to the United Nations but do not pay our dues...we bomb, invade, subvert other states. Although We the People of the United States are the sole source of legitimate authority in this land, we are no longer represented in Congress Assembled. Our Congress has been hijacked by corporate America and its enforcer, the imperial military machine..." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:27 am Post subject: 240 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| Sderot was founded after the war of 1948. I never heard a claim there was any settlement there prior to that. |
Here.
The original Sderot was built on lands that was once the agricultural village of Najd, before it was ethnically cleansed and demolished. The population at this time was 620.
Nothing like the population of Sderot now, but then it was farmland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
