PDA

View Full Version : Israeli/Palestinian Conflict MEGATHREAD


Pages : [1] 2

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-28-2008, 10:48 AM
welp, i guess i'll kick this shindig off with this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28397813/). basically israel decided to bomb civilian targets as schools were letting out and a killed a few hundred civilians in response to one israeli woman being injured in an attack carried out by a small faction of palestinians in a response to an occupation and blockade in response to rocket attacks in response to the last thing.

to finish up this post: am i allowed to hate what israel is doing (bombing one group for the actions of another) or is that still against the rules?

Astor
12-28-2008, 10:52 AM
I think that Israel's response, as usual, is a little overblown. And they can hardly continue to portray themselves as the injured party when they act in such a manner.

jrrtoken
12-28-2008, 10:59 AM
I think that Israel's response, as usual, is a little overblown. And they can hardly continue to portray themselves as the injured party when they act in such a manner.QFT

Although Hamas seems to be the initial instigator, Israel, as always, is using excessive force. I wouldn't be too surprised in Israel goes in for the kill and tries to capture Gaza entirely. Of course, the U.S. government is eternally loyal to Israel, so they'll probably give them even more weapons.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-28-2008, 11:06 AM
QFT

Although Hamas seems to be the initial instigator, Israel, as always, is using excessive force. I wouldn't be too surprised in Israel goes in for the kill and tries to capture Gaza entirely. Of course, the U.S. government is eternally loyal to Israel, so they'll probably give them even more weapons.iirc this time israel was the provocateur when they broke the ceasefire november 4th and have been essentially starving the palestinian people since then.

jrrtoken
12-28-2008, 07:30 PM
iirc this time israel was the provocateur when they broke the ceasefire november 4th and have been essentially starving the palestinian people since then.Hm... that too, but I was more or less referring to the recent operation. Of course, you could also say that the conflict started several thousand years ago when those damn Israelites just had to go to Canaan and drive everyone else out.

EnderWiggin
12-28-2008, 07:52 PM
iirc this time israel was the provocateur when they broke the ceasefire november 4th and have been essentially starving the palestinian people since then.

Yeah, the whole ****ing thing is stupid. They're like two stupid children fighting and one of them is going to get hurt. And then they're going to run crying to us, or to the caliph, (depending on which one gets hurt) and then ****'s goin' down.

_EW_

Ctrl Alt Del
12-28-2008, 07:56 PM
Now tell me Israel didn't knew that this would only render the palestinians more eager to fight on the only way they can cause real damage: more terrorist attacks.

Rev7
12-28-2008, 11:45 PM
As long as these two nations keep fighting, there will not be peace.

Tolerance

Web Rider
12-29-2008, 12:19 AM
Yeah, pretty much been said, Israel's concept of diplomacy is "do what we say or we kill you", and their responses to violence against them are "we kill you moar!". It's moronic and annoying. I mean, what was one of their leading arguments as to why they did this according to the paper I read? Oh yeah, they wanted the Palestinians to give in to more "favorable" "peace" terms.

I really wish the US would stop backing them.

vanir
12-29-2008, 12:21 AM
jmac, you rock :)

Astor
12-29-2008, 05:14 AM
I mean, what was one of their leading arguments as to why they did this according to the paper I read? Oh yeah, they wanted the Palestinians to give in to more "favorable" "peace" terms.

Favourable in Israel's eyes must mean no terms for the other guys, then.

Tommycat
12-29-2008, 07:54 AM
Yeah, if Hamas would stop going for their stated goal of driving the jews into the ocean, then maybe we could actually hate the Isrealis properly. Don't get me wrong, I hate what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians. They always answer death with a hundred deaths. Hamas has answered death with death as well, but the only thing they do differently is answer peace with death. Well I guess the Israelis do that too...

Ah well, The only way there will be peace in that area will be when the Israelis give up the land they bought from those that are now called Palestinians, but are really Jordans(Jordanians?) because they want their land back. Strangely enough I get to hear both sides of this argument from an Israeli friend and a Palestinian friend. You can guess why I don't ever let them meet up haha. but from what they have said:

Israeli side: They bought the land legally from the Jordans, and established themselves there. The people that are fighting now are trying to steal back the land that was legally purchased. The Palestinians have already stolen much of the land.

Palestinian side: The Jews worked shady deals to scam them out of the land in the first place, and the Palestinians are taking back what is rightfully theirs. The Israelis broke their word to them on numerous occasions, and attempted to drive the remaining people out. They treat them as slaves and second class citizens. If they treat them as citizens at all.

My take: Chances are there were probably some shady deals, and the palestinians actually have a point for their hatred. But stealing the land back isn't the best option. Neither side is right in the conflict. Until both sides agree on that, they won't have peace.

Spriggs
12-29-2008, 09:39 AM
As far as hating them I don't see what good it will do, but it's understandable at the very least. It's tragic, but we all know that, and with the bad blood between the two it won't be easy to come to a resolution, much less a good one. But we all know that as well, I suppose we can only hope some good will come out of this. That perhaps Israel's supporting nations will not continue to enable them to do things like this.

Achilles
12-29-2008, 10:41 AM
Stating the obvious: Israel had better hope that the U.S. is never over-extended and thereby forced to fold up shop. What goes around, comes around.

Spriggs
12-29-2008, 01:02 PM
Stating the obvious: Israel had better hope that the U.S. is never over-extended and thereby forced to fold up shop. What goes around, comes around.

As a citizen of the US it does feel as if were the parent spoiling the child, perhaps that's a bad analogy but it is the best that comes to mind. I think the global community is waiting to see what we do since, in my opinion, we do share an amount of responsibility ( large or small is debatable in my mind) for Israel. Though what we should do... I'm not sure, a stricter policy of compliance sounds like a good first step.

Achilles
12-29-2008, 01:26 PM
As a citizen of the US it does feel as if were the parent spoiling the child, perhaps that's a bad analogy but it is the best that comes to mind.How about arming the neighborhood bully and then pressuring our friends to threaten any of the smaller kids that threaten to stand up to him? I like that one.

I think the global community is waiting to see what we do since, in my opinion, we do share an amount of responsibility ( large or small is debatable in my mind) for Israel.I vote for "large". It's staggering how much money we give them every year.

And then when you find out what they do with it...

Though what we should do... I'm not sure, a stricter policy of compliance sounds like a good first step.Yes, or less hypocrisy. That would also be good.

PS Welcome to LF

Spriggs
12-29-2008, 01:56 PM
How about arming the neighborhood bully and then pressuring our friends to threaten any of the smaller kids that threaten to stand up to him? I like that one.

I don't quite have your flare, I suppose looking at it as playground politics is a good way to illustrate it. Though I think our role would be more of an adult exerting negative influence on the child, perhaps it's condescending but we are a world power so it does seem more accurate.

I vote for "large". It's staggering how much money we give them every year. And then when you find out what they do with it...

I've heard varying things in my discussions about amounts and what they are doing with it, so I've taken it with a grain of salt. Have they released a federal report or such thing, I realize it could be inaccurate but I'd be more willing to believe it. I suppose my ignorance is showing.


Yes, or less hypocrisy. That would also be good.

Well the only thing we can do about that is exercise our rights to vote and to speech when we see these hypocrisies. Well, I suppose I'm trying to look at it from a perspective of 'What can we do?' Perhaps that's inappropriate for the discussion.

So instead, yes the human element will always be a problem. Politicians are corruptible and are not infallible... jeez talk about stating the obvious lol.

PS Welcome to LF

Thank you very much!

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 02:13 PM
How about arming the neighborhood bully and then pressuring our friends to threaten any of the smaller kids that threaten to stand up to him? I like that one.stop hitting yourself palestine stop hitting yourself palestine stop hitting yourself palestine stop hitting yourself palestine stop hitting yourself palestine

I vote for "large". It's staggering how much money we give them every year.it's staggering how much we give them in just a single day.

And then when you find out what they do with it...buy stealth planes so they can get around palestinian radar.

Rev7
12-29-2008, 02:45 PM
Well, there has been yet another day of attacks. More wounded/killed.

Lastest news (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/28/gaza.israel.strikes/index.html)

According to this article, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Cabinet ministers Sunday that the situation "is liable to continue for some time."

Achilles
12-29-2008, 03:40 PM
I don't quite have your flare, I suppose looking at it as playground politics is a good way to illustrate it. Though I think our role would be more of an adult exerting negative influence on the child, perhaps it's condescending but we are a world power so it does seem more accurate.It mostly at matter of opinion anyway. There might be good arguments for an adult/child argument, but I tend to view global politics as cranky, unwashed children in a sandbox, so that probably influences my analogy.

I've heard varying things in my discussions about amounts and what they are doing with it, so I've taken it with a grain of salt. Have they released a federal report or such thing, I realize it could be inaccurate but I'd be more willing to believe it. I suppose my ignorance is showing.It varies slightly from year-to-year, but IIRC it's about $3 billion in foreign aid. I believe military aid is a separate number and I wouldn't trust any number I saw published because not all military spending is reported.

Well the only thing we can do about that is exercise our rights to vote and to speech when we see these hypocrisies. Well, I suppose I'm trying to look at it from a perspective of 'What can we do?' Perhaps that's inappropriate for the discussion.

So instead, yes the human element will always be a problem. Politicians are corruptible and are not infallible... jeez talk about stating the obvious lol. You are correct, however I'm not sure how we even begin to take on the Israel lobby in Washington.

Intro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States)

Spriggs
12-29-2008, 04:02 PM
You are correct, however I'm not sure how we even begin to take on the Israel lobby in Washington.

Intro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States)

That is a pretty serious problem, one group having that much power. I'm a little stunned frankly, I hope the quotes of senators in their camp were exaggerations, but I suppose it would make sense when you look at what Israel has gotten from us.

Achilles
12-29-2008, 04:09 PM
That is a pretty serious problem, one group having that much power. I'm a little stunned frankly, I hope the quotes of senators in their camp were exaggerations, but I suppose it would make sense when you look at what Israel has gotten from us.Pay close attention to the "Coalitions with other interest groups" section. If any of the names look unfamiliar, I recommend Googling them.

Spriggs
12-29-2008, 04:26 PM
Pay close attention to the "Coalitions with other interest groups" section. If any of the names look unfamiliar, I recommend Googling them.

My... aren't they all a bundle of joy.

Yar-El
12-29-2008, 07:43 PM
I saw a newsclip a few nights back where Isreal voiced concern over Obama. There was talk about how Isreal is insecure with Obama's abilities. Isreal may feel as though our new president will not support their efforts; thus, they took a preemtive strike to remove Hamas. Gaza strip was handed over to Palestine as a act of peace. Palestine ended up using it as a tool to strike into Isreal. Hamas came in and took it from both sides. I'm not surprised this has happend. You can only be poked so many times until there is a reaction.

Web Rider
12-29-2008, 07:46 PM
I saw a newsclip a few nights back where Isreal voiced concern over Obama. There was talk about how Isreal is insecure with Obama's abilities. Isreal may feel as though our new president will not support their efforts; thus, they took a preemtive strike to remove Hamas. Gaza strip was handed over to Palestine as a act of peace. Palestine ended up using it as a tool to strike into Isreal. Hamas came in and took it from both sides. I'm not surprised this has happend. You can only be poked so many times until there is a reaction.

Which does not excuse this attack. Israel blew up 230+ people, not soldiers, not paramilitary, not terrorists, just random people.

The same holds true for Palestine, you cannot expect them to do nothing when Israel doesn't give a damn who they kill.

jrrtoken
12-29-2008, 07:53 PM
I saw a newsclip a few nights back where Isreal voiced concern over Obama. There was talk about how Isreal is insecure with Obama's abilities. Isreal may feel as though our new president will not support their efforts; thus, they took a preemtive strike to remove Hamas. Gaza strip was handed over to Palestine as a act of peace. Palestine ended up using it as a tool to strike into Isreal. Hamas came in and took it from both sides. I'm not surprised this has happend. You can only be poked so many times until there is a reaction.For God's sake, please don't drag Obama into this, he has little to do with Israel's decision to strike Gaza. Israel had been planning this attack for months, not just several weeks.

Yar-El
12-29-2008, 08:00 PM
Which does not excuse this attack. Israel blew up 230+ people, not soldiers, not paramilitary, not terrorists, just random people.

The same holds true for Palestine, you cannot expect them to do nothing when Israel doesn't give a damn who they kill.
Isreal is tired of being bossed around, and the death toll keeps pilling up. I don't see any other course of action. They are a democracy surounded by terrorist states. Does this excuse 230+ civilian deaths? Pull some reality into the mix. How many civilians has Palestine killed over the years? They are both guilty of killing civilian; nevertheless, something had to break the cycle. One way or another this has to end. Diplomacy was not working out.

For God's sake, don't drag Obama into this, he has little to do with Israel's decision to strike Gaza. Israel had been planning this attack for months, not just several weeks.
You have to pay attention to the news. Obama is not directly responsible for anything; however, it doesn't mean others don't have a problem with him.

mimartin
12-29-2008, 08:00 PM
:words: It's all Obama fault AGAIN. :rolleyes: Please explain why Israel practiced preemptive strikes in the 80s, 90s and 2000s under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. Is someone in the Israeli government clairvoyant and knew back in the 80s that we would one day elected Obama president?

Israel practices this procedure because they believe it give themselves the best chance of remaining secure. I happen to disagree.

What else can we blame on Obama? I broke a shoelace today. I suppose that is some how his fault too.

Yar-El
12-29-2008, 08:03 PM
It's all Obama fault AGAIN. :rolleyes: Please explain why Israel practiced preemptive strikes in the 80s, 90s and 2000s under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. Is someone in the Israeli government clairvoyant and knew back in the 80s that we would one day elected Obama president?

Israel practices this procedure because they believe it give themselves the best chance of remaining secure. I happen to disagree.

What else can we blame on Obama? I broke a shoelace today. I suppose that is some how his fault too.

For God's sake, please don't drag Obama into this, he has little to do with Israel's decision to strike Gaza. Israel had been planning this attack for months, not just several weeks.

Everyone is missing the whole point. Scan over my posts again so you don't make a false accusation.

jrrtoken
12-29-2008, 08:05 PM
What else can we blame on Obama? I broke a shoelace today. I suppose that is some how his fault too.Obama wanted to bring jobs back to the U.S. from third-world countries, therefore, Nike wanted its sweatshop workers to labor harder before they actually have to pay American workers a reasonable salary. The eight-year-old boy in Pakistan who was fitting the plastic tip on your lace did it poorly due to increased production. Therefore, Obama is undermining our own feet, the cornerstone of human productivity.

Yar-El
12-29-2008, 08:07 PM
Obama wanted to bring jobs back to the U.S. from third-world countries, therefore, Nike wanted its sweatshop workers to labor harder before they actually have to pay American workers a reasonable salary. The eight-year-old boy in Pakistan who was fitting the plastic tip on your lace did it poorly due to increased production. Therefore, Obama is undermining our own feet, the cornerstone of human productivity.
You folks are not paying attention. You have to read posts carefully.

mimartin
12-29-2008, 08:08 PM
No, it attempts to make Obama look bad.

On the Israeli part, Obama is merely an excuse and a terrible one at that. No matter who the U.S. President is, they will support Israeli. Especially if he/she wants a second term in office.

jrrtoken
12-29-2008, 08:14 PM
You folks are not paying attention. You have to read posts carefully.And I was. I'm saying that there is no way that Obama has anything to do with Israel's strike in Gaza. They've been doing this for decades, and with our weapons, they can.

For example, in 1981, France was helping Iraq build a nuclear reactor. Now, Israel assumed that this was for the procurement of plutonium for nuclear weapons, however, it could've just been for peaceful purposes. Well, Israel didn't really care about what the reactor was being used for, so they simply bombed it, without any warning in advance. Now, that's pretty damn devious of Israel to do that, and although Iraq was being led by Hussein, who would later kill many more innocent civilians, it doesn't just allow Israel to barge into any other country and impose their beliefs on it. Hm... just like the U.S. :p

Yar-El
12-29-2008, 08:21 PM
No, it attempts to make Obama look bad.

On the Israeli part, Obama is merely an excuse and a terrible one at that. No matter who the U.S. President is, they will support Israeli. Especially if he/she wants a second term in office.
I don't think its a attempt to make him look bad. I do however see this as a legit concern on Isreal's behalf. Its has to do with where you live in the world, and how that affects your views from the other side. You and I can live in the US under any president; however, people on the other side of the world can have a different tolerance. Isreal views Obama as a very inexperienced president. We know he is not experienced in foreign policy; nevertheless, US citizens lax a blind eye to give him a opportunity. We don't see the world through Isreal's eyes.

And I was. I'm saying that there is no way that Obama has anything to do with Israel's strike in Gaza. They've been doing this for decades, and with our weapons, they can.
I'm on your side. Obama didn't do anything directly. This war has been going on for years. They just don't have faith in our next president. I'm certain it has happend sometime in the past as well. Different president but similar conditions.

*** Edit ***

We learned about Obama's parental connection to Islam. We also learned Obama became a Christian through educational exposure. U.S. citizens can live knowing the unorthodox cards that have been played; however, what and how does the world view Obama's past? Does Isreal and Palestine have the tolerance to play diplomacy with Obama? I can't answer these questions. We have to wait and see how the world changes. Isreal's actions can be taken as a light precursor to events yet to unfold.

How does the world view a United States president who has experience with Islamic and Christian traditions? Will this cause insecurity to be felt around the world? Will this make other countries change their stance with us? I don't have enough political science knowledge to answer these questions. I don't think anyone here does.

mimartin
12-29-2008, 08:41 PM
Isreal views Obama as a very inexperienced president. We know he is not experienced in foreign policy; nevertheless, US citizens lax a blind eye to give him a opportunity. We don't see the world through Isreal's eyes.
First off, you know nothing of me or how I view the world beyond what I post here. You don’t know about the tattoos on my Great Uncle and Aunt’s arms. You may not even know the meaning of those tattoos. You don’t know where they lived from 1976 until their deaths in the late 80’s. Does not mean I understand what the people of Israel have been though, but it does mean I care about Israel.

Second, Obama is not the first president to lack experience. George W Bush had absolutely no experience beyond being Texas governor (which means he had no experience). The Lieutenant Governor runs the show in Texas. Which explains how Texas has survived the last two idiots we had in the office of Governor. Beyond pardons and appointments, the Governor of Texas is a figurehead and nothing more (Explains why my aspiration in High School was to be the Governor of Texas). Of course, in fairness to Israel, if the last President with little (no experience) is any indication of how things will be handled in the Middle East, they may want to primitive the entire region into glass.

Achilles
12-29-2008, 08:41 PM
You can only be poked so many times until there is a reaction.Funny, that's what the Palestinians say too.

Yar-El
12-29-2008, 08:46 PM
Funny, that's what the Palestinians say too.
Its a endless cycle. Peace settles in for a brief moment, and then all hell breaks loose from a twitch. One sneeze sets everything off. Its a horrible way to live.

First off, you know nothing of me or how I view the world beyond what I post here. You don’t know about the tattoos on my Great Uncle and Aunt’s arms. You may not even know the meaning of those tattoos. You don’t know where they lived from 1976 until their deaths in the late 80’s. Does not mean I understand what the people of Israel have been though, but it does mean I care about Israel.
I keep forgetting people from around the world visit here. I do have sympathy for anyone who lives in such harsh conditions. My apology for making a fast assumption. How long did they live in Isreal?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 08:51 PM
I saw a newsclip a few nights back where Isreal voiced concern over Obama. There was talk about how Isreal is insecure with Obama's abilities. Isreal may feel as though our new president will not support their efforts; thus, they took a preemtive strike to remove Hamas. Gaza strip was handed over to Palestine as a act of peace. Palestine ended up using it as a tool to strike into Isreal. Hamas came in and took it from both sides. I'm not surprised this has happend. You can only be poked so many times until there is a reaction. gaza was given to the palestinians, however israel cut off gaza from shipments of food, water, and electricity, that being said, attacking israel is the obvious logical progression for hamas
as i said before, ISRAEL BROKE THE CEASEFIRE, NOT HAMAS

Isreal is tired of being bossed around, and the death toll keeps pilling up. I don't see any other course of action. They are a democracy surounded by terrorist states. Does this excuse 230+ civilian deaths? Pull some reality into the mix. How many civilians has Palestine killed over the years? They are both guilty of killing civilian; nevertheless, something had to break the cycle. One way or another this has to end. Diplomacy was not working out. israel bosses others around, you seem to be confused
237 (http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp), versus 4781 palestinians killed by the israelis since 2000, roughly 1/4 of them were actually involved in conflict and another 1/4 were kids.

Yar-El
12-29-2008, 08:57 PM
gaza was given to the palestinians, however israel cut off gaza from shipments of food, water, and electricity, that being said, attacking israel is the obvious logical progression for hamas
as i said before, ISRAEL BROKE THE CEASEFIRE, NOT HAMAS
Who should be responsible for the Palestinians? Israel or Palastine? Why should Israel grant food, water, and electricity to a foreign nation when their own government should take up responsibility?

Jae Onasi
12-29-2008, 09:05 PM
There's been fighting in and around Israel for the last 5000 years. Anyone who thinks either side is going to back down soon does not understand the deep-seated, utter hatred these people-groups have for each other. The world can exert all the pressure we want on Arab and Israeli groups, but until they actually want to sit down and really talk it out instead of getting ticked off about stupid things like who sits where at a table, the fighting is never going to end. Who's right? Neither side. They're killing each other. Who's wrong? Both sides. Neither will do the give-and-take required to resolve the conflict. Until one side unilaterally sets the weapons down, they're always both going to be in the wrong, I don't care who's done what to whom.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 09:08 PM
Who should be responsible for the Palestinians? Israel or Palastine? Why should Israel grant food, water, and electricity to a foreign nation when their own government should take up responsibility?first off, do you not understand the phrase "cut off"? second, the palestinians elected hamas (since a large portion of their operations are humanitarian in nature) a while back then israel threw a hissy fit and incited a civil war between hamas and fatah.

Yar-El
12-29-2008, 09:09 PM
There's been fighting in and around Israel for the last 5000 years. Anyone who thinks either side is going to back down soon does not understand the deep-seated, utter hatred these people-groups have for each other. The world can exert all the pressure we want on Arab and Israeli groups, but until they actually want to sit down and really talk it out instead of getting ticked off about stupid things like who sits where at a table, the fighting is never going to end. Who's right? Neither side. They're killing each other. Who's wrong? Both sides. Neither will do the give-and-take required to resolve the conflict. Until one side unilaterally sets the weapons down, they're always both going to be in the wrong, I don't care who's done what to whom.
I absolutely agree with your comments. Most of the wars are biblical territory disputes, right?

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 09:11 PM
Which does not excuse this attack. Israel blew up 230+ people, not soldiers, not paramilitary, not terrorists, just random people.

So you're saying it's Israel's fault that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, also the UN is practically the worst source to get anything from when it comes to Israel.


The same holds true for Palestine, you cannot expect them to do nothing when Israel doesn't give a damn who they kill.

Okay I'm guessing you're using the United Nations as a source, and they aren't exactly a valid source when it comes to Israel. Fact is this moral equivalency argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever.


Fact: Hamas has fired approximately 6,000 rockets into Israel if I remember correctly from the news today. The fact that either Hamas has extremely bad aim or the hand of God is protecting the Israelis is besides the point.
Fact: Civilians being killed on accident when trying to hit terrorists that are hiding behind civilians is not even remotely equivalent to the evil of strapping bombs to kids and having them go into crowded market places and blowing the kids up via remote. Or having a suicide bomber blow themselves up in a pizza parlor.
Fact: Hamas won't even accept Israel's right to exist, they won't be satisfied until the Israeli people are annihilated.
Fact: Hamas used this last cease fire to sneak in a bunch of weapons including the rockets they've been shooting off.
Fact: Using civilians as human shields is a war crime.


To sum it up there is no equivalency, Israel in this situation is in the right.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 09:19 PM
So you're saying it's Israel's fault that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, also the UN is practically the worst source to get anything from when it comes to Israel.



Okay I'm guessing you're using the United Nations as a source, and they aren't exactly a valid source when it comes to Israel. Fact is this moral equivalency argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever.


Fact: Hamas has fired approximately 6,000 rockets into Israel if I remember correctly from the news today. The fact that either Hamas has extremely bad aim or the hand of God is protecting the Israelis is besides the point.
Fact: Civilians being killed on accident when trying to hit terrorists that are hiding behind civilians is not even remotely equivalent to the evil of strapping bombs to kids and having them go into crowded market places and blowing the kids up via remote. Or having a suicide bomber blow themselves up in a pizza parlor.
Fact: Hamas won't even accept Israel's right to exist, they won't be satisfied until the Israeli people are annihilated.
Fact: Hamas used this last cease fire to sneak in a bunch of weapons including the rockets they've been shooting off.
Fact: Using civilians as human shields is a war crime.


To sum it up there is no equivalency, Israel in this situation is in the right.fact: israel has probably dropped around 6000 tons of explosives on gaza by now and unlike the rockets hamas is firing that have designs that are decades old, the israelis can actually aim them since they get some of the most advanced weapons in the world from the u.s.
fact: israel bombed civilian targets <snipped>
fact: that probably has something to do with israel razing palestinian cities and towns and massacring palestinian civilians (you probably ignored it in the other thread but the israelis themselves convicted ariel sharon of war crimes)
fact: ISRAEL BROKE THE CEASEFIRE
fact: murdering civilians en masse is a war crime as well

to sum it up: you're wrong, israel broke the ceasefire and started this conflict and their heavy handed actions will extend it.

mimartin
12-29-2008, 09:30 PM
How long did they live in Isreal?They lived in Bay City, Texas from 1946 until 1976. They moved to Israel in November of 1976. My Aunt died (natural causes) in 1989. Iím unsure of my Uncle as I donít really remember him as he was not the friendliest of persons (at least to a kid at the time). Would loved to have understood at the time what they went though. I may have been nicer to them both. Never really figured out the logistic of how they were really related to me. I assume they were really cousin, but at that time, a child either had to call adults Mr. or Mrs. sir name or Aunt and Uncle to use their first names. Still call most of my elderly cousins by Aunt or Uncle.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 09:42 PM
fact: israel has probably dropped around 6000 tons of explosives on gaza by now and unlike the rockets hamas is firing that have designs that are decades old, the israelis can actually aim them since they get some of the most advanced weapons in the world from the u.s.

I'm going to guess you didn't take into account the fact that Hamas is deliberately hiding behind civilians when they are firing those rockets. Smart munitions are relatively accurate but they aren't so accurate that you can snipe someone from several hundred feet in the air in a fighter jet...


fact: israel bombed civilian targets <snipped>

:rolleyes:


fact: that probably has something to do with israel razing palestinian cities and towns and massacring palestinian civilians (you probably ignored it in the other thread but the israelis themselves convicted ariel sharon of war crimes)

Isn't Ariel Sharon deceased? Anyways, if Israel wanted to, they could level every city, town, and village in Gaza. It would be a heck of a lot cheaper to do than the cost of all the smart munitions they're using trying to hit the people shooting off the rockets in the first place.


fact: ISRAEL BROKE THE CEASEFIRE

Didn't Israel go into Gaza partially because Hamas wasn't doing anything to stop rockets being fired into Israel from inside Gaza?


fact: murdering civilians en masse is a war crime as well

Israel isn't gunning for civilians though, they are trying to hit the terrorists whom are firing rockets into Israel. Fact is it's kinda hard to do so without civilian casualties if their launch site is say a daycare where the kids are still having classes (just an example to illustrate the point)...


to sum it up: you're wrong, israel broke the ceasefire and started this conflict and their heavy handed actions will extend it.

Hamas wasn't technically honoring the cease fire in the first place though, while they supposedly weren't firing rockets into Israel a bunch of other groups were doing various attacks on Israel, hence Israel finally said enough is enough. Fact is there is a lot less violence between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank.

Interview on Fox News that is of interest:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473444,00.html#

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 09:50 PM
I'm going to guess you didn't take into account the fact that Hamas is deliberately hiding behind civilians when they are firing those rockets. Smart munitions are relatively accurate but they aren't so accurate that you can snipe someone from several hundred feet in the air in a fighter jet...they dropped bombs on civilian targets.

Isn't Ariel Sharon deceased? Anyways, if Israel wanted to, they could level every city, town, and village in Gaza. It would be a heck of a lot cheaper to do than the cost of all the smart munitions they're using trying to hit the people shooting off the rockets in the first place.he's in a coma, but that's beside the point.

Didn't Israel go into Gaza partially because Hamas wasn't doing anything to stop rockets being fired into Israel from inside Gaza?you're making my point for me, that they bombed civilians for the actions of extremists within hamas.

Israel isn't gunning for civilians though, they are trying to hit the terrorists whom are firing rockets into Israel. Fact is it's kinda hard to do so without civilian casualties if their launch site is say a daycare where the kids are still having classes (just an example to illustrate the point)...bombed civilian targets(x1000)

dunno how many times i have to say it

Hamas wasn't technically honoring the cease fire in the first place though, while they supposedly weren't firing rockets into Israel a bunch of other groups were doing various attacks on Israel, hence Israel finally said enough is enough. Fact is there is a lot less violence between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank.yes, enough is enough.

*bombs innocent people for the actions of others who were only standing up for their right to not be starved to death by israel*


e: lol your own source sides with me

November 2008: Palestinians resume rocket and mortar fire into Israel after Israeli incursion.

also incursion means "killed a couple of people"

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 10:04 PM
they dropped bombs on civilian targets.

So you're trying to hide the fact that Hamas deliberately sets up its rocket launch sites near schools to maximize the chances of civilian casualties?


he's in a coma, but that's beside the point.

Then why bring him up if he isn't a factor in this?


you're making my point for me, that they bombed civilians for the actions of extremists within hamas.

No, I'm not making your point because after the Israeli ground incursion they used that as an excuse to start shooting more rockets off only this time it was the main part of Hamas. During the cease fire they had also been sneaking in rockets for something like this.


bombed civilian targets(x1000)

So you're saying it's Israel's fault that Hamas uses schools filled with children as launching platforms for their rockets.


dunno how many times i have to say it

:rolleyes:


yes, enough is enough.

*bombs innocent people for the actions of others who were only standing up for their right to not be starved to death by israel*


That's a laugh, seriously Israel has not restricted shipments of food, they have required everything going in to be searched though for good reason.


e: lol your own source sides with me

No, he does not side with you, he had to play devils advocate in interest of being fair and balanced. And the timeline is just a gross simplification of what happened and not necessarily everything that happened.



also incursion means "killed a couple of people"

An incursion doesn't mean you killed anyone, and what was left out was why they went into Gaza in the first place. Seriously painting it that the Israelis having nothing to do that day decided to drive into Gaza with tanks makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Fox News was giving a simplified timeline nothing more. I suggest you watch the video I posted.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 10:16 PM
So you're trying to hide the fact that Hamas deliberately sets up its rocket launch sites near schools to maximize the chances of civilian casualties?gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world <snipped>
Then why bring him up if he isn't a factor in this?an example of israel's actions against the palestinians and how little they care about palestinian civilian deaths

No, I'm not making your point because after the Israeli ground incursion they used that as an excuse to start shooting more rockets off only this time it was the main part of Hamas. During the cease fire they had also been sneaking in rockets for something like this.yep, the israelis only killed some palestinians no reason for the ceasefire to be broken.

That's a laugh, seriously Israel has not restricted shipments of food, they have required everything going in to be searched though for good reason.i return your chuckles to you sir (because you are wrong).

No, he does not side with you, he had to play devils advocate in interest of being fair and balanced. And the timeline is just a gross simplification of what happened and not necessarily everything that happened.so you're own source is what you say it is even if it's contrary to what's posted? interesting.

An incursion doesn't mean you killed anyone, and what was left out was why they went into Gaza in the first place. Seriously painting it that the Israelis having nothing to do that day decided to drive into Gaza with tanks makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Fox News was giving a simplified timeline nothing more. I suggest you watch the video I posted.only they did kill people in their incursion. and it does make sense because the israeli government consists of hardline militants who consider genocide a valid military option.

Achilles
12-29-2008, 10:21 PM
There's been fighting in and around Israel for the last 5000 years.Yes, but the current iteration of Israel has only been around for 60 years.

Can we just point out the elephant in the room and note that if we offered to give each of these groups one of the Dakotas if they would call it off, neither would take us up on it? This whole thing is over who gets to have pissing rights to Jerusalem.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 10:23 PM
gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world <snipped>

So you just admitted the difficulty Israel has trying to hit the terrorists without hitting civilians in the process.


an example of israel's actions against the palestinians and how little they care about palestinian civilian deaths

If they didn't care about civilian deaths they would have carpet bombed the place because unguided bombs cost a lot less than smart munitions.


yep, the israelis only killed some palestinians no reason for the ceasefire to be broken.

:rolleyes:


i return your chuckles to you sir (because you are wrong).

Don't try that song and dance, I did a report on the media using doctored photos trying to condemn Israel.


so you're own source is what you say it is even if it's contrary to what's posted? interesting.

No I'm saying they over-simplified the timeline. Furthermore the interview given on Fox News which I posted the link to, gives a more detailed view as to what's going on.


only they did kill people in their incursion. and it does make since because the israeli government consists of hardline militants who consider genocide a valid military option.

Did you even bother to look for the reason as to why Israel went into Gaza, cause I can tell you it sure wasn't boredom like what you're painting it as.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 10:41 PM
So you just admitted the difficulty Israel has trying to hit the terrorists without hitting civilians in the process, and I'm not spreading lies thank you kindly.it'd be easier if they'd stop targeting civilian targets.

:rolleyes:this seems to be your only worthwhile point (that you don't care).

Don't try that song and dance, I did a report on the media using doctored photos trying to condemn Israel.and i did a report on how garfieldjl and all of his sources are liars therefore i am an expert don't try and refute me.

Did you even bother to look for the reason as to why Israel went into Gaza, cause I can tell you it sure wasn't boredom like what you're painting it as.yes, i even posted about it. they broke the ceasefire, hamas retaliated, israel bombed them and played the victim with the help of arm twisting and sympathetic press.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 10:53 PM
Israel isn't targetting civilians they're targetting Hamas whom is hiding behind civilians so they can parade dead children on the news.

Tommycat
12-30-2008, 02:28 AM
Can we just point out the elephant in the room and note that if we offered to give each of these groups one of the Dakotas if they would call it off, neither would take us up on it? This whole thing is over who gets to have pissing rights to Jerusalem.
Sadly the truest statement regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. We could bomb the whole area into being a water filled crater, and people would still be fighting over who gets to fish there.

Web Rider
12-30-2008, 03:19 AM
Israel isn't targetting civilians they're targetting Hamas whom is hiding behind civilians so they can parade dead children on the news.

If there's a terrorist behind you, and you don't know it, and in front of you is a guy with a gun, do you:

A: want the guy to shoot through you to kill the terrorist, killing both of you in the process.
B: want the guy with the gun to ask you to move, THEN shoot the terrorist.
C: obey the cease-fire you all agreed upon and not kill anybody for the time being.


You do realize, those dead children wouldn't be dead to be paraded around on the news if Israel STOPPED BLOWING UP SCHOOLS. Who cares if every last adult in that school is a terrorist, you DONT BLOW UP CHILDREN to kill terrorists. Anyone who thinks it's OK to kill civilians who are totally unaware of who is or isn't a terrorist, and kill children who are totally innocent of anything, to kill a terrorist, needs to have their head examined.

Israel does not have the right to blow the beans out of Gaza whenever they please, heck, if they'd work WITH the DEMOCRACTICALLY elected Hamas government, and stop killing people, surprise, there might be fewer terrorist attacks because guess what, people don't want to kill you as much when you aren't being a complete asshat to their friends and family.

EDIT: and yes, to be fair, both sides are full of religious zealots who enjoy killing each other over a holy mount of dirt. God is everywhere, no one spot can be more holy than another.

Astor
12-30-2008, 06:21 AM
That's a laugh, seriously Israel has not restricted shipments of food, they have required everything going in to be searched though for good reason.

From Wikipedia:

Israel, which governed the Gaza Strip from 1967-2005, still controls the strip's airspace, territorial waters, and offshore maritime access, as well as its side of the Gaza-Israeli border. This continued control has allowed the Israeli state, which opposes Hamas, to control the Gazan inflow and outflow of multiple types of resources, including food. Whenever food is in short supply, Gazans have had little choice but to take in food supplied by World Food Programme workers in the area.

Looks pretty restrictive to me.

It's also important to note that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were never intended to belong to Israel in the first place - they were to become part of a new Arab State in the UN Partition Plan of 1947.

UN Partition Plan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_181)

This whole thing is over who gets to have pissing rights to Jerusalem.

If everyone (and this includes both sides - Arab and Jewish) could have acted like grown ups and agreed to the original plan, without wanting it all for themselves, then Jerusalem would have effectively been neutral ground.

Tommycat
12-30-2008, 07:00 AM
If there's a terrorist behind you, and you don't know it, and in front of you is a guy with a gun, do you:

A: want the guy to shoot through you to kill the terrorist, killing both of you in the process.
B: want the guy with the gun to ask you to move, THEN shoot the terrorist.
C: obey the cease-fire you all agreed upon and not kill anybody for the time being.



I'd choose A, but that's a bad example. See I would willingly sacrifice myself to have a terrorist removed from society, but it is MY choice the kids don't have that choice. A better analogy would be if I would shoot through my kids to kill a terrorist. That is the moral dilema. I would choose NOT to shoot.

Ya know the thing that bugs me about the palestinians claiming to be the victims... It's the rockets.. I mean they keep getting more. It's unlikely that the Israelis are intentionally letting them through... Yet they say that they can't get food etc. You'd think that they would use those resources to get food rather than one shot devices.

Oh well...

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-30-2008, 07:13 AM
I'd choose A, but that's a bad example. See I would willingly sacrifice myself to have a terrorist removed from society, but it is MY choice the kids don't have that choice. A better analogy would be if I would shoot through my kids to kill a terrorist. That is the moral dilema. I would choose NOT to shoot.did you not see option b...? it's about what you'd prefer as far as i can tell...

Ya know the thing that bugs me about the palestinians claiming to be the victims... It's the rockets.. I mean they keep getting more. It's unlikely that the Israelis are intentionally letting them through... Yet they say that they can't get food etc. You'd think that they would use those resources to get food rather than one shot devices.

Oh well...they use ****ty, homemade qassam rockets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket), no need to smuggle them in. if they could smuggle something better in, they would, qassam rockets suck, they've even been known to explode before getting off the ground.

Achilles
12-30-2008, 12:16 PM
If everyone (and this includes both sides - Arab and Jewish) could have acted like grown ups and agreed to the original plan, without wanting it all for themselves, then Jerusalem would have effectively been neutral ground.Most likely true, but it still misses the point.

What is the significance of Jerusalem?

mimartin
12-30-2008, 12:42 PM
What is the significance of Jerusalem? Touche

I suggest anyone think real carefully before answering this question.

As for me, Iím going avoid the question as if it is the black plague, other than to say that is the sums of the problem quite nicely. If there was no religious significance to that piece of real estate by the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians there really would not be a reason for this conflict.

Again Achilles, Touche. Game, set and match to Achilles.

Web Rider
12-30-2008, 01:20 PM
I'd choose A, but that's a bad example. See I would willingly sacrifice myself to have a terrorist removed from society, but it is MY choice the kids don't have that choice. A better analogy would be if I would shoot through my kids to kill a terrorist. That is the moral dilema. I would choose NOT to shoot.

There are two problems with that answer though.
1: You don't know it's a terrorist. As far as you know, there may not be a terrorist behind you at all. Only the guy with the gun knows/thinks there's a terrorist behind you.
2: You are society. If we kill society to "save" it from the terrorists, even if that's what society wants, then there will be no society left to save in the end.

What is the significance of Jerusalem?

Nothing.

Everything.

Achilles
12-30-2008, 01:50 PM
Nothing.

Everything.No more Ridley Scott movies for you.

Jae Onasi
12-30-2008, 03:15 PM
Yes, but the current iteration of Israel has only been around for 60 years.
The people-groups have been there thousands of years, regardless of whatever arbitrary lines get marked on the ground from time to time.
Can we just point out the elephant in the room and note that if we offered to give each of these groups one of the Dakotas if they would call it off, neither would take us up on it? This whole thing is over who gets to have rights to Jerusalem.
Well, I'd think they'd be pretty smart if they turned down life in Blizzard Central, but I''m not a big fan of wind chills in the -50F range, so I might be a little biased on that.

And yes, Jerusalem is a huge part of the conflict.

Achilles
12-30-2008, 03:25 PM
The people-groups have been there thousands of years, regardless of whatever arbitrary lines get marked on the ground from time to time.We're talking about the actions of a government. If you want to conflate that with a indigenous tribe feel free, however I won't be joining you.

Jae Onasi
12-30-2008, 03:47 PM
We're talking about the actions of a government. If you want to conflate that with a indigenous tribe feel free, however I won't be joining you.
Who have been fighting thousands of years in that region? Arabs and Israelis.
Who are running the governments currently in that region? Arabs (Palestinians) and Israelis.

Web Rider
12-30-2008, 04:33 PM
No more Ridley Scott movies for you.

Awwww, well, at least you got the reference. Also, who names their kid "Ridley"?

On a more serious note, that answer does actually explain my view on the subject. To me, Jerusalem means nothing, if God if as all-powerful and omnipresent as these religious groups say, then it's impossible for one spot to be more holy than the other. There cannot be any more of God in one spot than any other, for that would mean there is less of God somewhere else, and that God is not as infinite as they say.

To them, it does mean everything, they are short-sighted and narrow-minded to believe that their religious belief NEEDS this holy location. To prove that they are somehow "more right" than the other guy. It makes them feel more religious to possess it, which honestly comes off to me as Idol Worship since they are valuing the land so highly. And they will do anything, except work together, to possess it. Which honestly annoys me as if they just worked and lived together, they could both have it and nobody would die over it.

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 05:49 PM
Well the mainstream media was all over the Israelis dropping bombs on a UN Outpost in 2006, but many of them failed to report that the UN knew that location was being used as a launching plantform.

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post -- which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces -- was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday. -- Hezbollah was using UN post as a 'shield' (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50)

Hamas does the same thing that Hezbollah did.

jrrtoken
12-30-2008, 05:54 PM
Well the mainstream media was all over the Israelis dropping bombs on a UN Outpost in 2006, but many of them failed to report that the UN knew that location was being used as a launching platform.Please provide proof that the mainstream media went up in arms about this certain incident.

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 06:06 PM
Please provide proof that the mainstream media went up in arms about this certain incident.

Here is one example:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - An Israeli bomb destroyed a U.N. observer post on the border in southern Lebanon Tuesday, killing three observers and leaving another feared dead, officials said. U.N. chief Kofi Annan said Israel appeared to have struck the site deliberately. -- MSNBC: Israeli strike destroys UN post, kills three (they got their article from AP) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029827/)

Another:

UNITED NATIONS � In a development that could prove a turning point in Israel's war to rid its northern border of Hezbollah, the United Nations yesterday suffered casualties in the fighting, and Secretary-General Annan immediately accused the Israeli Defense Force of a "deliberate targeting" of four blue-helmeted U.N. observers.

Military sources said the incident occurred during an air and artillery attack near Khiyam, at the eastern region of southern Lebanon, where the IDF was preparing a large ground assault meant to create a Hezbollah-free buffer zone on the area north of Israel's border. Four members of the United Nations's interim force in Lebanon, identified as being from Canada, Austria, China, and Finland, were killed. -- NY Sun (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/deaths-in-lebanon-of-un-observers-could-turn-war/36725/)

jonathan7
12-30-2008, 06:08 PM
Well, I had promised myself that I wasn't going to post in this thread, but having seen Israel's idiot Interior minister on the TV, I was reminded of this quote;

One definition of insanity is to believe that you can keep doing what youíve been doing and get different results.

Hamas seems to think they are going to achieve something different to what has been achieved for the last 60 years (5,000 in total), and the same with Israel. The situation will go on as it is because the above is true; they're nuts if they think the way either side is acting is going to solve anything, it will merely produce the same continual results; suffering, death and hatred.

Achilles
12-30-2008, 10:57 PM
Who have been fighting thousands of years in that region? Everybody.
Who are running the governments currently in that region? Arabs (Palestinians) and Israelis.Fixed.

Jae Onasi
12-31-2008, 12:39 PM
Fixed.True that. :)

Christos K
12-31-2008, 01:12 PM
I saw this thread and decided to post in it after a while... I wasnt going to at all because I thought this just wasnt the place. This is my opinion. Both sides need to stop being so damn greedy. That land is a holy place for more than just Jewish people anyone should be able to live there, vote, run and have the same laws. From what I have seen and heard I could be wrong it it the Israeli government clearly cannot stand Muslims living there. The government of that land needs to be made up of Christians, Muslims and Jews. It will not work another way. And splitting the country in to two is not gonna work that was an extremly idea. And being part American I dont mind saying this at all the U.S. goverment has no place to lend support. They can give their view of the issue but SHOULD not give favor to the Israeli government or the Palestinian government. And obviously this war means money making which is probably why the U.S. supports the Israeli governments view more money comes from there. Damnit why doesnt God just make one SUPER DUPER religion. Jesus is real and truthful, Mohammed is real and truthful, Dont know any only Jewish holy guys, gals and everything is put together for the SUPER DUPER religion. OH yah did I mention they just GET RID OF THAT CITY which has caused so many people to die it is probably equal to our current population. Now here is me picking a side. If I had to pick a side I would go with the Palestinians. To me its the more holy choice. The Israeli goverment is to greedy and manipulative in my opinion. I am not saying I hate all Israelis but that IF I had to pick a side.

Achilles
12-31-2008, 01:29 PM
I saw this thread and decided to post in it. This is my opinion. Both sides need to stop being so damn greedy. That land is a holy place for more than just Jewish people anyone should be able to live there, vote, run and have the same laws. Wouldn't that require that all three of these religions would have to believe that each of the other two have some legitimacy? Wouldn't it mean having to curtail some of their own religion's mythology?

I won't let a stranger borrow my car, but you expect very religiously motivated people to trust people with completely different belief systems with their most holy land? I'm not saying it's not possible. I will say that I don't see how we can expect such behavior from the people engaged in this conflict.

From what I have seen and heard I could be wrong it it the Israeli government clearly cannot stand Muslims living there. The government of that land needs to be made up of Christians, Muslims and Jews. It will not work another way.I can think of one other way that it would work, but I don't think that's going to happen in our lifetimes either.

And splitting the country in to two is not gonna work that was an extremly idea. And being part American I dont mind saying this at all the U.S. goverment has no place to lend support. They can give their view of the issue but SHOULD not give favor to the Israeli government or the Palestinian government.The rapture right believes that christ won't return until Israel belongs to the Israelis. I don't see them sitting this one out.

Christos K
12-31-2008, 01:36 PM
You have your points. But come on the three sides are only using religion as an excuse. They ALL want eachother dead so they can claim the money. They do not fight over religion. It started out as religion but than got extreme, out of control and exagerated. The thing is this conflict has so many f!@$ing beliefs each time someone wants to get involved instead of checking the beliefs they just add their own and boom they wanted to be involved to stop it but now hate one side or the other.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-31-2008, 01:38 PM
chomsky v dershowitz cage match (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvJrb5lKu4)

Christos K
12-31-2008, 01:45 PM
It seems to go by VERY slow I am not sure if I will watch it...

Achilles
12-31-2008, 03:07 PM
But come on the three sides are only using religion as an excuse.For thousands of years?

The hatred might be enculturated within each group now, but I have no doubt in my mind that this was almost entirely a religious conflict when it started and is still a largely religious conflict now.

They ALL want eachother dead so they can claim the money.What money?

They do not fight over religion.I'm going to have to ask you how you intend to support this claim.

It started out as religion but than got extreme, out of control and exagerated.Why can it not be "religion" and "extreme, out of control, and exaggerated" at the same time? Is there something dictating that it must be either/or?

The thing is this conflict has so many f!@$ing beliefs each time someone wants to get involved instead of checking the beliefs they just add their own and boom they wanted to be involved to stop it but now hate one side or the other.But you just said that it wasn't about belief :confused:

GarfieldJL
01-01-2009, 09:24 PM
Wouldn't that require that all three of these religions would have to believe that each of the other two have some legitimacy? Wouldn't it mean having to curtail some of their own religion's mythology?

For the Jewish people it is their most holy site, for Muslims it is the third most holy site. For Christians it's one of the most holy sites. Personally, I'd say as long as the Israelis don't restrict access to the dome of the rock on Muslims let Israel have the city because technically they were the ones that originally founded that particular city, and it is also their most holy site.

The most holy site in the Muslim Religion is Mecca in Saudi Arabia.


I won't let a stranger borrow my car, but you expect very religiously motivated people to trust people with completely different belief systems with their most holy land? I'm not saying it's not possible. I will say that I don't see how we can expect such behavior from the people engaged in this conflict.

It's not the Muslim's most holy land, it's their 3rd most holy land. For the Israelis it's their most holy site.

The Doctor
01-01-2009, 09:40 PM
The point still stands, Garfy, that "the Muslims" are not going to trust Christians or Jews on one of their holy sites, whether it be the most Holy or the least. It's still Holy, and they don't want to allow access to people who don't recognise that Holliness.

GarfieldJL
01-01-2009, 09:45 PM
The point still stands, Garfy, that "the Muslims" are not going to trust Christians or Jews on one of their holy sites, whether it be the most Holy or the least. It's still Holy, and they don't want to allow access to people who don't recognise that Holliness.

And the Jewish people and Christians aren't going to trust the Muslims either. I'm going by who claimed it to be Holy first, and that would be the Jewish people and the Christians. Islam is the youngest of the three religions.


I am going to say everyone is overlooking the other major player in all this, Iran.

Achilles
01-01-2009, 09:57 PM
For the Jewish people it is their most holy site, for Muslims it is the third most holy site. For Christians it's one of the most holy sites. Personally, I'd say as long as the Israelis don't restrict access to the dome of the rock on Muslims let Israel have the city because technically they were the ones that originally founded that particular city, and it is also their most holy site.

The most holy site in the Muslim Religion is Mecca in Saudi Arabia.This is all good information however I don't see where it either adds to or contradicts what I posted.

It's not the Muslim's most holy land, it's their 3rd most holy land. For the Israelis it's their most holy site.Well considering that it was where muhammed allegedly flew up to heaven on his magic horse and we've all seen how riled up muslims get when it comes to muhammed, I'm willing argue that "3rd most holy" is still pretty important to them.

GarfieldJL
01-01-2009, 10:07 PM
Well considering that it was where muhammed allegedly flew up to heaven on his magic horse and we've all seen how riled up muslims get when it comes to muhammed, I'm willing argue that "3rd most holy" is still pretty important to them.

And is the "City of David," was founded by the Jewish People, is their most holy site (and last I checked their only Holy Site). Plus it was a holy site to the Jewish People before the religion of Islam even existed and long before muhammed was even born.

Achilles
01-01-2009, 10:13 PM
I don't think muslims are going to find that any more convincing than the christians who believe that Jerusalem is where jesus died for our sins. As I've pointed out countless times in the religion threads; it doesn't matter what you think, but what the believers think.

So, for as long as these three groups all believe that their religion is the right one and the other two are the wrong ones and all three believe that this region is critical to their belief system, there will be strife.

Astor
01-02-2009, 01:42 PM
I am going to say everyone is overlooking the other major player in all this, Iran.

Aside from condemning Israel's attacks, Iran hasn't done anything.

The only major players here are Hamas and Israel.

Web Rider
01-02-2009, 01:43 PM
And is the "City of David," was founded by the Jewish People, is their most holy site (and last I checked their only Holy Site). Plus it was a holy site to the Jewish People before the religion of Islam even existed and long before muhammed was even born.

Who had it holy first is irrelevant. It is holy to them now.

This is the problem with backtracking to "who was there first" and "who started it. All if that is irrelevant. Both groups are there now and have been there long enough to believe that they belong there.

Astor
01-03-2009, 11:59 AM
There are claims that one Israeli video of 'Hamas Militants' loading missile onto before being destroyed is actually a video of civilians removing property from a damaged building.

Story, with video included. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm)

It really could be either - but the area around the building and the truck is strewn with debris - possibly confirming Mr. Sanur's claim.

And, before anyone attempts to berate the source, or the author, he has this to say:

Several readers have e-mailed to ask whether I believe Hamas. One said I had "bought into" Hamas propaganda. Another that I should have dealt with Hamas' claims: "What's missing speaks volumes about your one-sidedness."

I do not believe anyone's "propaganda." We seek to verify all claims, from whatever source. One of the main claims in Gaza at the moment is the serious situation for the population. Having reported from Gaza many times over the years, I know how crowded parts of it are and how dependent the people are on food aid from the UN. This means they have no other source of supply but equally, if the system is working, they should be getting enough to get by on. The problem is that foreign correspondents cannot get in to establish the exact situation for themselves.

Web Rider
01-03-2009, 01:17 PM
There are claims that one Israeli video of 'Hamas Militants' loading missile onto before being destroyed is actually a video of civilians removing property from a damaged building.

Story, with video included. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm)

It really could be either - but the area around the building and the truck is strewn with debris - possibly confirming Mr. Sanur's claim.

My thoughts were pretty much as follows: the debris are too uniform. Eacy was heavy and delicate enough to require two people to move, they were all about the same length(the width of the truck bed) and appeared to be roughly the same width, and they were'd very tall, if I had to take a guess, I would say heavy timbers or some sort of cylinders. They could be pipe, but unless it's steel pipe, it shouldn't be very heavy.

If they are pipe, I would wonder why someone has such quality pipe laying around in their home and not being used as pipe. Perhaps it was a plumbing store? Didn't look like a construction supply place, and I've never been under the impression that the people in Gaza had any stores like that.

Given that the video is the colors and quality it is, my only thought at the end would be to see more videos to see if confirmed sightings of rockets look the same. But right now, they do not have the benefit of my doubt, I think they probably were missiles. But I'm not trained in figuring these things out, and I doubt anyone here really is either. So, asking us casual people to examine this footage isn't going to really solve anything.

Astor
01-03-2009, 02:00 PM
So, asking us casual people to examine this footage isn't going to really solve anything.

For the record, i'm not asking everyone to evaluate it, I saw the story and thought it had merit (more for the 'which side do we believe' part than the claim that they were civilians).

Web Rider
01-03-2009, 02:43 PM
For the record, i'm not asking everyone to evaluate it, I saw the story and thought it had merit (more for the 'which side do we believe' part than the claim that they were civilians).

I know, but we're always supposed to evaluate sources here right? There main source there is the video, we can speculate, but we're not really trained in figuring out those images.

also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/03/AR2009010301031.html?hpid=topnews

Israeli ground forces have just entered Gaza for a "lengthy operation".

jonathan7
01-03-2009, 02:46 PM
Israeli ground forces have just entered Gaza for a "lengthy operation".

I still think this;

One definition of insanity is to believe that you can keep doing what youíve been doing and get different results.

Astor
01-03-2009, 02:57 PM
The office of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has also announced that the government has ordered the urgent call-up of "tens of thousands" of extra military reservists.

Isn't that classed as 'overkill'?

Rev7
01-03-2009, 03:48 PM
There are claims that one Israeli video of 'Hamas Militants' loading missile onto before being destroyed is actually a video of civilians removing property from a damaged building.

Story, with video included. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7809371.stm)

I have to agree with Web Rider, it is way too hard to really tell what happened. It had to have been a really small bomb/missile.

According to Wikipedia the Israeli Air Force has these air to surface weapons: (These are not all...)
AGM-62 Walleye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-62_Walleye)
AGM-65 Maverick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65_Maverick)
AGM-142 Popeye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-142_Popeye) (Seems way too big)

Or the 500, 1000, and 2000 pound bombs. I personally think that it must have been a GBU-54/B LaserJDAM (MK-82), essentially a 500lb guided bomb, For something that had such a small explosion, and was a precision guided, that is the only thing that makes sense to me. You also see in the video that the pilot was possibly marking the truck with the laser (or he could have just selected a point to zoom in at :/ )

jrrtoken
01-03-2009, 04:28 PM
Hm... not very surprising. Since Gaza is a densely populated urban area, it might just cause the Israelis more casualties than Hamas. Yet, Israel is very fond of its bulldozers, so perhaps they'll go for a scorched earth strategy. Either way, they're going to be hated even more by Palestinians, which means more retribution from fanatics, which means even more violence. What a wonderful cycle, eh?

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-03-2009, 07:10 PM
Isn't that classed as 'overkill'?not when your strategy is

...To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians...

- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Yar-El
01-03-2009, 07:56 PM
Israel called up tens of thousands of reservists in the event Palestinian militants in the West Bank or Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon decide to exploit the broad offensive in Gaza to launch attacks against Israel on other fronts.

Isn't that classed as 'overkill'?
Israel means to end all wars? Nah, overkill is a little over the top. Its a small defensive move.

jonathan7
01-03-2009, 07:58 PM
Israel means to end all wars? Nah, overkill is a little over the top. Its a small defensive move.

I'll be sure to inform the families of the 400+ dead that this is only a small defensive move; it will only result in one thing, more death, destruction and hatred.

Yar-El
01-03-2009, 08:29 PM
I'll be sure to inform the families of the 400+ dead that this is only a small defensive move; it will only result in one thing, more death, destruction and hatred.
There is a cold and dark reality to the 21st century. We have no more room to grow. We have no more islands to explore; thus, the expansion of freedom is now limited to isolated pockets of Earth. Democracy can't afford to sleep when so much is to be lost. Isreal's position is the new thinking of tomorrow. I read a article recently by someone from NASA and Space.com. Its message woke me up to a deep truth about the future. Democracy is destined to fail if there is no more room for rebellion. Expansion is important for the survival of all civilization; thus, Isreal is looking to survive in a world flexing. Their inaction in a chaotic world will only cost more lives. The needs of the many must outway the needs of the few. 400+ deaths is nothing to sneeze about; however, their loss means nothing if you don't give them purpose. Take why they died away, and you are left with meaningless deaths.

Why do you think civilians die in wars? It happens all the time. Give them meaning. I do. People need to wakeup. Life is not Star Wars, and diplomacy is not always welcomed. Reality stinks. There is no starting over. There is no such thing as waving a white flag. There is no more room to expand. Isreal is right to protect itself and it's way of life.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-03-2009, 08:57 PM
There is a cold and dark reality to the 21st century. We have no more room to grow. We have no more islands to explore; thus, the expansion of freedom is now limited to isolated pockets of Earth. Democracy can't afford to sleep when so much is to be lost. Isreal's position is the new thinking of tomorrow. I read a article recently by someone from NASA and Space.com. Its message woke me up to a deep truth about the future. Democracy is destined to fail if there is no more room for rebellion. Expansion is important for the survival of all civilization; thus, Isreal is looking to survive in a world flexing. Their inaction in a chaotic world will only cost more lives. The needs of the many must outway the needs of the few. 400+ deaths is nothing to sneeze about; however, their loss means nothing if you don't give them purpose. Take why they died away, and you are left with meaningless deaths.

Why do you think civilians die in wars? It happens all the time. Give them meaning. I do. People need to wakeup. Life is not Star Wars, and diplomacy is not always welcomed. Reality stinks. There is no starting over. There is no such thing as waving a white flag. There is no more room to expand. Isreal is right to protect itself and it's way of life....


what the hell are you on about

i saw something about democracy, so in case you didn't know, palestine is a democracy. you should probably learn the facts about what you're discussing beforehand instead of trying to use some "big picture" argument to sound deep and philosophical (you didn't fyi).

True_Avery
01-03-2009, 09:09 PM
Democracy is destined to fail if there is no more room for rebellion.
Every society is destined to fail. That is the cold truth of this.

Democracy, Freedom, and America would like to think they are invincible, but they will eventually be ripped down and turned into outdated thought processes.

And the amusing thing is, the concept of Freedom will most likely willingly fall to the next generation of society. All it takes is a savvy leader to convince liberals and conservatives alike to follow them and give up securities.

Sure, smaller countries tend to take things away by force, but Hitler rose to power for the most part due to his own strength of character and his genius manipulation of the human mind, and he managed to due so on the mistakes of so called Democratically free nations.

People are more than willing to give up freedom for security. Look at post-9/11 America. So many new rules and regulation to supposedly keep us safe, the patriot act, gitmo, etc. When people are scared, angry, etc they are easily manipulated by people who intend to do so.

Without this process you would not have civilization or religion; two things that are conveniently the reason for this conflict.

Expansion is important for the survival of all civilization
Expansion tends to be the shot in the foot for most civilizations. You can only flex and grow so big before your own foundations crumble under you.

Their inaction in a chaotic world will only cost more lives.
Inaction killed a woman in her house with a rocket. Action killed 400 civilians.

Inaction killed 3,000 on 9/11. Action killed 30,000+.

Inaction killed 11 million jews, while action killed millions of people fighting against and for Hitler

Not bringing in justifications, the action doesn't always outbalance inaction. Inaction eventually leads to an action when it is seen fit, but that doesn't mean there will be any less bloodshed on the action side.

Why do you think civilians die in wars? It happens all the time. Give them meaning. I do. People need to wakeup. Life is not Star Wars, and diplomacy is not always welcomed. Reality stinks. There is no starting over. There is no such thing as waving a white flag. There is no more room to expand. Isreal is right to protect itself and it's way of life.
Thats all well and good if it wasn't for the fact that it has little to do with why these people fight.

One side thinks it is absolutely right. The other side thinks its absolutely right. When you get people who think that land belongs to them by birthright, you will get factions who compete for it.

They kill each other not for Democracy and freedom. They kill each other over a book and the concept that a plot of dirt is worth killing and dying over. Not for Democracy. Not for Freedom. Because they think that their god has given them permission to do so.

The deaths of those civilians has a meaning. Irrationality. Its not a good meaning, but it is good enough to people who strap bombs to their chest and run into populated areas. Its good enough to a church that went into South America and converted the population by killing millions. Its good enough to a group of settlers that hung witches for cursing their neighbors.

These people could care less about your so called Democracy and Freedom.

jrrtoken
01-03-2009, 09:10 PM
There is a cold and dark reality to the 21st century. We have no more room to grow. We have no more islands to explore; thus, the expansion of freedom is now limited to isolated pockets of Earth. No, it's not. Ever seen Soylent Green? That is overcrowding.Democracy can't afford to sleep when so much is to be lost. Isreal's position is the new thinking of tomorrow.Killing people for territory? That's hardly new, and like hell if that's democracy in action. That's more imperialist than anything else.I read a article recently by someone from NASA and Space.com. Its message woke me up to a deep truth about the future. Democracy is destined to fail if there is no more room for rebellion.Expansion is important for the survival of all civilization; thus, Isreal is looking to survive in a world flexing.Yeah, that sounds democratic, kicking people out for more land. Freedom in actionTheir inaction in a chaotic world will only cost more lives. The needs of the many must outway the needs of the few. 400+ deaths is nothing to sneeze about; however, their loss means nothing if you don't give them purpose. Take why they died away, and you are left with meaningless deaths.400 people lost? And they're utterly meaningless? What if you apply the same thing to the number of lives lost in 9/11? Would they be specks of dust, too?Why do you think civilians die in wars? It happens all the time. Give them meaning. I do. People need to wakeup. Life is not Star Wars, and diplomacy is not always welcomed. Reality stinks. There is no starting over. There is no such thing as waving a white flag. There is no more room to expand. Isreal is right to protect itself and it's way of life.I don't think you understand. Israel if compeltely qualified to defend itself from a few rocket attacks, I mean, they have U.S. weapons that have been tested to be usually effective. They do not need to send in a major ground force to capture a small, densely populated strip of land.

Yar-El
01-03-2009, 09:11 PM
...


what the hell are you on about

i saw something about democracy, so in case you didn't know, palestine is a democracy. you should probably learn the facts about what you're discussing beforehand instead of trying to use some "big picture" argument to sound deep and philosophical (you didn't fyi).

Democracy from whose perspective? (http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article20)

The January 2006 parliamentary elections, deemed free and fair by international monitors, led to the formation of a Hamas dominated government. As the Bush administration refused to deal with Hamas, however, it has consequently undermined the legitimacy of any call it may make for democracy.

This especially holds true for Nasir Al-Rayis, a Palestinian legal advisor to Al-Haq, a West Bank-based human rights organisation.
Wait until the next election cycles comes, and we will talk about Palastine's new version of democracy.

True_Avery
01-03-2009, 09:14 PM
Wait until the next election cycles comes, and we will talk about Palastine's new version of democracy.
So, they democratically elected themselves away from Democracy?

Isn't that democracy in action?

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-03-2009, 09:25 PM
Democracy from whose perspective? (http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article20)


Wait until the next election cycles comes, and we will talk about Palastine's new version of democracy.an objective perspective? your own source says it was deemed "free and fair", what are you trying to get at

Yar-El
01-03-2009, 11:04 PM
I have a few questions for jmac and Avery. When did philosophical discussion die? When did we abandon the questioning of facts? When did we stop asking why 1 + 1 = 2?

Some of the stuff I said can be taken harshly; thus, I edted the post and placed it into a spoiler. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to act or think. I apologize if it came off that way.
Intelligent people look at the evidence, and then present their own philosophical resolutions. Regurgitating information from a book or articles is primitive. Creating a philosophical hypothesis from established knowledge is being inquisitive and responsible.

I like you both. You bring out the best in others; however, you seem to stop looking beyond what is in black and white. Trusting any reference in print or online alone is being reckless. I don't want to hear scripted facts from intelligent people such as yourselves. Give us something from your own philosophical conclusion about world events and life.

400+ people dying due to war is horrible; however, how should we look at them? I don't see their deaths as being meaningless. We can say the same thing about Iraq. Hundreds of Iraqi's died for a purpose. What did we learn about Vietnam? Nobody dies for nothing. People were killed because someone was fighting for something.

Historical evidence shows there is a biblical reason behind these wars; however, there is also something else beneath this whole chaos. There is a psychological need not only for ownership of religous land, but for surviving in a part of the world that does not take them serious. Isreal is a democracy built in a part of the world where it has heavy opposition. Terrorism and dictatorships built homes around them. Do you wait until someone attacks you?

You can't win a war by trying to save everyone.


...

what the hell are you on about

i saw something about democracy, so in case you didn't know, palestine is a democracy. you should probably learn the facts about what you're discussing beforehand instead of trying to use some "big picture" argument to sound deep and philosophical (you didn't fyi).

an objective perspective? your own source says it was deemed "free and fair", what are you trying to get at
Go in sequential order. Take a step back and look at what you originally posted. You do this all the time. Look very closely to what I said in between. You get into arguments about your own arguments. I came back with Palestine was not a democracy. They may have tried it at one point; however, everything keeps staying in motion. Reading into the article clearly says Palestine is no longer a democracy. The election may have gone free and clear; nevertheless, does that mean Palestine is still a democracy? Nope.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-03-2009, 11:17 PM
I have a few questions for jmac and Avery. When did philosophical discussion die? When did we abandon the questioning of facts? When did we stop asking why 1 + 1 = 2?go start a philosophy thread about why you think 1+1 should equal 3 then i'm sure everyone could use a laugh after discussing little kids being bombed.

Intelligent people look at the evidence, and then present their own philosophical resolutions. Regurgitating information from a book or articles is primitive. Creating a philosophical hypothesis from established knowledge is being inquisitive and responsible.mentioning facts is isn't primitive. numbers don't lie. your interpretation of the word "debate" is questionable at best.

I like you both. You bring out the best in others; however, you seem to stop looking beyond what is in black and white. Trusting any reference in print or online alone is being reckless. I don't want to hear scripted facts from intelligent people such as yourselves. Give us something from your own philosophical conclusion about world events and life.a grayscale includes both black and white. i'm not trusting just any source. stop playing forum psychologist and philosophizing, once again, this is a thread about the israel/palestine conflict, not philosophy.

You can't win a war by trying to save everyone.whelp, guess we should just give up and let militants on both sides get people killed

Go in sequential order. Take a step back and look at what you originally posted. You do this all the time. Look very closely to what I said in between. You get into arguments about your own arguements. I came back with Palastine was not a democracy. They may have tried it at one point; however, everything keeps staying in motion.again, stop playing forum psychologist. secondly, you have no evidence to back up your assertion that hamas will end democracy in palestine whereas i have evidence that palestine is a democracy (they had an election).

True_Avery
01-04-2009, 04:09 AM
I have a few questions for jmac and Avery. When did philosophical discussion die? When did we abandon the questioning of facts? When did we stop asking why 1 + 1 = 2?
Why?

Because 1+1= ****ing 2. Thats why.

You want to make a thread discussing otherwise? Then go make one as we laugh at the comparison you are trying to make.

As for me, I have better things to do than argue irrelevant drivel.

Intelligent people look at the evidence, and then present their own philosophical resolutions. Regurgitating information from a book or articles is primitive. Creating a philosophical hypothesis from established knowledge is being inquisitive and responsible.
No, it makes you look like a tool. It makes your opinion subjective, and most likely incorrect.

You can argue that 1+1=3. The thing is, you would be wrong no matter how much you believed in it.

Thus, the difference between fact and opinion.

Hell, you could argue that your lungs work off of water. You could "read between the lines" and question why we breath air.

Know what would happen when you try to prove that?

You die.

End of discussion.

I like you both. You bring out the best in others; however, you seem to stop looking beyond what is in black and white. Trusting any reference in print or online alone is being reckless. I don't want to hear scripted facts from intelligent people such as yourselves. Give us something from your own philosophical conclusion about world events and life.
Facts -are- black and white!

I'm sorry, but 1+1=2. You breath oxygen, not cardboard. That is hair on your head, not a raccoon.

Don't accuse me of being black and white when you are the one pulling a horrid argument out of your head to make up for the fact you don't want to debate the point of this thread.

Sources, on the other hand, are shades of Grey. But, again...

What does this have to do with anything? Stop being the forum psychologist.

Go in sequential order. Take a step back and look at what you originally posted. You do this all the time. Look very closely to what I said in between. You get into arguments about your own arguments. I came back with Palestine was not a democracy. They may have tried it at one point; however, everything keeps staying in motion. Reading into the article clearly says Palestine is no longer a democracy. The election may have gone free and clear; nevertheless, does that mean Palestine is still a democracy? Nope.
Ok, just stop there.

No, really. Just stop.

You just called me and Jmac unintelligent for trusting facts, while you are calling yourself a philosopher by repeating something you read in an article.

Your article called it "free and fair". What is there to argue? They democratically decided by a majority that they didn't want to be who they were anymore. Just because they don't want to conform to your world view doesn't make them wrong. Don't be so arrogant.

This conflict is not about democracy. It is about a religious war that these people fight because they think the land is holy with irrational reasoning, and thus they kill each other over it. They think the other side is evil, and they believe themselves to be right with god on their shoulder.

They fight like this with or without democracy. The only thing they should be afraid of outside of their country is America coming in, assassinating their leader, and putting a proxy leader in place.

Astor
01-04-2009, 05:00 AM
Israel means to end all wars? Nah, overkill is a little over the top. Its a small defensive move.

And what, exactly, is the only recourse many Palestinians have when Israel controls all access to Palestinian land from Land, Sea and Air, as well as control of food supplies? They respond in the only way that will make the world take notice - they fight.

It doesn't make it right, But if Israel had tried to be understanding from the beginning (And I mean 1947, when they decided they didn't need the UN and that they could take on the world themselves), then it's possible none of this would have happened.

EDIT: Also, why has no-one heard from the Middle East Envoy for the UN, EU, US and Russia? Surely this is exactly the type of situation where Tony Blair should, no, must speak out?

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-04-2009, 11:35 AM
welp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDjthFt6EZg)

Yar-El
01-04-2009, 12:12 PM
Article - Israeli forces bisect Gaza, surround biggest city (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637/)

You don't want to read through the lines? Here you go -
The ground operation is the second phase in an offensive that began as a weeklong aerial onslaught aimed at halting Hamas rocket fire that has reached deeper and deeper into Israel, threatening major cities and one-eighth of Israel's population.

Hamas emerged as Gaza's main power broker when it won Palestinian parliamentary elections three years ago. It has ruled the impoverished territory since seizing control from forces loyal to Abbas in June 2007.
There are always two sides to the story.

Article - The history behind Israel's Gaza strikes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28421427/)

What's Hamas?
The organization was created in 1987 at the start of the first intifada — a Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas maintains that it will never agree to a permanent cease-fire while Israel occupies Palestinian land. Its stated aim is the destruction of Israel.

The United States, EU and Israel consider Hamas a terrorist organization. It has links to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and members carry out suicide bombings and periodically hit the south of Israel with rockets to protest settlement building and to avenge the killings of its Hamas leaders. The organization also operates schools and clinics and has gained the trust of many who were disappointed by the corrupt secular Palestinian Authority.

Parliamentary elections swept the Hamas government of Ismail Haniyah into power in January 2006, and Fatah and Hamas created a unity government, but pitched battles between Fatah and Hamas supporters led to the dissolution of the coalition in 2007. Tensions between the two groups erupted into a virtual civil war, but despite this Hamas has been launching rockets into Israel and mortar attacks on Israeli army border posts.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-04-2009, 12:34 PM
Article - Israeli forces bisect Gaza, surround biggest city (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637/)




There are always two sides to the story.

Article - The history behind Israel's Gaza strikes (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28421427/)abbas lost the election and tried to maintain power because he had the support of the u.s. and israel, the fact remains that he lost and hamas was forced to remove him from power. also msnbc fails to mention that most of hamas' operations and 90% of its budget are put towards humanitarian usage, many israelis don't recognize palestine and want it wiped off the map, and that bombing people from an f-16 is no more moral than a suicide bomber killing people. maybe before you give your two sides to a story thing you should find sources that give an accurate picture of both sides.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1

you're also neglecting the fact that hamas' rocket attacks were in retaliation to israel killing palestinians last month, as i've stated multiple times.

Astor
01-04-2009, 12:36 PM
You don't want to read through the lines? Here you go -

I find that attitude (that we're not going to read the source) insulting, and hardly conducive to discussion.

There are always two sides to the story.

Which no-one has denied - Hamas and Israel are just as bad as each other - but that's no reason for Israel to treat other Palestinians in such a manner.

Yar-El
01-04-2009, 12:54 PM
My comments are focused towards jmac and Avery's posts. Everyone else just ignore my comments. I mean not to offend.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-04-2009, 01:05 PM
My comments are focused towards jmac and Avery's posts. Everyone else just ignore my comments. I mean not to offend.what? no. you posted that mess, now defend it.

Please refer to members by their name and don't accuse them of being banned members -- j7

Adavardes
01-04-2009, 02:50 PM
No, it makes you look like a tool. It makes your opinion subjective, and most likely incorrect.

You can argue that 1+1=3. The thing is, you would be wrong no matter how much you believed in it.

Thus, the difference between fact and opinion.

Hell, you could argue that your lungs work off of water. You could "read between the lines" and question why we breath air.

Know what would happen when you try to prove that?

You die.

End of discussion.

There are things I agree and disagree with on this point. First, it's important to realise what Philosophy and debate really is. Philosophy is essentially the art of writing an opinion with such an eloquence and in such a fully-encompassing way as to transfer the entire mental and emotional connotations of the opinion to another individual, so that the opinion of one individual becomes the shared opinion of more than one individual. Sometimes, however, shared opinions clash, and the perspectives of individuals differ. Thus disagreement is born, and in order to better understand and grow into a more comprehensive understanding of other perspectives and opinions, we debate, and contest our ideologies against those that oppose us.

Absolute facts do not exist, simply because the matter of individual perspective is always a factor. Opinion is always subjective, even when at its most objective form, and no single opinion is more valid than others. It's difficult to break the world down into black and white, when all manners of science and math are human concepts, and are thusly subjective and flawed at the core of what they are. 1+1=2, yes, but who's to say the Arabians had that whole math thing absolutely right? Sure, it's close to being an absolute, but still, it's no cigar. There are varying shades of philosophical involvement in debate, and varying levels of opinion involved. When talking about religion, for example. But all debate, which is what this is, has a basis in opinion, subjectivity, and philosophy, however small that basis is.

Yar-El, however, was rambling on about what I can only guess was some sort of Manifest Destiny rhetoric that made no sense in context with what this particular debate is about. Are the current actions of Israel and/or Palestine, which are considered factual occurances, justified? It's obviously reason for disagreement of opinion, and so we argue. Consequentialists against Humanists, Conservatives against Liberals, whatever you want to call it, this is a matter of philosophy. However, don't mistake what Yar-El was doing as some sort of philosophical discussion, but more like inane rambling. There's a definite difference.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-04-2009, 02:56 PM
There are things I agree and disagree with on this point. First, it's important to realise what Philosophy and debate really is. Philosophy is essentially the art of writing an opinion with such an eloquence and in such a fully-encompassing way as to transfer the entire mental and emotional connotations of the opinion to another individual, so that the opinion of one individual becomes the shared opinion of more than one individual. Sometimes, however, shared opinions clash, and the perspectives of individuals differ. Thus disagreement is born, and in order to better understand and grow into a more comprehensive understanding of other perspectives and opinions, we debate, and contest our ideologies against those that oppose us.

Absolute facts do not exist, simply because the matter of individual perspective is always a factor. Opinion is always subjective, even when at its most objective form, and no single opinion is more valid than others. It's difficult to break the world down into black and white, when all manners of science and math are human concepts, and are thusly subjective and flawed at the core of what they are. 1+1=2, yes, but who's to say the Arabians had that whole math thing absolutely right? Sure, it's close to being an absolute, but still, it's no cigar. There are varying shades of philosophical involvement in debate, and varying levels of opinion involved. When talking about religion, for example. But all debate, which is what this is, has a basis in opinion, subjectivity, and philosophy, however small that basis is.

Yar-El, however, was rambling on about what I can only guess was some sort of Manifest Destiny rhetoric that made no sense in context of what this particular debate is about. Are the current actions of Israel and/or Palestine justified? It's obviously reason for disagreement of opinion, and so we argue. Consequentialists against Humanists, Conservatives against Liberals, whatever you want to call it, this is a matter of philosophy. However, don't mistake what Yar-El was doing as some sort of philosophical discussion, but more like inane rambling. There's a definite difference.1+1=2 is not close to being an absolute, it is absolute, adding one object to another object of the same type makes two objects, adding 0.999 objects to 0.999 objects yields 1.998 objects. math like this is an example of absolute fact. when used to symbolize something it can be inaccurate, however this is an issue of its usage and not the concepts themselves.

Adavardes
01-04-2009, 03:06 PM
1+1=2 is not close to being an absolute, it is absolute, adding one object to another object of the same type makes two objects, adding 0.999 objects to 0.999 objects yields 1.998 objects. math like this is an example of absolute fact. when used to symbolize something it can be inaccurate, however this is an issue of its usage and not the concepts themselves.

Mmmk, and what are those symbols, my friend? What do they mean? They are the means by which we quantify things, but who's to say that there are two of something, or that there is only one? The concepts are human, made by multiple perspectives, but still, do not encompass a fully objective, absolute perspective in its construction. Therefore, it can never be an absolute fact. To claim otherwise is rather foolish. When you can bring me proof that math is an absolute fact without the slightest hint of opinion, which you yourself cannot do, as you are subjective and have an opinionated perspective, then we'll talk.

But we're getting off-topic. I was merely trying to say that naming what Yar-El was doing philosophical and claiming that it has no place in debate isn't really correct. What he was doing has no place in this particular debate, yes, but philosophy is present in all debate. The clashing of philosophies is the very definition of what debating is.

jonathan7
01-04-2009, 03:10 PM
Call members by their names, any further instances of anyone calling a member the name of a former member will result in a 'Kavars Cool-off' being issued -- j7

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-04-2009, 03:52 PM
Mmmk, and what are those symbols, my friend? What do they mean? They are the means by which we quantify things, but who's to say that there are two of something, or that there is only one? The concepts are human, made by multiple perspectives, but still, do not encompass a fully objective, absolute perspective in its construction. Therefore, it can never be an absolute fact. To claim otherwise is rather foolish. When you can bring me proof that math is an absolute fact without the slightest hint of opinion, which you yourself cannot do, as you are subjective and have an opinionated perspective, then we'll talk.

But we're getting off-topic. I was merely trying to say that naming what Yar-El was doing philosophical and claiming that it has no place in debate isn't really correct. What he was doing has no place in this particular debate, yes, but philosophy is present in all debate. The clashing of philosophies is the very definition of what debating is.lol ok man, attack human perception as a way to make this foolishness sound deep and ethereal. the fact remains that i can prove 1+1=2, and our eyes can perceive light, and you can offer no evidence to the contrary.

Adavardes
01-04-2009, 03:58 PM
lol ok man, attack human perception as a way to make this foolishness sound deep and ethereal. the fact remains that i can prove 1+1=2, and our eyes can perceive light, and you can offer no evidence to the contrary.

How do you know my eyes can perceive light the same way yours do? What if to me, green is red? What if to me, 1 is 2? Are you me; can you say that my perspective, which is unique from your own, is exactly like yours? No, you can't, because, again, you are one inidividual with your own perspective. And that's the wonderful thing about humanity. Each of us are unique.

Oh, and please don't mock me, it's kind of bothersome. Just use the correct words for the correct situations, and we'll be good. What Yar-El was saying had nothing to do with actually being philosophical. Maybe trying, but no, that wasn't really what that was. I'm not trying to sound deep and ethereal, maybe it seems that way to you, but I'm just clearing up a mistake you made in your wording.

Yar-El
01-04-2009, 04:26 PM
My plan was to make a statement about not taking things at face value. Facts presented in articles and newspapers shouldn't be taken as absolute. I translate articles by seeing through what is presented. I brought up math as a poor example. 1 + 1 = 2 only through mathamatical sciences; however, there is no explination as to why it does. It just does. Math is not a truth, but a trusted system of measurement. It was a horrible and convoluted example. I failed. I was trying to get you to open your eyes to wagging the dog; however, it resulted in a ramble of a sorts. I apologize for the lack of simplicity.

EnderWiggin
01-04-2009, 07:59 PM
Why?

Because 1+1= ****ing 2. Thats why.


Well put.

I'm sorry, but 1+1=2. You breath oxygen, not cardboard. That is hair on your head, not a raccoon.

Except in my dreams, Yar, where there actually is a raccoon on your head.

Your article called it "free and fair". What is there to argue? They democratically decided by a majority that they didn't want to be who they were anymore. Just because they don't want to conform to your world view doesn't make them wrong. Don't be so arrogant.


Damn straight.

abbas lost the election and tried to maintain power because he had the support of the u.s. and israel, the fact remains that he lost and hamas was forced to remove him from power. also msnbc fails to mention that most of hamas' operations and 90% of its budget are put towards humanitarian usage, many israelis don't recognize palestine and want it wiped off the map, and that bombing people from an f-16 is no more moral than a suicide bomber killing people. maybe before you give your two sides to a story thing you should find sources that give an accurate picture of both sides.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1

you're also neglecting the fact that hamas' rocket attacks were in retaliation to israel killing palestinians last month, as i've stated multiple times.

I agree - especially with the last sentiment. Hamas isn't really the aggressor this time around. America needs to stop playing policeman in the world.


Absolute facts do not exist
Sorry, but no.

Achilles, if you'd please?

_EW_

Adavardes
01-04-2009, 08:23 PM
Sorry, but no.

Achilles, if you'd please?

_EW_

Facts are concepts, which are inevitably created by men, and thusly are inevitably flawed. This isn't to say that they can't be true for every perspective in existence: they can, but that doesn't mean they're absolutely true. There is mitigating proof to back up most facts, and evidence that consequentially makes it less subjective and flawed than others, but it still remains that human concepts are flawed concepts, because humanity is subjective, emotional, and individualistic.

I'd prefer if everyone would get back to the topic at hand, which is Israel and Palestine. If you'd like to start a thread on human perceptions, where we can discuss this further, be my guest. I've said all I feel needs to be said.

Achilles
01-06-2009, 02:58 PM
Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians)

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-06-2009, 03:05 PM
Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians)at least it wasn't white phosphorous?

Astor
01-06-2009, 03:07 PM
Israel shells near UN school, killing at least 30 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians)

Hamas' tactics are detestable in this regard, but even so, Israel isn't going to win itself any friends by demolishing every building - especially UN buildings it sees.

And they're definately not going to gain any allies by shelling refugee camps. That's only going to push more Palestinians into Hamas' arms.

Although, when the IDF decides it can expand international conventions on who is and isn't a target, it's hardly surprising.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-06-2009, 04:08 PM
Hamas' tactics are detestable in this regardthat's if they actually did what the idf claims.

Astor
01-06-2009, 05:10 PM
that's if they actually did what the idf claims.

Very true, jaymack. The IDF are hardly a Paragon of honesty - and seeing as they won't let foreign reporters into Gaza, it's their word against Hamas - which muddies the waters as at this point they'll fling any accusations at each other to gain an advantage.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-07-2009, 08:46 PM
thank you catholic church, you are, for once, a voice of reason (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7817019.stm)

Achilles
01-07-2009, 08:52 PM
"Look at the conditions in Gaza: more and more, it resembles a big concentration camp."

What an unfortunate choice of words.

Q
01-07-2009, 10:08 PM
Especially coming from the "Panzer Pope". :p

Jae Onasi
01-07-2009, 10:09 PM
at least it wasn't white phosphorous?Or Sarin, or mustard gas, or a biological containing Ebola, or assorted other equally nasty things....

What an unfortunate choice of words. I suspect it wasn't accidental, however.

Schedule 3 hour daily truce falls apart (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/07/israel.gaza/index.html) after 15 minutes. At least they're talking about cease fires and short truces. It's not enough to be sure, but it's a start.

Achilles
01-07-2009, 10:10 PM
Especially coming from the "Panzer Pope". :pYou read my mind.

Added by edit:
The plot thickens.

Iraq's Sadr urges reprisals against US over Gaza war (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/01/iraqs_sadr_urges_reprisals_against_us_over_gaza_wa .php)

I wondered how long it would take for someone to say it.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-07-2009, 10:52 PM
Or Sarin, or mustard gas, or a biological containing Ebola, or assorted other equally nasty things...yep. i mentioned white phosphorous since the idf has both admitted to using it and been photographed using it quite a bit lately though.

also, why was "concentration camp" an unfortunate choice of words?

Achilles
01-07-2009, 10:57 PM
See post #131.

Whether there is anything there or not, I imagine that the Israelis might be sensitive to the comparison.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-07-2009, 11:13 PM
the pope didn't say the concentration camp line

and (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/08/aid-ceasefire-gaza-israel-palestinians) i'd (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama) hate (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/20091812722995597.html) to (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200917151851205482.html) offend (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/03/08/israel-cease-attacking-medical-personnel) israel's (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2009/01/07/click-the-star-to-watch-this-topic-israel-continues-to-target-palestinian-medics-in-gaza/) delicate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4162193/Gaza-medics-describe-horror-of-strike-which-killed-70.html) sensibilities (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/israel)

Achilles
01-07-2009, 11:18 PM
the pope didn't say the concentration camp lineNope, sure didn't, but his administration did.

and (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/08/aid-ceasefire-gaza-israel-palestinians) i'd (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama) hate (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/20091812722995597.html) to (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200917151851205482.html) offend (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/03/08/israel-cease-attacking-medical-personnel) israel's (http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2009/01/07/click-the-star-to-watch-this-topic-israel-continues-to-target-palestinian-medics-in-gaza/) delicate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4162193/Gaza-medics-describe-horror-of-strike-which-killed-70.html) sensibilities (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/israel)You're preaching to the choir. I was merely pointing out the obvious for those that may have missed it.

mimartin
01-07-2009, 11:25 PM
I was merely pointing out the obvious for those that may have missed it.
Which I had.

I was going to be outraged after listening to my stepfatherís war stories about the use White Phosphorus during the Korean War. Then I went to read more about White Phosphorus and saw America used it during our current engagement. :(

Astor
01-08-2009, 02:06 AM
Looks like Israel may be facing a war on two fronts... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7817135.stm)

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-12-2009, 11:21 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm

**** you idf.

jrrtoken
01-12-2009, 04:03 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm

**** you idf.Proves once again that the IDF is as bad, or even worse then Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Go, America Jr., Go!

Jeff
01-12-2009, 05:03 PM
The video the Israeli Army didn't want you to see (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJaPZLNLBu8)

Quite horrible but I'm glad that the Israel news station decided to break their agreement and show the video because people should see what is going on over there.

Achilles
01-12-2009, 05:19 PM
It's comforting to see evidence that not all Israelis agree with the actions of their government.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-12-2009, 11:00 PM
It's comforting to see evidence that not all Israelis agree with the actions of their government.way to go achilles, israel found out about that because of your post and banned most of the israelis who would be against the actions of the current government there from taking part in their government >:|

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.html

Achilles
01-12-2009, 11:03 PM
way to go achilles, israel found out about that because of your post and banned most of the israelis who would be against the actions of the current government there from taking part in their government >:|

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054867.htmlwhoopsie

Astor
01-13-2009, 02:19 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm

**** you idf.

Somebody should tell Israel the meaning of 'Irony'.

Has anybody seen those videos of the Israeli army diverting missiles then they get too close to civilians? I can't find the links for them - but in one of them, the camera is following a single 'militant'.

A single, solitary person. And when he gets close to a group of civilians, they divert the missle they fired at him. THE MISSILE THEY FIRED. Why on earth do they need to fire a missile at a single person?

I know that 'overkill' is pratically operational procedure for the IDF, but surely even they realise that that approach is what might be causing the civilian casualties?

But then again, given that only four years ago, they considered using Palestinians as human shields acceptable, it's not surprising they care little for civilian casualties.

CommanderQ
01-13-2009, 12:11 PM
It is a sad thing indeed that so many civilian casualties have taken place, in some cases with this war, it is unavoidable though. If Israel is using missiles for individual soldiers, then that is definately a tactic in need of changing. I would still think the Israel has every right to fight the Hamas, but it would be wiser to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage, though the Hamas are not fighting that way. I still think Israel had right to assault, it's for their own people. It would be like if Mexico started hitting San Diego with missiles, or if France would start attacking England with missiles. If that happened, then you know very well what a country would do to protect its people, and many times with the cost of civilian casualties. That is war, it is extremely unfortunate and saddening that Palestinian civilians are being killed, but the Hamas isn't leaving much choice for the Israelis, though there can still be many changes to Israeli tactics.

Achilles
01-13-2009, 12:18 PM
It would be like if Mexico started hitting San Diego with missiles, or if France would start attacking England with missiles....after years of Californians preventing Mexico from having access to food and medicine or after England built a wall around France and decided that it would be up to them if/when French people got to come and go.

Neither side has hands that are free of blood and trying to paint the Israelis as simply responding to Palestinian aggression misses the point.

CommanderQ
01-13-2009, 12:26 PM
...after years of Californians preventing Mexico from having access to food and medicine or after England built a wall around France and decided that it would be up to them if/when French people got to come and go.

Neither side has hands that are free of blood and trying to paint the Israelis as simply responding to Palestinian aggression misses the point.

Well, the France/England, San Diego/Mexico thing was just an example.

But that is what it is. Israel is responding in force. They have been trying diplomatic solutions for the last year or so. Now they're pulling the plug and taking out all-stops. They stated pretty well that they wanted to dismantle the Hamas and prevent any further attacks before heading back to Israel.

I cannot think of any other motive that they would attack Gaza, it surely cannot be just for pure greed, that's not an Israeli thing to do. They are handling the problem in their way.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-13-2009, 04:26 PM
Well, the France/England, San Diego/Mexico thing was just an example.

But that is what it is. Israel is responding in force. They have been trying diplomatic solutions for the last year or so. Now they're pulling the plug and taking out all-stops. They stated pretty well that they wanted to dismantle the Hamas and prevent any further attacks before heading back to Israel.

I cannot think of any other motive that they would attack Gaza, it surely cannot be just for pure greed, that's not an Israeli thing to do. They are handling the problem in their way.you didn't read the thread at all did you? israel broke the ceasefire and their government is just as genocidal as hamas.

Astor
01-13-2009, 04:50 PM
But that is what it is. Israel is responding in force. They have been trying diplomatic solutions for the last year or so. Now they're pulling the plug and taking out all-stops.

Hamas/Palestine might be more inclined to listen to diplomacy if Israel gave them back their border, their airspace and their access to the sea. Oh, and actually allowed food and medicines into the region.

I cannot think of any other motive that they would attack Gaza, it surely cannot be just for pure greed, that's not an Israeli thing to do. They are handling the problem in their way.

Israel is greedy - they broke out on their own in '48 because they didn't want to share the land with anyone else.

And anytime anyone does anything to help anyone else in the region, Israel goes on full alert and screams 'Anti-semitism!'.

Achilles
01-13-2009, 06:59 PM
Hamas/Palestine might be more inclined to listen to diplomacy if Israel gave them back their border, their airspace and their access to the sea. Oh, and actually allowed food and medicines into the region.QFT.

Israel is greedy - they broke out on their own in '48 because they didn't want to share the land with anyone else.Meh. I have to reconcile this with the fact that they gave back much of the territory they captured during the Six Days' War.

Not saying you're wrong, only that it's difficult for me to take things at face value.

And anytime anyone does anything to help anyone else in the region, Israel goes on full alert and screams 'Anti-semitism!'.Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world.

Astor
01-13-2009, 07:24 PM
Meh. I have to reconcile this with the fact that they gave back much of the territory they captured during the Six Days' War.

Not saying you're wrong, only that it's difficult for me to take things at face value.

I agree, but I like to think that if everyone had gone along with it in the first place the past 60 years in the region might have been a little quieter (ok, so not that much, but it might have been better).

Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world.

I know, it's a mystery... :)

Q
01-14-2009, 12:11 AM
Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world.
Yeah, I agree that our continued support of Israel has proven to be more trouble than it's worth. They've shown themselves to be no better than Hamas. We should have pulled our support before 9/11, though. To do so now would seem like we're giving in to terrorists.

Jae Onasi
01-14-2009, 01:48 AM
Funny how we talk about two-state solutions, fly their leaders here to broker peace, etc yet we only send money and weapons to Israel. Can't imagine that has anything to do with how Americans are viewed in the Arab world.
It'd be kind of nice if we didn't send guns to either of them (and if other countries wouldn't send guns, either), and only gave humanitarian aid as needed. However, handing guns to both sides is like handing arsenals to the Crips and Bloods and letting all hell break loose on the streets when they decided to shoot the snot out of each other. Come to think of it, it rather is like one huge gang war, except it's over more land and with much bigger guns and assorted other 'toys'.

JediMaster12
01-14-2009, 02:46 AM
I am not as well versed in the history of Palestine and Israel as anyone else but I have come to learn something about international and war crimes, etc.

As far as I am concerned, Gaza and West Bank belong to Palestine which I believe is less than the original agreement in the Oslo accords. I may be wrong so don't bang the hammer on my head. Anyway, the way I see it, since Gaza and West Bank belong to Palestine, Israel has no right to set up their settlements within those areas. Though they call it a different name it is clearly settlement colonialism. Wouldn't that tick Palestinians off?

Or better yet when Israelis bouldoze tenement houses belonging to Palestinians to build these settlements. Wouldn't that tick them off too? Oh and what about the fact that the Israeli gives Palestinians hell when they try to cross the checkpoints into Jerusalem, etc? Oh and what about them denying a woman with cerebal palsy to get a tampon from her purse as she was waiting to board her flight home?

I would think that would tick people off. I've seen it before. They grow tired and they become angry and they think that the best way is to lash out with violence since clearly international law isn't going to help them.

Of course the US turns a blind eye since we pretty much have a vested interest in Israel and for pete's sake we train their military. This sudden disapproval of Israel bombing UN buildings is met with a skeptic eye to me. After all we clearly didn't have any regard for the UN regarding the invasion of Iraq and heck we were bound to obey all articles of the UN charter since Article 6 of our Constitution clearly states that any treaties we sign becomes part of the supreme law of the land.

Of course I am still collecting more information but I very little sympathy for Israel when they complain about the militants bombing them. Hmm, perhaps their leaders should think about what they are doing eh?

Achilles
01-14-2009, 08:36 AM
^^^^

Great post.

Yar-El
01-14-2009, 10:07 AM
Article - Bin Laden tape urges war on Israel, taunts Bush (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28652698/)

Remember when I said there are no white flags in this war?

Al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden urged Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel and condemned Arab governments as allies of the Jewish state in a new message aimed at harnessing anger in the Mideast over the Gaza offensive.

Bin Laden spoke in an audiotape posted Wednesday on Islamic militant Web sites where al-Qaida usually issues its messages. It was his first tape since May and came nearly three weeks after Israel started its campaign against Gaza's militant Hamas rulers.

The al-Qaida leader also vowed that the terror network would open "new fronts" against the United States and its allies beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cites world economic problems
The al-Qaida leader also said the world economic crisis was a sign that the United States' power was falling apart, boasting that "the Islamic nation's jihad is one of the main causes of these destructive results for our enemies."

Pointing to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, bin Laden said al-Qaida was prepared to fight "for seven more years, and seven more after that, then seven more."

"We are on the way to opening new fronts," he said, urging Muslims to "join hands with the mujahedeen to continue the jihad against the enemy, to continue bleeding them on these two fronts and on the others that are open to you."

"The question is, can America continue the war against us for several more decades? The reports and signs show us otherwise," he said. He said Bush had left his successor "with a heavy inheritance," forcing Obama to choose between withdrawing from the wars or continuing.

"If he withdraws from the war, it is a military defeat. If he continues, he drowns in economic crisis," bin Laden said.

It was the first time bin Laden have spoken of Obama, though he did not mention him by name. Bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri has previously spoken against Obama, warning Muslims he will not bring major change in U.S. policies.
Was Bush and Israel right?

JediMaster12
01-14-2009, 12:32 PM
Thanks Achilles.

As to Yar-el's post regarding Osama, I believe he is correct in stating that we are placed in a catch-22 situation. If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat but if we don't, we suffer economically even though history has shown that wars have been a capitalizing agent at least for industrial peoples.

Our involvement in the Middle East has been perpetuated by our economic pursuits which we have acquired in Iraq through economic colonization. In essence, the very thing that made us a great super power has brought us down. You would think that for a nation that proclaims a staunch support of democracy, foreign policy would be dictated by that support. Instead we have supported totalitarian and terrorist regimes. Yes we supported Osama bin Laden and we put Saddam in power.

As to Bush and Israel being right, well, Israel is in the wrong now and has been the last decade or so for the points I mentioned in a previous post. As for Bush, he was dead on wrong considering that he went for a Gulf of Tonkin and decided to invade Iraq.

Achilles
01-14-2009, 12:58 PM
Thanks Achilles.You're welcome.

If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat If you make a decision, and then later realize that it was a bad one, is it admitting defeat?

When we entered Iraq, we did so under the pretenses of toppling a dictator who had WMDs poised to use against the U.S.

We invaded the country. We toppled the dictator. We discovered no WMDs.

Why is it "defeat" if we leave? I'm not trying to be snide. I genuinely don't understand the argument.

but if we don't, we suffer economically even though history has shown that wars have been a capitalizing agent at least for industrial peoples.Agreed.

Our involvement in the Middle East has been perpetuated by our economic pursuits which we have acquired in Iraq through economic colonization. In essence, the very thing that made us a great super power has brought us down. You would think that for a nation that proclaims a staunch support of democracy, foreign policy would be dictated by that support. Instead we have supported totalitarian and terrorist regimes. Yes we supported Osama bin Laden and we put Saddam in power.And that's just two in the Middle East that spring to mind. If we meandered over to Africa or South America, we'd find lots more.

As to Bush and Israel being right, well, Israel is in the wrong now and has been the last decade or so for the points I mentioned in a previous post. As for Bush, he was dead on wrong considering that he went for a Gulf of Tonkin and decided to invade Iraq.Kudos for the "Presidents from Texas" tie-in :D

True_Avery
01-14-2009, 01:09 PM
If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat
I too am confused by this statement.

A good reason why the world has a distaste for us is that we are terrible at admitting defeat, or admitting we could have been wrong on something. We must be right no matter what, regardless of the many consequences that can follow.

That is fine if you don't care what the other 6.5 billion people on the planet think of you, but not so great when you are trying to look good in the World.

And don't give me semantics. Bush himself at his latest press conferences has admitted that the search for WMD's was a disappointment, or just a downright failure of the administration. The only weapons we found were weapons we personally gave to them in the Cold War, and weapons the Russan's had handed out.

This entire conflict was a making of our own. Why not admit that we royally screwed up? Humility and self-reflection is something we Americans really need to learn before we lose the world standing to a humanitarian disaster like China.

Not directed at you, just trying to fill all my bases.

Q
01-14-2009, 07:09 PM
If we withdraw from Iraq, etc, then we admit to military defeat
With all due respect, I really don't think that this is an important factor any more. It wouldn't be the first time that thousands of our servicemen have been sacrificed on the altar of executive and legislative stupidity. The fact that there is not and never was a clearly-defined military objective in Iraq set us up for defeat from the outset. One would think that the Vietnam War would have taught this lesson already, but I guess not. Of course, given that we have accomplished next to nothing, the best course of action would have been to not invade in the first place, or to go in, topple Saddam and then leave.

We couldn't extract anything resembling a victory from Iraq if we stayed there for the next 20 years. All that remaining there is going to accomplish is more deaths; both theirs and ours. It's pointless to continue and it's long since time to pull out.

Achilles
01-14-2009, 09:57 PM
One would think that the Vietnam War would have taught this lesson already, but I guess not.I could understand this reasoning if anyone who was responsible for this war had been involved with that one.

Unfortunately, they all dodged in one fashion or another minus the one guy they refused to listen to.

Q
01-14-2009, 10:21 PM
I could understand this reasoning if anyone who was responsible for this war had been involved with that one.
Can one not learn from another's mistakes as well as their own? Or am I misunderstanding you here?
Unfortunately, they all dodged in one fashion or another minus the one guy they refused to listen to.
You wouldn't mind elaborating on this, would you?

Achilles
01-14-2009, 11:16 PM
Can one not learn from another's mistakes as well as their own?If one were sufficiently intelligent, yes. The fact that the decision makers didn't take heed (per your earlier post) would indicate to some that said decision makers were not sufficiently intelligent. That's my take on it anyway.

My comment was the long way 'round of accusing Bush and his cronies of being a bunch of chickenhawks.

You wouldn't mind elaborating on this, would you?None of the decision makers behind the invasion of Iraq (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz) served in Vietnam. Bush was in the Air National Guard, Cheney had 5 or 6 draft deferments, and Rumsfeld was a flight instructor for the Navy for a few years way back in the 1950's.

On the other hand, Colin Powell served two tours in Vietnam and is widely believed to have been pushed out of Bush's Cabinet due to his dissent re: the Iraq plan (take that for what you will).

So the one guy that actually had some chance of knowing what he was talking about was the one guy that they didn't listen to.

Q
01-14-2009, 11:48 PM
OK, now I remember all of this. Thanks. And I think that your points are valid.

Personally, I've always thought that it was Powell who should have been SecDef, even before Rumsfeld turned out to be such a disaster. It is his area of expertise, after all.

Achilles
01-14-2009, 11:55 PM
OK, now I remember all of this. Thanks. And I think that your points are valid.My pleasure.

Personally, I've always thought that it was Powell who should have been SecDef, even before Rumsfeld turned out to be such a disaster. It is his area of expertise, after all.Powell wasn't part of the club

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6289/theclubjg6.jpg
Source (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)

Astor
01-15-2009, 08:43 AM
Israel shells UN Headquarters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7829912.stm)

What the hell do they expect to come of such an action? For once, I find myself agreeing with Gordon Brown - it's Indefensible. If they keep acting like that, I can see someone else is going to get involved - either for better or worse.

Salzella
01-15-2009, 11:36 AM
I'm surprised nothing has been done already by the 'more powerful' nations, aside from the bleating from the politicians. It seems like countries are so scared of making a wrong step that they don't make any steps at all. Dealing with it by... not dealing with it. Kind of exposes the lack of power the more developed nations have really, similarly to Russia's provocations during the conflicts in Georgia. Not that it's an easy conflict to take sides in - Hamas aren't much better in their attitude than the Israelis. Still.

Adavardes
01-15-2009, 01:46 PM
Not that it's an easy conflict to take sides in - Hamas aren't much better in their attitude than the Israelis. Still.

Who said anything about taking sides? Both of them need to be slapped down, hard, by a few of the G8 nations, and told to stop fighting needlessly over a stupid city. Supporting either side is utter nonsense: the truth is, support from every other nation, especially the US, needs to be withdrawn, tactical military measures to stop the fighting at both sources needs to take place, and this needs to return to a diplomatic solution, preferably with both Israel and Hamas getting a proverbial slap upside the head for behaving like toddlers with guns, and killing random civilians to achieve miltary goals.

No side is justified in this, and no side deserves biased support.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-15-2009, 04:56 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm

jrrtoken
01-15-2009, 06:28 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stmBoy, the IDF sure sounds splendid, eh?

Isn't there some European power that has the gall to boycott Israeli goods or some other form of punishment? Right now, I can see why Ahmadinejad is so pissy towards Israel.

Astor
01-17-2009, 04:21 PM
Israel Declares Ceasefire. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835794.stm)

Something tells me it ain't gonna last.

jrrtoken
01-17-2009, 04:35 PM
Israel Declares Ceasefire. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835794.stm)

Something tells me it ain't gonna last.I'll give them a month. Their ceasefires never truly last, IMO.

EnderWiggin
01-17-2009, 04:42 PM
I'll give them a month. Their ceasefires never truly last, IMO.

No way it lasts even that long. Hamas will fire more rockets next week or so and then Israel will retaliate.

_EW_

Astor
01-17-2009, 04:53 PM
I'd even wager a few hours before it's in tatters.

Vaelastraz
01-18-2009, 06:53 AM
B
Isn't there some European power that has the gall to boycott Israeli goods or some other form of punishment?

Perhaps Germany? :dev8:

Achilles
01-18-2009, 10:09 AM
Israel Declares Ceasefire. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835794.stm)

Something tells me it ain't gonna last.Hamas Declares Ceasefire. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7836205.stm)

We'll see. I guess it depends on whether or not Israel agrees to the conditions.

CommanderQ
01-18-2009, 12:01 PM
Perhaps Germany? :dev8:

I'd say France, probably, but they and both England and Germany are quite upset with the Israelis right now. But, it would be quite ironic if it were Germany...

Salzella
01-18-2009, 03:59 PM
I thought the EU as a whole had imposed economic sanctions on Israel.

edit: PS @ CommanderQ, politically it wouldn't be England, it'd be the UK. After, big Gordon himself is Scottish. Hate to sound like a pedant, but still. Has to be done D:

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-18-2009, 04:09 PM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052348.html

just a really good editorial

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 10:17 PM
Boy, the IDF sure sounds splendid, eh?

Isn't there some European power that has the gall to boycott Israeli goods or some other form of punishment? Right now, I can see why Ahmadinejad is so pissy towards Israel.

And right now I can see why Israel threw the English speaking version of Al-Jazerez out of their country.


CNN got caught again using photographs that were staged to drum up the idea that Israel was deliberately targetting women and children.

Seriously, maybe you don't mind rockets raining down on your head, but Israel has a right to defend itself. If you want to lay blame, lay blame at Hamas, Syria, and Iran.

Achilles
01-18-2009, 10:29 PM
Source?

Wait for it....

jrrtoken
01-18-2009, 10:35 PM
And right now I can see why Israel threw the English speaking version of Al-Jazerez out of their country.It's Al-Jazeera, kthxbai. Additionally, the fact that Israel banned that network makes them seem even more totalitarian.
CNN got caught again using photographs that were staged to drum up the idea that Israel was deliberately targetting women and children.Okay...
Seriously, maybe you don't mind rockets raining down on your head, but Israel has a right to defend itself. If you want to lay blame, lay blame at Hamas, Syria, and Iran.Alright, that sounds cool.

Let's let Israel use white phosphorous as a "smokescreen" against civilians.

Let's let Israel barge into 139 square mile strip of land with a population of almost 1.5 million.

Let's let Israel target schools, hospitals and other public centers being used by Hamas, with Israel's knowledge that innocents were in the area.

As far as I'm concerned, I think that Israel has the right to push any ethnic group out of "their" land, due to citations from their own sacred documents. Hey, I sure don't want to be labeled an anti-Semite, right?

Total Israeli Causalities: 13
Total Gazan Casualties: ~1,300

The Doctor
01-18-2009, 10:37 PM
Alright, that sounds cool.

Let's let Israel use white phosphorous as a "smokescreen" against civilians.

Let's let Israel barge into 139 square mile strip of land with a population of almost 1.5 million.

Let's let Israel target schools, hospitals and other public centers being used by Hamas, with Israel's knowledge that innocents were in the area.

Don't forget their shelling of the United Nations headquarters in the region.

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 10:42 PM
Source?

Wait for it....

littlegreenfootballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32393_A_Staged_Scene_in_a_Gaza_Hospital) which was one of the same bloggers that caught reuters using bogus pictures in 2006.


Maybe Martin can explain how a missile hits a roof and kills two boys but does no more damage to the roof than what a pickaxe could do in five minutes — and how the furniture didn’t get disturbed.
-- Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/09/cnn-republishes-fake-atrocity-video/)


Then there is this http://kydem.blogspot.com/2009/01/cnn-now-worse-than-fox-airs-staged.html

A high-profile Norwegian doctor who has said the September 11 terrorists were justified in their attack is now treating patients in Gaza and is being accused of presenting "hard-core propaganda" to TV interviewers in his telling of the conflict between Hamas and Israel.

Dr. Mads Gilbert has become an unofficial advocate of the Palestinian cause, his critics say.
-- Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477881,00.html)

And really PastramiX, the fact that these Hamas members have been extremely inaccurate (or there has been an act of God protecting the Israelis) and that the Israelis actually take steps to protect their civilians isn't a valid argument that Israel is being heavy handed. Hamas has a history of hiding behind civilians and shooting off rockets from civilian locations.

mimartin
01-18-2009, 10:52 PM
Well, well. CNN has removed the video from the page linked above, with no explanation or retraction. CNN side of the Blog's charges. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/gaza.video.accusations/#cnnSTCVideo)

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-18-2009, 10:55 PM
*has his quotes taken out of context*
*is mads gilbert*

"The attack on New York did not come as a surprise with the politics the West has followed the last decades. I am upset by the terrorist attack, but I am at least as upset over the suffering that the US has caused. It is in this context that 5000 dead has to be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, the oppressed has a moral right to attack the U.S. with the weapons they may create as well. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis."

hmm yes that is clearly pro-terrorism and not anti-hypocrisy and anti-war


and you still can't explain away israel shelling or bombing civilian targets including hospitals, schools, and the ****ing un headquarters the bottom line is the governments for both sides have forsaken their responsibilities to the people of their respective countries because of their hate for the other side and their desire for power. neither has any sort of moral high ground they're both advocates of murder.

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 11:00 PM
CNN side of the Blog's charges. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/09/gaza.video.accusations/#cnnSTCVideo)

It isn't just one blog, and I really couldn't care less what CNN's defense is, it's in fact quite familiar to the song and dance Dan Rather and CBS News gave in 2004.

It would also be believable if not for the fact their accusers include the same bloggers that caught them using doctored photos in 2006.

Adavardes
01-18-2009, 11:01 PM
and you still can't explain away israel shelling or bombing civilian targets including hospitals, schools, and the ****ing un headquarters the bottom line is the governments for both sides have forsaken their responsibilities to the people of their respective countries because of their hate for the other side and their desire for power. neither has any sort of moral high ground they're both advocates of murder.

they're both advocates of murder.

advocates. of. murder.

QFT.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-18-2009, 11:04 PM
It isn't just one blog, and I really couldn't care less what CNN's defense is, it's in fact quite familiar to the song and dance Dan Rather and CBS News gave in 2004.

It would also be believable if not for the fact their accusers include the same bloggers that caught them using doctored photos in 2006.i must admit you have class my friend. thousands of innocent civilians are dead and you turn the debate towards "no the media lied only hundreds of innocent civilians are dead liberal anti-semitic plot"

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 11:05 PM
*has his quotes taken out of context*
*is mads gilbert*

"The attack on New York did not come as a surprise with the politics the West has followed the last decades. I am upset by the terrorist attack, but I am at least as upset over the suffering that the US has caused. It is in this context that 5000 dead has to be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, the oppressed has a moral right to attack the U.S. with the weapons they may create as well. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis."

hmm yes that is clearly pro-terrorism and not anti-hypocrisy and anti-war


Source please, and I'd like a video source plz.


and you still can't explain away israel shelling or bombing civilian targets including hospitals, schools, and the ****ing un headquarters the bottom line is the governments for both sides have forsaken their responsibilities to the people of their respective countries because of their hate for the other side and their desire for power. neither has any sort of moral high ground they're both advocates of murder.

Oh but it does, because Hamas was using those sites as launching platforms just like Hezbollah did in Lebanon, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the United Nations knew that school was being used in such a manner. Just like their Secretary General got caught by the Canadians in 2006 of leaving those UN workers at that outpost after they reported that Hezbollah was using the place as a rocket launching site.

Or are you saying that Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves?


Furthermore these news agencies have a track record of using bogus material to try to condemn Israel.

ERIC BURNS, FOX NEWS HOST: Here is a picture released by the Reuters news agency this week of what looks like the aftermath of an attack on Beirut. Here on the right is what the picture looked like before a Reuters cameraman decided to get creative with it. Reuters has since retracted not only this photo, but 919 additional pictures taken by this same photographer. -- Fox News Watch (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208160,00.html)

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-18-2009, 11:12 PM
Source please, and I'd like a video source plz.he gave a statement to a newspaper, there isn't a video source, although i'm amused you're using his comments to discredit him and you a) have no idea what he said; and b) don't even know he gave it to a newspaper.

http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/01/06/nyheter/gaza/tromso/leger/politikk/4252092/

Oh but it does, because Hamas was using those sites as launching platforms just like Hezbollah did in Lebanon, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the United Nations knew that school was being used in such a manner. Just like their Secretary General got caught by the Canadians in 2006 of leaving those UN workers at that outpost after they reported that Hezbollah was using the place as a rocket launching site.

Or are you saying that Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves?uhhh maybe you just didn't read the thread but israel broke the ceasefire this time around* and even if this whole thing was defense on the part of the israelis, they still don't have the right to murder civilians.


and one photographer working for the ap taking pictures of a separate event doesn't automatically mean every news organization is anti-israel.



* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfFMZ7Y-s_c

Achilles
01-18-2009, 11:13 PM
littlegreenfootballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32393_A_Staged_Scene_in_a_Gaza_Hospital) which was one of the same bloggers that caught reuters using bogus pictures in 2006.



-- Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/09/cnn-republishes-fake-atrocity-video/)


Then there is this http://kydem.blogspot.com/2009/01/cnn-now-worse-than-fox-airs-staged.html

-- Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477881,00.html)

And really PastramiX, the fact that these Hamas members have been extremely inaccurate (or there has been an act of God protecting the Israelis) and that the Israelis actually take steps to protect their civilians isn't a valid argument that Israel is being heavy handed. Hamas has a history of hiding behind civilians and shooting off rockets from civilian locations.whew.

For a second there, I was afraid that you were going to come back at me with conservative blogs and FauxNews instead of real news sources. Oh wait.

Adavardes
01-18-2009, 11:16 PM
littlegreenfootballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32393_A_Staged_Scene_in_a_Gaza_Hospital)

Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/09/cnn-republishes-fake-atrocity-video/)

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477881,00.html)

-- Fox News Watch (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208160,00.html)

Translation:

*Conservatively biased sources, most of which are blogs*

:words:

How about you show me sources from all ends of the spectrum that somehow prove to me that killing innocent children is okay. Thanks in advance.

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 11:23 PM
whew.

For a second there, I was afraid that you were going to come back at me with conservative blogs and FauxNews instead of real news sources. Oh wait.


Fox News is a legitimate news source as Jae Onasi has proven in the past.
Your "legitimate news sources" are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism
These bloggers were the same ones that caught your "legitimate news sources" at using doctored photos in 2006.


he gave a statement to a newspaper, there isn't a video source, although i'm amused you're using his comments to discredit him and you a) have no idea what he said; and b) don't even know he gave it to a newspaper.

I don't really care who or what he gave it to, I'm going to ask who translated it?

uhhh maybe you just didn't read the thread but israel broke the ceasefire this time around* and even if this whole thing was defense on the part of the israelis, they still don't have the right to murder civilians.


So you're saying the Israelis can't open fire on an installation firing rockets at Israeli civilians because Hamas deliberately uses buildings where civilians are located to fire their rockets?

and one photographer working for the ap taking pictures of a separate event doesn't automatically mean every news organization is anti-israel.

Glad you brought up the bogus pictures used by the AP, I hadn't gotten to them yet I'd just been talking about Reuters. You may need to look at what you just said, because you just proved my point about the media's lack of credibility. With exception of Fox News, most media outlets take whatever the AP says as the gospel truth and rip news stories directly from the AP.

Achilles
01-18-2009, 11:26 PM
Fox News is a legitimate news source as Jae Onasi has proven in the past.
The "legitimate news sources" are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism
I think we should all take a moment and reflect on these two statements.

FoxNews is a legitimate news source (because Jae said so). Legitimate news sources practice dishonest journalism. mkay, thanks.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-18-2009, 11:31 PM
I don't really care who or what he gave it to, I'm going to ask who translated it?you can run it through your choice of online translators, find someone who speaks norwegian or any other method of translation.

So you're saying the Israelis can't open fire on an installation firing rockets at Israeli civilians because Hamas deliberately uses buildings where civilians are located to fire their rockets?well, yes. and i'm also saying they can't open fire at buildings owned by neutral parties or buildings used for the treatment of injured people aka hospitals and refugee camps. and you completely ignored the video i posted that refuted your argument that israel is acting in defense.

Glad you brought up the bogus pictures used by the AP, I hadn't gotten to them yet I'd just been talking about Reuters. You may need to look at what you just said, because you just proved my point about the media's lack of credibility. With exception of Fox News, most media outlets take whatever the AP says as the gospel truth and rip news stories directly from the AP.my point still stands. you can't prove the media (with the exception of a source that you agree with) is biased against israel by citing single cases of bias. especially when retractions are issued.

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 11:32 PM
I think we should all take a moment and reflect on these two statements.

FoxNews is a legitimate news source (because Jae said so). Legitimate news sources practice dishonest journalism. mkay, thanks.

Ah thanks for catching that typo of mine, I meant to say.

EDITTED to fix quote:

2. Your "legitimate news sources" are the ones that are being accused of dishonest Journalism

Achilles
01-18-2009, 11:36 PM
Ah thanks for catching that typo of mine, I meant to say.

EDITTED to fix quote:Which only leaves all the other logical fallacies and the fact that you're wrong. Let me know when you get around to "editing to fix" those too.

GarfieldJL
01-18-2009, 11:45 PM
Which only leaves all the other logical fallacies and the fact that you're wrong. Let me know when you get around to "editing to fix" those too.

The fact that reuters alone was caught using 919 photographs all of them presumably doctered by the same individual in the Israeli/Lebanon war of 2006.

Then there were staged photos that the AP used, I fail to see the fallacy in my Logic. There is a point when something becomes a pattern and 919 photos goes far beyond that point.

Adavardes
01-18-2009, 11:47 PM
The fact that reuters alone was caught using 919 photographs all of them presumably doctered by the same individual in the Israeli/Lebanon war of 2006.

Then there were staged photos that the AP used, I fail to see the fallacy in my Logic. There is a point when something becomes a pattern and 919 photos goes far beyond that point.

SOURCE.

GarfieldJL
01-19-2009, 12:01 AM
SOURCE.

I posted it earlier in this thread

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2579115&postcount=192

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-19-2009, 12:06 AM
still waiting for your response to israel's admission that hamas didn't fire into israel during the ceasefire

e: gonna go play some mass effect while you find a way to absolve israel of guilt
e2: decided against mass effect imma play nwn2 instead

Bee Hoon
01-19-2009, 01:50 AM
D: I'm shocked that anyone actually supports Israel in this situation. Defending yourself is one thing, but doing so with excessive, EXCESSIVE use of force is an entirely different bag of worms, not to mention how they were bombing everything into rubble, including civilian structures mentioned earlier in the thread.

mur'phon
01-19-2009, 02:28 AM
To settle the Mads Gilbert thing: jmac got it translated correctly, that said he have also said that he supports armed revolution in just about every country and was the local communist (not an exagaration) crackpot in my old home town, so I'd not take him terribly seriously.

EnderWiggin
01-19-2009, 11:38 AM
Source please, and I'd like a video source plz.

Oh, that's rich.

Furthermore these news agencies have a track record of using bogus material to try to condemn Israel.


Irrelevant. The news reporting doesn't change the fact that what Israel is doing is wrong. The things being reported by the idf are enough for us to make our case (see: anything jmac has posted in this thread).

D: I'm shocked that anyone actually supports Israel in this situation. Defending yourself is one thing, but doing so with excessive, EXCESSIVE use of force is an entirely different bag of worms, not to mention how they were bombing everything into rubble, including civilian structures mentioned earlier in the thread.

Agree. Well said, Bee. I think the number of casualties speaks for itself.

_EW_

Adavardes
01-19-2009, 11:59 AM
Agree. Well said, Bee. I think the number of casualties speaks for itself.

_EW_

Well, clearly, the *totally factless and baseless argument with no supporting sources about Hamas militants using schools as base camps* justifies the deaths of countless innocent children.

:words:

Clearly, if the militants are in the school, it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. That makes the children's lives irrelevant.

Emperor Devon
01-19-2009, 06:35 PM
Clearly, if the militants are in the school, it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. That makes the children's lives irrelevant.

it's ok none were americans or western allies (but since those guys still aren't americans they count as 1/2 a person)

Jae Onasi
01-19-2009, 09:13 PM
D: I'm shocked that anyone actually supports Israel in this situation. Defending yourself is one thing, but doing so with excessive, EXCESSIVE use of force is an entirely different bag of worms, not to mention how they were bombing everything into rubble, including civilian structures mentioned earlier in the thread.

This is a tough call, and actually Hamas, IF they were housing munitions in the school(s) or were shooting from the roof of the school, were in direct violation of the Laws of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war).
Relevant section:
Violations and applicability

Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

Once Hamas put weapons in the school, it was no longer a protected target, no matter how much we despise the very idea of bombing anything with children inside it.

Hamas knew there were children in the school, and knew it was a gross violation to have weapons there. The blood of those children are on Israel's hands, to be sure (they could have bombed it at night time when children were unlikely to be inside), but even greater responsibility falls on Hamas for blatantly violating the rules of warfare. In fact, Hamas is guilty of war crimes if it knowingly housed weapons on any protected property.

Adavardes
01-19-2009, 09:19 PM
This is a tough call, and actually Hamas, IF they were housing munitions in the school(s) or were shooting from the roof of the school, were in direct violation of the Laws of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war).
Relevant section:


Once Hamas put weapons in the school, it was no longer a protected target, no matter how much we despise the very idea of bombing anything with children inside it.

Hamas knew there were children in the school, and knew it was a gross violation to have weapons there. The blood of those children are on Israel's hands, to be sure (they could have bombed it at night time when children were unlikely to be inside), but even greater responsibility falls on Hamas for blatantly violating the rules of warfare. In fact, Hamas is guilty of war crimes if it knowingly housed weapons on any protected property.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

Both of them are equally at fault, nobody's arguing that. But it doesn't make Israel's actions any less horrible, animalistic, and vile. Period.

GarfieldJL
01-19-2009, 10:28 PM
Clearly, if the militants are in the school, it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. That makes the children's lives irrelevant.

The situation was either let them continue fire rockets and potentially one of those rockets hitting a family member, and dropping a couple ton bomb to take out the rocket launch site.


it's ok none were americans or western allies (but since those guys still aren't americans they count as 1/2 a person)

The loss of civilians is regretable but the situation is that Hamas was using the school as a weapons platform.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-19-2009, 11:10 PM
The situation was either let them continue fire rockets and potentially one of those rockets hitting a family member, and dropping a couple ton bomb to take out the rocket launch site.




You trying to pick a fight? The loss of civilians is regretable but the situation is that Hamas was using the school as a weapons platform.whelp guess we just have to take israel's word for it then and their word that bombing or shelling said school was the only way to stop these hamas members that may or may not even have existed was to bomb the **** out of a school

still waiting for your response to israel's admission that hamas didn't fire into israel during the ceasefire

e: gonna go play some mass effect while you find a way to absolve israel of guilt
e2: decided against mass effect imma play nwn2 insteadstill waitin

GarfieldJL
01-19-2009, 11:19 PM
whelp guess we just have to take israel's word for it then and their word that bombing or shelling said school was the only way to stop these hamas members that may or may not even have existed was to bomb the **** out of a school


They have a much better track record for honesty than Hamas does putting it mildly.



still waitin

And I'm waiting to hear the rest of it that you've neglected to mention, seriously Israel isn't out to try to annihilate the Palestinians. I heard about a few of the times that Israel supposedly violated cease fires only for it to turn out the news media neglected to mention rockets being launched into Israel, or suicide bombers being snuck into Israel by Hamas, etc.

Jae Onasi
01-19-2009, 11:28 PM
It. Doesn't. Matter.

Both of them are equally at fault, nobody's arguing that. But it doesn't make Israel's actions any less horrible, animalistic, and vile. Period.
I won't argue with the fact that it's vile, horrible, and any other adjective of negative sentiment that we can come up with. The sentiment is that Hamas is in the right and Israel is in the wrong--I'm arguing they both are. Israel has enough intel on the entire world to be able to make a strike when kids aren't around. Hamas should know better than to put arms in a protected target, thereby removing the protection.

If you're talking about what's right, then they both suck at doing that. If you're talking about what's legal, then Hamas screwed themselves.

The Doctor
01-19-2009, 11:29 PM
seriously Israel isn't out to try to annihilate the Palestinians.
:lol:

I heard about a few of the times that Israel supposedly violated cease fires only for it to turn out the news media neglected to mention rockets being launched into Israel, or suicide bombers being snuck into Israel by Hamas, etc.
Source.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-19-2009, 11:33 PM
uhh garfield the guy who said that hamas didn't fire any rockets into israel was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regev), not some reporter. and the idf is no more credible or moral than hamas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/02/israel1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056198.html

Adavardes
01-19-2009, 11:34 PM
:lol:


Source.

He doesn't have one, and if he does, it's a conservative blog, or Fox News. As per usual.
I won't argue with the fact that it's vile, horrible, and any other adjective of negative sentiment that we can come up with. The sentiment is that Hamas is in the right and Israel is in the wrong--I'm arguing they both are. Israel has enough intel on the entire world to be able to make a strike when kids aren't around. Hamas should know better than to put arms in a protected target, thereby removing the protection.

Okay? I never said that both weren't in the wrong. They are, this is obvious. But America supports Israel. Why? Who the **** knows anymore. But it needs to end, because both sides, BOTH SIDES, are completely and totally wrong. Israel is not defending itself. They're creating a massacre out of hate. Plain and simple.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/02/israel1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056198.html

"Nope. Those sources are lies. The IDF lie to us. This is liberal slander. Fox News will tell us what is irrefutably true!"

Honestly, why do you bother when you know the reaction?

Jae Onasi
01-19-2009, 11:52 PM
If you have issues with moderation, see an admin--don't discuss it here as that's off-topic. If you are publicly musing why someone is allowed to post here, it's off topic. Commentary about what the mods are doing with a particular member is off-topic. Some of you are outright flaming each other--cool it off please. Further discussion along these lines will earn you an infraction. If you don't want to hear what someone has to say, put them on your ignore list, which you can access from your user cp.

Jae Onasi
01-20-2009, 12:00 AM
IDF is about as pro-Israeli as Hamas can get pro-Palestinian. Neither are unbiased. I would not put IDF above shading the truth on reporting--they aren't letting anyone in to report on Gaza at this point (or very few if they started recently), which really makes me suspicious of Israeli intentions on 'reporting the truth'.

EnderWiggin
01-20-2009, 04:38 AM
The situation was either let them continue fire rockets and potentially one of those rockets hitting a family member

Funny, I heard these exact words come out of an Israeli ambassador's mouth last week on FoxNews.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 10:12 AM
uhh garfield the guy who said that hamas didn't fire any rockets into israel was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Regev), not some reporter. and the idf is no more credible or moral than hamas.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/israelandthepalestinians1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7828536.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/02/israel1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056198.html


Let me be perfectly blunt, I would trust any of the European News sources about as far as I could throw an semi truck. When it comes to Israel, the BBC, Guardian, etc. have absolutely no credibility at all. They have a history of dishonesty when it comes to Israel, and I'm going to post up some stuff from bloggers, but in this case considering the BBC and others ended up having to admit that the photos were bogus (and these bloggers are who caught them at it, it's rather hard to dispute these bloggers on this issue).

littlegreenfootballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22204_BBC_Admits_Engaging_in_Staged_Photos)
In this case this source has been proven to be accurate, since we're talking about the 2006, Israeli/Lebanon Conflict

Anyways there is a long history of outright dishonesty from the European Media.
Karsenty came to court loaded for bear, with trolleyfuls of documentation, including a 90-page ballistics report. Out of it all, the court also trained its sights on a telling 2005 Le Figaro opinion piece by two establishment journalists, Denis Jeambar, then editor in chief of L'Express (France's answer to Newsweek), and Daniel Leconte, head of news documentaries at the state-run French-German cultural channel, Arte (a kind of French-German PBS), both unlikely participants in this undignified scrum. Jeambar and Leconte, egged on by a former Le Monde journalist, Luc Rosenzweig, who had taken a great interest in the case and started writing about it for the small Israeli news outfit Mena, asked France 2 as early as 2004 to show them the original raw rushes. Acknowledging Jeambar and Leconte's weight in the French establishment, France 2 had done for them what it had refused to do for countless others and had shown them, and Rosenzweig, the 27 minutes of film.

What happened then was typical of the cat-on-a-hot-tin-roof behavior even powerful French figures display when faced with any kind of violation of the unspoken but well-understood order of precedence obtaining among the elite here. While Jeambar and Leconte took their time to ponder what they'd seen, Rosenzweig had the nerve to file a piece for Mena describing the tape's scenes of staging just before the fatal shooting. You could see Palestinians being carried on stretchers into ambulances, then coming out again unharmed, all in a kind of carnival atmosphere, with kids throwing stones and making faces at the camera, despite what was supposed to be a tense situation. The tape showed occasional gunshots, not continuous firing. From the general horsing around captured on film by Abu Rahmeh, Mena concluded that the whole scene must have been staged.

Their being preempted by Rosenzweig incensed Leconte and Jeambar, who expressed their displeasure in the 2005 op-ed in the center-right Le Figaro. They spent so much of the piece denouncing Rosenzweig, his gall in reporting first on what he'd seen in the company of his betters, and the conclusions he'd dared draw independently, that it was easy to overlook a key fact: [u]Jeambar and Leconte themselves not only conceded that the tape showed Palestinians stage-managing various shots and horsing around, they also described joking about those very scenes with the France 2 executives who were screening the tape for them.

All of those present at the screening-illustrious visitors and France 2 executives alike, the op-ed recounted-had ended up in full agreement that it was impossible to determine where the bullets had come from, but that it was highly unlikely that they could have come from the Israeli garrison. More crucially, Jeambar and Leconte also had caught Enderlin lying (or, as they kindly put it, "extrapolating"): "There was no 'unbearable agony' of the child anywhere on the tape," they wrote. "It wasn't edited out, it simply did not exist."

The Figaro piece had little impact when it was published, but it turned out to be one of the crucial elements in Karsenty's challenge to France 2's version of events. He won his appeal. The ruling, handed down on May 21, stated that he had acted in good faith as a media commentator and that he had presented a "coherent body of evidence," although the hoax could not be definitively proven. The judge also noted "inexplicable inconsistencies and contradictions in the explanations by Charles Enderlin," whose appearance in court was his first sworn testimony in the matter.
-- Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/284xawsb.asp?pg=2)

The first French Court seemed to be concerned with convicting this blogger, and the appeals court threw out the libel conviction and said that the guy provided enough evidence to throw the France 2's story into serious question.

Then we have Adnan Hajj's doctored photos used by Reuters. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy)

All are miraculously pristinely clean and apparently untouched by the devastation they purportedly survived. (Reuters might want to check its freelancers' expenses for unexplained Toys R Us purchases.)--http://www.journalism.wisc.edu (http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/j202/discussion_spring07/wk8_lat_photos.pdf)

Furthermore the BBC was forced to admit later that there was a problem with those photographs: BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/08/trusting_photos.html)

Several other Conservative Bloggers had a field day back in 2006,
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/08/another-bogus-photo/


By the way, this stuff is pretty hard to dispute because the news agencies like Reuters, New York Times, BBC, etc. were all forced to admit that the photos were bogus and the scenes were staged.

Funny, I heard these exact words come out of an Israeli ambassador's mouth last week on FoxNews.


Yeah I heard it too, and thing is the Israeli Ambassador is right.

You have made this argument multiple times in this thread and have made your point here in this post. It is unnecessary to say the same thing multiple times, and further posting of this same argument will be deleted as redundant and subject to sanctions according the Kavar's rules. --Jae

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-20-2009, 03:36 PM
wordsan expert dodge, sir. blame reporters even though i posted a video of the israeli prime minister's spokesman admitting no rockets were fired into israel by hamas during the ceasefire. and haaretz is israeli.

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 03:53 PM
an expert dodge, sir. blame reporters even though i posted a video of the israeli prime minister's spokesman admitting no rockets were fired into israel by hamas during the ceasefire. and haaretz is israeli.

And what intell were the Israelis acting on, considering their Intelligence Agency is considered the best in the world. The Israelis have no motive to just start lobbing shells into Gaza or driving tanks in for no reason, it's a waste of money unless there is a pretty good reason.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-20-2009, 04:46 PM
And what intell were the Israelis acting on, considering their Intelligence Agency is considered the best in the world. The Israelis have no motive to just start lobbing shells into Gaza or driving tanks in for no reason, it's a waste of money unless there is a pretty good reason.because they're not the angels you make them out to be and as i've said before, they're just as genocidal as hamas.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50C1Z920090113
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A

whoops none of those were fox news or littlegreenfootballs links just links to israeli sources and reuters

Adavardes
01-20-2009, 04:49 PM
Several other Conservative Bloggers had a field day back in 2006,

:lol:

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 07:25 PM
because they're not the angels you make them out to be and as i've said before, they're just as genocidal as hamas.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=360533&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50C1Z920090113
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A

whoops none of those were fox news or littlegreenfootballs links just links to israeli sources and reuters

And reuters has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Your stating that Israel wants to commit genocide doesn't take into account the fact the Israelis are bending over backward to avoid civilian casualties. Furthermore the links from those bloggers were largely concerning issues from 2000-2006 to show a pattern as to why reuters is not a credible source when it comes to Israel.

If they had intel on a weapons depot or something like that they may have acted to take it out, they wouldn't launch shells into Gaza to target civilians indiscriminately which you're implying.

jrrtoken
01-20-2009, 07:35 PM
And reuters has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Your stating that Israel wants to commit genocide doesn't take into account the fact the Israelis are bending over backward to avoid civilian casualties.Okay.

Then I'd like you to explain this:
Total Israeli Civilian Casualties: 3
Total Gazan Civilian Casualites: ~700
If they had intel on a weapons depot or something like that they may have acted to take it out, they wouldn't launch shells into Gaza to target civilians indiscriminately which you're implying.Really? I suppose that white phosphorous, which its intended use is for a smokescreen, but white phosphorous causes extreme burns, with an almost napalm-esque effect. You know those air bursts that look like fireworks pellets raining down on the ground? That's white phosphorous. It's not an "OK" weapon to use, at all.

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 07:48 PM
Okay.

Then I'd like you to explain this:
Total Israeli Civilian Casualties: 3
Total Gazan Civilian Casualites: ~700

Possibilities:


That members of Hamas would have trouble hitting the broadside of a barn at point-blank range. -- unlikely
Divine Intervention -- Certainly possible, given the number of rockets fired
Israel actually evactuates its Citizens to shelters to try to protect them from harm while Hamas deliberately puts their weapons among civilians to maximize civilian deaths for propaganda purposes.


I'd say it would be 3, with possibly divine intervention as well.


Really? I suppose that white phosphorous, which its intended use is for a smokescreen, but white phosphorous causes extreme burns, with an almost napalm-esque effect. You know those air bursts that look like fireworks pellets raining down on the ground? That's white phosphorous. It's not an "OK" weapon to use, at all.

To be frank, based on Reuter's, BBC's, etc. track record, the usage of phosphorous by the Israelis has likely been greatly exagerated, if they used it at all.

Oh a video of interest: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=351_1231430391

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-20-2009, 07:59 PM
And reuters has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Your stating that Israel wants to commit genocide doesn't take into account the fact the Israelis are bending over backward to avoid civilian casualties. Furthermore the links from those bloggers were largely concerning issues from 2000-2006 to show a pattern as to why reuters is not a credible source when it comes to Israel.

If they had intel on a weapons depot or something like that they may have acted to take it out, they wouldn't launch shells into Gaza to target civilians indiscriminately which you're implying.i also cited haaretz and that video had a woman from b'tselem, an israeli human rights group. your "all european sources are unreliable" argument is irrelevant.

and israel has admitted to using phosphorous weapons in the past and there have been numerous reports of them using it this time around.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0114/p07s01-wome.html
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/10/israel-stop-unlawful-use-white-phosphorus-gaza
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june09/ceasefire_01-19.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866575577&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

also white phosphorous can cause organ failure.

jrrtoken
01-20-2009, 08:00 PM
That members of Hamas would have trouble hitting the broadside of a barn at point-blank range. -- unlikelyIf they're using sucky weaponry, which they are, then I guess it would be possible.
Divine Intervention -- Certainly possible, given the number of rockets firedSeeing as how many times the Israelites have generally screwed up everything for the past several thousand years, I doubt that God really really cares about them too much, especially when they throw his teachings out of the window repeatedly.
Israel actually evactuates its Citizens to shelters to try to protect them from harm while Hamas deliberately puts their weapons among civilians to maximize civilian deaths for propaganda purposes.You want to know why there are so many Gazan causalities? Israel takes the bait, probably with the knowledge that there were civilians in the area.

To be frank, based on Reuter's, BBC's, etc. track record, the usage of phosphorous by the Israelis has likely been greatly exaggerated, if they used it at all.Alright. That sure explains why we're seeing several air bursts which most definitely contain white phosphorous. It also explains why Gazan doctors are seeing patients with burns extremely similar to white phosphorous burns. Oh, and I also think that you're throwing the truth out the window to strengthen your hate of the mainstream and liberal media.

Oh a video of interest: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=351_1231430391So? we've known about this for quite some time. Why do you think Israel goes for it? Since your claim that Israel has the world's leading intelligence agency is true, I suppose this means that Israel knows that civilians are being used as human shields. And if that is true, then Israel is deliberately targeting civilians. :carms:

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 08:17 PM
If they're using sucky weaponry, which they are, then I guess it would be possible.

And fired over 6000+ of them... Seriously, there is another factor in this than just lousy weapons.


Seeing as how many times the Israelites have generally screwed up everything for the past several thousand years, I doubt that God really really cares about them too much, especially when they throw his teachings out of the window repeatedly.

Does the Six Day War ring any bells or Yom Kippur?


You want to know why there are so many Gazan causalities? Israel takes the bait, probably with the knowledge that there were civilians in the area.

Israel faces a choice in each situation, and Israel is smaller than the State of Massachusetts, they have nowhere to retreat.


Alright. That sure explains why we're seeing several air bursts which most definitely contain white phosphorous. It also explains why Gazan doctors are seeing patients with burns extremely similar to white phosphorous burns. Oh, and I also think that you're throwing the truth out the window to strengthen your hate of the mainstream and liberal media.

Show me the burn victims, seriously, there are other chemicals that can create air bursts or smoke screens. Furthermore, I've already shown that Reuters used pictures that were photoshopped to add fake smoke in 2006. It isn't that much of a strech to assume the same situation now only in video.



So? we've known about this for quite some time. Why do you think Israel goes for it? Since your claim that Israel has the world's leading intelligence agency is true, I suppose this means that Israel knows that civilians are being used as human shields. And if that is true, then Israel is deliberately targeting civilians. :carms:

And here is the choice the Israelis face, let them continue shooting rockets and pray one of them doesn't hit a family member, a neighbor, a friend, or take the rocket launch site out. That's the situation they're in, this isn't Canada we're talking about here where a bunch of inaccurate rockets are more likely to hit a Moose than a person.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-20-2009, 08:22 PM
Israel faces a choice in each situation, and Israel is smaller than the State of Massachusetts, they have nowhere to retreat.this is one of the most ridiculous arguments in this thread. to suggest that israel would ever need to retreat anywhere shows near complete ignorance of the situation there.

Adavardes
01-20-2009, 08:24 PM
Possibilities:


That members of Hamas would have trouble hitting the broadside of a barn at point-blank range. -- unlikely
Divine Intervention -- Certainly possible, given the number of rockets fired
Israel actually evactuates its Citizens to shelters to try to protect them from harm while Hamas deliberately puts their weapons among civilians to maximize civilian deaths for propaganda purposes.


I'd say it would be 3, with possibly divine intervention as well.

You want to talk about nonsensical religious dogma, you go to the appropriate place for it, which is not here. You want to talk about the facts, then let's talk about the facts.

There has been link after link for sources given in this topic that portray a clear and present use of overkill in Israel's "defense". They are murdering Hamas citizens, regardless of whether or not Hamas has put them in a position to be murdered. Both sides in this are WRONG. Israel is no more justified in this, and I am so sick and tired of you saying otherwise, and when proof to the contrary is brought to you, ignoring it as false, when all you ever do is post biased sources to serve your backwards logic.

GAH.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-20-2009, 08:29 PM
Congratulations. You just topped Bush in the biggest line of bull**** I have ever heard. You want to talk about nonsensical religious dogma, you go to the appropriate place for it, which is not here. You want to talk about the facts, then let's talk about the facts.

There has been link after link for sources given in this topic that portray a clear and present use of overkill in Israel's "defense". They are murdering Hamas citizens, regardless of whether or not Hamas has put them in a position to be murdered. Both sides in this are WRONG. Israel is no more justified in this, and I am so sick and ****ing tired of you saying otherwise, and when proof to the contrary is brought to you, ignoring it as false, when all you ever do is post biased sources to serve your backwards logic.

GAH.

source?

jrrtoken
01-20-2009, 08:38 PM
Does the Six Day War ring any bells or Yom Kippur?Yeah, and Israel was loaded with French and American weapons, along with an entire nation of recruits to send in.
Israel faces a choice in each situation, and Israel is smaller than the State of Massachusetts, they have nowhere to retreat.They don't need to; they have plenty ofweapons and soldiers to send out to do their bidding, even if it means going into a scrap of land, kill several hundred, and then get out. My point is, the Israelis are using excessive force against relatively minor attacks.
Show me the burn victims, seriously, there are other chemicals that can create air bursts or smoke screens. Furthermore, I've already shown that Reuters used pictures that were photoshopped to add fake smoke in 2006. It isn't that much of a strech to assume the same situation now only in video.Oh. Okay:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00469/Phosphorous_469695a.jpg

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5549100.ece
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/833585-overview
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/gaza-phosphorus-israel

And here is the choice the Israelis face, let them continue shooting rockets and pray one of them doesn't hit a family member, a neighbor, a friend, or take the rocket launch site out. That's the situation they're in, this isn't Canada we're talking about here where a bunch of inaccurate rockets are more likely to hit a Moose than a person.Israel's response: Start a massive military incursion, actively bombing heavily populated areas, and using overall excessive force against rockets that have killed only three civilians.

You are completely ignoring the fact that Israel is using this petty excuse of rocket attacks that don't do jack for an unofficial genocide. Gaza is now in ruins, with hundreds of innocents killed and thousands wounded. Gaza in now without power or cleans water, which means that disease will spread fast, due to the catalyst: rotting corpses. Since the good majority of the cities are now in ruins, thousands are now homeless. Food is also scarce, which means starvation, and which means that people will get desperate, including acts of violence to save their family.

Israel, on the other hand, is living a life of luxury, replenished from the spoils of war. Yet while millions of Israelis are living a relatively normal life, only a few kilometers away humans are in Hell.

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 08:40 PM
this is one of the most ridiculous arguments in this thread. to suggest that israel would ever need to retreat anywhere shows near complete ignorance of the situation there.

I actually know what I'm talking about, its called a range limit on those rockets, you're proposing Israel should just sit there and let rockets rain down on civilians all day. Because they don't have a place they can move the civilians to.


@ PastramiX
I may not be a doctor but that doesn't look burns unless they are cigarette burns or something like that. That and possibly some wounding to the face by debris... Again where are the burns?

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-20-2009, 08:46 PM
I actually know what I'm talking about, its called a range limit on those rockets, you're proposing Israel should just sit there and let rockets rain down on civilians all day. Because they don't have a place they can move the civilians to.no i'm proposing they dont kill civilians.

and you clearly know what you're talking about. (http://start.csail.mit.edu/images/texas-maps/middle_east_and_asia/israel_pol01.jpg)

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 08:51 PM
no i'm proposing they dont kill civilians.

and you clearly know what you're talking about. (http://start.csail.mit.edu/images/texas-maps/middle_east_and_asia/israel_pol01.jpg)

Actually I do, assuming the rockets have a range of 40 miles, it would be able to hit the Israeli capital of Tel Aviv, based off the map you provided. Combined with Hezbollah in Lebanon whom would also fire rockets with impunity they have nowhere to evacuate civilians to and their rockets supposedly have the longer range..

The fact that Hamas hasn't killed more people isn't from a lack of trying.

jrrtoken
01-20-2009, 08:51 PM
@ PastramiX
I may not be a doctor but that doesn't look burns unless they are cigarette burns or something like that. That and possibly some wounding to the face by debris... Again where are the burns?Oh, you know, those little black marks by his eyes; they're completely charred. He's also now completely blind due to the intense heat of the burning phosphorous essentially vaporizing his irises.

And the fact that you're playing down civilian injuries is pathetic, at best. That's as bad as saying "He's not injured enough to receive treatment or compensation."

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-20-2009, 08:54 PM
Actually I do, assuming the rockets have a range of 40 miles, it would be able to hit the Israeli capital of Tel Aviv, based off the map you provided. Combined with Hezbollah in Lebanon whom would also fire rockets with impunity they have nowhere to evacuate civilians to and their rockets supposedly have the longer range..hmm yes absolutely nowhere. and it's not like they're given billions of dollars worth of weapons every year to fight against impoverished palestinians with little in the way of weapons or defenses.

also have a video http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/19/gaza-phosphorus-victim

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 09:06 PM
Oh, you know, those little black marks by his eyes; they're completely charred. He's also now completely blind due to the intense heat of the burning phosphorous essentially vaporizing his irises.

And the fact that you're playing down civilian injuries is pathetic, at best. That's as bad as saying "He's not injured enough to receive treatment or compensation."

http://www.upjf.org/actualiees-upjf/article-13447-145-7-al-dura-shooting-pallycood-production-paul-schneidereit.html


Read it, that gives a good reason why I am hesitant to trust the picture at all. The term is Pallywood, I'd recommend you look it up.

And the injuries in the video don't look like burns, they do look like he got hit by something, but not phosphorous, I've seen burns before and they didn't look like what would have been sustained.

jrrtoken
01-20-2009, 09:11 PM
http://www.upjf.org/actualiees-upjf/article-13447-145-7-al-dura-shooting-pallycood-production-paul-schneidereit.html


Read it, that gives a good reason why I am hesitant to trust the picture at all. The term is Pallywood, I'd recommend you look it up.Okay, so my entire argument stating that thousands of innocent civilians are suffering in unimaginable ways is completely worthless to you? All because of so-called "sensationalist reporting" that is in fact reporting the truth? So, I guess those burn victims were faking it. I suppose there wasn't war in Gaza. I think that the liberal media is lying. I think this is just a dream, and I need to wake up. But I won't. Cause I like it.

EnderWiggin
01-20-2009, 09:12 PM
http://www.upjf.org/actualiees-upjf/article-13447-145-7-al-dura-shooting-pallycood-production-paul-schneidereit.html


Read it, that gives a good reason why I am hesitant to trust the picture at all. The term is Pallywood, I'd recommend you look it up.

And the injuries in the video don't look like burns, they do look like he got hit by something, but not phosphorous, I've seen burns before and they didn't look like what would have been sustained.

Straight question, requesting a straight answer:

What does the (mainstream) media have to do with any of this when jmac has provided you sources that come from the IDF or another Israeli?

Or are you just attempting to derail the thread? I'd recommend (:dozey:) you stop that. It's pretty irrelevant to the topic we're trying to peacefully discuss.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 09:14 PM
Okay, so my entire argument stating that thousands of innocent civilians are suffering in unimaginable ways is completely worthless to you? All because of so-called "sensationalist reporting" that is in fact reporting the truth? So, I guess those burn victims were faking it. I suppose there wasn't war in Gaza. I think that the liberal media is lying. I think this is just a dream, and I need to wake up. But I won't. Cause I like it.

No, I'm saying they have a history of lieing, and I backed it up with evidence.

Do I think people have died, yes, is it saddening yes, but I refuse to lay blame on a country for defending itself. There wouldn't be a tenth the Palestinian casualties if Hamas didn't deliberately shoot off rockets from schools when they were in session.

Straight question, requesting a straight answer:

What does the (mainstream) media have to do with any of this when jmac has provided you sources that come from the IDF or another Israeli?


See the earlier article I brought up about that kid being killed in 2000, Israel took responsibility in the beginning and then it turned out that based on evidence it was highly improbable that the kid was hit with Israeli bullets... Oh and it took a court case to bring that information out.


Or are you just attempting to derail the thread? I'd recommend (:dozey:) you stop that. It's pretty irrelevant to the topic we're trying to peacefully discuss.


I'm not trying to derail the topic, I've posted evidence to support my statements which call into question the veracity of your sources and some also show that Israel tends to take responsibility for stuff whether they actually were or not.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-20-2009, 09:19 PM
No, I'm saying they have a history of lieing, and I backed it up with evidence.

Do I think people have died, yes, is it saddening yes, but I refuse to lay blame on a country for defending itself. There wouldn't be a tenth the Palestinian casualties if Hamas didn't deliberately shoot off rockets from schools when they were in session.except it's already been proven by every news organization except your beloved blogs that israel broke the ceasefire and therefore cannot be defending itself.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-20-2009, 09:30 PM
yes haaretz, b'tselem, and ehud olmert's spokesman are incredibly unreliable.

and have a fox news article about the use of white phosphorus by israel.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan20/0,4670,MLGazaWhitePhosphorus,00.html

jrrtoken
01-20-2009, 09:31 PM
Okay, this is completely irrelevant to the topic, FYI. We're talking about how many civilians are suffering right now, and you're actively denying that, to suit your own ideals. But hey, I suppose ignorance is bliss, eh?

GarfieldJL
01-20-2009, 09:37 PM
Okay, this is completely irrelevant to the topic, FYI. We're talking about how many civilians are suffering right now, and you're actively denying that, to suit your own ideals. But hey, I suppose ignorance is bliss, eh?

No, I'm questioning how many people actually died and the accuracy of the reporting.

Also the Fox News article said that:

All were victims of a single white phosphorus shell dropped on their home, survivors and doctors said. -- Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan20/0,4670,MLGazaWhitePhosphorus,00.html)


It also says:

Israel says it only used the explosive as flares or smoke screens to protect tanks during heavy combat, and does its best to avoid civilian injuries. The international Red Cross said last week that it had no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent was being used improperly or illegally. -- Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan20/0,4670,MLGazaWhitePhosphorus,00.html)

If anything this story looks like the shell didn't go off when it was supposed to and that the Israelis army was rather upset that it landed where it did. That's a lot different from deliberately targetting civilians like what you're implying.

EnderWiggin
01-20-2009, 09:38 PM
I'm not trying to derail the topic, I've posted evidence to support my statements which call into question the veracity of your sources and some also show that Israel tends to take responsibility for stuff whether they actually were or not.

So now Israel's lying about being at fault?

yes haaretz, b'tselem, and ehud olmert's spokesman are incredibly unreliable.

and have a fox news article about the use of white phosphorus by israel.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan20/0,4670,MLGazaWhitePhosphorus,00.html
:iceburn:

_EW_