# Israel declares total war



## Get-dancing (Dec 30, 2008)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...l-declares-war-to-the-bitter-end-1216220.html

All I can say is that I wish them luck.


----------



## makmakmob (Dec 30, 2008)

Why?


----------



## fangborn (Dec 30, 2008)

what is the world coming to? sigh now im waiting for world war 2.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Dec 30, 2008)

fangborn said:


> what is the world coming to? sigh *now im waiting for world war 2.*



Yeh, because that hasn't happened yet
/sarcasm

:roll:

Although, if World War Three does break out, it will most likely start in the Middle East.

The whole area is incredibly volatile, maybe if Israel hadn't been so very aggresive in the first few decades of it's existance then this situation could have been avoided.
Any way you look at this, it is not good. I wish no side luck, I just hope it ends soon.


----------



## brrrr (Dec 30, 2008)

x|

What ramsay said, shit needs to end soon.


----------



## Thatch (Dec 30, 2008)

ramsay_baggins said:


> The whole area is incredibly volatile, maybe if Israel hadn't been so very aggresive in the first few decades of it's existance then this situation could have been avoided.
> Any way you look at this, it is not good. I wish no side luck, I just hope it ends soon.



the only way for this to die down is if it literary DIES. With all of them along. 
There's also the funny fact that the israeli resemble the nazis with how they're behaving. Nice irony and way to be hypocritical.


----------



## Shin Ji Ka Mi (Dec 30, 2008)

Like if the 2009 economical strike wasn't enough.


----------



## virus (Dec 30, 2008)

Israel needs to take a chillpill.
Hamas needs to grow a fucking pair.

Fighting in the name of an idea. Is udder faggotry


----------



## ADF (Dec 30, 2008)

I don't know enough to make an educated judgement of the situation, Israel just sounds like an ass to me.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Dec 30, 2008)

ADF, imagine this: you've been bombed for a few months and you've done nothing. Now, you want to attack, and people think you 'need to take a chill pill.'
Good luck, Isreal. I at least hope that a few allies can help you


----------



## ADF (Dec 30, 2008)

StainMcGorver said:


> ADF, imagine this: you've been bombed for a few months and you've done nothing. Now, you want to attack, and people think you 'need to take a chill pill.'
> Good luck, Isreal. I at least hope that a few allies can help you


But bombing the civilians of an entire area to get at one terrorist group?


----------



## Get-dancing (Dec 30, 2008)

ADF said:


> But bombing the civilians of an entire area to get at one terrorist group?



Well arabs are like children really, they obviously might be angry or ungrateful at you for trying to take away some of their privladges to make them into decent people, but they'll thank you in the long run.


----------



## Shin Ji Ka Mi (Dec 30, 2008)

ADF said:


> But bombing the civilians of an entire area to get at one terrorist group?



I think I've seen this before.
...
no?

Iraq, anyone?


----------



## Thatch (Dec 30, 2008)

Shin Ji Ka Mi said:


> I think I've seen this before.
> ...
> no?
> 
> Iraq, anyone?



Well, the difference is that this is not about oil, it really is a conflict of hate.


----------



## ADF (Dec 30, 2008)

Shin Ji Ka Mi said:


> I think I've seen this before.
> ...
> no?
> 
> Iraq, anyone?


Am I supposed to feel guilty for choices I didn't make and actions I didn't do?

I don't know nor care what the politics behind this is, I only see it for what it is. Indiscriminately bombing innocent and defenceless civilians is inexcusable, regardless of who is doing it.


----------



## Doug (Dec 30, 2008)

inb4 World War III.



Shin Ji Ka Mi said:


> I think I've seen this before.
> ...
> no?
> 
> Iraq, anyone?


Hiroshima and Nagasaki, anyone?


----------



## Shin Ji Ka Mi (Dec 30, 2008)

Doug said:


> inb4 World War III.
> 
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, anyone?



The list keeps getting bigger and bigger.



ADF said:


> Am I supposed to feel guilty for choices I didn't make and actions I didn't do?
> 
> I don't know nor care what the politics behind this is, I only see it for what it is. Indiscriminately bombing innocent and defenceless civilians is inexcusable, regardless of who is doing it.



I don't feel guilt, I feel ashamed we didn't do anything to stop it. Or we couldn't.



szopaw said:


> Well, the difference is that this is not about oil, it really is a conflict of hate.



Blergh, yeah, Tom & Jerry. ><.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Dec 30, 2008)

Whose side you're on seemingly boils down to which flavor of person you prefer to see bombed: olive or brown

Also, fuck anyone who tells you that they are bombing to promote peace.




Get-dancing said:


> Well arabs are like children really, they obviously might be angry or ungrateful at you for trying to take away some of their privladges to make them into decent people, but they'll thank you in the long run.



Also, what the fuck is this shit I see?


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Dec 30, 2008)

Load_Blown said:


> Also, what the fuck is this shit I see?



It's Get-Dancing... The best thing to do with him is ignore to the highest degree.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Dec 30, 2008)

ramsay_baggins said:


> It's Get-Dancing... The best thing to do with him is ignore to the highest degree.



I forgot about him because he changed his whole look.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

Ugh, it's just a single campaign. It shouldn't last for more than a week.

They hold the worlds -greatest- air force, defensively and offensively. Their ground military is one of the best, they can't lose and this action is backed by the NATO nations, UN, and USA.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Ugh, it's just a single campaign. It shouldn't last for more than a week.
> 
> They hold the worlds -greatest- air force, defensively and offensively. Their ground military is one of the best, they can't lose and this action is backed by the NATO nations, UN, and USA.



According to TOW, the UN is condemning Israel for "Excessive use of force" and calling for "an immediate halt to all violence".


----------



## Not A Fox (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Ugh, it's just a single campaign. It shouldn't last for more than a week.
> 
> They hold the worlds -greatest- air force, defensively and offensively. Their ground military is one of the best, they can't lose and *this action is backed by* the NATO nations, *the UN*, and USA.





Independent's article linked above said:


> But as President George Bush continued to blame Hamas for the worst violence in Gaza in living memory, *the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, criticised Israel's "excessive" force* and urged the international community to do more. *"I think regional and international partners have not done enough. They should do more,"* Mr Ban said, in a rare departure from the diplomatic norm. *"They should use all possible means to end the violence and encourage political dialogue, emphasising peaceful ways of resolving differences."*



words


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:
			
		

> it's just a single campaign. It shouldn't last for more than a week.



Didn't they say the same thing about Iraq?




			
				virus said:
			
		

> Fighting in the name of an idea. Is udder faggotry



Um, I guess you've just never noticed, but pretty much every fight is in the name of an idea, and usually the idea is "I need your land, resources and labor to help keep the people in my own backyard under my thumb" and the more grandiose ideas of "because God said so" are sorta an afterthought.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Dec 30, 2008)

NAFFY said:


> words



You're right. The UN _is_ only capable of words.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

That doesn't mean they're not being backed. They gave the go on it, but didn't expect them to assault all out with their massive airforce, which they did do. Now, don't piss them off because they control the air in this war torn world.

And no, nato and UN didn't back Iraq, they did back afganistan though.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> and no, nato and UN didn't back Iraq, they did back afganistan though.



Oh hai fanx you just sorta proved my point better than I did seeing as how Afghanistan was also supposed to be a short term thing that's still going on, despite NATO/UN support and having started a few years earlier.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

Wow, once again, the geo-politically naive rush to their usual make shift decisions about Israel or Palestine.

Israel declares total war? No.

Their defence minister commented, "War to the bitter end" ... with Hamas Militants who shelled Israel first. Which, Hamas doesn't belong after it botched an election against the Fatah to take control of the Gaza Strip.



> From the Source:
> 
> Israel's defence Minister, Ehud Barak, warned yesterday that his country was engaged in "a war to the bitter end" with Hamas as a third day of fierce bombing brought the estimated Gaza death toll to 320. Two Israelis were killed in retaliatory rocket barrages last night as Hamas struck deep inside Israeli territory.


 
Also, most people appear to be largely ignorant as to how things like these work -- included in that 320 deaths are also military combatants from Hamas.

And, once again, Israel responds in exactly the same way the militants want her to.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Oh hai fanx you just sorta proved my point better than I did seeing as how Afghanistan was also supposed to be a short term thing that's still going on, despite NATO/UN support and having started a few years earlier.



Afghanistan? No, that was Iraq that was suppose to be short.

I think originally Afghanistan was going to be a 4 year campaign and recent events there show there is little resistance or need to be there anymore so more than likely they will be pulling out soon.

Doubtful, but what ever; I don't care about any of it myself.


----------



## Get-dancing (Dec 30, 2008)

Doug said:


> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, anyone?



Maybe, those attacks were to show the Japanese that the Americans take themselves seriously when they say 'surrendour or we'll make you surrendor'.



> Whose side you're on seemingly boils down to which flavor of person you prefer to see bombed: olive or brown
> 
> Also, fuck anyone who tells you that they are bombing to promote peace.



First of all: Jews are the single most persicuted ethnic group in history. 

During the founding of civilisation they were declared lower-humans and held as slaves in the Middle-east for THOSANDS of years. Then once they were liberated from that they ran off to Europe, almost all the countrys kicked them off their soil. A small handful of nations being noted for being very liberal permitted them to live amounst them, but the respect for them was unbelievible, they had to wear special clothes to note that they were jewish and forced to live in dislocate areas apart from the natives. 

That prejudice countinued well into the twentieth centuary, it only showed sighns that it would end once the Germans looked back on themselves and asked 'What have we done?'. The awnser is that they commited the 3rd worst genocide in history, the most up-to-date factories desighned to kill as many people as possible, raiding europe to slaughter as many as possible and destroyed anyone who stood up to them. Their motive; no more jews.

From that the jews fled off to either America; the land of the free. Or to the re-established nation given back to them for compensation for being persicuted for so long; Israel. Only then were the accepted, and there still is and probably always will be remaints bitterness and hatred towards them.

So tell me, who are the arabs to tell us about being victums of prejudice?

Second off: Bombing to promote peace? More dead terrorists = Less wars, terror and imorality. Simple math.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Afghanistan? No, that was Iraq that was suppose to be short.
> 
> I think originally Afghanistan was going to be a 4 year campaign and recent events there show there is little resistance or need to be there anymore so more than likely they will be pulling out soon.
> 
> Doubtful, but what ever; I don't care about any of it myself.


 
Pulling out of Afghanistan?

Nope -- Bin Laden's not caught yet.

Also, don't forget Barrack Obama's promise to invade Pakistan.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 30, 2008)

...I don't know why the rest of the world still cares about this.  Let Palestine and Israel turn each other into smoking holes in the ground.  Though Israel will undoubtedly win, if the gloves get taken off.  At least until every other butthurt Muslim nation jumps in and tries to annihilate Israel.

It's funny, really - the other Muslim nations of the world generally don't give two shits about Palestine itself, they're just all butthurt about a Jewish nation kicking the crap out of a Muslim nation.  Amongst Muslim nations, nobody else wants the Palestinians.  The Palestinians are like the Muslim world's equivalent of the weird awkward kid on the playground that nobody wants on their dodgeball team.  But an excuse to reopen old wounds and reignite old feuds between the Abrahamic religions is ALWAYS welcome.  Everybody loves a jihad!

Doesn't help that the creation of the nation of Israel was tantamount to a conquest and subjugation of the area by military force.  The Jewish migrants made LOTS of friends with that.  Go go Balfour Declaration, one of the dumbest things ever excreted from the proverbial anus of England's pathetic excuse for foreign policy.

It's fucking annoying that so many Jewish and Christian Americans are constantly burying their faces ear-deep into Israel's ass with their collective ass-kissing of the current tenants of "The Holy Land", which deserves the moniker "Holy Land" only because of all the holes left by bullets and artillery shells and bombs.  Boy does the Muslim world get cheesed off by the support Israel gets from foreign sycophants.

In short, fuck 'em all.  Israel thinks they're hot shit (and they ARE, no two ways about that) militarily after utterly pwning their neighbors in the Six-Day War.  Let 'em figure out how to keep their heads above the waters in an ocean of butthurt Muslims.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

Bambi said:


> Pulling out of Afghanistan?
> 
> Nope -- Bin Laden's not caught yet.
> 
> Also, don't forget Barrack Obama's promise to invade Pakistan.



That wasn't the reason for going there.

They are claiming he's dead now anyway, they bombed the shit out of mountains where they thought he was in, also the videos he sent showed him as being very ill.

Obama wants to pull out from what I've heard.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> ...I don't know why the rest of the world still cares about this. Let Palestine and Israel turn each other into smoking holes in the ground. Though Israel will undoubtedly win, if the gloves get taken off. At least until every other butthurt Muslim nation jumps in and tries to annihilate Israel.
> 
> It's funny, really - the other Muslim nations of the world generally don't give two shits about Palestine itself, they're just all butthurt about a Jewish nation kicking the crap out of a Muslim nation. Amongst Muslim nations, nobody else wants the Palestinians. The Palestinians are like the Muslim world's equivalent of the weird awkward kid on the playground that nobody wants on their dodgeball team. But an excuse to reopen old wounds and reignite old feuds between the Abrahamic religions is ALWAYS welcome. Everybody loves a jihad!
> 
> ...


 
Bolded - One problem here -- the formation of Israel occured after 40+ years of anti-judiac violence throughout the Middle East, and the move was to politically defend the Jews inside Palestine from Radical Islam, kidnappings, murders, etc.

Years later, it might have been a major problem, but then again, the Arab Filistines would dig themselves a grave when they refused to de-radicalize. Thank the former Mufti of Jerusalem for that (who also met with Himmler and Adolf Hitler.)


----------



## Tycho (Dec 30, 2008)

Bambi said:


> Bolded - One problem here -- the formation of Israel occured after 40+ years of anti-judiac violence throughout the Middle East, and the move was to politically defend the Jews inside Palestine from Radical Islam, kidnappings, murders, etc.
> 
> Years later, it might have been a major problem, but then again, the Arab Filistines would dig themselves a grave when they refused to de-radicalize. *Thank the former Mufti of Jerusalem for that (who also met with Himmler and Adolf Hitler.)*



Charming.  But not unexpected.  As if the Nazis were any friends of the Muslim world.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> That wasn't the reason for going there.
> 
> They are claiming he's dead now anyway, they bombed the shit out of mountains where they thought he was in, also the videos he sent showed him as being very ill.
> 
> Obama wants to pull out from what I've heard.


 
So, we invaded Afghanistan not to get rid of Bin Laden and the Pakistani funded Taliban, but for x_reason?

Okay, I'd like to hear why you think we invaded Afghanistan.

Also, as for Bin Laden being allegedly killed? Please see the history of Shamil Basayev, Emir Al-Khattab, and Abu Masab Al-Zarqwai -- he's more then likely not dead based upon what he's learned from these three gentlemen already.



Tycho The Itinerant said:


> As if the Nazis were any friends of the Muslim world.


 
http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/PalestinianNaziSalute01.jpg


Irony -- if were all made of Iron.


----------



## PriestRevan (Dec 30, 2008)

There are still Jews? 

Actually, the better question is: There are still *enough *Jew's to start a war?

--

Either way, good luck on them. If and when the last true Jewish settlement gets bombed to hell, I hope they don't ask America for help.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

Bambi said:


> So, we invaded Afghanistan not to get rid of Bin Laden and the Pakistani funded Taliban, but for x_reason?
> 
> Okay, I'd like to hear why you think we invaded Afghanistan.



You said Bin Laden, don't insert the real reason and say that it's Bin Laden.
It was the Taliban, and it was a response to the WTC attacks, the USA were already planning to attack though and the WTC gave them the ability to actually do it.

Peacekeeping forces were then sent in to, well, keep the peace. And since then they've been taking out known terrorist locations and not really much else.

In my opinion it's just bullshit, unnecessary bullshit.

But it wasn't because of one man, as you said before changing it to the Taliban.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> You said Bin Laden, don't insert the real reason and say that it's Bin Laden.


 
Me: Wut?

You: "Dont you dare say the real reason!"

Me: ???

NewfDraggie -- you are reactionaire' extradionaire'.



NewfDraggie said:


> It was the Taliban, and it was a response to the WTC attacks, the USA were already planning to attack though and the WTC gave them the ability to actually do it.


 
Yes, it was the Taliban -- and who was in charge of that movement? Zawahiri and Bin Laden, correct?

So, getting rid of them would at least have had the effect of decentralizing the Talibans leadership, eventually causing the organization to split into indecisive rifts of militancy, correct?

The goal was to get Bin Laden -- he's the one who organized the attacks, and claimed responsibility.



NewfDraggie said:


> Peacekeeping forces were then sent in to, well, keep the peace. And since then they've been taking out known terrorist locations and not really much else.


 
"To, well, keep the peace?"

Well, yes and no. It was a military expedition to arrest Bin Laden and to capitulate the Taliban Regime. Not necessarly a random military deployement to the middle of nowhere, as you would insinuate.



NewfDraggie said:


> In my opinion it's just bullshit, unnecessary bullshit.
> 
> But it wasn't because of one man, as you said before changing it to the Taliban.


 
So, going after the Taliban and Bin Laden is bullshit?

Then what should we do we criminals who kill 2,000 or more of our citizens?

Like we did with all of our other members of congress during the Red Scare, and make them heroes through complacency?


----------



## Tycho (Dec 30, 2008)

We went into Afghanistan to try and uproot one of the cardinal cells of Al-Qaeda and their Taliban supporters.  And to chase down everybody's favorite terrorist talking-head, Osama bin Laden, of course.  It would help if we hadn't fostered the development of the Taliban during the conflict between the Afghans and the Soviets.  But hindsight is 20/20.

Iraq was a simple matter of Dubya trying to "finish" what his idiot ineffectual father started with Desert Storm.  Dubya fancies himself a fuckin' cowboy, and he wanted to get the man who tried to kill his pa (there was a Hussein-backed assassination plot against the first Bush).

See, his pops fomented a rebellion by the Shia muslims in Iraq with the implied promise of backup from the US.  No backup ever arrived and the Shiites got butchered by the Sunni-controlled Baath Party government.  They've been pretty bitter about that ever since.  Needless to say this was a pretty ugly stain on H.W.'s presidency, and Dubya saw fit to try and redeem his Oscar-Milquetoast ineffectual mealy-mouthed moron dad's legacy in Iraq.  (Which he's not doing very well at the moment.)

It should also be noted that ANYTHING a Bush does is monitored by and influenced/controlled by the Saudi Royal Family, including the pullout from Iraq that concluded Desert Storm - I'd wager the Saudis didn't want the Shiite majority in Iraq to seize power (The Saudis are Sunni).


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> We went into Afghanistan to try and uproot one of the cardinal cells of Al-Qaeda and their Taliban supporters. And to chase down everybody's favorite terrorist talking-head, Osama bin Laden, of course. It would help if we hadn't fostered the development of the Taliban during the conflict between the Afghans and the Soviets. But hindsight is 20/20.
> 
> It should also be noted that ANYTHING a Bush does is monitored by and influenced/controlled by the Saudi Royal Family, including the pullout from Iraq that concluded Desert Storm - I'd wager the Saudis didn't want the Shiite majority in Iraq to seize power (The Saudis are Sunni).


 
Right, and right again.

EDIT: Newf, I'm sorry there may have been a misunderstanding between us.


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 30, 2008)

in b4 





szopaw said:


> nazis


 fuck 





Bambi said:


> Adolf Hitler


 double fuck


----------



## Tycho (Dec 30, 2008)

LizardKing said:


> fuck



Godwin wins the race again.  Better luck next thread, LizardKing.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

You said:


Bambi said:


> Nope -- Bin Laden's not caught yet.


And I responded:


NewfDraggie said:


> That wasn't the reason for going there.


Then you changed it too:


Bambi said:


> So, we invaded Afghanistan not to get rid of Bin Laden and the Pakistani funded Taliban, but for x_reason?


So I responded:


NewfDraggie said:


> You said Bin Laden, don't insert the real reason and say that it's Bin Laden.
> It was the Taliban...


Then because I seen the mistake you're trying to cover up, you went on with:


Bambi said:


> Me: Wut?
> 
> You: "Dont you dare say the real reason!"
> 
> ...





Bambi said:


> BAWWWW


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> You said:
> 
> And I responded:
> 
> ...


 
Uhm, I didn't change it to anything. 

My statements haven't been edited -- and each of these statements you quoted link back to seperate posts, so there has been no "edit" or "coverup". So, what is your problem exactly other than an honest mistake on your part?

Will I ever know besides you trying to play a moderator of my words?


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

Bambi said:


> Uhm, I didn't change it to anything.
> 
> My statements haven't been edited.
> 
> So, what is your problem exactly other than this?



Unlike Saddam, Bin Laden isn't the reason for the campaign, Saddam had to be taken out, that was a goal, Bin Laden isn't what they're trying to take out, but the Taliban entirely, if they killed Bin Laden that goal wouldn't be complete, would it?

In the case of Saddam, that was the goal, they had enough of his bullshit and wanted that fucked to pay for his crimes and what he did in power.

Bin Laden has no power, he's just a man that probably isn't in charge of the Taliban, even. So saying the Afghanistan war is to get that one man, is false. Killing him isn't the goal.

You said that until he's caught the war isn't over, but that's not true; once the Taliban are removed the war is over, even if they don't find Bin Laden, but you changed what you were saying and said *Bin Laden AND the Taliban*. You didn't edit a post, no you added more correcting yourself in a later post and basically calling me a moron, and that you were right all along.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Dec 30, 2008)

And once again we have Israel failing to understand that Hamas cannot be defeated by war. You literally cannot defeat terrorism through combat, because combat is what terrorism breeds off of.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

capthavoc123 said:


> And once again we have Israel failing to understand that Hamas cannot be defeated by war. You literally cannot defeat terrorism through combat, because combat is what terrorism breeds off of.



Yes.

But, if you show them that hiding with civilians doesn't save them, maybe the wars to come won't have them hiding amongst the civs...doubtful and wishful thinking.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Unlike Saddam, Bin Laden isn't the reason for the campaign, Saddam had to be taken out, that was a goal, Bin Laden isn't what they're trying to take out, but the Taliban entirely, if they killed Bin Laden that goal wouldn't be complete, would it?


 
... and you're annoyed because I mentioned in a post second to the first one I made, that Bin Laden and Taliban haven't been properly dealt with.

I think you're upset not over this fact specifically, but because I even bothered to negotiate a response to you in the first place.



NewfDraggie said:


> In the case of Saddam, that was the goal, they had enough of his bullshit and wanted that fucked to pay for his crimes and what he did in power.


 
And then we made the worst crime of all -- 500,000 dead Iraqi civilians later, and how?



NewfDraggie said:


> Bin Laden has no power, he's just a man that probably isn't in charge of the Taliban, even. So saying the Afghanistan war is to get that one man, is false. Killing him isn't the goal.


 
Wrong.

It is one of the primary objectives of this war, amung many to be sure.



NewfDraggie said:


> Basically said that until he's caught the war isn't over, but that's not true; once the Taliban are removed the war is over, even if they don't find Bin Laden, but you changed what you were saying and said *Bin Laden AND the Taliban*. You didn't edit a post, no you added more correcting yourself in a later post and basically calling me a moron, and that you were right all along.


 
Yeah, but that post were I stated that wasn't edited. So again, this whole fallacious idea of me back tracking and trying to be right is false. Can you accept that, or are you going to spend your entire day writing losing retorts to the internet man until he concedes?

Also, you're being anal retentive because I didn't quite agree with your post -- please, get over it. It's really destroying the original conversation.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

Wow, you're right no matter what, even after I pointed out you made a mistake, you're trying to make it look like I'm wrong and you were never wrong.

Fail.


----------



## Jelly (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> That wasn't the reason for going there.
> 
> They are claiming he's dead now anyway, they bombed the shit out of mountains where they thought he was in, also the videos he sent showed him as being very ill.
> 
> Obama wants to pull out from what I've heard.



Which doesn't really mean anything.
I had thought that Afghanistan was destabilizing and that they needed to pull troops from Iraq to Afghanistan? I know that was a hot subject for a while (pre- and post- debates), but I'm not sure where we're at now.
(I had also thought that Obama stated some level of support for adding more troops to Afghanistan.)


----------



## Tycho (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes.
> 
> But, if you show them that hiding with civilians doesn't save them, maybe the wars to come won't have them hiding amongst the civs...doubtful and wishful thinking.



They have a bad tendency to be stupid, stubborn and spiteful.  Even if it no longer does them any good they will engage in "human shield" tactics simply to spite their foes and give themselves a kind of righteous fury.  They conveniently ignore the fact that THEY are as complicit in those people's deaths as their enemies, or chalk it up to typical "blood must be shed to win a war" rhetoric.

IDIOT: "I'm sorry, Mr. Habib, your son died nobly in the cause of Allah's justice upon the infidels."
HABIB: "My son was 5 years old and was nobody's enemy."
IDIOT: "Our cause is his cause, and your cause! We fight for you and your son! We will exact revenge a hundred fold in the name of your son!"
HABIB: "It won't bring my son back."

Typical thinking amongst these morons.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Wow, you're right no matter what, even after I pointed out you made a mistake, you're trying to make it look like I'm wrong and you were never wrong.
> 
> Fail.


 
Right no matter what?

Wrong -- this is a sad case of projection on your part.

From now on, you can keep these sorts of problems to PM's. A simple misunderstanding between two forum avatars escalates into an ego war of massive epic failure -- and the world still continues to turn, with or without us here.

Can I return to the original conversation please, or are you not finished gloating over rotten apples?



> They have a bad tendency to be stupid, stubborn and spiteful. Even if it no longer does them any good they will engage in "human shield" tactics simply to spite their foes and give themselves a kind of righteous fury. They conveniently ignore the fact that THEY are as complicit in those people's deaths as their enemies, or chalk it up to typical "blood must be shed to win a war" rhetoric.


 
God forbid the media ever portray it like this ...


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

Bambi said:


> Right no matter what?
> 
> Wrong -- this is a sad case of projection on your part.
> 
> ...



Well, hopefully a more intelligent person will ignore your obvious cover up and your baww responses.



Tycho The Itinerant said:


> They have a bad tendency to be stupid, stubborn and spiteful.  Even if it no longer does them any good they will engage in "human shield" tactics simply to spite their foes and give themselves a kind of righteous fury.  They conveniently ignore the fact that THEY are as complicit in those people's deaths as their enemies, or chalk it up to typical "blood must be shed to win a war" rhetoric.
> 
> IDIOT: "I'm sorry, Mr. Habib, your son died nobly in the cause of Allah's justice upon the infidels."
> HABIB: "My son was 5 years old and was nobody's enemy."
> ...


Yeah, I know. Very, very moronic and pathetic. But, it keeps the UN from blowing them to fuck with everything, because they hide in civ buildings and civ cities, etc... this time the jews didn't care and royally fucked them regardless!


----------



## Tycho (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah, I know. Very, very moronic and pathetic. But, it keeps the UN from blowing them to fuck with everything, because they hide in civ buildings and civ cities, etc... this time the jews didn't care and royally fucked them regardless!



It used to be I frowned heavily on the Israelis' heavy-handed tactics.  Now, I don't really care anymore.  I just wish there wasn't such a HUGE backing for the Israelis by Jesus-freaks and American Jews.  Like we really need to be associated with that shitstorm.

It should be noted that while the Israelis have been heavy handed, they've been holding back a LOT.  If they wanted to, and were willing to risk war with their neighbors, they could incinerate the entirety of the Gaza Strip with little difficulty.  They DO have nukes, remember.  Tactical nukes and likely some slightly bigger ones as well.  Pretty much a guarantee that if anyone else in the region starts a fight with Israel, Israel will be the one that finishes said fight.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah, I know. Very, very moronic and pathetic. But, it keeps the UN from blowing them to fuck with everything, because they hide in civ buildings and civ cities, etc... this time the jews didn't care and royally fucked them regardless!


 
Not quite -- legally, they are well within their right to protect themselves from cross border attacks. The question should be, is the force having any real effect?

No, because the force isn't directed as accurately as it should be.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> It used to be I frowned heavily on the Israelis' heavy-handed tactics.  Now, I don't really care anymore.  I just wish there wasn't such a HUGE backing for the Israelis by Jesus-freaks and American Jews.  Like we really need to be associated with that shitstorm.



I -heavily- agree. Fuck. x3


----------



## Shin Ji Ka Mi (Dec 30, 2008)

I think one of the reasons of why there are so many terrorists is because of the bombing.

I just can picture losing one's house, loved ones, places you used to hang out with your friends, even limbs and what not, your future, just because some nation thought the terrorist were there.

There you lost your faith, and you started thinking on revenge about those people who took everything away from you just for one little excuze... then someone from a cult comes, offering you salvation, redemption to where you lost your faith, to fight against those enemies who took everything away from you, so you give in, having nothing else to lose.

It's hard to understand for some people because we are sitting tranquil in our homes.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

Shin Ji Ka Mi said:


> I think one of the reasons of why there are so many terrorists is because of the bombing.
> 
> I just can picture losing one's house, loved ones, places you used to hang out with your friends, even limbs and what not, your future, just because some nation thought the terrorist were there.
> 
> ...


 
True.

But if these people are being taken advantage of, what can we do to make sure that it never happens again?

I'm all for dismantling militant Zionism and militant Islam simultaneously. Nothing has been more destructive to the human habitat than religion with guns, unfortunately.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 30, 2008)

Bambi said:


> I'm all for dismantling militant Zionism and militant Islam simultaneously. Nothing has been more destructive to the human habitat than religion with guns, unfortunately.



^
THIS.

It's a total pipe dream, but still.


----------



## PKBitchGirl (Dec 30, 2008)

szopaw said:


> There's also the funny fact that the israeli resemble the nazis with how they're behaving. Nice irony and way to be hypocritical.



This.

Israel = "BAAAAAAWWW, Jewish people were oppressed so that gives Israel the right to oppress other people



Get-dancing said:


> First of all: Jews are the single most persicuted ethnic group in history.



That doesn't give Israel the right to oppress other people.

Perhaps you should go and live in Israel if you love it so much.

Also, that's a nice picture of yourself in your Avatar



Bambi said:


> I'm all for dismantling militant Zionism and militant Islam simultaneously. Nothing has been more destructive to the human habitat than religion with guns, unfortunately.



Israel could start by cracking down on violent settlers. There was an article about how they harass Palestinian olive growers and try to prevent them from harvesting their trees. The article was written by a Jewish woman who was part of a group who were helping the olive growers bring in the olives, she had a jug of human excrement dumped on her head by a settler.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 30, 2008)

Fucking A, triple post.  Use the Edit function, dammit.


----------



## Bambi (Dec 30, 2008)

PKBitchGirl said:


> Israel could start by cracking down on violent settlers. There was an article about how they harass Palestinian olive growers and try to prevent them from harvesting their trees. The article was written by a Jewish woman who was part of a group who were helping the olive growers bring in the olives, she had a jug of human excrement dumped on her head by a settler.


 
The question then becomes who starts cracking down on what first?

The trouble here is that many Palestinians and Israeli's are wary of such negotiations. You'd need both sides to trust each other well beyond their usual limits, and at least establish some form of accountability that either side would see as appropriate.

Palestine could also start by cracking down on Hamas and dismantling the organization entirely -- Egypt could also assist by limiting underground arms supplies to the Gaza strip, which subsequently funds groups such as those with weapons. Israel should also revert back to their territorial status from 1948 accords. The very next steps would involve social / political changes, and population integration.

I'm sure that would be a very powerful message in of itself.


----------



## Beck (Dec 30, 2008)

PKBitchGirl said:


> That doesn't give Israel the right to oppress other people.



LOL


----------



## PriestRevan (Dec 30, 2008)

PKBitchGirl said:


> *That doesn't give Israel the right to oppress other people.*
> 
> Perhaps you should go and live in Israel if you love it so much.
> 
> Also, that's a nice picture of yourself in your Avatar


 
Calm down and let them do what they want. Why does it matter?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Dec 30, 2008)

PriestRevan said:


> Calm down and let them do what they want. Why does it matter?



No human rights for Arabs in Israel


----------



## capthavoc123 (Dec 30, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> Yes.
> 
> But, if you show them that hiding with civilians doesn't save them, maybe the wars to come won't have them hiding amongst the civs...doubtful and wishful thinking.



So...your argument is fighting terrorists doesn't work, but fighting terrorists does work.

Way to make sense.


----------



## PriestRevan (Dec 30, 2008)

Load_Blown said:


> No human rights for Arabs in Israel


 
So?


----------



## .Ein. (Dec 30, 2008)

Israel declares war.

Great.

I officially declare 'Fuck You Guys' on the rest of everyone forever.

It's like jihad but less violent and more whiny.


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

capthavoc123 said:


> So...your argument is fighting terrorists doesn't work, but fighting terrorists does work.
> 
> Way to make sense.



What are you smoking and pass it over.

All I said was:
*if you show them that hiding with civilians doesn't save them, maybe the wars to come won't have them hiding amongst the civs...doubtful and wishful thinking.*
Meaning, they (the terrorists) hide amongst civilians, if we show them that we will still attack (as in what the Israeli defense force is doing), then maybe, MAYBE they won't hide amongst civilians. I added, doubtful and wishful thinking, because that won't happen.

Engrish.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 30, 2008)

You yourself admit it's completely out of touch with reality (never mind WRONG) to say "yeah, we should bomb civilians just to make the point that terrorists can't hide amongst them", so why say it in the first place?


----------



## lilEmber (Dec 30, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> You yourself admit it's completely out of touch with reality (never mind WRONG) to say "yeah, we should bomb civilians just to make the point that terrorists can't hide amongst them", so why say it in the first place?



Because...that's what they did?...


----------



## Azure (Dec 30, 2008)

ramsay_baggins said:


> Yeh, because that hasn't happened yet
> /sarcasm
> 
> :roll:
> ...


You're retarded and need to read a fucking history book and turn off the BBC.



NewfDraggie said:


> That doesn't mean they're not being backed. They gave the go on it, but didn't expect them to assault all out with their massive airforce, which they did do. Now, don't piss them off because they control the air in this war torn world.
> 
> And no, nato and UN didn't back Iraq, they did back afganistan though.


 
Actually, they backed both. Remember the Big McLarge Huge multitude of nations that everybody likes to forget were in the Iraq War? Yeah, that was the back up, yet they pussied out, predictably. Not that I even agree with all of it, but people need to get shit right.



Tycho The Itinerant said:


> ...I don't know why the rest of the world still cares about this. Let Palestine and Israel turn each other into smoking holes in the ground. Though Israel will undoubtedly win, if the gloves get taken off. At least until every other butthurt Muslim nation jumps in and tries to annihilate Israel.
> 
> It's funny, really - the other Muslim nations of the world generally don't give two shits about Palestine itself, they're just all butthurt about a Jewish nation kicking the crap out of a Muslim nation. Amongst Muslim nations, nobody else wants the Palestinians. The Palestinians are like the Muslim world's equivalent of the weird awkward kid on the playground that nobody wants on their dodgeball team. But an excuse to reopen old wounds and reignite old feuds between the Abrahamic religions is ALWAYS welcome. Everybody loves a jihad!
> 
> ...


 
You get a Gold Star. This is pretty much my stance. Fuck em both, I'm just waiting for the Jewish Atomic Offensive, and the sudden disappearance of all those pesky oil bearing nations filled with retards. It's for the best, oil is becoming obsolete, and what will they do without a market for their goods? I think this all works out pretty nicely. Bonus points if Israel is vaporized as well. Many birds, one stone, and a mighty amused western world.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 30, 2008)

you all deserve total annihilation... or was that the eugenics debate.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 31, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> you all deserve total annihilation



I beg to differ.  They all deserve the craptastic Red Alert 3.  They do NOT deserve the awesomeness that is Total Annihilation.


----------



## Azure (Dec 31, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> I beg to differ. They all deserve the craptastic Red Alert 3. They do NOT deserve the awesomeness that is Total Annihilation.


Shit, RA 3 sucks? I was waiting to hear that. Has EA ruined the franchise, like the do everything else they touch? I heard the did away with resource gathering, which pissed me off, since I hate Generals for that. TA on the other hand, I still play that game. Spring is pretty awesome, and Supreme Commander gives me a permanent hard on. Insert standard maudlin statement about the "good ole days" of gaming when the games were about playability and innovation instead of retarded graphics benchmark cock fights.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 31, 2008)

I've heard nothing positive about RA3.  Not from anybody I would trust as a critic of decent video games, anyway... of which I only know 8.


----------



## Qoph (Dec 31, 2008)

It looks like the US is once again blindly supporting Israel.

So much for Bush bringing peace to Israel before the end of his term.


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Dec 31, 2008)

What a surprise! 
/sarc

Muslims vs. Jews. FIGHT!


----------



## Skie (Dec 31, 2008)

I'm not even going to bother reading this thread as I already see from the first few post there a too many retards in here. Video here is a bit radical though, I'm a lefty myself, but approve of the action taken this time.
I urge people to talk only when they live in a city that is being bombarded constantly for 8 years.
Also please read some history, as I've seen from the first posts, that you don't really know much about 'the first decades'.

                              I recommend everyone to visit:
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
 Learn a thing or two about Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the meaning of the word "Palestine" - which is a name of a nation from the historic biblical times, unrelated in any way to today's "Palestine".
 Also important is to learn about the city that took the most damage from Gaza-Strip bombing since October 2000, Sderot, of which you can read here:
[en.wikipedia.org]
 Please, do yourselves a favor, read a little, learn a little, and base your opinions on FACTS instead of prejudice and misconceptions created by the media to encourage hate, antisemitism, sadness, and any other human emotion that'll help them get some rating.
 You owe it to yourself and anyone you talk to.
Spreading mislead opinions based on nothing but anger is simply stupid, will get you or anyone near you nowhere, and will only make you support the wrong side.
 Palestine is lead by Hammas. Hammas is a terror organization not better than Al Quaida in any way.
You can see a fantastic interview with John Voight, who explains things very clearly and surprisingly knowledgeably, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phTtykyzWm0
Good luck, and I hope you learn a thing or two from all these sources.             

------------------------------------------------------------------

Let them all learn before they judge.


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 31, 2008)

Not that I'm an expert, but I consider myself reasonably learned in this area. I was under the impression that Palestine is actually divided between Fatah and Hamas. Considering Abbas (NOT a member of Hamas) is the President of the PNA, I don't think you can say Palestine is a nation of terrorists.

I have no anti-Israeli sentiment. Not to the people anyway. As for the government, tht's a very different story. Like the US, I feel many grievances over the ridiculous responses and militaristic handlings of issues. I'm a hippie though, so my opinion doesn't count. 

Seriously. Vastly disproportional retaliation/unwillingness to compromise/stealing land + resources much?

Both the Israeli government and Hamas have clearly shown how unwilling to compromise they are.

Israel won't agree to conditions that should be reasonable because they get attacked by terrorists. And terrorists attack Israel because they don't want to agree to lay down their arms until Israel backs off humanitarian rights violations, land, etc.

As a result, innocent Palestinians are killed en masse, blockades are set up that keep the living in a stranglehold with resources, and innocent Israelis are killed as well.

I used to care about this subject more, but it'll never change, and most people who are interested in this stuff tend to be either anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian. You really have to take a less passionate view of the whole picture to be able to reason at all with this stuff though.

If you do want to learn about the subject though, go read news from multiple sources. Don't really take one person's word for it since most people who have something to say about all this have their own opinion they want to share as well. And we all know how easy it is to quietly lie to ourselves for the sake of convincing others of what you feel.

[opinion]
In my opinion, I think Israel does it to itself and should actually abide by UN Resolution 242, rather than going with war crimes and collective punishment over a population. Funny how Israel is free to break UN Resolutions like that. Must be good to have friends in high places. Check out how many war crimes have been held up to Israel, with the US as the ONLY veto.
[/opinion]


----------



## Skie (Dec 31, 2008)

Grimfang said:


> Not that I'm an expert, but I consider myself reasonably learned in this area. I was under the impression that Palestine is actually divided between Fatah and Hamas. Considering Abbas (NOT a member of Hamas) is the President of the PNA, I don't think you can say Palestine is a nation of terrorists.
> 
> I have no anti-Israeli sentiment. Not to the people anyway. As for the government, tht's a very different story. Like the US, I feel many grievances over the ridiculous responses and militaristic handlings of issues. I'm a hippie though, so my opinion doesn't count.
> 
> ...



I tend to agree. Though there is much more to the whole thing that that, on both sides (yes war has 2 sides remember?) *sigh*
I think it is mostly a useless discussion, but people do tend to judge unevenly. Also it is amazing how much fake media is being released.

I'm not going to respond to this thread any more, I find most furries to be really intelligent folk, if anyone want to discuss a bit of politics with me, you're welcome to find me at IRC (As long as I won't be busy studying (damn chemistry)).

On a fun note, if me and my Palestinian friend are ever going to attend EF together, we wil bring a united Israeli-Palstiani flag


----------



## Psudowolf (Dec 31, 2008)

Oh great, another war that the U.S. is going to help out in. Lucky me.


----------



## Grimfang (Dec 31, 2008)

Skie said:


> I tend to agree. Though there is much more to the whole thing that that, on both sides (yes war has 2 sides remember?) *sigh*
> I think it is mostly a useless discussion, but people do tend to judge unevenly. Also it is amazing how much fake media is being released.
> 
> I'm not going to respond to this thread any more, I find most furries to be really intelligent folk, if anyone want to discuss a bit of politics with me, you're welcome to find me at IRC (As long as I won't be busy studying (damn chemistry)).
> ...



There are Palestinian furries? Somehow, I assumed certain parts of the world were immune to such things.. wow, heheh.

But yeah.. this is a difficult subject to really get into without it becoming something heated. One of my best friends actually has an aunt in Israel whose apartment complex was hit by a rocket. She wasn't hurt, but he's very bull-headed with this topic. I can't really blame him. I tend to be pretty anti-establishmentish anyway. Some people believe in war though, heheh.

I just noticed this:


Skie said:


> I'm not going to respond to this thread any more, I find most furries to be really intelligent folk, if anyone want to discuss a bit of politics with me, you're welcome to find me at IRC (As long as I won't be busy studying (damn chemistry)).



Dunno if you're still checking on the thread, but I hope nothing I say offends on this topic. Like I said.. I'm generally anti-establishmenty, so I'm fairly balanced in all my anti-governmentalism, heheh.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 31, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


>



Seen that exact pic before.  It gets around.

Hitler and friends would have gassed Muslims as readily as Jews, had they the luxury.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Dec 31, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Seen that exact pic before.  It gets around.
> 
> Hitler and friends would have gassed Muslims as readily as Jews, had they the luxury.



Yeah, and they (the nutjob Muslims) probably realize this, but seeing as how they make it a point to commit suicide while they're killing Jews, which is self-murder, in their fucked up minds a world where Hitler succeeded in exterminating both them and the Jews would be preferable to one with both Jews and Muslims.


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 1, 2009)

well if I lived in a country where your friends were being rocket bombed ever day, I would not give a fuck what the world community had to say.  when you have to watch your friends and family living in terror, would you be so passive.

I say wipe them off the face of the earth.  Thats how any terrorist action should be handled.  Screw the world, this UN political bullshit needs to stop.  We are an animal.  the only thing we ever understand it who has the worst bite.  Any group of people who will kill in the name of their god needs to be eradicated.  

Flame away people, just remember this if your american.  We did not get to be where we are today by a lot of bullshit talk.  We stuck a foot up everyones ass.  Only when the UN and our panzi ass politicians started running the military did we start declining.

Israel needs to just wipe them off the face of the earth and if anyother nation says jack shit, then need to remind them they are nuclear armed and not a fraid to fire one up someones ass.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 1, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> well if I lived in a country where your friends were being rocket bombed ever day, I would not give a fuck what the world community had to say.  when you have to watch your friends and family living in terror, would you be so passive.
> 
> I say wipe them off the face of the earth.  Thats how any terrorist action should be handled.  Screw the world, this UN political bullshit needs to stop.  We are an animal.  the only thing we ever understand it who has the worst bite.  Any group of people who will kill in the name of their god needs to be eradicated.
> 
> ...



 didn't read but I agree that the middle east should be taken out


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 1, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Seen that exact pic before.  It gets around.
> 
> Hitler and friends would have gassed Muslims as readily as Jews, had they the luxury.



But you do realise that Hitler hated Jews as in the ethnic group, and not the religion?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 10, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> First of all: Jews are the single most persicuted ethnic group in history.



So does that give Israel carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want? Like fuck it does.

I am goddam sick and tired of Israel and its knee-jerk supporters waving the Holocaust banner as justification for whatever action - bombing, blockade, land confiscation - Israel sees fit to mete out on the Palestinians. I would have thought that Jews of all people would know what it was like to be hated in their own country, to be ethnically cleansed from lands where they had lived for centuries, but no - all it seems that Israelis have learned is doing it to them before they do it to you. Have they EVER considered what it must be like living as a Palestinian under Israeli control, or are they too wrapped up in their own selfish mythology to give a damn?

Israel justifies its massive attack on Gaza as self-defence from terrorists. Well I seem to recall that back in the seventies and eighties, the IRA would lob mortars and rockets into Northern Ireland from across the border in Ireland. Did the RAF start bombing the crap out of Dublin in retaliation? Of course not. 

And now both Hamas and Israel reject the UN's call for a ceasefire. Fucking hell. Why won't these arseholes stop the goddam fighting and actually try TALKING properly to each other?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 10, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Israel needs to just wipe them off the face of the earth and if anyother nation says jack shit, then need to remind them they are nuclear armed and not a fraid to fire one up someones ass.



Fuck, if I had my way I've give EVERYONE in the so-called "Holy Land" eighteen months to clear out, then carpet-bomb every square inch of that territory - Jordan River to the Med, Red Sea to Lebanon and the Golan Heights - with thermonuclear weapons salted with cobalt and turn the whole area into a glass car-park... 

... so that *no-one*, ever, ever, EVER will fight over that thrice-cursed goddamned shitty piece of real-estate EVER AGAIN.


----------



## BlackDragonAlpha (Jan 10, 2009)

So much for Jesus' teachings.  I wonder if they know that if they went to war, they'll get massacred.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 10, 2009)

StainMcGorver said:


> ADF, imagine this: you've been bombed for a few months and you've done nothing. Now, you want to attack, and people think you 'need to take a chill pill.'
> Good luck, Isreal. I at least hope that a few allies can help you



StainMcGorver, imagine this: you're a refugee living in a densely-populated enclave that has been blockaded for months because you dared to vote in representatives that your neighbour didn't like. You can't travel easily, if at all, it's very difficult to do any kind of business. There's no work, bugger-all money, you're living off aid handouts and even THOSE are being blocked.

Lobbing rockets into Israel isn't the answer, but honestly, what incentive is Israel giving the Palestinians to be receptive to their position? All Israel's hard-line is doing is pushing Palestinians into the arms of the militants. And it certainly doesn't help when pricks like Get-Dancing say stuff like - 


Get-dancing said:


> Well arabs are like children really, they obviously might be angry or ungrateful at you for trying to take away some of their privladges to make them into decent people, but they'll thank you in the long run.



Where's the Palestinian and Israeli equivalents of Nelson Mandela and F. W. De Klerk when you need them?


----------



## Thatch (Jan 10, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> But you do realise that Hitler hated Jews as in the ethnic group, and not the religion?



Arabs are an ethnic group too.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 10, 2009)

szopaw said:


> Arabs are an ethnic group too.



Yes but last time I checked there are arabs who don't follow islam.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 10, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Seen that exact pic before.  It gets around.
> 
> Hitler and friends would have gassed Muslims as readily as Jews, had they the luxury.



That pic of the muslim woman holding the sign 'god bless hitler' was most likely a set-up.  She has as much of a chance of reading and understanding english as I would reading and understanding arabic (which is none).  The media is full of fun little tricks like that.


----------



## Thatch (Jan 10, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Yes but last time I checked there are arabs who don't follow islam.



Get-Dancing delivers again.






But to be a little bit serious at least, there are semits that don't follow judaism either. Now go back under your rock.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 10, 2009)

CAThulu said:


> That pic of the muslim woman holding the sign 'god bless hitler' was most likely a set-up.  She has as much of a chance of reading and understanding english as I would reading and understanding arabic (which is none).  The media is full of fun little tricks like that.



Where was the pic taken? If it was taken in the States, I wager she would have been able to read it.

Yeah, there's another sign in the background talking about free media.  Wherever they are I'd wager English is spoken and understood.  And likely by them.  I'm not sure if Muslim women are allowed to learn to read, though - that would depend on where the pic was taken (and thus the Muslim-iness of the Muslims there), I guess.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 10, 2009)

Hamas needs some Shamwows to wipe Israel off the map.


----------



## Tryp (Jan 10, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> So does that give Israel carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want? Like fuck it does.
> 
> I am goddam sick and tired of Israel and its knee-jerk supporters waving the Holocaust banner as justification for whatever action - bombing, blockade, land confiscation - Israel sees fit to mete out on the Palestinians. I would have thought that Jews of all people would know what it was like to be hated in their own country, to be ethnically cleansed from lands where they had lived for centuries, but no - all it seems that Israelis have learned is doing it to them before they do it to you. Have they EVER considered what it must be like living as a Palestinian under Israeli control, or are they too wrapped up in their own selfish mythology to give a damn?
> 
> ...



Damn right!  It's always the same old story; Hamas or Hezbollah fire a few rockets, a few Israelis are killed, and Israel unleashes all hell on (pick one: Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, whoever they feel like).  The death ratio must be 1 Israeli for every 50 Palestinians.  The last time that Israel was legitimately threatened was the Yom Kippur war, if I remember correctly.  Hamas and Hezbollah will be crushed if they ever do proper battle with the IDF.  They are all so wrapped up in self-righteousness that they can't agree to even the simplest of truces.  It's time the UN stepped up and brought in the peacekeepers with overwhelming force.


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 11, 2009)

Ok, I want you to stand by and let your family and friends be killed by a "few" rockets.  Screw that, if anyone who hated Israel so much, then they should grow a big fucking set and just go apeshit on them.  Instead they fire a "few" rockets and terrorize and kill civilians instead of just mass assulting.

Life sucks and your just damn lucky that Israel has not just nuked the shit out of the whole area and put up some solar collectors to catch the reflection off the glass parking lot.

Just let Canada or Mexico fire off a "few" rockets here at an american city and you will wake up to the american flag stuck up one of their ass and Betsy Ross stitching a new star in the upper corner.  And that would not come from the american government, but every gun loving, flag waving good ole boy redneck, once again saving you crying, bleading heart, don't hurt a bug, candy ass peace loving PITA's butts again.

Flame away, freedom is not free and no one should live in fear.  Israel grew a pair and Hamas is about to get donkey F'ed.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 12, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Ok, I want you to stand by and let your family and friends be killed by a "few" rockets.



Why don't YOU stand by and let your family and friends be "...under sustained attack from supersonic aircraft and Merkava tanks and thousands of troops whose shells and bombs tore 40 women and children to pieces outside a school, shredded whole families in their beds and who, after nearly a week, had killed almost 200 civilians out of 600 fatalities. ("Wherever I Go, I Hear The Same Tired Middle East Comparisons", Robert Fisk)



> It took Fintan O'Toole, The Irish Times's resident philosopher-in-chief, to speak the unspeakable. "When does the mandate of victimhood expire?" he asked. "*At what point does the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews cease to excuse the state of Israel from the demands of international law and of common humanity*?" (emphasis added)


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 12, 2009)

ME? Believe me when I say this, if I lived in a place where there were terrorist using my family, friends children as shields to hide behind, to gain world pity, I would pick up a gun and kill them too.

Matter of fact let me clear something up, if you sit by and let terrorist opperate out of your neighborhood (same goes for drug pushers, rapist, murders etc) then you are as guilty as they are. Plain and simple. Get off your ass to defend what you cherrish most or face the brutal fact that your not part of the solution then YOU are the problem.

I am sorry kids are dying, but if I knew that there was the possibility that I was putinng my chidren in harms way by living in a danger zone, I would move. No matter the cost. But these people live every day knowing that Hamas and others are attacking and funneling weapons in their area. And yet they do nothing until a war starts and then all they do is whine and cry that its unfair.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jan 12, 2009)

I blame all sides in this. Hamas for being terrorists, Israel for thinking it can do whatever the hell it wants, and the world for letting Israel do that. If it was any other country besides Israel, the world would have condemned that country by now, but not Israel. It gets a pat on the head and the U.S. looks the other way.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 12, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> I blame all sides in this. Hamas for being terrorists, Israel for thinking it can do whatever the hell it wants, and the world for letting Israel do that. If it was any other country besides Israel, the world would have condemned that country by now, but not Israel. It gets a pat on the head and the U.S. looks the other way.



There are 5 countries that have veto power in the UN, 8 that control the world. The US is on both of these lists, but them not caring, doesn't matter. You need 3 veto countries and 5 powers to actually care, or else they can get away with it.

Besides, the UN said go for it, and the USA said go for it. Hamas need to be taught they can't hide with civilians and get away with it, despite how much I think they could of done this differently there's nothing we can really do or say, at all. best to just let the UN keep track of what's right, even if it isn't. Unless we can do something, that is.


----------



## .Ein. (Jan 12, 2009)

Start a nuclear war.

On the dance floor.


----------



## Nakhi (Jan 12, 2009)

Somebody needs to do something to Israel. They pushed it with these attacks. They tried to make peace, and came to the agreement to give up Gaza.

"Thirty-three Palestinians, including a pregnant woman, were killed in Gaza on Sunday, Palestinian medical sources said. That brings the total killed to 898 and 3,695 injured in Gaza since the start of fighting December 27, the sources said." - CNN

Sounds like a real war doesn't it?


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jan 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> There are 5 countries that have veto power in the UN, 8 that control the world. The US is on both of these lists, but them not caring, doesn't matter. You need 3 veto countries and 5 powers to actually care, or else they can get away with it.
> 
> Besides, the UN said go for it, and the USA said go for it. Hamas need to be taught they can't hide with civilians and get away with it, despite how much I think they could of done this differently there's nothing we can really do or say, at all. best to just let the UN keep track of what's right, even if it isn't. Unless we can do something, that is.



U.N. doesn't have any power to do anything to wag fingers and recommend embargos, but they wouldn't do that to their precious Israel, else they'd look anti-Semitic. 




Nouyorus said:


> Somebody needs to do something to Israel. They pushed it with these attacks. They tried to make peace, and came to the agreement to give up Gaza.
> 
> "Thirty-three Palestinians, including a pregnant woman, were killed in Gaza on Sunday, Palestinian medical sources said. That brings the total killed to 898 and 3,695 injured in Gaza since the start of fighting December 27, the sources said." - CNN
> 
> Sounds like a real war doesn't it?



^This. Israel doesn't care who it targets. It has targeted civilian buildings repeatedly, even when there wasn't any Hamas soldiers there.


----------



## .Ein. (Jan 12, 2009)

Fap fap fap.


----------



## Werevixen (Jan 12, 2009)

I hope Israel bombs Palestina back into the stone age, so they can start over and actually grow up this time.


/endofdiscussion


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 12, 2009)

> It took Fintan O'Toole, The Irish Times's resident philosopher-in-chief, to speak the unspeakable. "When does the mandate of victimhood expire?" he asked. "At what point does the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews cease to excuse the state of Israel from the demands of international law and of common humanity?" (emphasis added)



It's not like we're trying to say that two wrongs make a right. But Israel was given to us from the nations who persicuted us for thosands of years as a gift to compensate their actions. Then some people start rocketing us saying "We don't want you back on the land that we took off you during the diaspora, finders keepers!".

God and they *wonder* why people bomb them.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 12, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> It's not like we're trying to say that two wrongs make a right. But Israel was given to us from the nations who persicuted us for thosands of years as a gift to compensate their actions.



... unfortunately, without getting any agreement on that from the people who actually LIVED there. The Arabs never agreed to the UN plan, even though the Jews did - and you CAN'T say you have an "agreement" when the other party never signed on, much like you can't just take possession of someones house without a signed sales agreement (even if you offered them wheelbarrows of money).

A good chunk of Palestinians may indeed have sympathy for what the Jews went through in the Holocaust, but they also wonder why THEY are the ones expected to pay the tab for someone ELSE'S sins... and seeing as the Jewish settlers basically decided to just TAKE what the UN had offered them anyway, I can't blame the Palestinians for being pissed off.

And the only reason Israel got going was because the British running the Palestine Mandate basically gave up on trying to reconcile Jews and Arabs beating the shit out of each other over it, and decided to pull out regardless.



> "We don't want you back on the land that we took off you during the diaspora, finders keepers!"



Funny, the same argument seems to be quite valid when Israelis talk about the extra land they grabbed after the 1967 war. I guess only Israelis are allowed to hold onto land, and Palestinians should just shut up and stop whining, amirite?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 12, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> U.N. doesn't have any power to do anything to wag fingers and recommend embargos, but they wouldn't do that to their precious Israel, else they'd look anti-Semitic.



Not quite. There's plenty of UN resolutions against Israeli actions, but guess who keeps vetoing any decisive action (and who would actively block a Korean-style intervention)? Good old Uncle Sam.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 12, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> I am sorry kids are dying, but if I knew that there was the possibility that I was putinng my chidren in harms way by living in a danger zone, I would move. No matter the cost. But these people live every day knowing that Hamas and others are attacking and funneling weapons in their area. And yet they do nothing until a war starts and then all they do is whine and cry that its unfair.



Don't you actually READ the news? The people in Gaza CAN'T get out of the way - the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, and the Israelis aren't letting ANYONE out. And where would they GO to? The country that's bombing them?

Not to mention they probably remember during the 2006 war when Israel ordered a bunch of Lebanese people out of an area because they were going to bomb it - then when said people were trying to escape, bombing the roads and eventually the refugee groups themselves.



> Believe me when I say this, if I lived in a place where there were terrorist using my family, friends children as shields to hide behind, to gain world pity, I would pick up a gun and kill them too.



Believe me, if I lived in a place where I was basically under siege, not allowed to travel, reduced to living on scraps of handouts that someone else had graciously decided to let in, watching my neighbours' homes being flattened by army bulldozers or airstrikes and basically being treated like a prisoner even if I personally had done nothing wrong, I'd be thinking seriously about lobbing something explosive at my tormentors too...


----------



## PaperJack (Jan 12, 2009)

Hamas kept poking a sleeping tiger for too long. And now the tiger is rightfully angry.

Hamas started it, and now he's all bawwing like a kid because he's getting pwned.
About the people there, they are stupid. They always knew they had terrorists in their basement, but never did anything about it. They kept worshipping Allahu (fail) instead of acting. 

It's like, "O hey, I have this live unexploded ww2 bomb in my house, but I don't do anything because I'm scared! Yet I still sleep there and I pray every night it doesn't go off!"

... Like praying actually does anything.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 12, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> I blame all sides in this. Hamas for being terrorists, Israel for thinking it can do whatever the hell it wants, and the world for letting Israel do that. If it was any other country besides Israel, the world would have condemned that country by now, but not Israel. It gets a pat on the head and the U.S. looks the other way.



Sadly, yes. Especially the US looking the other way.


----------



## Darth GW7 (Jan 12, 2009)

@ Everyone thinking this is going to turn into World War 3.
No. It's not going to happen. Not least because we can't afford it. Go and find out how many people died in WW2. With the development of nuclear weapons, modern warfare is a no-win game.
Besides, the palestinians aren't just grouped all in one place. They're everywhere. War isn't going to stop the fighting. These are resistance groups, not armies. Even if we keep shooting them down, more will rise up to take the gun again. What we really want is a war of diplomacy, however, if some warfare has to occur, so be it.
All in all, I can never find myself being on the side of terrorists.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 12, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Funny, the same argument seems to be quite valid when Israelis talk about the extra land they grabbed after the 1967 war. I guess only Israelis are allowed to hold onto land, and Palestinians should just shut up and stop whining, amirite?



Now we're talking, knew we could agree on something!


----------



## Tycho (Jan 12, 2009)

Darth GW7 said:


> With the development of nuclear weapons, modern warfare is a no-win game.



Unless you're a nutcase who thinks he's gonna get virgins and shit in the afterlife.


----------



## PaperJack (Jan 12, 2009)

Darth_GW7, have you ever played a game named DEF CON ?


----------



## Nakhi (Jan 12, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> U.N. doesn't have any power to do anything to wag fingers and recommend embargos, but they wouldn't do that to their precious Israel, else they'd look anti-Semitic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Very true about Israel and the UN. I would like to see some anti-Israel intervention.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 13, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Now we're talking, knew we could agree on something!



Like hell we do - it looks like I should have marked "only Israelis are allowed to hold onto land, and Palestinians should just shut up and stop whining" with sarcasm tags as you obviously missed it.

So tell me: What gives Israelis the right to hold land and not Palestinians? Why do you expect Palestinians to just sit back and passively take what Israelis dish out to them? What gives Israelis the right to roger the Palestinians up the arse with impunity?


----------



## Darth GW7 (Jan 13, 2009)

PaperJack said:


> Darth_GW7, have you ever played a game named DEF CON ?



Indeed I have, and I also saw Wargames. Great film, but also with a dark message.
Everyone dies, basically.


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 14, 2009)

Darth GW7 said:


> Indeed I have, and I also saw Wargames. Great film, but also with a dark message.
> Everyone dies, basically.


 

not everyone, but all the governments do, and so do most of the major cities.


but such is life.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 14, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> not everyone, but all the governments do, and so do most of the major cities.
> 
> 
> but such is life.



In a heated nuclear exchange between nuclear superpowers, EVERYONE DIES.  The environmental catastrophe brought on by large amounts of nukes going off would destroy ecosystems and people alike.

No "happily ever after without humans" for the woodland critters.


----------



## Darth GW7 (Jan 14, 2009)

And so another game of "Evolution" is lost, and another begins...


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> So tell me: What gives Israelis the right to hold land and not Palestinians? Why do you expect Palestinians to just sit back and passively take what Israelis dish out to them? What gives Israelis the right to roger the Palestinians up the arse with impunity?



It's *HATE*.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 14, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> It's *HATE*.



Hate from the Israelis for the Palestinians. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 14, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Hate from the Israelis for the Palestinians. Thanks for clearing that up.


 
Uhm, I believe there are people who don't respectively hate either side, but dislike the politics that constantly puts their people to war.

Even then, the hate is shared. Not to use your point as a launching pad, but I don't agree with supporting militant Zionism and militant Islam. If we want peace in the region, we should stop enabling both with political favor.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 14, 2009)

> Screw that, if anyone who hated Israel so much, then they should grow a big fucking set and just go apeshit on them. Instead they fire a "few" rockets and terrorize and kill civilians instead of just mass assulting.



they tried that, didnt work. so lets see, open war didnt work, israel kicked their enemy's ass every time. then they tried using firearms to assault crowds of people. israel made it a civic virtue to be armed at all times in public. then they tried suicide bombs, israel built a fence and checkpoints, which also stopped another trick, over the border snipers(brick walls to block their view). so now they are to rockets and mortars. also the most powerful attack yet. attempt to destroy israel's support internationally by portraying israel's counter offensive as bombing palestine into the stone age. really that media based strategy is by far the best yet and the most lethal too. though they could be fighting for 20-40 more years before their plan comes to fruition. 



> ^This. Israel doesn't care who it targets. It has targeted civilian buildings repeatedly, even when there wasn't any Hamas soldiers there.



1: gaza is as said before incredibly tiny. now an artillery barrage for example has a danger radius of 600 meters. thats with normal high explosive rounds. within that radius its highly likely that shrapnel will hit your position and quite possible for a direct hit to land. when you see pictures of war torn cities in the media and movies all those "bullet holes" on the walls are actually shrapnel scorings. in that way an artillery strike can impact an incredible area. unless its a particularly heavy strike people under cover are usually fine but those in the open or just happen to be unlucky enough to get a direct hit are doomed. 

as we have seen more then one house, even "safe havens" due to the compact nature of the situation have been hit by artillery. its completely possible that many many of the civilian casualties are because of the inaccuracy of artillery. 

2: its honestly quite possible that many of the lower echelons of the leadership in israel are possible. corporals and sergents, maybe even lt's. while the high rankers recognize the need to protect the civilian population no matter their feelings many of the lower rankers might not have such restraint. often its quite possible that they simply do not care. an artillery strike called in close to a potential clusters of civilians may happen because those lower leaders just dont flipping care.

hamas made no effort to target the military, they just attacked the civilian population. its understandable if there are feelings in the israeli ranks of "why should we put extra efforts to protect them?". as such innocents getting hit may not necessarily be because of genocide but because the isreali military is full of people who just dont care enough to make a concerted effort not to harm non combatants. 

3: at a rate of about 50 dead a day. that is about 30 civilians and 20 hamas combatants this is actually a fairly bloodless campaign. not even the enemy army is suffering badly. durring the first 570 days of the iraqi war for example there were around 170 civilian casualties a day, thats a figure NOT counting enemy combatants where the current 940 death toll from gaza includes combatants.



> ... unfortunately, without getting any agreement on that from the people who actually LIVED there. The Arabs never agreed to the UN plan, even though the Jews did - and you CAN'T say you have an "agreement" when the other party never signed on, much like you can't just take possession of someones house without a signed sales agreement (even if you offered them wheelbarrows of money).



the problem is that the land was a colonial posession. britian could honestly do whatever it damn well felt with the land. even in the post second world war era there still was enough of the "old ways" sticking around for colonial powers to govern their people as they wished. with the rules at the time britian giving the land to the newly formed israeli government was perfectly legal and the arabs had absolutely no legal say. i understand that they resisted but there is a reason why palestine is not recognized as a true nation. 



> View Post
> With the development of nuclear weapons, modern warfare is a no-win game.



nobody but a madman cornered like a rat is likely to use such ordinance. even then with modern technology there is some question if launches and attacks of that nature would be sucessful if a nation was truly on the ropes. the thought of initiating such a war is so hard that it may be too late before most leaders make the decision. though another total war scenario could really lead to a global nuclear war....



> So tell me: What gives Israelis the right to hold land and not Palestinians? Why do you expect Palestinians to just sit back and passively take what Israelis dish out to them? What gives Israelis the right to roger the Palestinians up the arse with impunity?



that palestine is not a world recognized nation and only exists because israel didnt push them off that land into the neighboring nations. its sad but true. its also why so many palistinians have a true die hard mentality. 



> In a heated nuclear exchange between nuclear superpowers, EVERYONE DIES. The environmental catastrophe brought on by large amounts of nukes going off would destroy ecosystems and people alike.



i often think that the greatest test of man's cunning will come to pass in such a scenario. even if survivors can manage to filter out all the radiation from the air they gotta manage to get food and water that is not tainted, as well as gain new power sources and probably in the months to come a method of generating enough power to farm without sunlight(hydroponics). its something NOBODY wants to see come to pass, but yknow if man survives it could very well push us to new heights.


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 14, 2009)

As far as I see it, if you can not buy tanks and planes and equip a proper army, then your gonna have to resort to terrorist acts.  And thats only gonna get you smacked down like a 2 bit whore.

As to israel worring about world opinion?  They don't give a fuck.  It should be very obvious.  And what is the world going to do to them?  sancitions?  US and other will veto that.  Revoke their human rights?  See "israel worring about world opinion".  Launch a full scale war against them?  Oh please, I can only hope that happens as there will be a nuclear war and folks, there will only be one god coming to save man.  And She will enforce the most basic of Her rules.  The strong survive.  Let it come.  This world needs a good enema.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 15, 2009)

Bambi said:


> Uhm, I believe there are people who don't respectively hate either side, but dislike the politics that constantly puts their people to war.
> 
> Even then, the hate is shared. Not to use your point as a launching pad, but I don't agree with supporting militant Zionism and militant Islam. If we want peace in the region, we should stop enabling both with political favor.



I agree completely.

Peace between two diametrically opposing groups IS possible - look at South Africa and Northern Ireland. And the important thing to note is that peace WASN'T achieved by one side bombing the shit out of the other and insisting the other side surrenders before negotiations take place. It WAS achieved through frank talking, mutual respect, and *negotiation*.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 15, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> the problem is that the land was a colonial posession. britian could honestly do whatever it damn well felt with the land. even in the post second world war era there still was enough of the "old ways" sticking around for colonial powers to govern their people as they wished. with the rules at the time britian giving the land to the newly formed israeli government was perfectly legal and the arabs had absolutely no legal say.



Wrong. After 1945 Britain was administering the place under a UN Mandate which followed on from a League of Nations mandate after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It was NEVER a British a colonial possession, and there was no formal handover of the territory to Israel - Jewish leaders simply declared independence the day before the UN Mandate expired, which Arab leaders (understandably) took exception to. Which started the whole bloody mess off...



ceacar99 said:


> that palestine is not a world recognized nation and only exists because israel didnt push them off that land into the neighboring nations.



So because you're not in a "recognised nation", people that ARE in a "recognised nation" have the right to treat you like shit?

I can recall another group of people fitting that category of not being in a "recognised nation" seventy-odd years ago, and a massive number of THAT group got kicked into gas chambers... Sorry, you fail. Massively.


----------



## Seas (Jan 15, 2009)

I say we'll probably get to see some nice fireworks with Ahmadinejad's nukes getting smuggled into israeli cities.
That would solve many problems of the middle east.


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> I agree completely.
> 
> Peace between two diametrically opposing groups IS possible - look at South Africa and Northern Ireland. And the important thing to note is that peace WASN'T achieved by one side bombing the shit out of the other and insisting the other side surrenders before negotiations take place. It WAS achieved through frank talking, mutual respect, and *negotiation*.


 


Im sorry I must disagree with the comparison.  neither of the 2 mentioned above outwardly preaches and rewards killing non believers.   Hamas is mainly radical Islam.  And though MOST of Islam does not support their beliefs directly, they do nothing to condem it outright. 

Negotiations and talks require determination and penalties.  The world however has not put penalties on any nation that supplies Hamas with weapons.  IF the world would cut Egypt off completely, for allowing weapons through or supplying them in most cases, then hamas might sit down and talk.

But with Iran waiting in the wings to support anyone against Israel, then there will never be peace.  Until Israel gets really pissed and parks a nuclear load somewhere.

Oh well, its coming


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 15, 2009)

> So because you're not in a "recognised nation", people that ARE in a "recognised nation" have the right to treat you like shit?
> 
> I can recall another group of people fitting that category of not being in a "recognised nation" seventy-odd years ago, and a massive number of THAT group got kicked into gas chambers... Sorry, you fail. Massively.



wasnt stating that it was fair, just stating the legal facts of the issue. part of the problem is that nobody has yet to decide if palestinians legally are squatters that israel tolerates to a degree(as in not forcibly evicting as they could do) or a genuine state. so far not much support for a genuine state has come alone especially because nobody wants to support such a crazy unstable anthill full of deranged militants. 

now, your connection from that to the holocaust makes no sense. relating a "null state" to a bunch of people of varying nations being singled out and persecuted makes no sense in that way. 



> As far as I see it, if you can not buy tanks and planes and equip a proper army, then your gonna have to resort to terrorist acts. And thats only gonna get you smacked down like a 2 bit whore.



egypt actually held for a good moment against israeli tanks and aircraft because they massed troops with rockets. the modern illusion is that tanks are invincible(especially modern ones) but they really aren't. its rather stupid for a tank commander to go cartwheeling into a well armed infantry position. while they are hard as hell to kill infantry is hard as hell to spot and with various weapons can have a nasty sting. the problem is that modern tanks are so tough that the classics like rpgs just wont cut it. if a missle with a more primitive charge is used(but still has to be better then shitty ass rpg) then the only hope is a high angle of fire on top of the tank's turret, extremely lucky shot on the driver's hatch, or managing to burst the tracks or engine getting a mobility kill. 

with modern guidence and ordinance its pretty hard to win in the desert if your enemy has complete rule of the skies, but city scapes still have a good chance. in those situations effectiveness of high tech weapons is reduced dramatically and the simple classics again rule. weapons like rifles, hand grenades(especially hand grenades....), mortars and rockets are chief weapons for the situation and the advantage is that all of them are in great abundance or easy to make(save for the rifle). in that way a group like hamas has a chance at inflicting serious damage on israel if it sticks to tight warren like districts, but then it means a contest between the assaulting force's tactical understanding of how to identify the enemy fortress and approach it without receiving much fire, where the defender has to understand how to mitigate those effects or manage to put effective fire without reprisal on forces that have reached one of their fortresses.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 15, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> Negotiations and talks require determination and penalties.



Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. The purpose of ANY negotiation is to find a common agreed solution that gives BOTH sides something they want - not necessarily everything for both sides. Both sides might have to swallow a dead rat or two to get what they want, but if the benefits outweigh the dead rats then that's not such a problem.



jagdwolf said:


> The world however has not put penalties on any nation that supplies Hamas with weapons.



And neither has the world managed to persuade Israel to abide by its side of any deal either.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 15, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> wasnt stating that it was fair, just stating the legal facts of the issue. part of the problem is that nobody has yet to decide if palestinians legally are squatters that israel tolerates to a degree(as in not forcibly evicting as they could do) or a genuine state. so far not much support for a genuine state has come alone especially because nobody wants to support such a crazy unstable anthill full of deranged militants.
> 
> now, your connection from that to the holocaust makes no sense. relating a "null state" to a bunch of people of varying nations being singled out and persecuted makes no sense in that way.



You really DO have your head up your arse, don't you? Palestinian people living in the territory up to 1948 are suddenly "squatters" because some other group unilaterally declared themselves a nation on THEIR land?

So tell me: what kind of "final solution" to the "Palestinian problem" do _you _propose?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> You really DO have your head up your arse, don't you?



You're just figuring this out now?


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 15, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. The purpose of ANY negotiation is to find a common agreed solution that gives BOTH sides something they want - not necessarily everything for both sides. Both sides might have to swallow a dead rat or two to get what they want, but if the benefits outweigh the dead rats then that's not such a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> And neither has the world managed to persuade Israel to abide by its side of any deal either.


 

Its hard to find a common ground when the only thing one side wants is to kill the other.  And that, is something that everyone in this world needs to see.  That the enemies of Israel want them dead.  Not sancitioned, not in their own little corner of the sand box, but dead, burn the bodies, steal the camels, take the land, dead.   If I were in Israels shoes, guess what, I would not show one moment of mercy.  I would have just carpet bombed the entire gaza strip and sent in a cleaning crew.

There can be NO PEACE as long as Israel is wanted dead.  Please wake up and stop this bleeding heart bull sh#%.  No one is innocent in this except maybe the babies.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 16, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> If I were in Israels shoes, guess what, I would not show one moment of mercy.  I would have just carpet bombed the entire gaza strip and sent in a cleaning crew.



Congratulations. You just stooped to the level of the Nazi SS proposing the murder of 1.5 *million *people for your "Final Solution".

You are now officially beneath contempt.


----------



## Azure (Jan 16, 2009)

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## Takun (Jan 16, 2009)

lolreligion.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 16, 2009)

LemurBoi said:


> I'll just leave this here...


 
This war ... in a nutshell.

Now, I' m afraid because of my "dues" toward Iraq.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 16, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> You really DO have your head up your arse, don't you? Palestinian people living in the territory up to 1948 are suddenly "squatters" because some other group unilaterally declared themselves a nation on THEIR land?
> 
> So tell me: what kind of "final solution" to the "Palestinian problem" do _you _propose?



legal facts:

palestine was intended originally to be partitioned by the british government. this was simply a territorial partition and had no plan put in place to push the palestinians out of their homes. neither did the newly forming jewish government have any such plan. 

as hostilities escalated(nobody knows who threw the first bomb. we just know that the arab side picked up the ball the quickest) it became about arab vs jew, not a governmental dispute as so many wars are based on. so when israel won many fled the israeli territories just simply out of fear of reparations. 

http://mideastweb.org/palestine_partition_map_1947s.jpg
http://www.ri.net/schools/Smithfield/gms/walls/Westernwall3/1056535.gif

as you can see, israel in a violent war only took what it was promised and acre as its prize.

the legal questions about the west bank are difficult at best. nobody is even sure if "palestine" is even entitled to exist since they refused the treaty. the problem with that is that the arabs since before the second world war were demonstrating that they cant put up with a large group of jewish people for some reason. so if israel had decided to take ALL of palestinian territory as its prize those "squatters" would be doing that in another nation and probably cause more violence because those nations obviously dont want some palestinians declaring a new palestinian state in their territory. 

its considered a null state because it doesnt have an internationally recognized legal government, nor did it appear to many powers have much legality behind its very existence and for a while was considered to exist because of the mercy of israel. now they are trying to push for being recognized as a legitimate nation in the world's eyes but organizations like hamas constantly hamper positive movements in the palestinian cause. instead of showing the world that they have a legitimate governmental structure that follows the rule of law, is stable and is willing to talk with world leaders they empower organizations that everyone considers terrorists.

as stated before israel could obliterate gaza but they dont. you think 1000 deaths(counting combatants) is bad? its nothing, its a paltry number in such a dense area. israel could have gone into total war mode and shelled palestinian buildings down one row at a time to assist their advancing army(less rooms to clear, still lots of cover though). it is brutish but the fact is that particuarly arab orginizations showed that they weren't willing to live with jewish people(outside of jerusilam) in large numbers. people like that changed the war into something where its simply people vs people instead of state vs state. in this recent war for example, israel's restraint is at least showing that they are trying their best to change that and stop it being arab vs jew.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 16, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> legal factsalestine was intended originally to be partitioned by the british government. this was simply a territorial partition and had no plan put in place to push the palestinians out of their homes. neither did the newly forming jewish government have any such plan.
> 
> as hostilities escalated(nobody knows who threw the first bomb. we just know that the arab side picked up the ball the quickest) it became about arab vs jew, not a governmental dispute as so many wars are based on. so when israel won many fled the israeli territories just simply out of fear of reparations.
> 
> ...


 
This is mostly true -- some flaws here and there, but mostly true. The Filistine-Arabs were mainly afraid of sharing power with other semites in Palestine because it wouldn't consolidate their religious gains. In addition to this, the Judiac mass-exodus appeared to promote and teach Filistine-Arabs that a powerless 2nd generation semite was possible to maintain, control, or force into geo-political interancy.

The British attempted to establish a country for both parties once their aims for a second empire were not realized, but militant Islam reacted to the partition with a push to remove the Jews from Palestine, and then Militant Zionism reacted with a push to secure their place inside the British Mandate, which evicted the British finally. Once this blew over, both sides ... appeared to have lost their common sense.


----------



## Jonnaius (Jan 16, 2009)

This is how WW3 starts, in my opnion. Something like this, then it esculates until...

Big atomic kaboom.

It's just a matter of time until we all die. I have optimistic views on the situation as you can see.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 16, 2009)

This won't start WW3.

It might lead to Israel becoming a barren bloodstained no-man's-land, and to another conflict, possibly with Iran.  But not a world war.  Europe wouldn't do diddly.  They wouldn't go to bat for Israel, no way no how.  And without Europe/NATO to back us up we might well end up holding back and resort to largely fruitless diplomatic dickery with the nations involved (Syria possibly, Iran likely).

Might even end up with the dissolution of NATO, which might make Russia more aggressive...? I dunno.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 16, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Congratulations. You just stooped to the level of the Nazi SS proposing the murder of 1.5 *million *people for your "Final Solution".
> 
> You are now officially beneath contempt.



And how many Jews ever suicide-bombed a German cafe?


----------



## Tycho (Jan 16, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> And how many Jews ever suicide-bombed a German cafe?



They didn't need to.  Allied forces leveled that cafe with aerial bombing.

Besides, they don't have the "70 virgins, be a martyr, Allah'u Akhbar" idiot mentality that the Muslim/Islamic Radical suicide bombers have.  Those suicide bombers value death more than life, whether they admit it or not.


----------



## Azure (Jan 16, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> largely fruitless diplomatic dickery



Welcome to the next 8 years.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 16, 2009)

LemurBoi said:


> Welcome to the next 8 years.



Beats the fuck out of "throw our men/women of the armed forces into a meat grinder for the sake of a bunch of unappreciative little belligerent hateful elitist prick kikes".

Talk is cheap.  Trained soldiers and expensive weaponry aren't.


----------



## Azure (Jan 16, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Beats the fuck out of "throw our men/women of the armed forces into a meat grinder for the sake of a bunch of unappreciative little belligerent hateful elitist prick kikes".
> 
> Talk is cheap.  Trained soldiers and expensive weaponry aren't.


True enuf.  I doubt we'd render serious military aid to Israel, because they don't need it.  But one wonders, what is out military for if we are loath to use it?  And action earlier rather that later often proves to save lives.  For example, I'd rather kick Irans ass before it has nukes, rather than after.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 16, 2009)

LemurBoi said:


> True enuf.  I doubt we'd render serious military aid to Israel, because they don't need it.  *But one wonders, what is out military for if we are loath to use it?*



Not for backing up those little firebrands in their little war.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 16, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> And how many Jews ever suicide-bombed a German cafe?



Irrelevant. Mass murder is *wrong*, end of story. I would have thought that Jews, of all people, would understand this. Are you seriously suggesting that it's acceptable to wipe out all Palestinians to provide "security" to Israel because of suicide bombings - especially after complaining Hamas wants to drive Jews out of the region?

Or does the phrase "Never again!" only apply to Jews and not anyone else?


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 16, 2009)

LemurBoi said:


> True enuf.  I doubt we'd render serious military aid to Israel, because they don't need it.



Er, too late - you already are. American-built tanks, American-built strike aircraft... and the  bombs and missiles currently being used by Israel to hit Gaza (and in previous attacks) all have "Made in USA" stamped on them.



> During the Bush administration, *Israel received over $21 billion in U.S. security assistance, including $19 billion in direct military aid* under the Pentagon's Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. Through the FMF program, Israel remains the single largest recipient of U.S. military aid each year, which they use to purchase U.S. weapons.
> 
> *The bulk of Israel's current arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S. assistance programs.* For example, Israel has 226 U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter and attack jets, over 700 M-60 tanks, 6,000 armored personnel carriers, and scores of transport planes, attack helicopters, utility and training aircraft, bombs, and tactical missiles of all kinds.
> 
> ...



In fact, I suggest a big reason Israel can do this kind of shit is precisely _because _the USA supplies massive aid to the place. Remember how in 2006 the British found American shipments of cluster bombs being shipped through the UK to Israel at the height of Israeli attacks on Lebanon?


----------



## Bambi (Jan 17, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Besides, they don't have the "70 virgins, be a martyr, Allah'u Akhbar" idiot mentality that the Muslim/Islamic Radical suicide bombers have. *Those suicide bombers value death more than life, whether they admit it or not.[/*quote]
> 
> Quoted For Emphasis -- Politics aside.
> 
> ...


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 17, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Irrelevant. Mass murder is *wrong*, end of story. I would have thought that Jews, of all people, would understand this. Are you seriously suggesting that it's acceptable to wipe out all Palestinians to provide "security" to Israel because of suicide bombings - especially after complaining Hamas wants to drive Jews out of the region?
> 
> Or does the phrase "Never again!" only apply to Jews and not anyone else?



My point is, what the Germans did to the Jews, and what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians are uncomparible. The biggest gap is that we didn't lay a glove on the Germans, they just went for us and threw us into death camps over nothing. It was pure ethnic persicution.

Wheras with the Palestinians, they suicide bomb us and then start crying when we give them an air raid back. Last time I checked war works both ways. Whatsmore they should know better than to attack a nation with one of the finest defence forces in the world. "You started it, you lost it, shame."


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 17, 2009)

Bambi said:


> Unfortunately, much of the missles and weapons arriving in Palestine are Egyptian, sold to Egypt from Russia. It's going to be a major problem to stop arms manufacturers from having a large market in the Middle East, as it always manages to be so that someone is always fighting over something. The only way to stop arms manufacturers would be a political or social embargo on their commodities -- even then, the United States also completed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. What I think the real problem is our government not playing it's Foreign Policy cards right -- why arm a side that's going to potentially threaten the very two sides who you're supplying aid to



Money.  And whereas hindsight's 20/20, foresight with these nations makes them eligable for seeing-eye companions.

It's my understanding that the US has a habit of doing arms deals that turn around and threaten to use those very weapons against them.  All I know is I'm praying that Obama will be able to help calm things down once he's sworn into office

and how much do you want to bet that those missles sold to the Egyptians from Russia originally had 'Made in the USA' stamped on them?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 17, 2009)

CAThulu said:


> It's my understanding that the US has a habit of doing arms deals that turn around and threaten to use those very weapons against them.



A true capitalist will sell you the rope for you to lynch him with just so he can die with a few more dollars in the bank than you. These people don't function according to anything resembling reality.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 17, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> A true capitalist will sell you the rope for you to lynch him with just so he can die with a few more dollars in the bank than you. These people don't function according to anything resembling reality.



They have little to no foresight.  They're like little roaches following a trail of food, munching as they go, not paying attention to the fact that they're walking right into a roach motel.  Their attention is fixated solely on the food that lays immediately before them.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 17, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> A true capitalist will sell you the rope for you to lynch him with just so he can die with a few more dollars in the bank than you. These people don't function according to anything resembling reality.



Yup.  Gotta love karma. And honestly, you can't be dealing with reality if you're into arms dealing and don't think it's going to turn around and bite you in the arse.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 17, 2009)

CAThulu said:


> Yup.  Gotta love karma. And honestly, you can't be dealing with reality if you're into arms dealing and don't think it's going to turn around and bite you in the arse.



There's a movie called "Lord of War" starring Nick Cage that I think is worth mentioning when the subject of arms dealing is being brought up in discussion.  I liked it.


----------



## Yaoi-Mikey (Jan 17, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> There's a movie called "Lord of War" starring Nick Cage that I think is worth mentioning when the subject of arms dealing is being brought up in discussion. I liked it.


 
I concur, very good movie when talking about arms dealers.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 17, 2009)

> True enuf. I doubt we'd render serious military aid to Israel, because they don't need it. But one wonders, what is out military for if we are loath to use it?



heh, reminds me of the FACT that fighting in afganistan and iraq has really modernized our forces. for example because of experiences there we are replacing all the iron sights on our m16a4's with rco's(rifle combat optics). though some innovations have been flat up retarded, like that retarded ass mrap apc.....



> Irrelevant. Mass murder is wrong, end of story.



you have yet to prove that israel is intentionally murdering palestinians. whereas hamas just flat up didnt aim their rockets. they pointed it in the general area of a population center and fired. hamas was doing the murdering where israel has yet to seriously bomb the region as evidenced by the low deaths in such a high population center. 



> over 700 M-60 tank



lol sounds like their hardware is actually pretty damn dated.... sad truth is that what hamas has actually CAN kill a m-60.... rpg's bounce off the abrams like dry spitwads but a m-60 has to watch out....



> In fact, I suggest a big reason Israel can do this kind of shit is precisely because the USA supplies massive aid to the place. Remember how in 2006 the British found American shipments of cluster bombs being shipped through the UK to Israel at the height of Israeli attacks on Lebanon?



very true.... israel has no ordinance industry so if just the ordinance shipments were cut off they'd be in a tight spot. and they CERTAINLY dont have an effective arms industry. even their galil rifle failed miserably.... for now they make do with highly dated refurbished m16 series rifles. 



> Much of that equipment arrived during the prelude to the 1967 Six Day War -- the M60 Tank and M113 being the most popular commodity during the 1960's, and 1970's.



ya though i thought isreal fought with modified shermans in that war that they bought themselves. or was that a war in the 50's?



> Unfortunately, much of the missles and weapons arriving in Palestine are Egyptian, sold to Egypt from Russia. It's going to be a major problem to stop arms manufacturers from having a large market in the Middle East, as it always manages to be so that someone is always fighting over something. The only way to stop arms manufacturers would be a political or social embargo on their commodities -- even then, the United States also completed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia. What I think the real problem is our government not playing it's Foreign Policy cards right -- why arm a side that's going to potentially threaten the very two sides who you're supplying aid to?



well part of the issue is that prime grade ammunition, rifles and launchers are coming from russia. things like rpg's as well. however mortar rounds actually have been made a great deal in gaza, they are so ape shit simple that anyone could make one.... rockets are much the same. one wonders exactly how many rockets actually are russian made considering their effectiveness....



> It's my understanding that the US has a habit of doing arms deals that turn around and threaten to use those very weapons against them. All I know is I'm praying that Obama will be able to help calm things down once he's sworn into office



our problem is that we thought that we could gain loyalty with bribes. some leaders have abandoned us as soon as our usefulness to them is at an end, and we've done it the other way as well. we like russia used arms to try to gain allies and position in the world, however the flat up truth is that we have a far lower success rate at actually gaining long allies with those arms. 



> A true capitalist will sell you the rope for you to lynch him



a true capitalist would see its a waste. i mean you only can sell him ONE rope because he is about to die. a true capitalist would find a way to keep the guy alive and make a much bigger profit over time. the guy who sells the rope isnt a capitalist nor a real good businessman, he's just a moron like so many in the financial industry in this country....


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 17, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> My point is, what the Germans did to the Jews, and what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians are uncomparible. The biggest gap is that we didn't lay a glove on the Germans, they just went for us and threw us into death camps over nothing. It was pure ethnic persicution.



And what Israel is doing now ISN'T ethnic persecution? Every time someone proposes "hey, why not let Israelis and Palestinians share and live in the land together in peace", the Israeli response is always "We can't do that, because then we wouldn't be a *Jewish* state."
Sounds like apartheid at a minimum to me.



Get-dancing said:


> Wheras with the Palestinians, they suicide bomb us and then start crying when we give them an air raid back. Last time I checked war works both ways. Whatsmore they should know better than to attack a nation with one of the finest defence forces in the world. "You started it, you lost it, shame."



Haven't you actually READ the history of how Israel came into being? Or are you just parroting the standard Zionist line that "the people without a land arrived in a land without people", completely ignoring the local non-Jewish population present in the land known as Palestine up to 1948? 

Even the first Prime Minister of Israel admitted the injustice meted out to the Palestinians:


> "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. *It is normal; we have taken their country.* It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? *They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?*" _David Ben-Gurion: Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox)._



If anyone STARTED this whole frickin' schmozzle, it was the people unilaterally declaring Israel to be an independent Jewish state without making any kind of accomodation or agreement with the local non-Jewish population. And while at some point one might have felt sympathy for the Jewish people trying to set up a homeland, all that has vanished under the vindictive treatment meted out by Israel to Palestinians by building on occupied land in violation of international law, and generally continually treating Palestinians as sub-humans even when there IS a cease-fire between the two sides.

Let's face it, what hope is Israel actually giving to Palestinians who want a peaceful solution? Bombing the shit out of anyone - Palestinian OR Israeli - is hardly a way of winning friends and influencing people. If Israel seriously thinks that pounding the shit out of Gaza - *where those people have no hope of even getting to safety, thanks to Israeli blockades* - is going to make the Palestinians more receptive to peace, they are either highly deluded or plain pig-ignorant.

And every dead Palestinian child, every dead wife or sister killed by Israeli bombs or bullets, will send at least five more people over to supporting Hamas radicals. Does Israel seriously think they can put out the fire of radicalism by pouring petrol on the flames? If they do, they're more stupid than I thought.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 17, 2009)

> If anyone STARTED this whole frickin' schmozzle, it was the people unilaterally declaring Israel to be an independent Jewish state without making any kind of accomodation or agreement with the local non-Jewish population. And while at some point one might have felt sympathy for the Jewish people trying to set up a homeland, all that has vanished under the vindictive treatment meted out by Israel to Palestinians by building on occupied land in violation of international law, and generally continually treating Palestinians as sub-humans.



there was a partition plan in place and NO plan to displace the arab population. just have one sector ruled by the jewish government and another sector ruled by the arabs. the problem was that they simply would not fucking put up with each other. in fact britian just before the second world war stopped letting jews into the nation because the arab populations were becoming agitated and showed that they simply would not put up with a lot of new jewish neighbors, its just a fact of the matter.

so when the israeli war of independence broke out and the lines were re drawn the arab people collected with arab and the jewish collected with jewish. FACT, israel does not ban arabs from living in its territory nor does it bar them from visiting. DESPITE the fact that arabs continually sneaked in assault rifles to shoot up jewish crowds in the early years and bombs in the later years. sorry, as of yet no real evidence of israel trying to kill all the palestinian arabs in the world....



> where those people have no hope of even getting to safety, thanks to Israeli blockades - i



unfortunately that HAS to be part of the israeli plan. now i gave my speech of "force to space ratio" a while back. well, the israeli plan takes into account two things. 1: the potential that you dont have quite enough men to clear the whole territory at once and 2: that clearing forces will displace the hostiles. 

you see if israel DIDNT have the blockade hamas could slip off across borders to where israel couldn't do anything to them and then sneak back when israel left thus making israel's action pointless. this way they have a net and now they can get ALL of hamas and completely wipe the organization off the face of the planet. in other words, without that blockade israel quite literally would be incapable of cleaning house in gaza.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 17, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Besides, they don't have the "70 virgins, be a martyr, Allah'u Akhbar" idiot mentality that the Muslim/Islamic Radical suicide bombers have. *Those suicide bombers value death more than life, whether they admit it or not.*


 
Sadly, when people have been pushed against the wall, and have been basically stripped of dignity and _everything that makes life worth *living*_, it's that much easier for the suicide-bomber recruiters to find more converts - giving them a way to strike back at their enemy. 



Bambi said:


> Much of that equipment arrived during the prelude to the 1967 Six Day War -- the M60 Tank and M113 being the most popular commodity during the 1960's, and 1970's.



I've also seen a lot of what looks like M1A1 Abrams tanks in Israeli green on news reports too.


----------



## FourLetterWord (Jan 17, 2009)

israel is pretty goddamn terrible and palestine doesn't even have a functioning government

there is no reason--_none_--to support the incredibly awful treatment the palestinian people are recieving

it is nasty, brutal oppression and it needs to stop


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 17, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> you see if israel DIDNT have the blockade hamas could slip off across borders to where israel couldn't do anything to them and then sneak back when israel left thus making israel's action pointless. this way they have a net and now they can get ALL of hamas and completely wipe the organization off the face of the planet. in other words, without that blockade israel quite literally would be incapable of cleaning house in gaza.



And of course, because you believe EVERYONE in Gaza is Hamas, it doesn't matter if around 1,200 people got killed in the process of "cleaning house", eh? Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, is that it? No-one in Gaza - including the UN - is innocent, eh?  _They're only ragheads, eh?_

The Israelis have just created over 1,200 reasons for Palestinians to hate them even more, and 1,200 reasons for supporting Hamas. Even _if _Israel has "won" their battle, they sure as hell haven't won the war. And while Palestinians won't win unless Israel gets security, Israel in turn won't win unless Palestinians get *justice.*


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 17, 2009)

> and 1,200 reasons for supporting Hamas



your quoting a statistic that ALL media sources state INCLUDES hamas casualties. in fact its more like 600 civilians dead, but nope in this biased media coverage we have to consider enemy hostiles as civilians. complete bullshit.

now the thing is because of the blockade when israel is done with the sweep it will take gaza if it peruses aggression more time to attack again which buys israel some peace. this is because they have to get arms again and it takes time for new leadership and members to surface. 

further, do you actually realize how many iraqi's americans have killed? not even hostiles, just innocent people on accident. when the violence really started picking up people were taking that mentality your talking about. more people to join the enemy, but then as the fighting wore on they got sick of it. they wanted peace and happiness. so instead of supporting the hostile factions as they came through with either honeyed voices or threats they got their rifles and kicked them out of town. peace in iraq isnt just happening because of the troop surge, its happening because people are just honestly sick of pissing off us americans so we will come and blow up their houses. same thing could work in gaza, and its likely to work at this rate. as you could see the rest of the palistianians tried supporting more peaceful means to get recognized as a nation, though gaza still had enough residual fight left in it that hamas was able to take power. we'll see how long those people want to jab a tiger with a stick.....


----------



## Runefox (Jan 18, 2009)

I'll be honest and say one thing here, and I'll say it as truth:

Israel has more right to bomb the Gaza strip into oblivion than the United States and United Kingdom had to set foot in Iraq.

I don't recall the United States having rockets fall over its cities from Iraq, or even a threat of it. The reaction the Israeli military gives for things like this are always overblown and dramatic, but most of the time, the initiation of any kind of action is usually at least somewhat justified. So while I don't condone bombing the hell out of Gaza, I do condone any attempt to stop Hamas forces from firing further rockets and mortars into Israel and hiding them in civilian homes.

I condone the bombing of Hamas bases, training camps, and other military targets; I do not condone the destruction of civilian buildings such as mosques and schools on the basis that they "may" contain weapons and Hamas operatives (this is what special forces is for, guys, and Israel has traditionally had very good SF - Where are they? Don't let the IAF bomb the shit out of civilian targets). Hitting civilians, even if it's "eye for an eye", is the type of thing that brings support to Hamas. It's almost as stupid as the USA thinking that it would be welcomed with open arms in Iraq.

Campaign: Justified.
Actions taken during campaign: Not.

But I'm not an authority. *shrugs* I just think they're justified in taking action. The action they chose to take, however, not so much so.


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 18, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> your quoting a statistic that ALL media sources state INCLUDES hamas casualties. in fact its more like 600 civilians dead, but nope in this biased media coverage we have to consider enemy hostiles as civilians. complete bullshit.



And where do you get the figure of "only" 600 civilians? Israel? Like _that's_ an unbiased source - there's a big difference between the international definition of combatant and what Israel chooses to use...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7811386.stm (emphasis added)


> *The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".*
> 
> But Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Captain Benjamin Rutland told the BBC: "Our definition is that *anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm.*"
> 
> ...


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 18, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I condone the bombing of Hamas bases, training camps, and other military targets; I do not condone the destruction of civilian buildings such as mosques and schools on the basis that they "may" contain weapons and Hamas operatives (this is what special forces is for, guys, and Israel has traditionally had very good SF - Where are they? Don't let the IAF bomb the shit out of civilian targets). Hitting civilians, even if it's "eye for an eye", is the type of thing that brings support to Hamas. It's almost as stupid as the USA thinking that it would be welcomed with open arms in Iraq.



I agree.


----------



## roflcopter23 (Jan 18, 2009)

People die and no one cares. All we're good at is talking and sending people to slaughter. What a fine piece of work humanity's become. War is a blunt statement. A shallow shallow low that, contrasted with the evolving technological advances and human discoveries is nothing more than shameful. Love hate love hate. It has nothing to do with it. Money, oil, religion, ethnicity, land, freedom. It makes no difference. Because in the end, when your closest friend dies, it doesn't really matter anymore. Fuck it. It's destroyed my life and I get a pat on the head and a "it's gonna be alright". Human endeavor my ass. Human nature prevents it. It's different isn't it? How calm you sit. In front of that 400$ screen. Typing your life away. "I believe it is wrong" gee thanks. Your opinion is so brave and useful. "If I had a weapon I'de be right there with them, fighting for freedom". How honorific of you. The civilians dying don't have any weapons but I guess that doesn't really count. The deaths pile up and in the end... we're now mourning a death count instead of an individual's life. But what am i saying? War is the basis of economy. The highest currency exchange rate in the world is that of human blood. Then we go to our local donation box and pay fifty cents to take away our guilt. How extravagant we've become. We have it all don't we? Food, water, shelter, luxury. Yet we still somehow find the balls to nag about how our life is miserable. "I wish I was dead". you might as well be. How ironic that you're not the one out there. How ironic that they don't want to die. They fight to stay alive, die in the process, and someone out here goes "damn, my life sucks". I'm not directing this at the forumers. I'm not directing it at any one of you. I'm directing it at myself and everyone like me, the few that they are. Once I was out, I stopped giving a shit. Just like the rest of you. How hypocritical of me.

Sorry for the rant. Stop getting caught up in your worlds... for a couple of minutes. Then do what you like. I don't give a damn anymore.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 18, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> There's a movie called "Lord of War" starring Nick Cage that I think is worth mentioning when the subject of arms dealing is being brought up in discussion.  I liked it.



I was gonna suggest that myself.  I own the DVD - it's a great film on the subject of gun-running.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 18, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> And what Israel is doing now ISN'T ethnic persecution? Every time someone proposes "hey, why not let Israelis and Palestinians share and live in the land together in peace", the Israeli response is always "We can't do that, because then we wouldn't be a *Jewish* state."
> Sounds like apartheid at a minimum to me.



Sounds like someone doesn't know much about the ethnic diversity of the land for the chosen. They hold a 19% arabic population, that reachs to the point that sighns are often written in Hebrew with Arabic written beneath. 

We need a place to call our own, otherwise we'd go back to being minoritys in every nation.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 18, 2009)

Wall of text powers: Activate!



> People die and no one cares.


"A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin



> All we're good at is talking and sending people to slaughter.


That's not true. We're also good at advances in technology such as microcomputers and their applications, motor vehicles, powered flight, culture and art, and much more. It's true, though, that nothing stimulates these things more than war - But that's because, as they say, necessity is the mother of innovation (alternatively, invention).



> What a fine piece of work humanity's become. War is a blunt statement. A shallow shallow low that, contrasted with the evolving technological advances and human discoveries is nothing more than shameful.


The last real war that's gone on has been the Iraq war, which is really still being fought. I don't agree with it one bit, but if you look at the international community, there are atrocities of all kinds being committed all over the world without any fear of reprisal (see: Rwanda, Darfur, Sierra Leone, North Korea (human rights), China (human rights) to name just a few...). Until these parts of the world stabilize, war is going to continue to be a reality in these regions. The United Nations peacekeeping forces are supposed to be able to prevent these kinds of things, but the truth of the matter is, as long as ANY nations have veto power in the United Nations, there will never truly be any reasonable action taken. The point is, as a Western society, it's easy for us to envision a warless world based on our ways of life. The reality of life in other parts of the world is very different. While I don't condone things like the war in Iraq, where "democracy and freedom" is forced upon a people, there needs to be a shift of power from the dictators and criminals in charge of these nations to the people, whether that means a shift to communist states or Western-style democracies, or perhaps even better, something completely different.



> Love hate love hate. It has nothing to do with it. Money, oil, religion, ethnicity, land, freedom. It makes no difference. Because in the end, when your closest friend dies, it doesn't really matter anymore.


It does, however, matter when your closest friend dies because the government either willed it or indirectly caused it by allowing the slaughter of (insert ethnic group here). War is justified sometimes. In this case, war would come in the name of vengeance and the will to stop it from happening again.



> Fuck it. It's destroyed my life and I get a pat on the head and a "it's gonna be alright". Human endeavor my ass. Human nature prevents it. It's different isn't it? How calm you sit. In front of that 400$ screen. Typing your life away.


The alternative to this would be to actively fight in a war, which seems to be counter-productive to what you're talking about. Civil debate and opinions form the basis of our society (at least, for now), and it's how things get done. While it's dubious at best to believe that any national leader would be browsing the FA forums, it's healthy as a society to be at least discussing the affairs of the world, to at least be educated about what is happening and why, instead of living inside a shell without a care, like most of the world believe the average American does (I'd like to believe otherwise).



> "I believe it is wrong" gee thanks. Your opinion is so brave and useful.


Indeed. The only thing more useful than an opinion in this case would be an AK-47 and the will to silence all who oppose or jump into the conflict and take a side - But that's not exactly civil.



> "If I had a weapon I'de be right there with them, fighting for freedom". How honorific of you. The civilians dying don't have any weapons but I guess that doesn't really count. The deaths pile up and in the end... we're now mourning a death count instead of an individual's life.


Again, Joseph Stalin. It should be noted that in this case, Hamas is a very pervasive group in the Gaza Strip, and indeed, could arm the civilians if they so chose. The only thing I could ever see myself applauding Hamas for would be _not_ to arm civilians and turn them into combatants, even if it does constantly call for a general revolt of the Arab nation as a whole against the Jewish state.



> But what am i saying? War is the basis of economy. The highest currency exchange rate in the world is that of human blood.


Not really. While war is a stimulant of the economy, it isn't the basis for it (your owning a computer is proof of this). War has an adverse effect on the economy as a whole - Let me tell you a short story that rings close to home for me. During World War I, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment was formed by order of Britain. Thousands of young men were taken from the small population, who had never had any fighting experience in their lives, and were enlisted to the fighting force and hastily trained to be shipped overseas. Due to a fabric shortage, the regiment became known colloquially as the "Blue Puttees" for their puttee colour, as the olive drab puttees that the soldiers normally would have worn were instead replaced with blue ones as a result. They went on to become an elite battalion during the war, but the price of their lives would take a heavy toll on Newfoundland. Here are some of their exploits:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> On September 20, 1915 the regiment landed at Suvla Bay on the Gallipoli peninsula, where the British VIII Corps, IX Corps and the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) had been attempting to seize control of the Dardanelles Strait from Turkey since the first landings on April 25. At Gallipoli the 1st Newfoundland Regiment faced snipers, artillery fire and severe cold, as well as the trench warfare hazards of cholera, dysentery, typhus, gangrene and trench foot. Over the next three months thirty soldiers of the regiment were killed or mortally wounded in action and ten died of disease; 150 were treated for frostbite and exposure.
> Despite the terrible conditions, the Newfoundlanders stood up well. When the decision was made to evacuate all British Empire forces from the area, the regiment was chosen to be a part of the rearguard, finally withdrawing from Gallipoli with the last of the British Dardanelles Army troops on January 9, 1916.





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> On July 1, 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme in World War I, over 730(initially) of the 801 soldiers of the 1st Newfoundland Regiment rose from the British trenches and went into battle at Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial, nine kilometres north of Albert in France. The next day, only 69 men answered the regimental roll call: 255 were dead, 386 were wounded, and 91 were listed as missing. Every officer who had gone over the top was either wounded or dead.
> The regiment was in one of the follow up waves of what was referred to as "The July Drive" and were scheduled to reinforce what was expected to be sweeping victories across the front. When the time came to move to the jumping-off point, the Newfoundlanders found that the lead trenches were so tightly packed with dead and dying soldiers of the lead waves, who had been stopped by formidable barbed wire obstacles and automatic weapons fire, that they had to attack from secondary trenches. The increased amount of ground they had to cover, in the open, contributed to the disaster that befell them. The Newfoundland Regiment never made it past their own concentrations of barbed wire. Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Lovell Hadow who witnessed the attack reported that the attack had failed despite training, discipline, and valour, because dead men can advance no further.
> On the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army (57,470 casualties, 19,240 dead) at the opening of the largest battle (over one million casualties) of the war, Newfoundland had also suffered its gravest military loss. To this day, Beaumont-Hamel remains the most significant single military action fought by Newfoundlanders, and it marked a turning point in the history and culture of the island. Some historians have suggested that tiny Newfoundland never fully recovered from the loss of so many of its male population; similar hardships were faced by the regiment at Gallipoli as well.
> Newfoundlanders today mark the date of July 1 not just as Canada Day, but also as Memorial Day.





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> In the weeks and months following the attack, as the surviving officers wrote letters of condolence to families and relatives in Newfoundland, the Battalion was steadily brought back to full strength. Six weeks later they were beating off a German gas attack in Flanders. Subsequently they distinguished themselves in a number of battles; back on the Somme at Gueudecourt in October 1916; on 23 April 1917, at Monchy-le-Preux during the Battle of Arras, where they lost 485 men in a day but checked a German attack despite overwhelming odds; then in November 1917 at MasniÃ¨res-Marcoing during the Battle of Cambrai where they heroically stood their ground although outflanked; then at Bailleul stemming the German advance in April 1918. Following a period out of the line providing the guard force for General Headquarters at Montreuil, they joined the 28th Brigade of the 9th (Scottish) Division and were in action again at Ledegem and beyond in the advances of the Last Hundred Days. It was in these last days of the war that Pte. Thomas Ricketts of the Regiment became the youngest soldier of the war to win the Victoria Cross. In recognition of their achievements the Newfoundlanders were regarded as being an elite battalion.





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> "It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valour, and its assault only failed of success because dead men can advance no further." Major-General Sir Beauvoir de Lisle (commander, British 29th Division) regarding the Newfoundland Regiment at Beaumont-Hamel.
> "Thank God, my left flank is safe! Now for my right." Brigadier General Bernard Freyberg, VC (commander British 88th Brigade), at the Battle of Ledeghem, September, 1918, upon learning that the Newfoundland Regiment held his left flank.



Was it worth it? I'm sure they thought so.



> Then we go to our local donation box and pay fifty cents to take away our guilt. How extravagant we've become. We have it all don't we? Food, water, shelter, luxury.


I'm going to stop you right there. There is still poverty in the Western world, far more of it than you'd care to know. There are people who are forced to choose between electricity and food, shelter and food, on a daily basis. People go hungry and people are forced to roam the streets in search of shelter. Society turns their noses up at them at this point, though most often what people are told when in poor financial situations is "Get a job, you lazy asshole". Our society isn't all luxury and comfort, and perhaps it's simply because your life has been such that you believe that it is.



> Yet we still somehow find the balls to nag about how our life is miserable. "I wish I was dead".


One side-effect about our society is that it's extremely fast-paced and unforgiving. In most cases, while many of us no longer need to worry about food and shelter, there are other influences that negatively affect us. Psychological health is something that our society has all but neglected, and as a result, we're seeing massive numbers of cases of depression, bipolar disorder, and other related diseases that for a hundred years have been laughed away by many. Our problems are unique and quite virtual - Money, for example, ensures that you have food and shelter; Not society. Our focus on life becomes very narrow, and in the case of teenagers in school, school is life. It's all they've ever known, and failure there is associated with failure at life. After all, without an education, nobody will hire you; You won't have any money, and you won't be able to survive. Friendship is equally important in such a world.

It would be nice if society didn't care about money, and provided ample food and shelter for everyone, but that's something that won't happen for a long time.



> you might as well be. How ironic that you're not the one out there. How ironic that they don't want to die. They fight to stay alive, die in the process, and someone out here goes "damn, my life sucks".


Our lives and experiences are very different from those in the middle east and other areas currently in a state of war. How about you try asking an immigrant (or better yet, a refugee) how difficult it was to build a life in the Western world, from nothing? Surely it doesn't have as many personal risks as building a life where they'd come from, but the challenges they face are not so different from the challenges any other person would have to face on their own if they had nobody to turn to for help (such as a homosexual child being disowned, for example), and they aren't easy to overcome. If you've tried to live on your own, you'd probably know that it's not as easy as you think it is.



> I'm not directing this at the forumers. I'm not directing it at any one of you. I'm directing it at myself and everyone like me, the few that they are. Once I was out, I stopped giving a shit. Just like the rest of you. How hypocritical of me.


I'm not sure what this means, but sure.



> Sorry for the rant. Stop getting caught up in your worlds... for a couple of minutes. Then do what you like. I don't give a damn anymore.


Then why post? ... Oh, well.



> And what Israel is doing now ISN'T ethnic persecution? Every time someone proposes "hey, why not let Israelis and Palestinians share and live in the land together in peace", the Israeli response is always "We can't do that, because then we wouldn't be a Jewish state."
> Sounds like apartheid at a minimum to me.



Hmm... How about some reading on the formation of Israel? Here's a nice excerpt: 



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> After 1945 the United Kingdom became embroiled in an increasingly violent conflict with the Jews.[49] In 1947, the British government withdrew from commitment to the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews.[50] *The newly created United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was to be designated an international city â€“ a corpus separatum â€“ administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.[51] The Jewish community accepted the plan,[52] but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee rejected it.*[53] On December 1, 1947 the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a 3-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets. Civil war began with the Jews initially on the defensive but gradually moving into offence. The Palestinian-Arab economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fled or were expelled.[54]
> *On May 14, 1948, the day before the end of the British Mandate, the Jewish Agency proclaimed independence, naming the country Israel. The following day five Arab countries â€“ Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq â€“invaded Israel, launching the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.[55] Morocco, Sudan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia* also sent troops to assist the invaders. After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established. Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations on May 11, 1949.[56] During the conflict 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, or about 80% of the previous Arab population, fled the country.[57] The fate of the Palestinian refugees today is a major point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.



... In other words, the Arabs were angered at the actions of the UN, and decided that they'd rather attack the Jewish people settling there. After the declaration of independence, they were further attacked by the combined armed forces of no fewer than five arab countries, with military support from four others and support/interference from Great Britain (including Spitfire overflights and British destroyers and troops being stationed in the region), simply for existing. I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm pretty certain that the opposite has been the case since even before the country existed. And why? Because they didn't like what the UN had to say. As I understand it, no Arab was forced from the land, or anything of the sort; They left on their own. Perhaps they feared persecution? It was still their own choice.

In this case, Hamas has decided to attack Israeli cities with rocket and mortar attacks (while hiding behind civilians, no less), and Israel is responding to that. I don't see any sort of ethnic persecution, and in fact the Jewish settlers were all for splitting the country; It was the Arab council that rejected the plan set forth by the United Nations, hence the current state of affairs. Please get your facts straight.


----------



## CAThulu (Jan 18, 2009)

*applauds*  Man, that's pretty! 8D


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 18, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Hmm... How about some reading on the formation of Israel?
> 
> ... In other words, the Arabs were angered at the actions of the UN, and decided that they'd rather attack the Jewish people settling there. After the declaration of independence, they were further attacked by the combined armed forces of no fewer than five arab countries, with military support from four others and support/interference from Great Britain (including Spitfire overflights and British destroyers and troops being stationed in the region), simply for existing. I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm pretty certain that the opposite has been the case since even before the country existed. And why? Because they didn't like what the UN had to say. As I understand it, no Arab was forced from the land, or anything of the sort; They left on their own. Perhaps they feared persecution? It was still their own choice.
> 
> In this case, Hamas has decided to attack Israeli cities with rocket and mortar attacks (while hiding behind civilians, no less), and Israel is responding to that. I don't see any sort of ethnic persecution, and in fact the Jewish settlers were all for splitting the country; It was the Arab council that rejected the plan set forth by the United Nations, hence the current state of affairs.



You STILL have the scenario where one group unilaterally declared themselves a state without the consent of the other affected party. The Arabs had the right to not agree with what the UN proposed, the Jews did NOT have the right to just take their part anyway. Yes, the Arabs _should_ have accepted the partition, but sadly they didn't - and we're stuck with the results. Any agreement, any plan is worthless unless you get agreement from ALL parties.

And as for Arabs attacking the newly-declared state of Israel, consider this: If (say) the Navaho tribe in the US unilaterally declared parts of Arizona and New Mexico to be a sovereign Navaho homeland state, would the rest of the US simply sit back and say "Okay, go for it"? Heck, the US had a civil war over southern states deciding to go their own way...


----------



## Runefox (Jan 18, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> You STILL have the scenario where one group unilaterally declared themselves a state without the consent of the other affected party. The Arabs had the right to not agree with what the UN proposed, the Jews did NOT have the right to just take their part anyway. Yes, the Arabs _should_ have accepted the partition, but sadly they didn't - and we're stuck with the results. Any agreement, any plan is worthless unless you get agreement from ALL parties.


Actually, they declared themselves a state after being attacked by arab bands with hostilities all around, in a manner not so different from the formation of Canada and the American Fenian Raids. I consider it a defensive move, and especially after the Arab Council's rejection for sharing the land (which basically means "they aren't welcome here"). Obviously the Arabs have a point, but I find myself able to sympathize more with the Israelis thanks to the military action on behalf of the Arabs both before and after the formation of Israel.



> And as for Arabs attacking the newly-declared state of Israel, consider this: If (say) the Navaho tribe in the US unilaterally declared parts of Arizona and New Mexico to be a sovereign Navaho homeland state, would the rest of the US simply sit back and say "Okay, go for it"? Heck, the US had a civil war over southern states deciding to go their own way...



This is true, but consider this: They had been attacked before Israel had even been formed - Only the UN resolution to create the state of Israel had been passed, and the Arabian response was to attack the Jews instead of going to the body that resolved to form the country - No compromises. In my opinion, that gives them quite a lot of right to defend themselves and unify as a nation, even if they perhaps shouldn't have been there to begin with. It seems to me that while having a new people encroach upon their territory is inherently wrong, so, too, is attacking that people based on the decisions of an unrelated governing body. It's neither civil nor sane, and honestly, if this course of action hadn't been taken, the world (and I, too) might have a very different view on it.


----------



## roflcopter23 (Jan 18, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Wall of text powers: Activate!
> 
> 
> "A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin
> ...




You seem to have your facts straight. Now you get a medal. And people keep on dying. I'm not sympathizing with either side so I'm not sure why you felt the need to justify the situation. Nevertheless, you did. And where did it get us in the circle of life? Quite frankly nowhere. Right back where we started. How deeply you've chosen to analyze and respond... putting at the least a mild form of effort into it no? Are you going to have me believe that the effort you put into that response had a noble motivation behind it, and if so how do you choose to act upon it? By talking about it? Granted, I'm not telling you to pick up a rifle and join the war. You said it best, counter-productiveness. However I do expect you to think beyond the simple facts. So; you can state the people responsible, and the reason, and the countries and ethnics involved. In other words, you can state the problems, and so can everyone else. But nothing you say can ever justify the loss of human life. Even Einstein said 
*â€œWe can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.â€*

And so far that's all I've gotten from you >.>


----------



## Runefox (Jan 18, 2009)

roflcopter23 said:


> You seem to have your facts straight. Now you get a medal. And people keep on dying.


And people will continue to die until governing bodies (such as the Arab High Council) decide that perhaps violence shouldn't be the first course of action when dealing with a given situation, and that perhaps military spending isn't the most important thing in the world (I'm looking at you, America). Discussion on this level is the first step toward stopping this sort of thing by educating our current generations on what is going on - Information has a way of spreading from person to person like a disease, except in most cases, information, when correct, does more good than harm.



> I'm not sympathizing with either side so I'm not sure why you felt the need to justify the situation.


The reason I need to justify the situation is that in certain cases, fighting is the only way to stop additional death. Hamas rocket and mortar attacks would have continued to kill innocent Israeli civilians if Israel had not decided to go on this campaign, and if left unchecked, many locations around the world, most notably Africa and the Middle-East, could erupt into a sea of endless conflict unless something is done to change the mindset of those in charge. In these sorts of countries, the leaders are typically bourgeoisie who live in luxury off humanitarian aid and the country's treasury while the nation's people suffer for it. Democratic solutions typically can't help in these cases, and in a lot of these countries, the people are kept in a physical and psychological state of decay wherein an armed revolt would be trivial to quell.



> Nevertheless, you did. And where did it get us in the circle of life? Quite frankly nowhere.


Perhaps not in the immediate future, but if one person can take from this discussion the notions that I've been putting forward, then that means that the possibility of further communication and understanding can take place. Society moves in a slow, yet powerful tide.



> Right back where we started. How deeply you've chosen to analyze and respond... putting at the least a mild form of effort into it no? Are you going to have me believe that the effort you put into that response had a noble motivation behind it, and if so how do you choose to act upon it? By talking about it?


Indeed. Speech and the written word is the most powerful institution that we as humans have created, and can shape the way in which we live with more vigour than any sword or rifle could ever do. Over all the millennia of history that we have, we have accumulated knowledge, recorded struggles, and made peace with words, and as time goes on, our society is becoming more eager to resolve conflicts this way. Countries like the United States and Russia, once Cold War superpowers, along with China (a rising superpower), still have a massive military, and yet most of what they do in the international community happens to be vocal. The majority of what gets reported on is military action, because honestly, words bore people unless they're powerful and insightful. What would have happened to the Russian Revolution if not for the powerful motivations set forth by Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and the Soviet forefathers? What would have happened to the American Revolution if not for the powerful motivations set forth by the participants of the Boston Tea Party?

Where would Canada, a nation built upon democratic process and the written word rather than swords and cannons, be today, if not for the insight and motivational speeches that took place over a hundred years ago by Sir John A. MacDonald and the fathers of Canadian Confederation?

What about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr?



> Granted, I'm not telling you to pick up a rifle and join the war. You said it best, counter-productiveness. However I do expect you to think beyond the simple facts. So; you can state the people responsible, and the reason, and the countries and ethnics involved. In other words, you can state the problems, and so can everyone else. But nothing you say can ever justify the loss of human life.


No, nothing can truly justify the loss of human life, but the threat of more loss of life if no action is taken can motivate anyone to pick up a rifle and end some lives. I, for example, would pick up a rifle and defend my country against an invading force intent on atrocities of human rights and the massacre of human life. It's a matter of what you _feel_ is right, not what is, that justifies a conflict.

And like I said, the main issue that must be attacked with the most vigour is the fact that countries all over the world are participating in ethnic cleansing, genocide, human rights abuse, and general corruption. Power-hunger, the thirst for land and resources, all of this needs to be quelled before we can hope to achieve any sort of peace, and unfortunately, this will involve conflict.

The point is, however, the lives of those who fight today will not be lost in vain. During World War II, the bloodiest war waged in the history of humankind, over 70 million human lives were extinguished in the struggle between the fascist ideals of the German-Italian-Japanese Axis and the Allied powers. In order to stem the expansion of brutal dictatorships and to stop the patently barbaric Japanese incursions into China, people laid down their lives so that others may live. While death and destruction can never be completely justified, when it's required to stop further death and destruction that would otherwise continue unabated, there is usually no contest.

Nowadays, war is usually a political situation, and indeed, World War I was a political war, as were the Korean war and the Vietnam war, and the Soviet's Afghan war. The Iraq war and the incursion into Afghanistan by NATO has been considered a retaliation and in the Iraq war's case, a pre-emptive strike; However, both of them remain political.

The point here is, it can be the only reasonable course of action in the face of disastrous, unprovoked military action. This action shouldn't have occurred in the first place, but in order to stem its corruption, additional action has to be taken. For the Allied powers to have laid down their guns during World War II would have had a disastrous effect on the world as we know it. In some cases, it's simply for the best.



> Even Einstein said
> *â€œWe can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.â€*
> 
> And so far that's all I've gotten from you >.>



No, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm trying to clarify for everyone why the Israeli conflict is happening, and why they should do what they're doing (albeit in a different manner). What I'm saying with regard to the problem is, the root of the problem needs to be removed, either by changing the way people think and act by educating and spreading information, or otherwise. In order for humankind to make progress, unfortunately, humankind is destined to continue to fight itself until the concepts of power-hunger, resource greed, ethnic cleansing and the like are a distant memory. Perhaps the only way to do this would be to create a global government. Perhaps we aren't ready for it yet.

But whatever we do, we must _never forget_ what has happened in our history, and we must _never forget_ the sacrifices in human life that our brothers, fathers, grandfathers, and everyone who took part in ensuring that our lives are how they are today. Their sacrifices were _not_ in vain; We live freely, and we live in security. The moment we forget, however, the shadow of history will creep back upon us, doomed forever to loop until we catch it once more - And at what cost?

What we as humankind must do is to work at dissolving the reasons why we face armed conflict and human suffering, and until that can be done for our own countries, no other country will follow.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 18, 2009)

Mayfurr said:


> Sadly, when people have been pushed against the wall, and have been basically stripped of dignity and _everything that makes life worth *living*_, it's that much easier for the suicide-bomber recruiters to find more converts - giving them a way to strike back at their enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> I've also seen a lot of what looks like M1A1 Abrams tanks in Israeli green on news reports too.


 
Those are probably Merkava's modified with a Degman Chassis.

If you've got pictures, I could tell you right away.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2009)

> And where do you get the figure of "only" 600 civilians? Israel? Like that's an unbiased source





			
				msnbc Fri. said:
			
		

> pushing the death toll for the two-week conflict to around 780, according to Gaza health officials who said at least half of those killed were civilians.



look at the wording in that. thats the way generally ALL media is covering this event, even fox news. they collect the civilian casualties AND known militant casualties together in one big lump. complete bullshit. though at least fox news, msnbc aren't as bad as SOME sources that dont have the lil extra snip of "about half were civilians" or "at least half were civilian casualties". there are a few that just flat up say "the idf has killed at least 1200 palestinians". like THIS bullshit that cnn.com posted...



			
				cnn.com Sunday said:
			
		

> During 22 days of fighting, more than 1,200 people have died, all but 13 of them Palestinians



its COMPLETE slanting and bullshit. they aren't even hinting that the fact that there is more to the statistic then they are letting on. they lay it out in such a manner that its supposed to lead the reader to think "israel killed 1200 innocent palestinians". ya, REAL balanced coverage that is.... though honestly i havent seen a single news source print much supporting israel, the CLOSEST is the sources that actually do admit that the figure of 1200 dead about half are actual legitimate combatants.

knowing that 600-700 innocents were killed so far israel STILL is beating the world average of civilians killed in modern war. you can provide evidence that israel is trying to destroy the infrastructure of gaza cus they are doing that but you still cant flipping prove that they are committing genocide. 



> And what Israel is doing now ISN'T ethnic persecution? Every time someone proposes "hey, why not let Israelis and Palestinians share and live in the land together in peace", the Israeli response is always "We can't do that, because then we wouldn't be a Jewish state."



as i said before there is NO israeli law that prohibits arabs from living there or visiting. get-dancing is right there is actually a large number of arabs actually living in israel today. almost 1/5th of the population is arab.  with that statistic alone you can start to see that israel is NOT the racist evil nation you present it to be....



> Not really. While war is a stimulant of the economy, it isn't the basis for it (your owning a computer is proof of this). War has an adverse effect on the economy as a whole



it can stimulate it in the short term but it can definitely kill it in the long.... even if you are not experiencing a great deal of casualties. 



> And as for Arabs attacking the newly-declared state of Israel, consider this: If (say) the Navaho tribe in the US unilaterally declared parts of Arizona and New Mexico to be a sovereign Navaho homeland state, would the rest of the US simply sit back and say "Okay, go for it"? Heck, the US had a civil war over southern states deciding to go their own way...



yes, but who won? further what reasons did the southern states try to go their own way? the navaho thing holds a little more water because in some respects they could claim that they have territorial right to certain tracts of land if they still had "nationhood". there is actually ongoing legal battles in the us over tribes owning lots of land really.... including the famous alcatraz island. native americans today are taking more with lawyer then they ever did with the gun. 

the issue is what the international community sees as "legal". technically palestine was not a independent nation. it had non rights and britian had the legal right to transfer ownership. so in that way israel had the legal right to form. israel didnt force arabs to leave something it didnt have legal right to do, however it took what was promised as with its legal rights in the matter.



> military spending isn't the most important thing in the world (I'm looking at you, America)



oh yes.... the problem is what else to spend on? we could easily slide more towards socialism if we start spending all that on something else..... best plan is to either fix the infrastructure or stop the spending and not have to take in the taxes... but a massive military expenditures is part of the problem of empire. we feel that we have to have forces ready to intercept situations all over the world, which honestly is a silly and stupid situation.... the m.e.u.'s (marine expeditionary units) have helped a lot of countries out because they were drifting around at sea waiting to leap into action but the cost vs benifit is still highly minimal...

we need to return to the classical system first invented by germany and then adopted by all pre ww1 nations. TINY active army and rather large reserve forces. you can pay for 8 inactive reservists for every active soldier and the fact of the matter is that if you have a professional active military the effectiveness of the reserves when they are rushed into active duty actually will be pretty good, that fact has been demonstrated in two world wars and countless minor conflicts. whats more it would allow us a good force to defend interests at a VERY minimal cost, the only thing really keeping costs up is the airforce which has to have a great deal of flight time in to be able to operate well. with such a military we could DRASTICALLY cut spending and begin making those payments to the money we owe people and improving our income(by not having to pay so much damn interest) for when the whole military has to be activated for a conflict. its a strategy of improving the base instead of improving the arm supported by the base. 



> and yet most of what they do in the international community happens to be vocal.



there have been cases of leaders winning every single battle lain before them and they lost because they could do nothing but win battles. ceasar was an example, he could win battles well and he actually WAS good at political manipulation but he didnt recognize limits of how far he could push. he pushed too far, the citizen senators felt that he was endangering them just for the sake of some stupid plebs and stabbed him.



> Where would Canada, a nation built upon democratic process and the written word rather than swords and cannons, be today, if not for the insight and motivational speeches that took place over a hundred years ago by Sir John A. MacDonald and the fathers of Canadian Confederation?



its funny. most people wouldnt recognize it but canada is one of the most powerful nations in the world today. they dont wield a strong military or a incredible economy but their "soft power" is incredible. the human rights focus a long with the lack of violent actions in the world has propelled them into a status that many nations look to their ideals and system for guidence. while soft power is very difficult to direct and control for a given purpose it is power and can actually be a very helpful thing.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2009)

FourLetterWord said:


> hey runefox fuck you for thinking it's ok to murder a bunch of oppressed civilians with tanks because you really hate the way manure-fueled rockets keep flying aimlessly out of their oppressed region



um.... first i bet they use more modern nitric acid based powders which while slightly unsafe in the manufacture process are FAR more productive explosives and actually easier to make then the potassium nitrate based explosives which honestly is "black powder". "manure" explosives are very primitive and difficult to actually make high quality, only the most desperate fool would go for that in this day in age. 

second, those rockets aren't "flying aimlessly". they arent fucking model rockets. they are weapons designed to try to kill people, look through the pictures of where the rockets hit israel. you see shrapnel scoring EVERYWHERE and you realize so few have actually died because of good medical care and the fact that the people aren't staying outdoors too much. 

third, i call bullshit on the oppression card. israel did have a blockade however it was an ARMS BLOCKADE. we know it only filtered arms because the un managed to get all the supplies it needed in gaza to build schools, hospitals and so on. before hamas started attacking all israel was doing was filtering all incoming traffic to gaza that they could and trying to capture any weapons. they withdrew from the place and its politics and had a blockade to try to filter arms away from an organization identified as a terrorist one by the entire western world. doesnt sound like oppression to me, just sounds like plain common sense.

added:

say slightly higher then 50% of the current casualty list is civilian. 700 people say(instead of 50% 600 people). now that number of 1200(the full count including hamas casualties) is from a source written 22 days into the fighting. so we got 700/22= 31.8. 31 innocent casualties PER DAY. now i use the iraq war as a comparison. by about day 570 we had 100,000 civilian casualties. 100,000/570=175.4. 175 innocent casualties PER DAY. so 175/31=5. the iraqi war, a war where we publicized endlessly our efforts to help civilians(well before the insurgency) and constantly harassed our units to be mindful of their fire had roughly FIVE TIMES more civilian deaths per day in action then the current gaza war in a far less dense population environment. 

now i'll go look up a couple other modern wars and compare them to gaza and demonstrate ISRAEL IS DOING A GOOD JOB AT NOT HITTING INNOCENTS. they are doing better then most nations ever have since industrialized warfare started.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 18, 2009)

FourLetterWord said:


> hey runefox fuck you for thinking it's ok to murder a bunch of oppressed civilians with tanks because you really hate the way manure-fueled rockets keep flying aimlessly out of their oppressed region



Hi!

No, I don't think it's OK to be killing civilians. I think if you read back through a little bit, you'd see I made that pretty clear. No, what I think is OK is destroying the Hamas infrastructure, and I fully support the Israeli campaign to do that. I do not support their bombing of civilian targets, and I feel that doing this will only fuel more anger and hatred towards Israel (for example, you). I'm pretty sure that the particulars about oppression and the blockade were outlined pretty well by caecar99 just now, so I'm just going to jump to the point.

There is no excuse for rocket and mortar attacks by Hamas against innocent civilians. Similarly, there is no excuse for Israel dropping bombs on Gaza Strip civilian infrastructure (killing innocent civilians), no matter how sure they are that they house Hamas operations. I see this as an "eye for an eye" sort of reaction, and I believe that this is going to invite more hatred and beget yet more attacks once this campaign is over - In an endless cycle.

Anyway, thanks.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 18, 2009)

> There is no excuse for rocket and mortar attacks by Hamas against Israel. Similarly, there is no excuse for Israel dropping bombs on Gaza Strip civilian infrastructure, no matter how sure they are that they house Hamas operations. I see this as an "eye for an eye" sort of reaction, and I believe that this is going to invite more hatred and beget yet more attacks once this campaign is over - In an endless cycle



technical they shouldnt be intentionally hitting ANY civilian building such a mosque, community center, hospital or whatever unless they are currently recieving fire from that building or have received some in the VERY recent past(as in the last day). by the modern laws of war that is the ONLY way such buildings can be declared hostile structures, otherwise they have to go in on the ground and clear them the hard way.

the "problem" is that israel doesnt play around. their rules of engagement are pretty damn balanced in their own favor. their opinion is that they will save their own troops at almost any cost, where other armies such as the us military will often operate on the procedure of no fire unless your fired upon. only in certain operations is the leash loosed and the dog allowed to savage as it pleases.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 18, 2009)

The major problem in terms of their rules of engagement is that they're targeting those structures with aerial bombardment, and rather haphazardly. Like I said earlier, the proper course of action would have been to send special forces in to clear the buildings and secure the area instead. This is the only real thing that Israel has really done wrong in this campaign.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 18, 2009)

FourLetterWord said:
			
		

> words



Read read read to succeed.

He's saying they don't have to bomb the Hamas, instead send in a special forces team on foot to take them out directly without blowing up entire sections of city, along with civilians.


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 18, 2009)

goes back to my point.  War is NOT civilized.  The purpose of war is to kill your enemy with as little damage to yourself as possible.  And the most effective people to end wars know this.  Bleeding hearts say no collateral damage.  Sherman burned his way to the sea, American bombed german cities till there was nothing but rubble and used 2 nukes to end a war.  When will anyone ever see that your either for or against an enemy.  If someone attacks america, and I do not pick up a gun to fight them, then I am supporting them.  It really is black and white.  Had all those in Gaza not wanted Israel there they would have been begging Hamas for a hand gun or bombs.  Sitting on the sidelines in a war is like standing in the path of a herd of raging cattle.  you might get luck and live but more than likely your gonna get trampled.

People around the world cry foul because of civilian deaths, well let them put the asses into action and rise up against Israel as a whole.  But then they might die and not get a chance to sip their wines in safety.  Why I never put any value on arm chair QB's.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Jan 18, 2009)

Hamas  is considered a legitimate politcal entity by the palestinians. And thus, if Hamas supports launching rockets randomly into Israel, then for ever rocket that strikes a target in Israel, Israel should lanch a rocket randomly into Gaza. Problem Solved. Then there is no surplus killing.


----------



## FourLetterWord (Jan 19, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> second, those rockets aren't "flying aimlessly". they arent fucking model rockets. they are weapons designed to try to kill people, look through the pictures of where the rockets hit israel. you see shrapnel scoring EVERYWHERE and you realize so few have actually died because of good medical care and the fact that the people aren't staying outdoors too much.



yeah they are actually flying aimlessly, literally, they are unguided rockets

they've shot over a thousand of the things and only 10 or so people have died, compared to around forty times that in civilian casualites during the first week of the israeli action in gaza



Runefox said:


> There is no excuse for rocket and mortar attacks by Hamas against innocent civilians. Similarly, there is no excuse for Israel dropping bombs on Gaza Strip civilian infrastructure (killing innocent civilians), no matter how sure they are that they house Hamas operations. I see this as an "eye for an eye" sort of reaction, and I believe that this is going to invite more hatred and beget yet more attacks once this campaign is over - In an endless cycle.
> 
> Anyway, thanks.



oh hey that makes a lot of sense assuming that hamas and israel are equals

but it turns out one of them is a shitty band of guerillas living in a governmentless wasteland, whereas the other is a first-world nation with by far the best military in the region, the backing of the united states, control over food water fuel and electricity to the affected region, and a wall around the region

what israel is doing is more like "an eye for a fingernail", the palestinian people are absolutely not to blame, and hamas, though shitty, cannot take credit for israel's massive overreaction

i saw this awesome video of how those rockets get made etc, wish i could find it :X


----------



## Runefox (Jan 19, 2009)

FourLetterWord said:


> yeah they are actually flying aimlessly, literally, they are unguided rockets
> 
> they've shot over a thousand of the things and only 10 or so people have died, compared to around forty times that in civilian casualites during the first week of the israeli action in gaza



And that's a direct result of indiscriminately bombing civilian buildings such as mosques, schools, hospitals, and other buildings that should never have been touched. I hope that whoever planned those airstrikes goes on trial for warcrimes when this is all over, because there is _never_ any reason to level such a building. This is my only problem with the way Israel is handling this situation.



> oh hey that makes a lot of sense assuming that hamas and israel are equals
> 
> but it turns out one of them is a shitty band of guerillas living in a governmentless wasteland, whereas the other is a first-world nation with by far the best military in the region, the backing of the united states, control over food water fuel and electricity to the affected region, and a wall around the region
> 
> what israel is doing is more like "an eye for a fingernail", the palestinian people are absolutely not to blame, and hamas, though shitty, cannot take credit for israel's massive overreaction



Well, you can't expect them to do nothing in response to rockets and mortar shelling, even if it isn't killing many people (there is still a death toll, and we're talking human lives, even if we're comparing numbers) but I'd also expect that they wouldn't bomb the shit out of civilian centres/buildings, either. The Palestinian people really haven't done anything wrong, and it's wrong to punish them for the actions of Hamas - Which is why I'm all for blowing the shit out of Hamas infrastructure and sending special forces teams to investigate possible weapons sites in civilian territory, instead of just blowing everything up. I'm not claiming that Israel should be able to do whatever they want - This is totally disproportionate. What I'm claiming is that so long as Hamas exists, there is a very real threat to Israeli security and the lives of Israeli citizens. The long and intensely bitter history between the Arabs and the Israelis only further serves to punctuate that point.



> American bombed german cities till there was nothing but rubble


No, that was the British. The Americans did little actual bombing in Europe, as memory serves.



> People around the world cry foul because of civilian deaths, well let them put the asses into action and rise up against Israel as a whole. But then they might die and not get a chance to sip their wines in safety. Why I never put any value on arm chair QB's.


Fuck, no. Rise up against Israel? First of all, they have a very powerful army. Second of all, why? Why rise up against Israel when America is much more likely to throw its weight around like this without any reason at all (Iraq)? Israel is justified in responding, but it's doing it all wrong. After so many decades of the leaders of the Arab nations calling for the destruction of your families and your entire nation, I suppose it would make anyone overreact when a rocket lands in their back yard with the Gaza Strip as the return address. Their overreaction is in no way justified, but at least it's not inexplicable like the Iraq war. I can commend them on that, at least. If they subscribed to the American (or rather, Bush Jr) theory of warfare, the Middle East would probably either be glass or under Israeli control by now. So they at least have SOME restraint, I suppose.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 19, 2009)

The sooner one or both factions die, the sooner this shit stops.

My biggest annoyment is the USA's involvement with the whole mess.  If it weren't for that I'd pop a bowl of Jolly Time and watch the latest newsreels from the Israel-Palestine shitstorm.

Also: the US flew plenty of bombing sorties in Europe.  US bombers destroyed the Ploesti oil refinery and countless other targets.  US bombers all but took over daylight raids, because the British had been suffering terrible losses on daytime sorties (the Brits resorted primarily to night-time bombing raids).


----------



## Nylak (Jan 19, 2009)

Guys, please try to keep the conversation civil, okay?  I understand this is a touchy subject, but please try to refrain from directly insulting other members or their opinions so we don't have to crack any heads.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 19, 2009)

> yeah they are actually flying aimlessly, literally, they are unguided rockets



hrmm... ya i seem to remember a couple other instances of "aimlessly flying rockets" in warfare..... the wurfgrenades shot by the famous nebelwafers that caused allied infantry so much panic, the russian katayusha and oh lets not forget the american rocket artillery racks on the sherman tanks! 

unguided doesnt mean shit. look, a normal artillery round is unguided but it can strike its target. though a normal artillery barrage is considered to have a danger zone of 600m(as in you could get hit by shrapnel or even hit directly within that radius of attack) "unguided" pieces can actually be pretty damn accurate. i know of a group of marines that holds the record of most accurate corrected mortar rounds. once they get the spotter to correct their shots they claim they can put a UNGUIDED mortar round in a 50 gallon drum at over a kilomiter every time. 

now, as i said, low casualty rates could easily be explained by actually three factors. 1: israel has excellent medical assistance and you'd be amazed at what you can live through. 2: rockets and mortar rounds DONT do well against people in buildings much less people in bunkers. they are low power explosives normally and rely on shrapnel to kill. simply put unless someone is caught broadside in the middle of the square when a rocket hits in the center its a pretty damn low chance that the shrapnel will harm them. even car doors can absorb a great deal of shrapnel. FURTHER, if someone is in the open and they hear the rocket coming in(how couldnt they) they could actually GREATLY improve their survival rate by just diving into the dirt. the amount of shrapnel flying next to the ground is minimal as opposed to flying at higher levels. its like smoke in a fire, stay low to survive.   3: lack of sophistication and skill. their rocket teams don't co-ordinate to strike a select area hard enough to actually cause enough damage that cover such as cars and many buildings wont fully protect people. another is that the crews themselves are not highly trained practiced individuals, its clear that they have very little skill in aiming the artillery where they want it and making corrections, even the mortar strikes are that way. it seems actually at this point however that they were trying to rely on volume to make up for in their lack of ability to use the weaponry well(see midwest native americans during the 1800s) but they didnt manage to really get enough artillery in the air to do that. they simply didnt have the MASSIVE resources required to keep up a barrage large enough to make up for that lack of skill and the limitations of their anti personnel weaponry.

oh and there is a reason 4: israel has a extensive network of bunkers in which many people have been clinging to since the attacks have started. rockets can be heard and seen coming in. this fact alone allows the people to dive into bunkers and otherwise seek cover from a weapon that is largely useless against anything but unprotected personnel.

look the argument your presenting is complete bullcrap. incompetence in murder DOES NOT excuse the attempt at murder. its like saying that someone is excused from murdering your child because they tried it with a shitty .22 pistol and the bullet bounced off the child's skull instead of penetrating. its like "oh you just suck at murder, its ok friend. you get to go free!" THATS the bullshit argument your presenting. just because hamas lacks skill, sophistication or even the amount of ordinance to make up for the first two facts DOESNT excuse them from attempted murder. im sorry, but if you tried to murder someone and failed because of your own incompetence no damn court in the world would let you go free, why is hamas any different?



> No, that was the British. The Americans did little actual bombing in Europe, as memory serves.



british did it early, eventually they had to do night bombing because they were being shot down too much. then as the american bombers started coming to europe they took the view that they would fill the sky with so many bombers that the fighters would'nt have a chance. THAT didnt work either, lol. though the end truth is that all nations wound up bombing each other nightly until war's end. everyone was highly annoyed that there didnt seem to be a way to stop the bombers, though the fact was that it took an astounding amount of ordinance to actually destroy what was intended or even cause any real damage.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> british did it early, eventually they had to do night bombing because they were being shot down too much. then as the american bombers started coming to europe they took the view that they would fill the sky with so many bombers that the fighters would'nt have a chance. THAT didnt work either, lol. though the end truth is that all nations wound up bombing each other nightly until war's end. everyone was highly annoyed that there didnt seem to be a way to stop the bombers, though the fact was that it took an astounding amount of ordinance to actually destroy what was intended or even cause any real damage.



I'm aware that the Americans were involved in bombings over Europe, but I was more thinking about Dresden and other city attacks (whether intended or not). However, after doing a bit of research, I had thought that it (Dresden) was a purely British affair, and I stand corrected - The USAAF were indeed a part of the bombings there.


----------

