NationStates Jolt Archive

<snip> Judaism and Zionism are racist ideologies and Israel is still the Jewish and Zionist state. <snip>

:(

God will bless those who bless the Jews, and curse those who curse the Jews. See Genesis 12:3.

:(

God will bless those who bless the Jews, and curse those who curse the Jews. See Genesis 12:3.

Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of Biblical justification for murder. Ten Commandments, anyone?

Ah, the sweet, sweet smell of Biblical justification for murder. Ten Commandments, anyone?

Crushing terrorist organizations is its own justification.

Crushing terrorist organizations is its own justification.

Even the ones who ended up governing Israel?

Crushing terrorist organizations is its own justification.

I think the news program I was just watching said something about something like 400 fatalities. And something about one strike killing two women and four children...

Which terror organisation did those children belong to? They neglected to mention that part of the story.


I was thinking... this whole damaging civilians to try to facilitate a political change... why isn't there a name for that?

I think the news program I was just watching said something about something like 400 fatalities. And something about one strike killing two women and four children...

Which terror organisation did those children belong to? They neglected to mention that part of the story.


I was thinking... this whole damaging civilians to try to facilitate a political change... why isn't there a name for that?

Because insisting that Palestinians are anything but hivemind insects and the Israelis are anything but the victims is anti-semism of course.

I was thinking... this whole damaging civilians to try to facilitate a political change... why isn't there a name for that?

It's only terrorism when white, anglo-saxon, Christian American civilians or their friends die apparently. Of course hypocrisy, two faced backstabbing and bloodlust is the forte of said Christian Americans who hold these views after all.

It's only terrorism when white, anglo-saxon, Christian American civilians or their friends die apparently. Of course hypocrisy, two faced backstabbing and bloodlust is the forte of said Christian Americans who hold these views after all.

Eh? What was that word you used? "Terrorism?" No - it can't be that, that's what 'baddies' do.

I think the news program I was just watching said something about something like 400 fatalities. And something about one strike killing two women and four children...

Which terror organisation did those children belong to? They neglected to mention that part of the story.


I was thinking... this whole damaging civilians to try to facilitate a political change... why isn't there a name for that?

This thread is going in circles, so I'll say this just once more.

Get this through your head: war involves killing people and breaking things. Ham-ass wanted war with Israel, and they're getting it. They went up against a superior enemy, with the result that a lot more of their people end up dead than their enemy's people.

Civilians are dying because Ham-ass insists on using them as human shields and operating from civilian areas. The responsibility is solely and uniquely Ham-ass'.

Collateral damage is inevitable in war. There is, however, a fundamental difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting enemy units that are operating in civilian areas.

Anyone who doesn't see that difference is wilfully blind.

The best and only way to end this war is the elimination of Ham-ass once and for all. Political settlements with more responsible parties, if such are ever found, can come afterward, since Ham-ass is not interested in political settlements, as stated in their charter.

How many Israel/Hamas threads are there?

How many Israel/Hamas threads are there?

And they get launched more frequently than Qassams too.

And they get launched more frequently than Qassams too.

LOL. No kidding.

You could create an entire forum on this subject at this point.

This thread is going in circles, so I'll say this just once more.

Get this through your head: war involves killing people and breaking things. Ham-ass wanted war with Israel, and they're getting it. They went up against a superior enemy, with the result that a lot more of their people end up dead than their enemy's people.

Civilians are dying because Ham-ass insists on using them as human shields and operating from civilian areas. The responsibility is solely and uniquely Ham-ass'.

Collateral damage is inevitable in war. There is, however, a fundamental difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting enemy units that are operating in civilian areas.

Anyone who doesn't see that difference is wilfully blind.

The best and only way to end this war is the elimination of Ham-ass once and for all. Political settlements with more responsible parties, if such are ever found, can come afterward, since Ham-ass is not interested in political settlements, as stated in their charter.

I think you show your maturity in your choice of phrasing.

I don't believe you really lack the understanding of asymmetrical war, so I have to assume you're choosing to ignore the realities to satisfy an argument you want to make. Hamas isn't a nation, and doesn't have an army. It's a 'resistance' movement to (what it perceives as) an illegal occupation.

Imagining for a second a thought-experiment scenario where, for example, Russia occupied the west coast states of the US, what do you honestly think the people of... say... Montana... would do? Line up on the Californian border and invite 'the commies' out for fisticuffs?

No - they'd do what the American people did under the last (what they perceived as) illegal occupation. They'd fight an asymmetrical war.

Was the American 'war of independence' a cowards war?

I think you're being hypocritical.

No. Don't you dare compare the vileness of the Palestinian conduct with anything we did.

:(

God will bless those who bless the Jews, and curse those who curse the Jews. See Genesis 12:3.
Fuck yer Bible. It's a work of human fiction and little more. As well as "wisdom" about the Levant it also contains tales of God's prophets setting bears on children basically for a laugh. Awesome, but not particularly believable.
Turning now to more positive developments, Israel has now eliminated one of Ham-ass’ big-shots.
Killing most of his family and flattening a whole apartment block. Nice. Sure that won't create any martyrs in his honour.

and the countdown to the locking of this thread begins now.

And they get launched more frequently than Qassams too.

And affect about as much change, as well. The racist idiots are still both racist and idiotic, the partisans remain partisan, and the psychopaths continue being psychopathic and loud. The nice thing about these threads is that it shows that even with computer access, implying access to resources and knowledge that even fifty years ago would have been the work of science fiction, people can still prove themselves disgusting and worthless simply by opening their mouths (or typing their thoughts, as the case may be).

And affect about as much change, as well. The racist idiots are still both racist and idiotic, the partisans remain partisan, and the psychopaths continue being psychopathic and loud. The nice thing about these threads is that it shows that even with computer access, implying access to resources and knowledge that even fifty years ago would have been the work of science fiction, people can still prove themselves disgusting and worthless simply by opening their mouths (or typing their thoughts, as the case may be).

Isn't technology wonderful?

Isn't technology wonderful?

Ya, but then again, on the other hand, the purpose of these debates is never to convince the other side but the slightly interested reader/lurker, so perhaps some racist idiots really are less racist or less idiotic, a little bit more objectivity has entered the world and...well...I have little hope for the psychopaths, they do what they will. ;)

:(

God will bless those who bless the Jews, and curse those who curse the Jews. See Genesis 12:3.

That's true, I read it in a Chick pamphlet.

I have the solution! The Palestinians will have to stay in their little reservations, sorry, but we'll grant them the exclusive right to run casinos!

I have the solution! The Palestinians will have to stay in their little reservations, sorry, but we'll grant them the exclusive right to run casinos!

and they can rob the israeli's blind.....brilliant!

I have the solution! The Palestinians will have to stay in their little reservations, sorry, but we'll grant them the exclusive right to run casinos!

Ah, so you do admit that the Palestinians are being ghettoized in their own reservations then?

Ah, so you do admit that the Palestinians are being ghettoized in their own reservations then?When have I ever said otherwise? What I have said is that they deserved to lose territory: they started the violence, and cannot be heard to complain that it turned out badly for them. I don't agree with continuing to plant settlements in the area the Palestinians have left, however; those will all have to go. But Palestinians will never have a state until they abandon the campaign of pointless random murders that got them into their present hole.

No. Don't you dare compare the vileness of the Palestinian conduct with anything we did.

"We" as in Americans? If so, I'll agree, the Palestinian conduct isn't a good comparison. It's closer to Israeli conduct. Quite a bit like American conduct to the native Americans in the early years. You know, the whole making and breaking of treaties, illegalizing their homes via the courts and forcibly evicting them with military force, the random slaughter of Indian villages by gun toting hicks at the outskirts of American territory, all quietly approved by the American government of course when they weren't doing it openly with the army.

And maybe that's why some Americans are so hard for their support for Israel. They can't do that sort of thing to their native Americans anymore, but they don't mind substitutes.

Not really, but there are quite a few parallels. There's way too much blood on either side's hands that they're not going to stop anytime soon.

Which is why I'm puzzled why so few people are willing to even court the idea of full parity of nuclear strength between the two. Extinction is a far bigger incentive to adopt peace than understanding or integration or anything like that.

Both sides understand fear and power, so let them have it's ultimate expression pointed at each other. They either learn to have peace, or they all die, which is fine with me either way, since it clearly shows that neither were willing to behave like mature people.

"We" as in Americans? If so, I'll agree, the Palestinian conduct isn't a good comparison. It's closer to Israeli conduct. Quite a bit like American conduct to the native Americans in the early years. You know, the whole making and breaking of treaties, illegalizing their homes via the courts and forcibly evicting them with military force, the random slaughter of Indian villages by gun toting hicks at the outskirts of American territory, all quietly approved by the American government of course when they weren't doing it openly with the army.

And maybe that's why some Americans are so hard for their support for Israel. They can't do that sort of thing to their native Americans anymore, but they don't mind substitutes.

That and everyone knows it's politically kosher to oppress Muslims as long you call it "fighting terrorism".

Yes. I meant my comment as a joke, though only Minoriteeburg took it that way, but there is certainly a degree of analogy. When the natives went to war, their style of warfare was nakedly genocidal, seeking to exterminate every man, woman, and child on the other side. When they warred against the whites, they would do the same, killing everyone they could reach: this was foolish, since they had not the slightest possibility of exterminating the whites; and the persistence of some tribes in renewing wars that they had already lost, as if they had any power to reverse the outcome, was also foolish. The difference is that white Americans also decided, in the case of many tribes, to take the war to the genocidal level; the Israelis on the other hand, despite all the stupid accusations (as we have seen many times on this board) that they are committing "genocide" against the Palestinians, have allowed the Palestinians to multiply at an rate unprecedented in the history of the world, subsidized at a subsistence-poverty level by welfare from the UNRWA and other sources.
What exactly would the Palestinians do if they had "independence" tomorrow? If they actually had to sustain themselves purely on their own resources, much of their population would have to die, rapidly. Even if Israel just disappeared, Palestine cannot revert to where it was before the Zionist movement started, unless the population goes back down to the 400,000 they were managing to support on that land. If the Palestinians are to integrate with a modern economy on the regional level, of course they have to stop randomly murdering their neighbors: that ought to go without saying, but in the case of the Palestinians apparently it never does.

If the Palestinians are to integrate with a modern economy on the regional level, of course they have to stop randomly murdering their neighbors: that ought to go without saying, but in the case of the Palestinians apparently it never does.

It takes two hands to clap. If the Palestinians are to integrate with a modern economy, not only do they have to stop randomly murdering their neighbors, their neighbors have to stop randomly murdering them too, or for that matter, squatting in their homes and getting the courts to steal it for them.

No, I'm not talking about the Israeli government, I'm talking about the settler movement who have gone on record murdering the Palestinians in order to drive them out and steal their lands, all of which happens under the quiet approval of the Israeli government.

I agree with you that the settlements will all have to go. That said, however: the Palestinians didn't start murdering randomly in 1967, or 1948; it is their cultural attitude that this conduct is normal and acceptable which absolutely must change before it is reasonable to believe that even a complete Israeli pullout from the West Bank would accomplish anything, anymore than the pullout from Gaza did. Even the headhunting tribes of Papua and Amazonia have learned that they continue in their old ways, or they will be destroyed.

Which is why I'm puzzled why so few people are willing to even court the idea of full parity of nuclear strength between the two. Extinction is a far bigger incentive to adopt peace than understanding or integration or anything like that.
You fail to understand that both sides are willing to face Extinction if it means everyone else goes with them.

You fail to understand that both sides are willing to face Extinction if it means everyone else goes with them.

Just goes to show how far ignorance will go.

You fail to understand that both sides are willing to face Extinction if it means everyone else goes with them.

The Palestinians don't have a Samson Option however. Which of course only makes the idea of exterminating them completely an even more appealing idea to quite a few.

I agree with you that the settlements will all have to go. That said, however: the Palestinians didn't start murdering randomly in 1967, or 1948; it is their cultural attitude that this conduct is normal and acceptable which absolutely must change before it is reasonable to believe that even a complete Israeli pullout from the West Bank would accomplish anything, anymore than the pullout from Gaza did. Even the headhunting tribes of Papua and Amazonia have learned that they continue in their old ways, or they will be destroyed.

This isn't going to change without some level of integration, and neither side's leaders have ever shown the willingness to even talk about the idea. At least none have done so and lived to see it through.

You fail to understand that both sides are willing to face Extinction if it means everyone else goes with them.

If that is the case, then Israel would have nuked it's neighbors a long time ago. Obviously, that hasn't happened, because maybe, just maybe, the policy makers are too in love with their lives to commit mass suicide. Likewise, I note a particular lack of militant leaders doing the actual fighting themselves.

No. Don't you dare compare the vileness of the Palestinian conduct with anything we did.

Where indeed would you be without that high horse to ride on....Of course the fact is that American conduct towards the Native population far exceeds even the Israeli attitude towards the Palestinians in terms of brutality and naked racism.


I have the solution! The Palestinians will have to stay in their little reservations,.

A great many otherwise moderate people reject a two state solution because thats what they believe will happen. They fear the Palestinian state will consist of a number of bantustans, geographically seperated between land allocated to Israel.


What I have said is that they deserved to lose territory
,.

Yes, uniquely amongst peoples of the world.


it is their cultural attitude that this conduct is normal and acceptable ,.

.....unlike their restrained neighbours.....

they started the violencePalestinians did not start the violence. Jews did, even way before 1948 they set up militias to attack Arab villages.

Was the American 'war of independence' a cowards war?


OMG - How ignorant would you like to prove yourself to be? Refresh me how many colonists went to British discos and pizza restaurants and blew themselves up? For that matter - how many colonists targeted British civilians at all - suicide mission or not? (and the inverse for the Redcoats holds nearly as true)
How often did the US bitch about civilian casualties? Sure - there were some - but the colonists accepted that as a byproduct of WAR.

And when did the UN step in and tell the Brits that they had to let up at Philadelphia?

Fact is - the war for independence was a 'legitimate' war because both sides conducted war against legitimate (strategically effective) targets. The US developed and used guerrilla tactics and used them more effectively than ever before, but guerrilla =/= terrorist. (not to say that the palestininans have not - they have just uses terror tactics far more often - to their ultimate disadvantage - and btw - it irks me when their guerrilla tactics are called terrorist)
You can learn more here;
http://www.britishbattles.com/american-revolution.htm

Nope - there is no comparison. U Phail.
So by your logic, attacking a US republican stronghold in retaliation for the Iraq was is a perfectly legitamate tactic.

In fact yes, it is possible. Attacking any government or military target which has a tactical benefit to a goal would make sense. If the stated goal was to effect change in Republican platform or total US strategy then it would make sense that after obliterating the military, if the US refused to surrender/oblige, the next step would be to target political leadership. It would NOT make sense as a first target (particularly as a sole target) since that would provide no tactical benefit whatsoever, but as last targets go, as part of a greater campaign or prior to an invasion, it would make sense.

Are you pretending that the Palestinians have a uniform hive-mind and that no dissent exists within their ranks?


How do you know people haven't demanded an end to the rockets?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

They said the Israelis either warned nearby residents by phone or fired a warning missile to reduce civilian casualties. Israeli planes also dropped leaflets east of Gaza giving a confidential phone number and e-mail address for people to report locations of rocket squads. Residents stepped over the leaflets.

That's how.
(and "buzzzzzzzzz")


Where indeed would you be without that high horse to ride on....Of course the fact is that American conduct towards the Native population far exceeds even the Israeli attitude towards the Palestinians in terms of brutality and naked racism.
That is unfortunately true - yet with their total defeat we've seen an end to the conflict for generations. It likely could have been ceased much earlier with the same net effect, but alas - the whole world was a different place back then and aborigines were not recognized by any foreign or domestic bodies... the only plus is that the US did NOT perform genocide - they just performed abhorring acts of mass murder (today called war crimes) with no or little strategic benefit. (The aborigines also targeted civilians - but most often restricted to those trespassing or near their territory - never at discos or pizza restaurants) Both sides pretty much sucked.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians


That's how.
(and "buzzzzzzzzz")

So you actually do believe that the Palestinians have a uniform hive-mind and that no dissent exists within their ranks, despite the evidence offered up to the contrary before.

And your link doesn't prove anything.

(Especially since the leaflets were dropped "east of Gaza", wherever that is.)

So you actually do believe that the Palestinians have a uniform hive-mind ...what does that mean? That all Palestinian share the sam thought? Well, they do. They all want their land back. Rightfully so.

OMG - How ignorant would you like to prove yourself to be? Refresh me how many colonists went to British discos and pizza restaurants and blew themselves up? For that matter - how many colonists targeted British civilians at all - suicide mission or not? (and the inverse for the Redcoats holds nearly as true)
How often did the US bitch about civilian casualties? Sure - there were some - but the colonists accepted that as a byproduct of WAR.

And when did the UN step in and tell the Brits that they had to let up at Philadelphia?

That's just hilarious.

Fact is - the war for independence was a 'legitimate' war because both sides conducted war against legitimate (strategically effective) targets.
Wait, who at the time said it was legitimate?

Palestinians did not start the violence. Jews did, even way before 1948 they set up militias to attack Arab villages.

Who cares? While history is nice to have in mind, the constant focus on who did what during the last millennium gets us nowhere.

what does that mean? That all Palestinian share the sam thought? Well, they do. They all want their land back. Rightfully so.
And they all believe that the only way of achieving that goal is through attacking innocent civilians? Not one of them favour going through diplomatic channels? Every single one of them support Hamas and their approach to the conflict?

And they all believe that the only way of achieving that goal is through attacking innocent civilians? Not one of them favour going through diplomatic channels? Every single one of them support Hamas and their approach to the conflict?
They are not attacking innocent civilians. They are attacking their declared enemy: Israel. Which has been at war with Palestine since at least 1948. Israelis are all in on the occupation and the continued treatment of Palestinian Arabs as third class humans. Otherwise they would elect different governments. When Germany invaded and occupied France in WW2, the French had every right to blow up any German that they saw. The same applies here. Israel is the aggressor and occupier, not Palestine, and since Israelis kill Palestinians at random why should Palestinians care who they target in reaction?

They are not attacking innocent civilians. They are attacking their declared enemy: Israel. Which has been at war with Palestine since at least 1948. Israelis are all in on the occupation and the continued treatment of Palestinian Arabs as third class humans. Otherwise they would elect different governments. When Germany invaded and occupied France in WW2, the French had every right to blow up any German that they saw. The same applies here. Israel is the aggressor and occupier, not Palestine, and since Israelis kill Palestinians at random why should Palestinians care who they target in reaction?
Uhu... so if one side sees unarmed civilians as targets, why can't the other?

OK HL, give it up, you're United Belerand, aren't you?"

They are not attacking innocent civilians. They are attacking their declared enemy: Israel. Which has been at war with Palestine since at least 1948. Israelis are all in on the occupation and the continued treatment of Palestinian Arabs as third class humans. Otherwise they would elect different governments. When Germany invaded and occupied France in WW2, the French had every right to blow up any German that they saw. The same applies here. Israel is the aggressor and occupier, not Palestine, and since Israelis kill Palestinians at random why should Palestinians care who they target in reaction?

Of course this is complete bullshit, and makes it that much easier to just ignore you in the future.

Nice dodge, though. You've managed to paint all Palestinians as followers of Hamas and supporters of their policies. Which is also bullshit.

Nice dodge, though. You've managed to paint all Palestinians as followers of Hamas and supporters of their policies. Which is also bullshit.

Since when do trolls really think about (or care about) the logical ramifications of their actions?

This board has become infested recently, it's really quite irksome.

Since when do trolls really think about (or care about) the logical ramifications of their actions?

This board has become infested recently, it's really quite irksome.
Nah, NS has always had it's share of them, it's just that recently more and more of them have come crawling out of the wood work.

Probably because they have nothing better to do.

Of course this is complete bullshit, and makes it that much easier to just ignore you in the future.

Nice dodge, though. You've managed to paint all Palestinians as followers of Hamas and supporters of their policies. Which is also bullshit.How is that complete bullshit? Are you denying that Israel is still occupying Palestine? What does that have to do with Hamas? It wouldn't be any different if Fatah were heading the PNA, because no matter who the Palestinians elect, the Israelis are still not interested in peace or in ending the occupation and the settlements.
BTW Hamas got elected exactly because Israel did not help Fatah and thus made Abbas look ineffective. Israel wanted Hamas to head the PNA so they would have justification to again drop their bombs.

how many colonists targeted British civilians at all

Also, how could one point out the difference between british civilians and colonists... since they were exactly the same people?

OMG - How ignorant would you like to prove yourself to be? Refresh me how many colonists went to British discos and pizza restaurants and blew themselves up? For that matter - how many colonists targeted British civilians at all - suicide mission or not? (and the inverse for the Redcoats holds nearly as true)
How often did the US bitch about civilian casualties? Sure - there were some - but the colonists accepted that as a byproduct of WAR.

And when did the UN step in and tell the Brits that they had to let up at Philadelphia?

Fact is - the war for independence was a 'legitimate' war because both sides conducted war against legitimate (strategically effective) targets. The US developed and used guerrilla tactics and used them more effectively than ever before, but guerrilla =/= terrorist. (not to say that the palestininans have not - they have just uses terror tactics far more often - to their ultimate disadvantage - and btw - it irks me when their guerrilla tactics are called terrorist)
You can learn more here;
http://www.britishbattles.com/american-revolution.htm

Nope - there is no comparison. U Phail.


The focal points of my post were asymmetrical war and guerrilla tactics - both of which are characteristics common to both of the conflics we've discussed, right here. The question was aimed at someone attacking Hamas for 'hiding', and I was hinting at the fact that NOT standing on the border wearing a Hamas jacket... isn't that unusual in parallel circumstances, and wouldn't be considered cowardly by most, in similar situations.

Example - the War of Independence being fought asymmetrically, and with a preference for guerrilla tactics, and yes, even attacks on civilian centres.

You might want to think about what your compatriots are actually saying before you start being patronising.

Since when do trolls really think about (or care about) the logical ramifications of their actions?

This board has become infested recently, it's really quite irksome.

I agree. They tend to pop up around vacation times, it seems.

The question was aimed at someone attacking Hamas for 'hiding', and I was hinting at the fact that NOT standing on the border wearing a Hamas jacket... isn't that unusual in parallel circumstances, and wouldn't be considered cowardly by most, in similar situations.
.

I'm not feeling motivated enough to read through all the posts, but I believe that if the OP wasn't specific enough their intention may have been to be critical of Hamas for launching attacks from civilian areas and/or under civilian cover and operating strategic posts intentionally within civilian centers.

When not involved in combat ALL soldiers blend in with civilians eventually... The transgression of Hamas' military wing is that they operate and launch hostilities specifically and intentionally within civilian centers.

I'm not feeling motivated enough to read through all the posts, but I believe that if the OP wasn't specific enough their intention may have been to be critical of Hamas for launching attacks from civilian areas and/or under civilian cover and operating strategic posts intentionally within civilian centers.

When not involved in combat ALL soldiers blend in with civilians eventually... The transgression of Hamas' military wing is that they operate and launch hostilities specifically and intentionally within civilian centers.

And, of course, the point would be - what alternative would be 'acceptable'?

They don't have an army. They're not a state. You're not going to get a 'regular' war. They are not an army - they are armed civilians... and where do you find civilians?

The argument is not new, but it's just as ridiculous as the first time it reared it's head - when the Hamas insurgent is not weilding weapons, he's just a regular dude sitting at home with his family. When you target that guy AT HOME, you TARGET his family. Would you argue that a cop-killer that blows up the guys house, killing his wife and kids, should be held above consideration for those other acts? After all - the cop didn't have to 'hide' among civilians', right?

You're buying into (or perpetuating, I can't believe you really could be suckered that easy) a propaganda excuse for terrorism... and what Israel does IS terrorism. They aim to inflict enough COLLATERAL damage to scare Hamas into giving up. But, an 'excuse' it is.

American conduct towards the Native population far exceeds even the Israeli attitude
Uh, the remark you are quoting was in response to a claim that American conduct towards the British (not towards the Natives) was the same as the Palestinian attitude (not the Israeli attitude); I find any comparison between the Continental Army and Hamas to be quite silly, and also offensive.
Subsequently, I introduced (as a joke, but some answered seriously so I have responded as such) the analogy with the "Indian wars", which is not perfect (what analogy ever is?) but I would agree there are some points of commonality.
[I revise my peace proposal, since the casinos apparently are not enough to satisfy some people: we will also give the Palestinians the exclusive right to sell cheap tax-exempt cigarettes!]
in terms of brutality and naked racism.
It was not a simple matter of "racism". The Natives were continuing a Neolithic culture which, while it had its admirable traits, was marked by frequent spasms of a brutally genocidal style of warfare which was shocking to the Europeans (even though their own style of warfare was already harsher than what we are used to). That had to be dealt with, though I won't condone all the brutalities which the white side resorted to.
It is easy to play the white-guilt card now that it is all long over, but romanticizing the Natives is dishonest to the history.
Yes, uniquely amongst peoples of the world.
You know that is very nearly the direct opposite of truth. It would be close to unique if a nation that started a war and lost it DIDN'T lose territory as a result. How many examples could you name?
.....unlike their restrained neighbours.....
The Israelis are still shipping in the food that allows the Gazans to continue to live (and multiply). Can you think of any parallel for that?
Palestinians did not start the violence.
Now that IS the direct opposite of truth. Jewish "reprisal" attacks did not start until after two decades of Palestinian murders.

Now that IS the direct opposite of truth. Jewish "reprisal" attacks did not start until after two decades of Palestinian murders.
Haganah much?

And, of course, the point would be - what alternative would be 'acceptable'?

They don't have an army. They're not a state. You're not going to get a 'regular' war. They are not an army - they are armed civilians... and where do you find civilians?

The argument is not new, but it's just as ridiculous as the first time it reared it's head - when the Hamas insurgent is not weilding weapons, he's just a regular dude sitting at home with his family. When you target that guy AT HOME, you TARGET his family. Would you argue that a cop-killer that blows up the guys house, killing his wife and kids, should be held above consideration for those other acts? After all - the cop didn't have to 'hide' among civilians', right?

You're buying into (or perpetuating, I can't believe you really could be suckered that easy) a propaganda excuse for terrorism... and what Israel does IS terrorism. They aim to inflict enough COLLATERAL damage to scare Hamas into giving up. But, an 'excuse' it is.

Yup; here he is just sitting at home drinking pop with his kids... :rolleyes:
http://www.zionist.com/2006/07/17/why-israel-kills-so-many-civilians


you accuse me of turning a blind eye yet you can't even argue the same points I've made - you have to make up entirely new straw men.

Haganah much?
As I said, reprisal attacks did not begin until after decades of one-sided violence.

As I said, reprisal attacks did not begin until after decades of one-sided violence.However, the Jewish side started the violence.

However, the Jewish side started the violence.That is the opposite of the truth. Palestinians were murdering Jewish immigrants sporadically from the 19th century; it became the policy of their official leadership in 1920, and escalated to an official campaign to murder all Jews in Palestine, whether recent immigrants or not, in 1929; from 1933 on, the Palestinian leadership allied with Nazi Germany and called for the extermination of all Jews everywhere. Jewish "reprisal" violence began in 1937.

I don't believe you really lack the understanding of asymmetrical war, so I have to assume you're choosing to ignore the realities to satisfy an argument you want to make. Hamas isn't a nation, and doesn't have an army. It's a 'resistance' movement to (what it perceives as) an illegal occupation.

I'm well aware of the concept, I simply reject it as a justification for deliberately targeting civilians.

Furthermore, I am not interested in what label Ham-ass chooses to apply to itself, or what its perception is of any "illegal occupation." Again, neither is a justification for deliberately targeting civilians.

Nor do I care if Ham-ass is a "nation" or has "an army." It acts as if it were a nation to the extent that it launches aggressive war against another nation, regardless of the extent to which the forces used to carry out the aggression are formally organized. It is now suffering the consequences of its decision, and it bears the responsibility for the collateral damage arising therefrom.

By your reasoning, all any disgruntled group anywhere in the world need do is "perceive" some grievance against a nation and then act on that grievance, using military force without formally organizing that force into an "army." Then it could claim immunity from military retaliation and defeat by crying that "we're not a nation," "we don't have an army", and "we're a resistance movement against [grievance]."

I would not tolerate the US government accepting such an argument. I see no reason for Israel to do so.

Imagining for a second a thought-experiment scenario where, for example, Russia occupied the west coast states of the US, what do you honestly think the people of... say... Montana... would do? Line up on the Californian border and invite 'the commies' out for fisticuffs?

No - they'd do what the American people did under the last (what they perceived as) illegal occupation. They'd fight an asymmetrical war.

They would target Russian military objectives, as they targeted British military objectives during the American Revolution.

Was the American 'war of independence' a cowards war?

I think you're being hypocritical.

Not hardly. Your comparison is inapt and pejorative. And don't try using the "illegal occupation" slogan in the context of the American Revolution. We were breaking formerly legitimate bonds that had become oppressive. Not the same thing as a land dispute.

Yup; here he is just sitting at home drinking pop with his kids... :rolleyes:
http://www.zionist.com/2006/07/17/why-israel-kills-so-many-civilians


you accuse me of turning a blind eye yet you can't even argue the same points I've made - you have to make up entirely new straw men.

How is it a strawman to refer to an actual headline from the last few days?

You present a picture of a guy shooting from a crowd. A couple of days ago I watched footage of Israeli civilians engaged in violence on Palestinians... and even on their own police/security. Both those issues - while illustrating that we're talking about a volatile region (indeed, a warzone, today) do not detract from the collateral damage.

It's not a new concept. The US uses the same tactics (dude's in a wheelchair, you say, and surrounded by his family? Still a fair target)... but that doesn't make it okay.

You say I'm constructing strawmen. I say I'm talking about realities, and reality doesn't argue your case for you, which is why you're bitching about me bringing it up.

Nor do I care if Ham-ass is a "nation" or has "an army." It acts as if it were a nation to the extent that it launches aggressive war against another nation, regardless of the extent to which the forces used to carry out the aggression are formally organized. It is now suffering the consequences of its decision, and it bears the responsibility for the collateral damage arising therefrom.


Bullshit. When cops confront a hostage situation, they try to find ways to defuse the situation such that hostages are released and casualties minimised. Why do they do that? Because we wouldn't stand for the kind of collateral damage that would occur if cops confronted hostage situations by carpet-bombing.

We 'stand for it' in the Middle East because most people don't care what happens outside their own town, much less, their national borders.


By your reasoning, all any disgruntled group anywhere in the world need do is "perceive" some grievance against a nation and then act on that grievance, using military force without formally organizing that force into an "army."


Welcome to reality.


Then it could claim immunity from military retaliation and defeat by crying that "we're not a nation," "we don't have an army", and "we're a resistance movement against [grievance]."

I would not tolerate the US government accepting such an argument. I see no reason for Israel to do so.


What do you mean you 'wouldn't tolerate the US government accepting such an argument'? What are you going to do about it? I'm sure you're aware that we're doing at least the equal - right now - in Iraq, by not issuing a formal declaration of war?


They would target Russian military objectives, as they targeted British military objectives during the American Revolution.


You should actually read some 'revolution' history before you discuss the subject, apparently.


Not hardly. Your comparison is inapt and pejorative. And don't try using the "illegal occupation" slogan in the context of the American Revolution. We were breaking formerly legitimate bonds that had become oppressive. Not the same thing as a land dispute.

You're right. The British claim to the territories was not an illegal occupation, it was perfectly legal. Indeed, if we're looking to point fingers, the 'crooks' in that case would have been the insurgents who waged a war against the legitimate government. A war that was actually opposed by the majority of the colonists.

But, we're talking perception, aren't we. And this little majority wanted to remove the leash that tied them to Europe... so they fought. Because that's what people do.

It was not a simple matter of "racism". The Natives were continuing a Neolithic culture which, while it had its admirable traits, was marked by frequent spasms of a brutally genocidal style of warfare which was shocking to the Europeans (even though their own style of warfare was already harsher than what we are used to). That had to be dealt with, though I won't condone all the brutalities which the white side resorted to.
It is easy to play the white-guilt card now that it is all long over, but romanticizing the Natives is dishonest to the history..

Ahh yes, bad natives. Needed civillising. By wiping them out en masse and almost completely. With ye now.


You know that is very nearly the direct opposite of truth. It would be close to unique if a nation that started a war and lost it DIDN'T lose territory as a result. How many examples could you name?..

Japan has self rule. Germany has self rule.


The Israelis are still shipping in the food that allows the Gazans to continue to live (and multiply). Can you think of any parallel for that??..

'Becuse they care'. Thats PR as well you know. It doesnt count for much when they're still bombing Gaza and still building in the West Bank.

And don't try using the "illegal occupation" slogan in the context of the American Revolution. We were breaking formerly legitimate bonds that had become oppressive. Not the same thing as a land dispute.

You people never knew what oppressive was.

"not the same thing as a land dispute".....What kind of half arsed fucking excuse for a statement is that? Its a war over the right to self determination.

You people never knew what oppressive was.

"not the same thing as a land dispute".....What kind of half arsed fucking excuse for a statement is that? Its a war over the right to self determination.

Nodinia, if the Palestinians just wanted self-determination, they could have had an independent state years ago (not as big as the one they want, but nobody gets everything they want). Israel effectively offered that to Arafat. But it's quite clear they will not stop attacking Israel until they are STOPPED. This may not be the best way to do it, but I would guess it beats hunkering down and getting continuously shelled.

Israel effectively offered that to Arafat.
Debatable. And given that it was true: What's stopping them from making that offer anew? Why was it a once-in-a-lifetime deal?

Debatable. And given that it was true: What's stopping them from making that offer anew? Why was it a once-in-a-lifetime deal?

They trusted Arafat, and he trusted the Israeli government of the time. They got to that state of trust by both sides making deals and then honouring them.

The current Israeli Government wouldn't trust HAMAS to tell the difference between night and day. HAMAS has the total destruction of Israel as a root purpose - not exactly conducive to trust.

Without the (fairly basic) level of trust Arafat reached, offers like that aren't going to happen, since Israel will feel they have nothing to gain by making them - they cannot trust HAMAS to keep to the agreement, so why bother to try?

They trusted Arafat, and he trusted the Israeli government of the time. They got to that state of trust by both sides making deals and then honouring them.

The current Israeli Government wouldn't trust HAMAS to tell the difference between night and day. HAMAS has the total destruction of Israel as a root purpose - not exactly conducive to trust.

Without the (fairly basic) level of trust Arafat reached, offers like that aren't going to happen, since Israel will feel they have nothing to gain by making them - they cannot trust HAMAS to keep to the agreement, so why bother to try?

So why aren't they trusting Abbas?

So why aren't they trusting Abbas?

Actually, they do seem to be. Which is why I still have some hope that a two-state settlement is possible and peace could happen.

But I do think it's reasonable that they not be seen to be dealing with Abbas while blowing the ever-living crud out of the West Bank. They don't need to undermine Abbas' position when they may well want to use him to start a dialogue once the current crisis subsides.

So why aren't they trusting Abbas?
Presumeably because he has little real power.

EDIT: Well, little real power in dealing with Hamas.

Presumeably because he has little real power.He has little power because Hamas got elected. Hamas got elected because Israel ignored Abbas and refused to aid him.

He has little power because Hamas got elected. Hamas got elected because Israel ignored Abbas and refused to aid him.

An alternative interpretation was that they were letting Abbas and the Palestinians get their house in order and not interfering in Palestinian affairs - as they were asked to.

An alternative interpretation was that they were letting Abbas and the Palestinians get their house in order and not interfering in Palestinian affairs - as they were asked to.

....bar extending illegal settlements in the West Bank, right?

Actually, they do seem to be. Which is why I still have some hope that a two-state settlement is possible and peace could happen.

But I do think it's reasonable that they not be seen to be dealing with Abbas while blowing the ever-living crud out of the West Bank. They don't need to undermine Abbas' position when they may well want to use him to start a dialogue once the current crisis subsides.

They haven't really been dealing with him at all lately. Why didn't they present the offer again during the six-month long ceasefire, for example? That wouldn't have undermined him, it would have bolstered him.

They haven't really been dealing with him at all lately. Why didn't they present the offer again during the six-month long ceasefire, for example? That wouldn't have undermined him, it would have bolstered him.

Yup. It would have been the smart move.

The question then would have been: Does Abbas trust Israel? Arafat could trust the people he was dealing with, but the current Israeli government is a long way from those people. I'm not sure I would trust them - and it has to be a two-way street.

An alternative interpretation was that they were letting Abbas and the Palestinians get their house in order and not interfering in Palestinian affairs - as they were asked to.They were asked no such thing. They were asked to stop setting up new Jewish settlements in the West Bank and remove the current ones.

They were asked no such thing. They were asked to stop setting up new Jewish settlements in the West Bank and remove the current ones.

Yes, they were. They were also asked, by Fatah, not to interefere in internal Palestinian politics.

The fact they managed to obey the one that caused the most problems thereby and disobey the one that caused the most problems thereby is simply par for the course...

Yes, they were. They were also asked, by Fatah, not to interefere in internal Palestinian politics.

The fact they managed to obey the one that caused the most problems thereby and disobey the one that caused the most problems thereby is simply par for the course...

Hold on a second, how is the continuation of settlements and the construction of a Wall, both held to be illegal, cutting deep into the West Bank "not interfering in internal Palestinian politics" ?!

Hold on a second, how is the continuation of settlements and the construction of a Wall, both held to be illegal, cutting deep into the West Bank "not interfering in internal Palestinian politics" ?!

Because it's not affecting who they vote for, or how they vote, or how they design the Palestinian Authority Government. It can quite reasonably be considered interference in Palestine, without being intereference in Palestinian politics.

Because it's not affecting who they vote for, or how they vote, or how they design the Palestinian Authority Government. It can quite reasonably be considered interference in Palestine, without being intereference in Palestinian politics.What a rubbish. What Israel does impact Palestinian voting considerably. Everything that worsens the Palestinian situation will generate votes for radical groupings. That is exactly how Hamas came into "power".

What a rubbish. What Israel does impact Palestinian voting considerably. Everything that worsens the Palestinian situation will generate votes for radical groupings. That is exactly how Hamas came into "power".

Of course it is. That's why it was stupid policy of Israel's - they SHOULD have gotten involved in the Palestinian politics and pulled back the settlements.

Of course it is. That's why it was stupid policy of Israel's - they SHOULD have gotten involved in the Palestinian politics and pulled back the settlements.
Every time they even pretend to, the settlers attack them. And most politicians and military members are zionists too so they agree with the settlements and rather protect them than force them to obey the law.

Every time they even pretend to, the settlers attack them. And most politicians and military members are zionists too so they agree with the settlements and rather protect them than force them to obey the law.

I serously doubt that "most". Most of the military probably doesn't give a good goddamn - remember, Israel has a conscript military.

And the Zonist "Right" of Israeli politics isn't anywhere near the majority. They're just big enough to be an automatic part of virtually every coalition, and too big to be ignored on issues they push - like the settlements.

To say that most of the Israeli government actually supports such measures is unfair to the large numbers who don't, just as to describe most Palestinians as supporting the rocket attacks would probably be unfair.

I serously doubt that "most". Most of the military probably doesn't give a good goddamn - remember, Israel has a conscript military.

And the Zonist "Right" of Israeli politics isn't anywhere near the majority. They're just big enough to be an automatic part of virtually every coalition, and too big to be ignored on issues they push - like the settlements.

To say that most of the Israeli government actually supports such measures is unfair to the large numbers who don't, just as to describe most Palestinians as supporting the rocket attacks would probably be unfair.
The Israeli government does support the expansion of Jewish settlements. Otherwise they would stop it. It is still the party of the fat pig Sharon who is wanted at The Hague.

The Israeli government does support the expansion of Jewish settlements. Otherwise they would stop it. It is still the party of the fat pig Sharon who is wanted at The Hague.

I believe I just covered that.

Also, how could one point out the difference between british civilians and colonists... since they were exactly the same people?

Well, back then I believe it was much easier...The bad guys were the ones with the guns...

damn hard to hide a Musket, lol...let alone manage to rig a bomb you can strap to yourself...

They are not attacking innocent civilians. They are attacking their declared enemy
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14358084&postcount=542

So you only blame the government??? What about the folks who put the people in the government by electing them?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14353538&postcount=343

I see - so you actually support the targeting of civilians. All the "collateral damage" Israel is inflicting right now is just okey-dokey by your standards...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14358084&postcount=542


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14353538&postcount=343

I see - so you actually support the targeting of civilians. All the "collateral damage" Israel is inflicting right now is just okey-dokey by your standards...

Palestine is not a state, and elections there don't mean anything. There is no Palestinian government, because there is nothing to govern really. And there is a difference between Israelis and Palestinians in general: Israelis are part of an occupational force, their sole purpose of existing is to inflict suffering for the Arabs who have lived in Palestine for centuries. That is what Zionism is about. They are colonizing and occupying what was once Palestine because of religious and racial motives.

Because it's not affecting who they vote for, or how they vote, or how they design the Palestinian Authority Government. It can quite reasonably be considered interference in Palestine, without being intereference in Palestinian politics.


The US visited the PLO reformist leader, Marhan Barghouti, and tell him that if he ran against Abbas and won, he'd be locked out and the Palestinian people with him. Abbas is thus the recipient of his office in no small part due to US/Israeli pressure. He's had troops trained in Egypt to combat Hamas at the US behest. And while he sits on his throne, the settlements keep expanding. Whatever he might have intended, he's a quisling now.

To say that most of the Israeli government actually supports such measures is unfair to the large numbers who don't, just as to describe most Palestinians as supporting the rocket attacks would probably be unfair.

Amazing how they can suppress an entire population, but not manage to keep their own citizens under control.....

Amazing how they can suppress an entire population, but not manage to keep their own citizens under control.....their own citizens keep them under control.

Palestine is not a state, and elections there don't mean anything. There is no Palestinian government, because there is nothing to govern really. And there is a difference between Israelis and Palestinians in general: Israelis are part of an occupational force, their sole purpose of existing is to inflict suffering for the Arabs who have lived in Palestine for centuries. That is what Zionism is about. They are colonizing and occupying what was once Palestine because of religious and racial motives.

Rationalize it however you want. Whatever it takes to help you sleep at night. Glad you made your distinction clear that in your opinion all Jewish men women and children in Israel are valid military targets.

I'm sure that it helps him to consider that most of the adult population has served in the military. Occupying Israel now would be hell.

Amazing how they can suppress an entire population, but not manage to keep their own citizens under control.....

What, you think that's unusual? The US is (reasonably successfully) suppressing the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan, but is having virtually no success convincing it's own population that buying drugs is a bad idea...

What, you think that's unusual? The US is (reasonably successfully) suppressing the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan, but is having virtually no success convincing it's own population that buying drugs is a bad idea...

Smuggling a weed across a border is one thing, smuggling weed across the border and building a house called "Illegal Weed House" out of it quite another. In addition, you don't get Government tax breaks for building Weed houses in the US.......