NationStates Jolt Archive

The world I see has gotten vastly better over the centuries. All eras before the current one sucked relative to the current one. Less people hungry now than ever, less people dead from war now than ever. Etc. etc. Advents in technology, globalization. The material quality of life in the United States increased 7x from 1900-2000. The world will live better (and longer) 10 years from now than it does now, and in 20 years we'll live better than we will in 10 years.

Of course, all of this is only true of developed nations who continue to extract resources from less developed nations, with a few "gifts" to the warlords or puppet governments in order to ensure those resources don't get used at home but sent abroad.


And the reason why is because the state of nature you're essentially embracing can be controlled. It's in man's nature to murder, yes. But we make it illegal domestically in almost every country in the world. We can control the spread of nuclear weaponry, too. We can do a lot of things. The world isn't a zero sum game in terms of human dignity and quality of life and quantity of violence. It can be improved, and has improved.


How things are done has improved, yes, I'll grant you that. Why they're done on the other hand, no, that hasn't improved at all. Not one iota. Laws won't make the basic motivations to do things that constitute a crime go away, and neither will they stop people from finding ways and means of avoiding being caught or punished.


I think your view is defeatist and callous and if the people who were actually in charge of maintaining international order adopted it than the world would be in grave danger.


Oh of course they don't share my views. Rather, they, and the leadership of many countries for many years before today, are what shaped my views and gave me perspective on how humanity thinks, acts, and guides itself. Think on what that means for a minute.


There's very little I can say to disprove you, but I think if you looked at the reality of what would happen given global nuclear parity you'd realize that you're essentially prescribing a death sentence for millions. And why is that acceptable to you?


It guarantees no winners.


That said, the emergence of a strong international order that can more effectively stop things like genocide and other international problems is hard to create, and there are legitimate issues that need to be addressed before such an entity can emerge (limitations on sovereignty is a big one). But that doesn't mean we should just stop trying. If you think the world would be just as violent without the UN as with it? Then we just have ideological differences in terms of human nature.


I would agree that an internationally accepted peacekeeping force of significant power and authority would certainly help. But how long before it becomes tempted to abuse its power? Or before it becomes subverted by one of the national powers?

For that matter, how would such an organization of power, sufficiently free from interference by those with special interests, form to begin with?

There are many solutions to the problem of human self destructive tendencies on an international scale. Few of them are practical. Even fewer can be actualized.


I think things have gone on better over time. I don't think things have maintained a plateau over the last century and just "continued on as they have been."

I think there have been major, marked improvements in both the quality and the length of life, as well as the quantity of famine, disease, war deaths, etc. etc.

You are confusing technological advancement with the advancement of base human motivations.


The effort to prevent these things is worthwhile, regardless of whether they work.


Shouldn't you look for solutions that work as opposed to those that you admit don't?


As I said before, I think your whole approach can be summed up in one word: Defeatism. And it's not contributive. It's detrimental and dangerous.

We shall see in the end shan't we? What course humanity will take in the coming years.

They were producing agricultural produce and exporting the surplus pre 1948. Please spare us the racist generalisations.



Ahem, under British occupation and administration. Just as they were under Turkish Occupation and Administration before the British. It's not racist, it's history; Palestine has not governed itself since the days prior to the Roman occupation, when they were governed by...

Jews.


That'd be the same Israel that routinely destroys their crops, resources, confiscates land, blocks transport of produce, uses its alliance with the US to isolate them, attacks children on the way to school...that Israel.....

The same Israel that didn't do anything while Katyusha rockets have been falling for most of a year, the same Israel that has basically ignored their own citizens' deaths to keep a false peace. Over six hundered rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in the last year, bud, and the Israelis didn't respond until now with military force. Given that these are the same Palestinians who accept cash-money-payments to rig their own kids as guided missiles targeting busses, markets, and schools? The Palestinians have had territories now for a couple of years-they aren't building anything, but they're parking artillery weapons next to their own kids and women in hopes that a counterstrike causes massive collateral damage that will generate foreign money and foreign sympathy.

Ahem, under [(........)Jews..

Ahem, ahem....it would help if you read my response in the context of the comment I was responding to. However the Irish didn't have self rule for approximately 600 years and they manage well enough....



The same Israel that didn't do anything while Katyusha rockets have been falling for most of a year, ..

Some Hamas member even now is wondering why he didn't get any Katyusha rockets to fire...He may rest his nervous beard, knowing that the majority of what was fired was the same homemade shite he was given.


the same Israel that has basically ignored their own citizens' deaths to keep a false peace...

So theres been no military action by Israel at all?


they're parking artillery weapons next to their own kids and women in hopes that a counterstrike causes massive collateral damage that will generate foreign money and foreign sympathy.

Amazing how often thats alledged, yet so seldom proven.....

Amazing how often thats alledged, yet so seldom proven.....

Don't forget the U.N. buildings that double as Hamas missile bases.

;) ;) Nudge Nudge

Ahem, ahem....it would help if you read my response in the context of the comment I was responding to. However the Irish didn't have self rule for approximately 600 years and they manage well enough....



Some Hamas member even now is wondering why he didn't get any Katyusha rockets to fire...He may rest his nervous beard, knowing that the majority of what was fired was the same homemade shite he was given.



So theres been no military action by Israel at all?



Amazing how often thats alledged, yet so seldom proven.....

Or so seldom reported by Reuters? Think on this-assume IDF personnel are trained to use their targeting systems, assume they know how to operate a fire-finder radar. Why is it that every time Israeli forces fire weapons on a position that's been firing weapons on civilians, lots of (insert Lebanese for Palestinian) civilians, particularly women, villagers, and kids, get killed? Now, this is presuming the Israeli military is fairly well trained, and has the kind of equipment that they are known to have.

It's not hard to return fire on a mortar position when you've got the right gear-which the Israelis have in abundance-they developed a lot of it and are industry leaders. presuming they are mortal, normal human beings, and not some kind of supernatural killing machines, I suspect it's fairly reasonable to assume that they aren't missing those weapons positions on purpose.

For further fun, let's now look at the tactical handbook of their opponents. Hamas actively recruits children to train as suicide bombers, and the ones that go out and go off generate hard cash money for their families via foreign sponsors in (among other pillars of the faith) Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, etc. etc.
These people have a dogma that makes instant-heaven for collateral damage in a Jihad-that is, if you're killed in Jihad, you're automatically going to heaven, all sins forgiven...because it's a Jihad. They call their suicide bombers such inspiring names as the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade...

Do you suppose that such a mindset might find little to discourage using the backyard of a preschool as a mortar position? The roof of a Hospital? a Mosque??

actually isreal has been the victam of various attacks from the sourrnding muslim countries(Jordan,Syria,Egypt,and Lebanon)
so it has the right to defend it self

I might have ethics. I might even have empathy. But what I believe won't change reality, and it certainly won't change human desires and ruthlessness. The most practical option would be to make use of that ruthlessness and desire to bring about the most stable outcome.

The trains running on time do not justify genocide. Never have - never will. And just as the trains didn't really run faster, your arguments don't even suggest a "stable outcome."

Unless by "stable" you meant "everyone is dead lol its peaceful."

You on the other hand, appear to believe in the principles of enlightenment and species wide ethics. It's admirable, but it won't get very much done, and at best, make you feel good while accomplishing nothing at all.

Neither of our 'attitudes' are going to 'get very much done.' It's an internet board.

I refer to the human species in it's entirety. Even if individuals tire of war and strife, others will pick it up readily enough. It's quite that simple.

Yes, you have a simple view of things. Skewed and wrong and absurd and contradictory, but simple.

Am I?

Yep.

I gave what I believe was the best available option towards ensuring a cessation of hostilities between two antagonists by ensuring them an absolute and immediate zero sum game if they continued.

If I thought wanton murder and destruction were good things, I would have advocated the best available option towards escalating hostilities while still preserving their will to fight.

You mean like handing out nuclear weapons like they were hotcakes? And then casually dismissing the potential of annihilation with glib justifications about how oh, humans are all warlike and so everyone deserves to die anyway?

And now you make up lies about my position. Giving them the ability to do so is in no way advocating that they do so.


No dollface, I'm not lying, and now you're dancing away from your own argument.

There are at least seven known nuclear powers (eight if we include North Korea). If we follow your odds, then half of those powers should be dead by now, devastated by nuclear war. Obviously that is not the case.

My odds? Oh look who's making up lies now. I never mentioned "odds." And I wasn't talking about fucking UK and France. There are significant differences that you're happily ignoring just to try and prove your bullshit points. Sorry, that kind of delusion might convince yourself but it doesn't work on me.

Curious. You seem incapable of conceiving of the concept of savage rationality.

You mean like strapping an explosive to your chest and killing lots of innocent people? That kind of rationality? Or perhaps you mean lobbing shells and missiles at each other. That kind of rationality. You clearly have a very special definition of rationality... and you don't have a leg to stand on with regards to savagery. For reasons I've already stated.

It is rather simple. Power, that is influence and control over others, does not come to the stupid.

I tire of your idiotic generalizations that you pose as if they're some kind of rules.

It goes to those who are ruthless enough, clever enough, and of course, rational enough, to do whatever it takes to seize it.

Please pay no attention to the thousands of years of recorded history behind the curtain.

Do you see leaders of fanatical organizations making suicide attacks of their own?

I see them making suicide attacks, period. Apparently that's qualification for "rational" in your book.

Of course not. That would easily jeopardize the power they gained.

Or because they are better at leading than doing grunt work. None of which makes them sane and rational enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Instead they have their pawns and footsoldiers, their expendables, do so.

Yeah they employ suicide bombers. This qualifies them to be entrusted with weapons of mass destruction now!

Ah, but perhaps you subscribe to the subset of thinking where "All Muslims are evil hive minded terrorists willing to martyr themselves."

Now you're just reaching.

For a guy who makes idiotic generalizations about ALL HUMANITY in order to JUSTIFY your position that KILLING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IS COOL you have NO leg to stand on with your pseudo-moralistic preachy condescension here.

Yet you are decrying the option of giving them enough power to balance the two sides.

I'm decrying your callous, flippant and frankly absurd positions and claims. I'm decrying your (and people like you) complete disregard for human life and glib, stereotypical platitudes about humanity, as if someone appointed you God and we should just accept your pronouncements at face value.

Nuclear annihilation, if that is what they choose, would simply be the culmination of their inability to co-exist. Bullets, bombs, or tanks, in the end, it's the same thing. People die.

And here we get to the core of your 'argument.' Again. Tell you what my friend, you just keep on repeating this pathetic justification as long as you need in order to feel good about yourself. That's all the use this 'reasoning' is to anyone.

Does the scale of it make a difference? Why, yes, it does. It means that those who would choose to do continue the conflict would not escape at all.

And the women, and children, and people not even part of this mess but who get affected by the fallout...

BUT LETS IGNORE ALL THAT. Magical precision nuclear weapons! YAY!

Arming the leadership of these people is what I propose.

Plus the whole "genocide isn't that bad, we all die anyway" bullshit.


And you would be lying if you claim my position would be to "kill them all with nuclear fire".

That would be the result of following your 'position.'



It's rather simple. They choose to co-exist, or they continue on their path and wipe themselves off the face of the planet. Give them the means, but leave them the choice.

By "them" you mean the so-called "competent leaders" right? Not, you know, the millions of people who would be "wiped off the face of the planet."

The millions of people who had little to no say in the decision even to elect the "competent leader." And nothing at all with the decision to unleash nuclear weapons.

Men, women, and children. But hey, I guess they share the Hive mind to you, they're all "savages" and "animals" to you, what the fuck you care right.

You on the other hand, do not seem to be willing to see a parity between both groups, much less allow them to make their own choices.

"Their own choices." How amusing for a guy just lecturing me about treating people like they have hive-minds.

Hands shook in an agreement 20 years ago that there would be no winners in a nuclear war and that by trying to one up the other, they risked destruction.

Are you saying that it is impossible here?

More inane comparisons. The situations are completely different.

It seems to me that if your argument is that both sides cannot live as equals and would sooner choose destruction, you would also be arguing that there would never be a cessation of hostilities until one side has been completely exterminated.

That would be your argument, Mr Pro Genocide, not mine.


I do not believe they are all that good, but history, as they say, is written by the victors, or rather, those who are left. War criminals become war heroes depending on who spins the tale, especially if they are on the winning side.

That is the reality of it.

No, that's the spin of it.

No matter how much you cling to the supposed virtues of ethics, they are so much wastepaper if you have not the strength to enforce it.

RAWR! MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! ME BIG HE-MAN! THATS REALPOLITIK!

Or so seldom reported by Reuters? ??

O, so it's a conspiracy now, is it?


Think on this-assume ......., this is presuming the Israeli military ....... have.??

Why should I launch into a vast amount of speculation, led through it by the nose via your assumptions and presumptions?


For further fun, (....)? The roof of a Hospital? a Mosque??

So Hamas = Evil, therefore Israel=Good?

Or so seldom reported by Reuters?
Perhaps if Israel lifted their ban on foreign journalists in the region, we might see otherwise...

RAWR! MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! ME BIG HE-MAN! THATS REALPOLITIK!

Realpolitik was at least in theory based on pragmatism. The screed of futility he's been spewing is more like Emopolitics.

O, so it's a conspiracy now, is it?



Why should I launch into a vast amount of speculation, led through it by the nose via your assumptions and presumptions?



So Hamas = Evil, therefore Israel=Good?

No, I'm saying that this is war to the knife, and one side is being judged by western moral standards, while the other is getting a free pass because, after all, they're the insurgents, and it's in style to sympathize and empathize and slant your reporting to favour the anti-imperialist, anti-Western, psychotic homicidal maniacs. During the so-called "Cease fire" there were 300 rocket and mortar attacks fired from Gaza into Israel. That's during a bloody Cease fire. Earlier this year, there were around 1,700 rocket attacks, and that's JUST the unguided "anywhere as long as there's jews there" rockets, not the chinese and russian stuff that can be aimed, or the Mortar attacks (sitting somewhere in the thousands themselves.)

Put it another way-you're good with your neighbour down the street lobbing ordinance at your house...as long as he doesn't do more than pick off one or two people in a month? Scale that up-that's what's been going on. Even if he's got young children who live next to where he's lobbing the ordinance, eventually you're going to have to either make him stop, or make him dead. In this case, there's no cops to call-so really, the Israelis don't have a lot of options here Except to shoot back, and even then, they're under a no-win situation since their opponents don't have any moral or legal reasons NOT to site the ordinance right next to where their kids and wives sleep, and every reason on a strategic level to do so, since their enemies will be judged by the world based on the casualties THEY inflict, rather than the offender being judged by his provocations.

It's a little bit like this-you're taking the side of what amounts to (morally) the KKK here. Read the Hamas Charter.

No, I'm (....)the Hamas Charter.[/i]

So in addition to Hamas=Evil therefore Israel = good, you're playing the 'You don't support Osama Bin Laden, do you?' card.....Hmmmm.

No, I'm saying that this is war to the knife, and one side is being judged by western moral standards, while the other is getting a free pass

Mmm. Now the question is, which is which?

No, I'm saying that this is war to the knife, and one side is being judged by western moral standards, while the other is getting a free pass because, after all, they're the insurgents, and it's in style to sympathize and empathize and slant your reporting to favour the anti-imperialist, anti-Western, psychotic homicidal maniacs.
I have tendency to compare acts by Western states with those of other Western states, yes. To do less, denigrates my Western liberal society. Is that somehow a problem?

During the so-called "Cease fire" there were 300 rocket and mortar attacks fired from Gaza into Israel. That's during a bloody Cease fire.
Yadda yadda yadda. Yet again it has to be pointed out that the IDF made incursions and raids into the Strip, thusly proving both sides broke the cease fire - they're both as bad as each other. (They'd make a good married couple for a sit com though....)


It's a little bit like this-you're taking the side of what amounts to (morally) the KKK here.

Wow. Really? A KKK reference?

Wow. Really? A KKK reference?
Well, I guess to do a Godwin in a thread involving Israel would be a bit of a gaffe.

So in addition to Hamas=Evil therefore Israel = good, you're playing the 'You don't support Osama Bin Laden, do you?' card.....Hmmmm.

No, you're not getting it, and Bin Laden has nothing to do with this discussion.

When someone says they want you dead, and they back it up by shooting at you, does it really matter how accurate they are? Should you be condemned because your return fire is MORE accurate, or more destructive? if he's using a school as a place to shoot at you, do you not return fire? Just let him continue, and hope he keeps missing, or only lightly wounds the people around you?

Seriously. The Arab nations around Israel failed to destroy it using conventional means in 1956, 1966, and 1973, so now they're basically paying the Palestinians to wage the war for them using other means. It's a WAR. In this war, one side is expected to abide by its agreements and wage war according to "The Rules", the other side (the Palestinian side) is not. People who rig their kids as bombs in exchange for a fat cheque are NOT people worthy of support. People who deliberately site weapons so that retaliatory strikes hit bystanders (Hezballah and Hamas both do this-and they're allied now...) are not worthy of support.

Is Israel worthy of support? well... let's see... Unlike Arab states that don't allow Jews to vote, Israel allows Arabs to vote, hold office, etc. etc.-without being jewish. Israel has native-grown industries. Israel doesn't have a civil war every time they hold an election, they aren't governed by a brutal thirteenth century system of "Religious Laws" that include stoning women for being raped, showing too much skin, having abortions, or talking to strange men. They also don't execute Gays for being Gay, or deny people who are of "The wrong faith" basic human rights as a matter of policy. They don't use their own women and children as delivery systems for high-explosives, target (deliberately) people who are not part of their dispute in order to influence their opponent and show how tough they are (Achille Lauro incident, Munich, Intifada, Intifada II, Lebanon...) They don't site weapons in third-party countries to launch their attacks...

and they aren't sworn to the extermination of entire peoples and religions. Hamas wants ALL jews, not just Zionist jews, dead. So does Hezballah, and I would rather suspect that deep inside, where the feelings many Europeans reside that they won't discuss openly...anti-semitism hasn't died in Europe, it's just been turned into sympathy for "Palestine".

Should you be condemned because your return fire is MORE accurate, or more destructive?
When you are knowingly killing dozens of civilians to take out maybe two militants, then yes, yes you should.

Is Israel worthy of support? well... let's see... Unlike Arab states that don't allow Jews to vote, Israel allows Arabs to vote, hold office, etc. etc.-without being jewish. Israel has native-grown industries. Israel doesn't have a civil war every time they hold an election, they aren't governed by a brutal thirteenth century system of "Religious Laws" that include stoning women for being raped, showing too much skin, having abortions, or talking to strange men. They also don't execute Gays for being Gay, or deny people who are of "The wrong faith" basic human rights as a matter of policy. They don't use their own women and children as delivery systems for high-explosives, target (deliberately) people who are not part of their dispute in order to influence their opponent and show how tough they are (Achille Lauro incident, Munich, Intifada, Intifada II, Lebanon...) They don't site weapons in third-party countries to launch their attacks...
Hold on second, because Arab neighbours aren't democracies that automatically means the state of Israel is "worthy of support" ?

Riiiiiight.

and I would rather suspect that deep inside, where the feelings many Europeans reside that they won't discuss openly...anti-semitism hasn't died in Europe, it's just been turned into sympathy for "Palestine".
Criticising tactics of the IDF or policies of the Israeli government =/= anti semitism. Go away, and wipe the froth from your mouth before coming back.

Seriously. The Arab nations around Israel failed to destroy it using conventional means in 1956, 1966, and 1973
so now they're basically paying the Palestinians to wage the war for them using other means.

So you've evidence that the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian states are funding Hamas, because everyone else seems to think its just Iran...


It's a WAR. In this war, one side is expected to abide by its agreements and wage war according to "The Rules", the other side (the Palestinian side) is not.

By who?

And isn't Israel in breach of various rules and so on for about 41 years now due to its settlements?


People who rig their kids as bombs in exchange for a fat cheque are NOT people worthy of support..

You've evidence palestinians are solely motivated by money?


People who deliberately site weapons so that retaliatory strikes hit bystanders (Hezballah and Hamas both do this-and they're allied now...) are not worthy of support...

Allegedly...as stated by the people they're in conflict with.


Is Israel worthy of support? well...(........)They don't site weapons in third-party countries to launch their attacks......

So Arabs=lazy, nasty, backwards, therefore Israel=good.

Although - doesn't Israel run parrallel systems of 'justice' for settlers and Palestinians in the OT and have a bad record in treating those Arabs within its borders who have Israeli citizenship......?


So does Hezballah, and I would rather suspect that deep inside, where the feelings many Europeans reside that they won't discuss openly...anti-semitism hasn't died in Europe, it's just been turned into sympathy for "Palestine".

Ahh yes, the old classic "U haytE tEh JOOS!!!!".

The trains running on time do not justify genocide. Never have - never will. And just as the trains didn't really run faster, your arguments don't even suggest a "stable outcome."

Unless by "stable" you meant "everyone is dead lol its peaceful."


I prefer everyone alive living out of fear of being snuffed out.


Yes, you have a simple view of things. Skewed and wrong and absurd and contradictory, but simple.

"You're wrong. Because I say so! No need for reasons!" seems to be your favored rebuttal.


You mean like handing out nuclear weapons like they were hotcakes? And then casually dismissing the potential of annihilation with glib justifications about how oh, humans are all warlike and so everyone deserves to die anyway?

I am fairly certain people said the same thing about the Soviet Union when it was actively attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Or India and Pakistan. In fact, I do believe some even said the same thing about North Korea in regards to the dreaded bomb.


No dollface, I'm not lying, and now you're dancing away from your own argument.

How very amusing. I've said, time and again, that they should be given the ability, no more, no less. If they use it, then so be it. And then you come in accusing me of advocating nuclear genocide. That is a lie.


My odds? Oh look who's making up lies now. I never mentioned "odds."


Did you, or did you not, say the following?


No they don't. They fight or flight. It's 50/50, and you're gambling on millions of lives.



And I wasn't talking about fucking UK and France. There are significant differences that you're happily ignoring


Because obviously the conflict in the Middle East is entirely run by intelligent vegetables.

Not.

Whether it's UK, France, North Korea, the United States, Russia, Israel or Palestine, they're all humans, and aren't really all that different.


You mean like strapping an explosive to your chest and killing lots of innocent people?

No, like making someone else do it for you.

Did Yaser Arrafat strap a bomb on his vest? Did he take up an AK and raid an IDF outpost once he led the PLO?


For reasons I've already stated.


Poor ones with little actual rebuttal of my points.


I tire of your idiotic generalizations that you pose as if they're some kind of rules.

You call them idiotic, but don't bother to elaborate, or even rebut them.


Please pay no attention to the thousands of years of recorded history behind the curtain.

All of which showed exactly how long stupid rulers lasted. Not long.


I see them making suicide attacks, period. Apparently that's qualification for "rational" in your book.


Find me a PLO or Hamas leader who has made a suicide attack, and you might have a point. Your constant evasion of this rather naked reality makes me ponder if you are deliberately ignoring it.


Or because they are better at leading than doing grunt work. None of which makes them sane and rational enough to be trusted with nuclear weapons.


Being better at leading does not rebut my point at all that they do so to secure power for themselves.


Yeah they employ suicide bombers. This qualifies them to be entrusted with weapons of mass destruction now!

As opposed to acountry that knowingly deployed dozens of crewed bombers with nuclear payloads on constant patrol, knowing that if it came to a time where they had to be used, none would return alive? A country that knowingly sends people to die to hurt their enemies? If you want to find a better justification for them not having nuclear weapons, find one that doesn't involve hypocrisy.


For a guy who makes idiotic generalizations about ALL HUMANITY in order to JUSTIFY your position that KILLING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IS COOL you have NO leg to stand on with your pseudo-moralistic preachy condescension here.

And where did I say this?


I'm decrying your callous, flippant and frankly absurd positions and claims.

Of course you claim it absurd. It paints a depressing picture of humanity. One that is stuck in an eternal cycle of senseless violence in a world that has no sensible order in it. You wouldn't want to believe that was the case. It's for the same reason people believe in an invisible man in the sky, or put their hopes in things like ethics and morality as a guide to the world. To make sense of a senseless world.


I'm decrying your (and people like you) complete disregard for human life and glib, stereotypical platitudes about humanity, as if someone appointed you God and we should just accept your pronouncements at face value.


You don't have to believe a word I say. Human behavior and it's tendencies will bear me out.


And the women, and children, and people not even part of this mess but who get affected by the fallout...

Which would make peace in the Middle East their imperative, rather than something to get outraged by in the morning news and forgotten by lunch.


That would be the result of following your 'position.'


Or a nervous peace. Yet you seem to be sure that peace is impossible between the two. If so, then there is no real loss in letting things go on until one side has eliminated the other I imagine. Would that be more palatable to you?


By "them" you mean the so-called "competent leaders" right? Not, you know, the millions of people who would be "wiped off the face of the planet."

The millions of people who had little to no say in the decision even to elect the "competent leader." And nothing at all with the decision to unleash nuclear weapons.

Men, women, and children. But hey, I guess they share the Hive mind to you, they're all "savages" and "animals" to you, what the fuck you care right.

Can those millions of people change the direction of their respective nations? Can they direct policy of whatever weapons and tools their home state has at its disposal? If they do not, then no, they simply don't matter when it comes to how the leaders direct the country, because they are well insulated from any negative repercussions.

But if the fate of the leaders becomes the fate of the people, then things change, because what they do may very well end them. By involving all these other uninvolved people, but more importantly, their leaders, in the threat alone of real nuclear devastation, peace very much becomes a priority issue.

Your consistent denial of this fact is puzzling, especially in the light that nuclear blackmail does work.


"Their own choices." How amusing for a guy just lecturing me about treating people like they have hive-minds.

Yes, it is their own choice. You on the other hand, believe that whatever choice is available, will only make the same one.


That would be your argument, Mr Pro Genocide, not mine.


Your insistence of how I am an advocate of genocide, with no evidence of such, is tiresome.

As it is, the available choices in the Middle East conflict is unpalatable. Do nothing, and be driven out by the settlers. Attack, and be driven out by the state. What I propose opens up a more palatable choice. Negotiate from a position of equal strength.


No, that's the spin of it.


And the spin is what will be recorded in the victors history. So if a war criminal becomes a war hero by spin, he will never face justice.


RAWR! MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! ME BIG HE-MAN! THATS REALPOLITIK!

I'm surprised it took you this long to realize this rather glaring fact of reality. The powerful do as they please, the powerless simply suffer for it. It's why the so very few cases of the reverse are turned into folk legends.

Holy smokes!

Don't forget the U.N. buildings that double as Hamas missile bases.

;) ;) Nudge Nudge

Or the school that had been targeted by mortar fire.

UN official says Gaza school was clearly marked (http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN06430746)

I'm highlighting just the keypoints I noticed.

[John Ging] said UNRWA regularly provided the Israeli army with exact geographical coordinates of its facilities and the school was in a built-up area. "Of course it was entirely inevitable if artillery shells landed in that area there would be a high number of casualties," he said.

Asked whether Hamas militants were in the area of the Jabalya school at the time of the strike, Ging said it was the scene of clashes "so there's an intense military and militant activity in that area."

He said U.N. staff vetted Palestinians seeking shelter at their facilities to make sure militants were not taking advantage of them. "So far we've not had violations by militants of our facilities," he said.

So, where were these militants that were firing from the school? Oh, they were nearby. That's not the same as being in the school or on the school grounds.

Breaking news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7815266.stm

Israel is only going to attack 21 hours per day now.

We should continue this peace process. We may get it down to a 9-5 job.

Breaking news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7815266.stm

Israel is only going to attack 21 hours per day now.

We should continue this peace process. We may get it down to a 9-5 job.

With Fridays, Saturdays and respective holy days off.....(Can an observant Muslim or Jew kill on the Sabbath? We need the Imams and Rabbis etc....)

With Fridays, Saturdays and respective holy days off.....(Can an observant Muslim or Jew kill on the Sabbath? We need the Imams and Rabbis etc....)

I love the idea of a 5 day a week 9-5 war. That appeals to me. :D Everyone gets two weeks paid vacation...

I'm not calling for any genocide. I'm calling for the utter destruction of a stupid piece of land that causes nothing but problems.

OK. But if it's the "piece of land" which is causing the problems, whoever destroys it takes responsibility for the people living there now.


Take any Gazans who consent to leave as refugees (no questions asked: economic, political or humanitarian refugees, you have to take them.) They become your citizens.
Kidnap those who refuse to leave as refugees. Pay whatever your courts awards them in damages for such kidnapping -- which will probably run to the the legal cost of taking a life. Bear in mind that a fair proportion of them are children, and will cost your country 5-10 US$million by precedent. Each. Let's say, $US 3, 000, 000, 000, 000 all up.
"Utterly destroy" the Gaza strip. This is an excavation job on a scale thousands of times larger than any dam or canal ever built. Utterly destroying it, so it is not "land" any more, involves removing soil and rock until it is all below sea-level. Not looking like such a small country now, is it? I can't even estimate the cost, but it would be an order of magnitude above the cost of step 2. If attempted with nuclear weapons, pay compensation to all collateral victims of radiation and climate change -- even more expensive, since it's essentially the entire human race.


I have a better idea for how to spend that money. Let's build a casino on Pluto.

So, where were these militants that were firing from the school? Oh, they were nearby. That's not the same as being in the school or on the school grounds.

Just to add to this: I just saw a short while ago on CNN, a discussion between an anchor and the Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman as well as the UNRWA head.

The latter noted the 'fudging' of the response by the IDF and Spokesman who said attacks came from "the vicinity" of the school and not "the school" or "the school compound."

I'm surprised it took you this long to realize this rather glaring fact of reality. The powerful do as they please, the powerless simply suffer for it. It's why the so very few cases of the reverse are turned into folk legends.
We had a discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14365459#post14365459) on your appraisal of 'reality', your eagerness to define a specific social set-up as 'human nature', but you never replied...

It's a little bit like this-you're taking the side of what amounts to (morally) the KKK here.

I didnt know the KKK spent the vast majority of its money on hospitals, schools, and other social services.

Just to add to this: I just saw a short while ago on CNN, a discussion between an anchor and the Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman as well as the UNRWA head.

The latter noted the 'fudging' of the response by the IDF and Spokesman who said attacks came from "the vicinity" of the school and not "the school" or "the school compound."

...and this doesn't excuse the direct attack on the school, especially since Israel had the co-ordinates. But, as some of us don't have TV, it's nice to hear what's being discussed.

They were producing agricultural produce and exporting the surplus pre 1948.
Only after the British, and especially the Jews, taught them irrigation. In Ottoman times they practiced subsidence agriculture, and maintained a population under half a million.

I'm over the half century mark now, and I started paying close attention to the news when I was very young (I was reading the New York Times when I was five). The only thing that ever changes about the Palestinians is their excuses.

When I first started hearing the story, the groups were called the Fedayi, who infiltrated from Gaza and Sinai to slit people's throats in their beds, and the Saiqa, who launched missile barrages on the kibbutzim from the high grounds of the Golan (much more accurately, with a lot of deaths), and we didn't hear as much about Fatah in the West Bank until an up-and-coming youngster named Yassir Arafat made a name for himself blowing up irrigation works. The only people "occupying" the Palestinians then were the Jordanians and Egyptians, but the Palestinians still managed to keep themselves in poverty when every other group of post-WWII refugees had long since moved on with their lives. And people BACK THEN considered it an old story and were tired of hearing about the Palestinians and their murderousness. When Israel triumphed on all fronts in the spring of '67 it was widely applauded. Then came the big wave of plane hijackings from '68 to '70, and the Bobby Kennedy murder, and the Munich Olympics, and other demonstrations that the Palestinians needed to be sat down on, hard, until they stop their shit.

[ The Palestinians exported grain ] Only after the British, and especially the Jews, taught them irrigation.
*sighs* Source for yer bullshit claim, please?

*sighs* Source for yer bullshit claim, please?

What? We need a source to make racist claims about the inferiority of brown people? Isnt the fact that theyre not white evidence enough?

What? We need a source to make racist claims about the inferiority of brown people? Isnt the fact that theyre not white evidence enough?
*sighs* Aye and hush yerself, pal. Seriously, let's not fight bullshit with hyperbole here.

The only people "occupying" the Palestinians then were the Jordanians and Egyptians, but the Palestinians still managed to keep themselves in poverty when every other group of post-WWII refugees had long since moved on with their lives. And people BACK THEN considered it an old story and were tired of hearing about the Palestinians and their murderousness.
Gee, clasifying an entire people as lazy, disreputable and murderous.

That'll solve the conflict!


What? We need a source to make racist claims about the inferiority of brown people? Isnt the fact that theyre not white evidence enough?
That's a fair step beyond what Tmutarakhan's saying.

No need to exaggerate.

...and this doesn't excuse the direct attack on the school, especially since Israel had the co-ordinates.

... I know.

But, as some of us don't have TV, it's nice to hear what's being discussed.

Can't do much about that until CNN put the video of the discussion up on-line :tongue:

That's a fair step beyond what Tmutarakhan's saying.

No need to exaggerate.

Only after the British, and especially the Jews, taught them irrigation.


Really? Because that seems to pretty much imply that they were not providing any sort of trade commodity until the white man showed them how to do it properly.

But perhaps Im so used to anti-Palestinian sentiment boarding on racism on NSG that Im cynical. That, and past posts Tmut has made about palestinians.

What? We need a source to make racist claims about the inferiority of brown people? Isnt the fact that theyre not white evidence enough?

Huuur Duuuur, that is such snarky bullshit. It's bad enough having every second post on NSG being a quote of someone on the same side as you and all of them starting, in a circle jerkish manner, with "shhh, don't spoil his bigoted perspective..." or something very similar to that, which stopped being funny ages ago. But this post takes the cake.

Really? Because that seems to pretty much imply that they were not providing any sort of trade commodity until the white man showed them how to do it properly.
Quite.
But perhaps Im so used to anti-Palestinian sentiment boarding on racism on NSG that Im cynical.
Both sides can claim to be in the minority here. I'll be honest, though, there are more pro-Palestinians than pro-Israelis here, despite there there being some loud ones on both sides.

Huuur Duuuur, that is such snarky bullshit. It's bad enough having every second post on NSG being a quote of someone on the same side as you and all of them starting, in a circle jerkish manner, with "shhh, don't spoil his bigoted perspective..." or something very similar to that, which stopped being funny ages ago. But this post takes the cake.

And yet, you just contributed so much to the dicussion.

And yet, you just contributed so much to the dicussion.
Just hush yerself, KoL -_-

But perhaps Im so used to anti-Palestinian sentiment boarding on racism on NSG that Im cynical. That, and past posts Tmut has made about palestinians.

Racism is not a factor if you have put up with 3000 rockets and 2500 mortar attacks, and after the ceasefire expires, you decide to put an end to the rocket and mortar attacks.

Are you saying that a nation state acting in defense of its own citizens' security is racist?

If we're going to have a proportional response, then let's have the Israelis rain down 3000 missiles and 2500 mortar shells completely at random in Gaza, rather than aiming at particular militants and their missile launchers.

Racism is not a factor if you have put up with 3000 rockets and 2500 mortar attacks, and after the ceasefire expires, you decide to put an end to the rocket and mortar attacks.

Are you saying that a nation state acting in defense of its own citizens' security is racist?

If we're going to have a proportional response, then let's have the Israelis rain down 3000 missiles and 2500 mortar shells completely at random in Gaza, rather than aiming at particular militants and their missile launchers.

HOLY CRAP! I DIDNT KNOW NSG WAS ISRAEL!!!

You can try and find where I said that Israel was racist DK. You wont find me saying it, however.

Do you even try anymore?

... I know.

Oh and the Canadian Conservative government is being obtuse about it.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/562825

Yeah, the federal government is blaming Hamas... for the actions of Israel. :rolleyes: Only made worse by the fact that it's evident that Israel had the co-ordinates AND that the rockets were fired from the vicinity, which is anywhere by the school or school compound.

...at least Harper hasn't called it a "measured response" yet.

(Oh, I do blame Hamas for lobbing Qassam rockets into Israel... and not exactly holding up their end of the ceasefire).

Oh and the Canadian Conservative government is being obtuse about it.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/562825

Yeah, the federal government is blaming Hamas... for the actions of Israel. :rolleyes: Only made worse by the fact that it's evident that Israel had the co-ordinates AND that the rockets were fired from the vicinity, which is anywhere by the school or school compound.

...at least Harper hasn't called it a "measured response" yet.

Hey, at least Harper isnt giving the Israel the guns and a blank check to blow the Palestinians into the next decade because theyre guilty of terrorist by proximety.

Perspective should make you a happier canuk. See, arent I nice?:p;)

Hey, at least Harper isnt giving the Israel the guns and a blank check to blow the Palestinians into the next decade because theyre guilty of terrorist by proximety.

Perspective should make you a happier canuk. See, arent I nice?:p;)

We can't even arm our own military adequately, what gives you the audacious idea that we would arm someone else? :D

HOLY CRAP! I DIDNT KNOW NSG WAS ISRAEL!!!

You can try and find where I said that Israel was racist DK. You wont find me saying it, however.

Do you even try anymore?

I'm pointing out that it isn't necessary to be racist to want to attack the Palestinians in Gaza. It's a sovereign state acting in defense of its own citizens.

I'm pointing out that it isn't necessary to be racist to want to attack the Palestinians in Gaza. It's a sovereign state acting in defense of its own citizens.

Show me where I said that its racist to attack Palestine.


You wont find me saying such a thing either. So, youre burning a strawman. Shame. It was such a pretty one too.

Show me where I said that its racist to attack Palestine.


Ill wait.

You're implying that by making comments supporting Israel's actions, we're showing a racist attitude towards Palestinians. See your comments about racism.

Really? Because that seems to pretty much imply that they were not providing any sort of trade commodity until the white man showed them how to do it properly.
It implies it if you read into it that way.

All I'm saying is that making exaggerated claims about Tmutarakhan's (or any other pro-Israel poster's) position isn't going to turn this thread away from the polarised nonsense that most Israel-Palestine threads end up as.

You're implying that by making comments supporting Israel's actions, we're showing a racist attitude towards Palestinians. See your comments about racism.

No, Im implying that by saying Palestine wasnt even advanced enough for irrigation until the white man showed them how, youre being racist.


I know you cant read news articles DK, but can you at least try and read posts?

No, Im implying that by saying Palestine wasnt even advanced enough for irrigation until the white man showed them how, youre being racist.


I know you cant read news articles DK, but can you at least try and read posts?

You posted about the anti-Palestinian racism you see here on NSG. You can't even remember what you post.

And yet, you just contributed so much to the dicussion.

I think it's important to point out how annoying NSG is being with this obnoxious crap, I mean really, even if it was a valid point, I expect a bit of... professionalism?

You posted about the anti-Palestinian racism you see here on NSG. You can't even remember what you post.

Yep. And I do see anti-Palestinian racism here. But I never said it was racism because they wanted to attack Palstine for launching rockets at Israel.

Im done with you DK. It was fun humoring you initially, but it appears youve stopped trying. Everyone else can see youre full of it, so I might as well stop.

Yep. And I do see anti-Palestinian racism here. But I never said it was racism because they wanted to attack Palstine for launching rockets at Israel.

Im done with you DK. It was fun humoring you initially, but it appears youve stopped trying. Everyone else can see youre full of it, so I might as well stop.

You're implying that we're racist for supporting Israel attacking the Palestinians.

You're the one who can't read posts, and are getting upset because I've pointed it out.

You're implying that we're racist for supporting Israel attacking the Palestinians.

Show me where I said that. Come on. Lets see it.


You're the one who can't read posts, and are getting upset because I've pointed it out.

Not really. I was amused. Now im bored.

Show me where I said that. Come on. Lets see it.



Not really. I was amused. Now im bored.

"But perhaps Im so used to anti-Palestinian sentiment boarding on racism on NSG that Im cynical. That, and past posts Tmut has made about palestinians."

That's lumping us all into anti-Palestinian racists for saying anything critical of the Palestinians, or for supporting Israel's attack on them. After all, if we attack Palestinians in any way, we're just blanket racists.

"What? We need a source to make racist claims about the inferiority of brown people? Isnt the fact that theyre not white evidence enough?"

Oh, your standard argument has devolved to "you racist!" How nice.

I was wondering why the Pal's haven't got around to rejecting the extreme factions and perhaps at least rallying behind the P.L.O. much the same way that the Basque people have on the whole rejected E.T.A. At least under the P.L.O. they made more progress than they ever did with anyone else (Oslo agreement). It seems a better way forward. They of course need in immense amount of help from Israel and the U.N. as groups like Hamas would instantly return to slaughtering members of the P.L.O. and the citizens that side with them.

What thoughts on that people ?

"But perhaps Im so used to anti-Palestinian sentiment boarding on racism on NSG that Im cynical. That, and past posts Tmut has made about palestinians."

That's lumping us all into anti-Palestinian racists for saying anything critical of the Palestinians, or for supporting Israel's attack on them. After all, if we attack Palestinians in any way, we're just blanket racists.

Except, my post doesnt say that. There are racist claims made about Palestine. You make them all the time DK. But what you think my motives are, are not my motives

Implying that the White Man had to show the poor, backwards Palestinians how to irrigate is racist. Saying that Palestinians are inherantly violent, murdering, liars is racist. No matter how much you want to spin it is "YOU THINK ATTACKING SOMEONE WHO ATTACKS YOU IS RACIST LOL LOL LOLS!", thats not whats being said.

But, I honostly dont care what you believe, however. Everyone else knows what Im saying, and can see your full of shit (which is SOP for you), so Im just going to drop this. Its gone on long enough.

I was wondering why the Pal's haven't got around to rejecting the extreme factions and perhaps at least rallying behind the P.L.O. much the same way that the Basque people have on the whole rejected E.T.A. At least under the P.L.O. they made more progress than they ever did with anyone else (Oslo agreement). It seems a better way forward. They of course need in immense amount of help from Israel and the U.N. as groups like Hamas would instantly return to slaughtering members of the P.L.O. and the citizens that side with them.

What thoughts on that people ?

I chalk it up to widespread ignorance. One of Hamas' functions is to run schools.

Run a school where all they teach is "kill the Jew" and you don't get people with a lot of latitude for critical thought.

They also can't do irrigation - "kill the Jew" doesn't help much with that skill set, so they have to have someone come in and teach them how.

Remember that sewage debacle a year or so back, where an enormous sewage pond (homebuilt out of mud walls) collapsed in Gaza? More "kill the Jew" engineering. Now, if the students had had a proper education...

I didnt know the KKK spent the vast majority of its money on hospitals, schools, and other social services.

Considering that they probably spend more on those things than Hamas does...

Implying that the White Man had to show the poor, backwards Palestinians how to irrigate is racist.

You don't know that in the slightest. You're completely adding shitloads of words to the posters mouth. Societies get taught skills by other societies all the fucking time, that doesn't mean that society A is racially superior to society B.

You don't know that in the slightest. You're completely adding shitloads of words to the posters mouth. Societies get taught skills by other societies all the fucking time, that doesn't mean that society A is racially superior to society B.

See, despite what you seem to want to believe, a poster's posts do not exist in a vaccum. I know Tmut's past comments about Palestine, and when taken in conjuction with his current implication that theyre all lying murderers, yes, that makes his statement racist.

So, in short, shut the fuck up, mk?

Considering that they probably spend more on those things than Hamas does...

HAHAHA. Ok. Right. Show me how much the KKK spends on hospitals. I bet its close to 0.

See, despite what you seem to want to believe, a poster's posts do not exist in a vaccum.

that's what you believe about your own posts.

You say to point to an exact quote about something you said, or it's not proof.

Kindly take your own advice.

See, despite what you seem to want to believe, a poster's posts do not exist in a vaccum. I know Tmut's past comments about Palestine, and when taken in conjuction with his current implication that theyre all lying murderers, yes, that makes his statement racist.


No actually, it doesn't. Assuming what you're saying is true, even if someone made racist comments in the past, that doesn't automatically make that particular one racist. Also:

God, Im just happy that theyre prosecuting the family and the rapist, and the victim hasnt been stoned yet. This is probably the first time that has happened in the Middle East.

(from another thread)

How is this post above, not incredibly racist by your own parameters? I mean you're implying that the whole of the middle east is so 'backwards' that they're not even progressive enough to not stone rape victims.

How is this post above, not incredibly racist by your own parameters? I mean you're implying that the whole of the middle east is so 'backwards' that they're not even progressive enough to not stone rape victims.

See...the difference is, one actually...you know...happens.

Besides, in the case you mentioned, it clearly has nothing to do with race, because once the oppressive theocracy was removed, the default was to *gasp* HELP THE VICTIM AND GIVE HER MEDICAL TREATMENT! If it was really about race, that wouldnt have happened!

So...all I really implied was theocracies are backwards.

So, once again, shut the fuck up.

Hamas says they will only consider a six month maximum ceasefire and won't allow international observation. Shows you exactly what those pricks' intentions are.

The same Israel that didn't do anything while Katyusha rockets have been falling for most of a year,
Over six hundered rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in the last year, bud, and the Israelis didn't respond until now with military force.
That's incorrect. The Israelis have responded several times with military force.

The Palestinians have had territories now for a couple of years-they aren't building anything,
What would you have them build, with what resources, and where?

but they're parking artillery weapons next to their own kids and women in hopes that a counterstrike causes massive collateral damage that will generate foreign money and foreign sympathy.
Any independent verification of such stories?

It's not hard to return fire on a mortar position when you've got the right gear-which the Israelis have in abundance-they developed a lot of it and are industry leaders. presuming they are mortal, normal human beings, and not some kind of supernatural killing machines, I suspect it's fairly reasonable to assume that they aren't missing those weapons positions on purpose.
What about the killing of bystanders while firing at a car in rush-hour traffic in the middle of a crowded city?

No, I'm saying that this is war to the knife, and one side is being judged by western moral standards,
As it should be, considering that it's a western-style democracy that claims to be governed by the rule of law.

while the other is getting a free pass because, after all, they're the insurgents, and it's in style to sympathize and empathize and slant your reporting to favour the anti-imperialist, anti-Western, psychotic homicidal maniacs.
Free pass? No. This thread and, indeed, the news is ripe with condemnation of Hamas. And rightly so: The militant part of Hamas should be exterminated, and the radical ideas (like the charter and the support for the destruction of Israel) should be removed from existence.

But if you look closer, you won't actually find that many supporting Hamas - at least, not in the western world, and particularly not in this thread. You'll see more sympathy with the Palestinian civilians though, because it's them that suffer through all of this. And that's in a large part due to the disproportional responses from Israel, due to the evil actions of Hamas and other militant groups.

During the so-called "Cease fire" there were 300 rocket and mortar attacks fired from Gaza into Israel. That's during a bloody Cease fire.
Some unprovoked, some in response to Israeli violations of the cease fire. None of that should have happened though.

Earlier this year, there were around 1,700 rocket attacks, and that's JUST the unguided "anywhere as long as there's jews there" rockets, not the chinese and russian stuff that can be aimed, or the Mortar attacks (sitting somewhere in the thousands themselves.)
And the casualty rate in Israel was still very low. Zbigniew Brzezinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski) described it as "provocative, annoying, harrassment, but not lethal". I wouldn't go that far, I see it as a problem. But a problem that you could have handled differently.

Put it another way-you're good with your neighbour down the street lobbing ordinance at your house...
Your analogy fails from the onset as it completely fails to view the entire complex situation, including but not limited to the fact that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory.

In this case, there's no cops to call-so really, the Israelis don't have a lot of options here Except to shoot back...
That's also incorrect. Israel has a lot of options.

When someone says they want you dead, and they back it up by shooting at you, does it really matter how accurate they are? Should you be condemned because your return fire is MORE accurate, or more destructive?
Yes. You're entitled to a proportional response under the law, and you will be condemned if you react disproportionally.

if he's using a school as a place to shoot at you, do you not return fire?
If he's using a mosque to store weapons, do you fire at it before, during or after the hour of mass prayer?

In this war, one side is expected to abide by its agreements and wage war according to "The Rules", the other side (the Palestinian side) is not.
I don't know about you, but I expect and demand that both sides don't violate the (international) law.


Is Israel worthy of support? well... let's see... Unlike Arab states that don't allow Jews to vote, Israel allows Arabs to vote, hold office, etc. etc.-without being jewish. Israel has native-grown industries. Israel doesn't have a civil war every time they hold an election, they aren't governed by a brutal thirteenth century system of "Religious Laws" that include stoning women for being raped, showing too much skin, having abortions, or talking to strange men. They also don't execute Gays for being Gay, or deny people who are of "The wrong faith" basic human rights as a matter of policy.
Has that happened a lot in Gaza, btw?

Disregarding that, that's all well and good, but none of the factors you mention justify any Israeli violations of international law. And Israel does violate international law, and not just in this current situation.

See...the difference is, one actually...you know...happens.

Besides, in the case you mentioned, it clearly has nothing to do with race, because once the oppressive theocracy was removed, the default was to *gasp* HELP THE VICTIM AND GIVE HER MEDICAL TREATMENT! If it was really about race, that wouldnt have happened!

So...all I really implied was theocracies are backwards.

So, once again, shut the fuck up.

Right, and something like this could also be the case with Tmut's comment. It could have been all about the shoddy administration of Palestine prior to the British (not saying they were any better), and nothing to do with race.

Right, and something like this could also be the case with Tmut's comment. It could have been all about the shoddy administration of Palestine prior to the British (not saying they were any better), and nothing to do with race.

But, once again, considering his posts in the past, I find such a conclusion unlikely. But, I could be wrong.

But, once again, considering his posts in the past, I find such a conclusion unlikely. But, I could be wrong.

Making that post was still obnoxious and snarky, again... professionalism?

Making that post was still obnoxious and snarky, again... professionalism?

No. I dont care what you find obnoxious and snarky. We done?

No. I dont care what you find obnoxious and snarky. We done?

As long as you don't act under the pretence that you're any more civilised or less rash than your opponent. Which, IMO, only makes it harder still to persuade your opponent.

See...the difference is, one actually...you know...happens.

Besides, in the case you mentioned, it clearly has nothing to do with race, because once the oppressive theocracy was removed, the default was to *gasp* HELP THE VICTIM AND GIVE HER MEDICAL TREATMENT! If it was really about race, that wouldnt have happened!

So...all I really implied was theocracies are backwards.

So, once again, shut the fuck up.

God, your posts are worthless. Get banned again, please. You infer all the meaning in the world into other people's posts, then cry like a little girl whenever anyone tries to ascribe a single stray word into something you've said. Either there is precisely nothing racist about Tmutarakhan's comment unless you're specifically setting out to rant like raving lunatic with a vindictive vendetta, launching f-bombs with aplomb, or your post about stonings that Hydesland linked contains an incredibly racist implication by you about the cultural advancement of Middle Eastern cultures. You can decide.

God, your posts are worthless. Get banned again, please. You infer all the meaning in the world into other people's posts, then cry like a little girl whenever anyone tries to ascribe a single stray word into something you've said. Either there is precisely nothing racist about Tmutarakhan's comment unless you're specifically setting out to rant like raving lunatic with a vindictive vendetta, launching f-bombs with aplomb, or your post about stonings that Hydesland linked contains an incredibly racist implication by you about the cultural advancement of Middle Eastern cultures. You can decide.

Thread winner.

If we're going to have a proportional response, then let's have the Israelis rain down 3000 missiles and 2500 mortar shells completely at random in Gaza, rather than aiming at particular militants and their missile launchers.
Even with that hypotetical, it still wouldn't really be proportional on account of the fact that the population density in the Gaza strip is so much higher than in southern Israel.

I was wondering why the Pal's haven't got around to rejecting the extreme factions and perhaps at least rallying behind the P.L.O. much the same way that the Basque people have on the whole rejected E.T.A. At least under the P.L.O. they made more progress than they ever did with anyone else (Oslo agreement). It seems a better way forward. They of course need in immense amount of help from Israel and the U.N. as groups like Hamas would instantly return to slaughtering members of the P.L.O. and the citizens that side with them.

What thoughts on that people ?
Corruption. Fatah was/is plagued by it. And Fatah is the only real political rival.

And they see Fatah and the PLO getting nowhere in the negotiations with Israel. Yes, they made some progress, but Israel still builds settlements and still holds the West Bank.

And Hamas gives the illusion of safety, while providing some basic services like education and social welfare. Of course, they tend to take credit from those actually helping the civilians (like the UN and Israel), but that can be difficult to see when they're also seen struggling against the occupying force who could bmb you and your children at any minute!

Considering that they probably spend more on those things than Hamas does...
More than round $64 million annually?

God, your posts are worthless. Get banned again, please. You infer all the meaning in the world into other people's posts,

Posting history comrade.

then cry like a little girl whenever anyone tries to ascribe a single stray word into something you've said.

The key being "stray word". Ooooh and nice flame.

Either there is precisely nothing racist about Tmutarakhan's comment unless you're specifically setting out to rant like raving lunatic with a vindictive vendetta, launching f-bombs with aplomb,

More flames. Yay!

or your post about stonings that Hydesland linked contains an incredibly racist implication by you about the cultural advancement of Middle Eastern cultures.

Theocracies are to blame. Not Middle Eastern cultures. See, there is a clear difference between saying "That happens because theyre all lying, murdering people" and "That happens because they live in a shitty theocracy". Your mental insufficiency to see the difference is not my problem.

You can decide.

I decide that everything in this post is...well...crap. Im tempted to report you for flaming, however.

Thread winner.

Hardly. I'm not about to accept any awards from you.

Also, for the record, I'm not trying to act all high and mighty. I am often equally obnoxious, in fact I think I received a warning on this very thread for flamebaiting.

Even with that hypotetical, it still wouldn't really be proportional on account of the fact that the population density in the Gaza strip is so much higher than in southern Israel.

In "response" to the bombs dropped on England by Germany during WW II, how many bombs did the British drop on Germany?

In "response" to the bombs dropped on the US by Germany during WW II (none), how many bombs did the US drop on Germany?

Proportional response is bullshit.

I chalk it up to widespread ignorance. One of Hamas' functions is to run schools.

Run a school where all they teach is "kill the Jew" and you don't get people with a lot of latitude for critical thought.

They also can't do irrigation - "kill the Jew" doesn't help much with that skill set, so they have to have someone come in and teach them how.

Remember that sewage debacle a year or so back, where an enormous sewage pond (homebuilt out of mud walls) collapsed in Gaza? More "kill the Jew" engineering. Now, if the students had had a proper education...

That would be quite impossible with Israel bombing any semblance of infrastructure out of Palestine every 6-8 months.

Posting history comrade.

That's totally meaningless. Your posting history shows a tendency towards flaming and generally immature behavior. Does that indicate that I should start inferring flames in everything you say? There was, and continues to be, nothing racist about Tmut's comment, except in your mind.


The key being "stray word". Ooooh and nice flame.

Again, you say nothing. You inferred commentary of all Arabs based on two sentences in one post, but when someone does the same to you, then you attack them like a rabid dog.


Theocracies are to blame. Not Middle Eastern cultures. See, there is a clear difference between saying "That happens because theyre all lying, murdering people" and "That happens because they live in a shitty theocracy". Your mental insufficiency to see the difference is not my problem.

There's no difference. You made no mention of theocracy or anything even resembling what you're now trying to say. Taken alone, that post of yours can easily be seen as racism.


I decide that everything in this post is...well...crap. Im tempted to report you for flaming, however.

In a post where you refer to my "mental insufficiency" for merely disagreeing with your failed assessment of another's post, I would say you wouldn't dare.

In "response" to the bombs dropped on England by Germany during WW II, how many bombs did the British drop on Germany?

In "response" to the bombs dropped on the US by Germany during WW II (none), how many bombs did the US drop on Germany?

Proportional response is bullshit.

Yes, clearly if a guy in another country shoots at you, you must kill every man woman and child in the nation. Disproportional overreactions FTW!

Also WWII is a good basis for our morality! Let's round up people into internment camps and prepare to use nuclear weapons on cities!

That would be quite impossible with Israel bombing any semblance of infrastructure out of Palestine every 6-8 months.

Seems to coincide with Palestinians saying "Well, mud wall's good 'nough, let's go kill us some Jews, the International community won't let 'em hit back THIS time..."

Yes, clearly if a guy in another country shoots at you, you must kill every man woman and child in the nation. Disproportional overreactions FTW!

Dude, you're addressing Kimchi. He openly discussed dropping nuclear weapons on Pakistan as logically acceptable reprisal for the Mumbai attacks.

Also WWII is a good basis for our morality! Let's round up people into internment camps and prepare to use nuclear weapons on cities!

There's also that "Muslim Sterilizing Virus" talk that made him famous on NSG.

Originally Posted by Bird chasers View Post
I was wondering why the Pal's haven't got around to rejecting the extreme factions and perhaps at least rallying behind the P.L.O. much the same way that the Basque people have on the whole rejected E.T.A. At least under the P.L.O. they made more progress than they ever did with anyone else (Oslo agreement). It seems a better way forward. They of course need in immense amount of help from Israel and the U.N. as groups like Hamas would instantly return to slaughtering members of the P.L.O. and the citizens that side with them.

What thoughts on that people ?

Corruption. Fatah was/is plagued by it. And Fatah is the only real political rival.

And they see Fatah and the PLO getting nowhere in the negotiations with Israel. Yes, they made some progress, but Israel still builds settlements and still holds the West Bank.

And yet it was under the PLO that Israel withdrew and dismantled it's settlements in Gaza.

I think that quite simply Hamas are "running things" through fear. I have a few Palestinian friends, which is hardly a demographic and I'm given the impression that most civilians hate Hamas but their voice cannot be heard and in the meantime they live in fear of Hamas as well as Israeli reprisals for Hamas' actions.

One way or another, Hamas must be removed. The real challenge is what assistance will come after their removal.

My guess is, if Hamas are removed, Israel will simply step back and drag their heels and the U.N. will take so long in acting that Fatah or another radical group will step in and it's back to blood and death all over again.

Dude, you're addressing Kimchi. He openly discussed dropping nuclear weapons on Pakistan as logically acceptable reprisal for the Mumbai attacks.



There's also that "Muslim Sterilizing Virus" talk that made him famous on NSG.

Yes but we're supposed to pretend he never explicitly stated he's here on NSG solely to troll, and act like he's making statements in the context of some kind of actual discussion.

In "response" to the bombs dropped on England by Germany during WW II, how many bombs did the British drop on Germany?

In "response" to the bombs dropped on the US by Germany during WW II (none), how many bombs did the US drop on Germany?

Proportional response is bullshit.

Way to compare this conflict with Total War.

God, your posts are worthless. Get banned again, please. You infer all the meaning in the world into other people's posts, then cry like a little girl whenever anyone tries to ascribe a single stray word into something you've said. Either there is precisely nothing racist about Tmutarakhan's comment unless you're specifically setting out to rant like raving lunatic with a vindictive vendetta, launching f-bombs with aplomb, or your post about stonings that Hydesland linked contains an incredibly racist implication by you about the cultural advancement of Middle Eastern cultures. You can decide.

Clearly a flamebait. Warned.

Theocracies are to blame. Not Middle Eastern cultures. See, there is a clear difference between saying "That happens because theyre all lying, murdering people" and "That happens because they live in a shitty theocracy". Your mental insufficiency to see the difference is not my problem.

Interesting. You contend that you're going to report Sdaeriji for flaming and yet, here I find a nice little flame. Warned.

Thread winner.

Do not encourage flamebaits.

The rest of you are to keep it civil lest I be forced to lock this thread.

Way to compare this conflict with Total War.

War is war.

Seems to coincide with Palestinians saying "Well, mud wall's good 'nough, let's go kill us some Jews, the International community won't let 'em hit back THIS time..."

Because Palestinians are more concerned about mindlessly slaughtering Jews (whom they have a history in the past of tolerating more than any other nation on earth) than retrieving land that was essentially stolen from them, righting injustices done to them, and improving the squalid conditions surrounding them.

War is war.
Then why complain about the actions of Hamas, et al?

Because Palestinians are more concerned about mindlessly slaughtering Jews (whom they have a history in the past of tolerating more than any other nation on earth) than retrieving land that was essentially stolen from them, righting injustices done to them, and improving the squalid conditions surrounding them.

:wink:

Don't forget that the Real Reason they voted for Hamas because They Hate Freedom™, not because Hamas actually provided some semblance of infrastructure and social services to the populace while Fatah was having a private party at their expense.

Then why complain about the actions of Hamas, et al?

Because it's Kimchi selectivism in action. You know, like flip-flop between declaring the United Nations worthless and then citing its resolutions as justification for something he likes?

In "response" to the bombs dropped on England by Germany during WW II, how many bombs did the British drop on Germany?

In "response" to the bombs dropped on the US by Germany during WW II (none), how many bombs did the US drop on Germany?

Proportional response is bullshit.
No, it really isn't.

Israels disproportional responses has not helped them secure their country, nor dissuaded Hamas - or any other group - from attacking them.

If you're serious about finding a long-term solution, proportional responses to provocations (especially by third-party groups) is the way to go.

War is war.

And occupation is...?

:wink:

Don't forget that the Real Reason they voted for Hamas because They Hate Freedom™, not because Hamas actually provided some semblance of infrastructure and social services to the populace while Fatah was having a private party at their expense.

:D:D Sig-worthy!

If you're serious about finding a long-term solution, proportional responses to provocations (especially by third-party groups) is the way to go.

Now you did it. He's going to bring up some sort of Palestinian Total Annihilation scenario as a "long term solution".

And French TV would like to apologize for the following announcement:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053225.html

We're sorry, the group of dead Paletinian civilians after an IDF bombing raid last week actually died in 2005. Oh, and they were actually killed by Hamas militants.

Bird Chasers, you should learn how to use the quote system. It makes it easier to respond to you.

And yet it was under the PLO that Israel withdrew and dismantled it's settlements in Gaza.
Yes, but that was just a minor pullout (Was it 5000 settlers? There's 450,000 settlers on the West Bank), and Israel continued a de facto occupation by continuing to control the borders, the airspace and the sea.

I think that quite simply Hamas are "running things" through fear. I have a few Palestinian friends, which is hardly a demographic and I'm given the impression that most civilians hate Hamas but their voice cannot be heard and in the meantime they live in fear of Hamas as well as Israeli reprisals for Hamas' actions.
I'm sure that fear is one (large) element, but it's not the only one. There are about 30% that will support Hamas as they're seen as the only ones daring to fight Israel, and because of the before-mentioned systems of welfare and such that Hamas organizes.

One way or another, Hamas must be removed. The real challenge is what assistance will come after their removal.
I agree, but I don't think it should be "at all costs".

My guess is, if Hamas are removed, Israel will simply step back and drag their heels and the U.N. will take so long in acting that Fatah or another radical group will step in and it's back to blood and death all over again.
Fatah could step in, and with some international support they could restore order to the Gaza strip. But if Israel fails to make progress on the negotiations - as before - history may indeed repeat itself.

Then why complain about the actions of Hamas, et al?
Good point that.

*Kicks self for not thinkning it*

And French TV would like to apologize for the following announcement:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053225.html

We're sorry, the group of dead Paletinian civilians after an IDF bombing raid last week actually died in 2005. Oh, and they were actually killed by Hamas militants.

Damn, you beat me to it! :p

And French TV would like to apologize for the following announcement:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053225.html

We're sorry, the group of dead Paletinian civilians after an IDF bombing raid last week actually died in 2005. Oh, and they were actually killed by Hamas militants.

Wow. That makes such a difference to the rest of the images the world has been seeing for the past 12 days across all other mediums.

Hardly surprising though, they would probably have taken their own photos and this might not have happened, but international journalists are barred from Gaza remember....

The comments on the bottom of that are hilarious btw. Edit: Jeez, the vitriol is immense.

Fatah could step in, and with some international support they could restore order to the Gaza strip. But if Israel fails to make progress on the negotiations - as before - history may indeed repeat itself.

I think that's why France is pushing the ceasefire by having Fatah endorse it. I think that the people pushing the ceasefire plan are assuming that Hamas is already decimated as a political organization on the ground in Gaza, and if the Israelis proceed for a few more weeks, Fatah will be invited in to "restore order".

The comments on the bottom of that are hilarious btw.

Yes. They are :).

And French TV would like to apologize for the following announcement:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053225.html

We're sorry, the group of dead Paletinian civilians after an IDF bombing raid last week actually died in 2005. Oh, and they were actually killed by Hamas militants.

Well, this proves it. All pictures of dead Civies after IDF bombings were really killed by Hamas. In fact, poor Israel isnt even bombing anything! The media is just pro-Hamas and out to get Israel.:p

And French TV would like to apologize for the following announcement:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053225.html

We're sorry, the group of dead Paletinian civilians after an IDF bombing raid last week actually died in 2005. Oh, and they were actually killed by Hamas militants.

That was hilarious. Technical errors in validating stories, or should we say, news organization anxious to get something juicy out there.

Hardly surprising though, they would probably have taken their own photos and this might not have happened, but international journalists are barred from Gaza remember....
It's not surprising, but it's a weak performance by Channel 2 when they claim it's pictures from an attack on Jan. 1st. They should have better quality control, and will only cause cries of propaganda and manipulation.

I think that's why France is pushing the ceasefire by having Fatah endorse it. I think that the people pushing the ceasefire plan are assuming that Hamas is already decimated as a political organization on the ground in Gaza, and if the Israelis proceed for a few more weeks, Fatah will be invited in to "restore order".
Could be trying to score some points for Fatah by portraying them as the ones that managed to bring peace to the Gaza strip. Could boost their support.

Or it could be an absurd kind of theater. I'm not sure yet.

Only after (...........)half a million..

I mean what would Arabs know about Irrigation.....

Sources?


(.....)eir shit.

Yeah, yeah. So evil they had to have their land colonised. Heard it before. It didn't convince me.

I'm pointing out that it isn't necessary to be racist to want to attack the Palestinians in Gaza.

I accept that. It just seems to help some people enjoy it more. Whoever they might be.

I accept that. It just seems to help some people enjoy it more. Whoever they might be.

Yes. Especially when they hit schools.

Shovrim Shtika, or Breaking the Silence are accounts from former Israeli soldiers

http://www.shovrimshtika.org/index_e.asp

Not every soldier behaves this way. But every army in the world has soldiers that behave this way.

People can be made to do anything. Many of them suffer internally for the rest of their lives over their own actions.

Anyone with any sense knows that no one group are to blame. In fact in this case the biggest problem is seeing there being two sides.. "the f*'ing Israelis and Palestinians"

The truth is it's just a bunch of people grasping at straws, picking which ever "group" are backing their emotions on that day.

Go ahead and take a side if you wish, and listen to the screams when you tuck in to your dinner and settle down for a quiet night having put the world to rights.

*sighs* Source for yer bullshit claim, please?
You're going to make me do actual research? There isn't all that much on Ottoman Palestine's export activities, but I got some.

Found a long objective-seeming article (http://www.jerusalemquarterly.org/details.php?cat=4&id=229) (summarized thesis from a Gazan Ph.D. candidate; I further abbreviate here but the whole thing is worth a read if you are really interested) discussing the abortive efforts at modernization before, during, and after Muhammad Ali Pasha's attempts to detach Egypt from the Ottomans and annex Arabia and Syria. Contrary to my impression that Palestine's exports were always at a negligible level (derived from 1850's figures, but that turns out to have been a low point), the article says cotton exportation started before 1800 and was growing for a while: then the Ottomans demolished the port of Acre (reducing it back to a village) while putting down the Pasha, and it took some time for Haifa and Jaffa to pick up the slack (not mentioned in the article but probable: I bet the 1860's helped the cotton business rebound because of the American Civil War's disruption to the Dixieland trade); another source dates the start of citrus exports from Jaffa to the 1890's (no indication of the relative importance of local initiative, Jewish investment, or non-Jewish European involvement in getting that started).

The Pasha wanted to introduce centralized irrigation (millennia old in Egypt, of course) as opposed to the customary ways with villages consuming all their own produce except a small percentage for tax/rent (governmental officials and feudal-style estate owners were pretty much interchangeable). The violent resistance to irrigation projects was part of a general rebellion against the project of creating a new and more powerful government: the Pasha of course wanted to increase agricultural surplus to feed a larger army, not for any profit to the people on the ground. A reflex antagonism to any form of modernization was an unfortunate legacy for the Palestinians (not mentioned in the article: a similar backlash against the Pasha's failed attempt to take central Arabia from the Wahhab sect led ultimately to the hyper-reactionary form of Islam now found in Saudi).

The article calls "the three pillars of Ottoman rule" 1. social supremacy of Muslim over Christian, 2. strict orthodoxy, 3. higher importance to sectarian loyalties than to ethnic ties, all "shaken" by the abortive modernization attempts. Moves, by both the Pasha and in response the Sultan, to increase the legal rights of Christians led to backlash, as in a 19th-century traveller account (I can't find the link back to it now) of "jizya". That's the special tax on non-Muslims, which officially didn't exist anymore, but in Palestine consisted of the local shaykh descending on a Christian village and his men stealing what they wanted (within vague but understood limits), followed by a banquet stripping the village of its provision stores, and the priest obsequiously thanking the shaykh for his restraint in not letting the men molest the women. This is what European Jewish immigrants: the Jews who had been there for centuries all accepted things like keeping your head lower than any Muslim's, stepping off a walk if a Muslim is on it, etc. but newcomers didn't know or refused to put up with such customs; the first listing on Israel's "terrorist victims" memorial is an 1850's Jew killed for not taking off his hat.
Really? Because that seems to pretty much imply that they were not providing any sort of trade commodity until the white man showed them how to do it properly.
I was indeed, it turns out, overstating the degree of isolation of the 19th century Palestinian economy. The point is that it was an aggressively medieval culture, insisting on turning the clock backwards to the most primitive aspects of former times, including of course, quick resort to murders as a method of "expression".
I'll be honest, though, there are more pro-Palestinians than pro-Israelis here, despite there there being some loud ones on both sides.
I'm sure there are boards where the pro-Palestinian side can get shouted down all the time if they need an I'm-a-victim fix.

You're going to make me do actual research? There isn't all that much on Ottoman (....) Jew killed for not taking off his hat..

So more waffle and bollocks then, with a bit of 'fuck all to do with agriculture' cherry picking to underline your o so tired 'teh 3bbil Palestinians' rant.


I was indeed, it turns out, overstating the degree of isolation of the 19th century Palestinian economy. The point is that it was an aggressively medieval culture, insisting on turning the clock backwards to the most primitive aspects of former times, including of course, quick resort to murders as a method of "expression"...

So the Palestinian Arabs are now to blame for the feudal methods of the Ottoman Turks, under whose rule we are so often reminded they were....jaysus, aren't they the crafty bastards....


I was indeed, it turns out, overstating the degree of isolation of the 19th century Palestinian economy."...

Not at all. You were systematically talking down the natives the way every apologist for colonialism does.

War is war.

Let's entertain this asinine notion for a moment that one can actually carry on a traditional war with terror by way of fighting a terrorist organization. Let's assume there are defined sides with defined goals.

Who do you think will win the war when one side has an infinite number of recruits and is willing to commit suicide to kill the other side?

sSeems to have gone much quieter here since I've posted #859.

I didn't mean anything other than quiet sober contemplation. Gosh, could it have worked?

We had a discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14365459#post14365459) on your appraisal of 'reality', your eagerness to define a specific social set-up as 'human nature', but you never replied...

I was pretty sure I had, but couldn't find your response or mine in the thread it originally was located in. So that's where it went.

I was pretty sure I had, but couldn't find your response or mine in the thread it originally was located in. So that's where it went.

Yes. There had been a request to split that discussion from this thread into its own thread.

Yes. There had been a request to split that discussion from this thread into its own thread.

See, right now, you're this hard charging, over achieving mod...but in a few years, you'll be a pissy, alcoholic burn-out, sits in his living room with the lights out when off duty, thinking of all the spam you couldn't stop, all the flame-victims you couldn't save...

Duty and regret will collide, again and again, every time you close your eyes...a life of service, the life of a mod...

In the end, nothing but a head full of bad memories, over-sized sigs, and that time you had to help Katganistan put that dead guy in an industrial sized microwave, mixed with forty kg of pigs ankles but she was convinced it would fool the forensics people...

post #859 anyone?

Rockets have been launched from Lebanon. Reports are sketchy right now, but it is most likely to be Palestinians in S. Lebanon. However, if it turns out to be Hezbollah, I can imagine the Israeli war machine would wage a war on two fronts. This does not look good.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/08/israel.rockets/index.html


At least three rockets struck northern Israel from Lebanon on Thursday, wounding two people, Israeli police and emergency medical services said.

The rockets hit near the city of Nahariya, located about six miles from the Lebanese border, police said. The Israeli military said it returned fire toward the source of the rockets after the attack.

The Israeli military warned civilians in the western Galilee region to stay close to shelters in the aftermath of Thursday's attack.

The report comes as Israeli airstrikes on Gaza, aimed at halting rocket fire from the Hamas-ruled Palestinian territory to the south, entered a 13th day.

Israel fought a similar campaign against the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia Hezbollah in 2006, during which Hezbollah rained rockets on cities in Israeli's north for a month before a cease-fire was reached.
Don't Miss

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for Thursday's attack.

Hezbollah has kept a tight rein on its forces in southern Lebanon since the cease-fire, however, and a number of Palestinian factions operate in southern Lebanon as well

Holy shit. I am now the owner of a 58 page long thread, of which I've read about 15 pages and stopped. @_@

The BBC is now reporting that Hezbollah has apparently attacked Israel from Lebanon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7817135.stm

It would be unfortunate turn of events. Hezbollah did this the last time Israel tried to crack down on Hamas.

The BBC is now reporting that Hezbollah has apparently attacked Israel from Lebanon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7817135.stm

It would be unfortunate turn of events. Hezbollah did this the last time Israel tried to crack down on Hamas.

Well, its a bit late to be firing one or two now....

my opinion. stop giving money to Egypt(they get similar amount and for the same reason) and Israel and stay out of it.

The whole Israel-Hamas War is nothing but a Semite civil war. One group of Semites versus another group of Semites. Brothers killing brothers and sisters bombing sisters.
Things there will never change. It's like the Hatfields and McCoy's. They always fought even though they were related.

Of course, all of this is only true of developed nations who continue to extract resources from less developed nations, with a few "gifts" to the warlords or puppet governments in order to ensure those resources don't get used at home but sent abroad.

OK, so you're not a capitalist?

Because capitalists know that the reason capitalism works is because it INCREASES the number of goods and services available over time. It doesn't merely transfer resources from one nation to another, and even the people on the bottom experience quality of life improvements, though not as much as the upper tiers.

I mean, just take a look around you. Take a look at what once was "The Third World". China, India, much of the more peaceful, US-friendly portions of Africa. Even parts of South America. Historically, take a look at how people in what would now be identified as the UK used to live like before the modern conception of capitalism. Serfdom, at one point. Mud huts made of horse crap. Enslavement to the church. Feudalism wasn't fun. And yet people evolved out of it.

People in many parts of the world (There are exceptions, of course...Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc, but very little of that has anything to do with what anyone wants. It's just difficult to fight it) are experiencing a material quality of life never before dreamed of. Is this because they're having all of their resources extracted from them by rich countries? Nonsense.

The reason Russia's economy is weaker than the US? Because almost all of their money comes from exactly what you're talking about: The transfer of resources. But the U.S. economy does not. And thus, we are stronger and more able to make it through the inevitable market downturns.

Quality of life doesn't only improve in developed countries. It improves throughout the world.

How things are done has improved, yes, I'll grant you that. Why they're done on the other hand, no, that hasn't improved at all. Not one iota. Laws won't make the basic motivations to do things that constitute a crime go away, and neither will they stop people from finding ways and means of avoiding being caught or punished.

I agree with this. Self-interest is the primary motivator of human beings. And there's nothing you can do to change that, but what you can do is convince people that what is in their self-interest is aligned with what is in the community's best interest. And you see that kind of stuff all the time: Environmentalists, for instance. No one is forced to recycle in the United States, but plenty of people do.

Oh of course they don't share my views. Rather, they, and the leadership of many countries for many years before today, are what shaped my views and gave me perspective on how humanity thinks, acts, and guides itself. Think on what that means for a minute.

Yeah, you're reactive and they're proactive. It means your arguments aren't worth much. Being constructive is less cowardly.

It guarantees no winners.

That's a nice way to look at the world. Wow. Some bad stuff must have happened to you when you were a kid. Yeesh.

I would agree that an internationally accepted peacekeeping force of significant power and authority would certainly help. But how long before it becomes tempted to abuse its power? Or before it becomes subverted by one of the national powers?

For that matter, how would such an organization of power, sufficiently free from interference by those with special interests, form to begin with?

There are many solutions to the problem of human self destructive tendencies on an international scale. Few of them are practical. Even fewer can be actualized.

Probably not long, but you can set up a system which prevents it. You can't have a community without crime, which is why you need a police force. That's why the U.S. Constitution is as beautiful as it is: The Seperation of Powers is something the United States has in a way that most other countries don't have. And why does it work (most of the time)? Because of checks and balances. Which is what you'd need to have that kind of a force.

But no, you're right about human motivations. You can't fix that. You have to manipulate the motivation. But that's what happens already so it wouldn't be anything new. And as to how such a force would be formed I have absolutely no idea, and I don't think it could be formed for a long time because you'd need a lot of advancement in the international system first and there would have to be a lot of ironing out of a lot of very complicated stuff.

Shouldn't you look for solutions that work as opposed to those that you admit don't?

I NEVER said that I admit that my solutions do not work. I said I accept the possibility that they might not. And the reason why I do is because I'm not a fool, and even the best laid plan can go to waste. And as an extension of that, I inferred that YOUR solution would be less likely to work than my solution.

Don't fight dirty.

We shall see in the end shan't we? What course humanity will take in the coming years.

Indeed yes.

The whole Israel-Hamas War is nothing but a Semite civil war. One group of Semites versus another group of Semites. Brothers killing brothers and sisters bombing sisters.
Things there will never change. It's like the Hatfields and McCoy's. They always fought even though they were related.

England and France stopped fighting after how many wars? I don't know. But a lot over many centuries. Why are some people on this board such pessimists? Don't you look at history and think "Man, it's good people invented things and protested for rights and had revolutions so that I can live as well as I do."

I think all of you people need to watch a show called "The Worst Jobs In History". Full episodes are available on www.guba.com

Shovrim Shtika, or Breaking the Silence are accounts from former Israeli soldiers

http://www.shovrimshtika.org/index_e.asp

Not every soldier behaves this way. But every army in the world has soldiers that behave this way.

People can be made to do anything. Many of them suffer internally for the rest of their lives over their own actions.

Anyone with any sense knows that no one group are to blame. In fact in this case the biggest problem is seeing there being two sides.. "the f*'ing Israelis and Palestinians"

The truth is it's just a bunch of people grasping at straws, picking which ever "group" are backing their emotions on that day.

Go ahead and take a side if you wish, and listen to the screams when you tuck in to your dinner and settle down for a quiet night having put the world to rights.

resubmitting this as I would love someone to respond to this instead of ignoring it, or would you rather continue like the semites out there and keep going?

The BBC is now reporting that Hezbollah has apparently attacked Israel from Lebanon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7817135.stm

It would be unfortunate turn of events. Hezbollah did this the last time Israel tried to crack down on Hamas.

No they're not. From your own link


Information Minister Tarek Mitri told the AFP news agency he had been "assured" by Hezbollah they were not involved in the rocket attacks.

Israeli cabinet minister Raif Eitan said he believed Palestinians in Lebanon, not Hezbollah, were behind the attack.


Whether you think they're wrong or not, they're certainly not reporting that it's hezbollah.

OK, so you're not a capitalist?

I'm a pragmatist. I see what works, what doesn't, and what's really the same old, same old with a few more intermediaries and different marketing campaign.


Because capitalists know that the reason capitalism works is because it INCREASES the number of goods and services available over time. It doesn't merely transfer resources from one nation to another, and even the people on the bottom experience quality of life improvements, though not as much as the upper tiers.

Going with trickle down economics now are we?

And resources are finite. They don't magically appear out of thin air.

Again, I note that you compare technological development with quality of life.


I mean, just take a look around you. Take a look at what once was "The Third World". China, India, much of the more peaceful, US-friendly portions of Africa.

You're completely ignoring the majority of hardcore poor who vastly outnumber the rich in all three states I notice. Slave labor is a problem in both China and India, and US-friendly portions of America tend to be run by warlords (whom the US pretends don't exist), who aren't all that shy about gunning down dissenters.


Even parts of South America. Historically, take a look at how people in what would now be identified as the UK used to live like before the modern conception of capitalism. Serfdom, at one point. Mud huts made of horse crap. Enslavement to the church. Feudalism wasn't fun. And yet people evolved out of it.

Aha ha ha. No. They simply found other people to enslave and resources to take. Europe had too many people on too few resources, leading to a lot of infighting to control it. Expanding to the Middle East and the age of exploration brought them sufficient riches to reduce their squabbles locally.


The reason Russia's economy is weaker than the US? Because almost all of their money comes from exactly what you're talking about: The transfer of resources. But the U.S. economy does not. And thus, we are stronger and more able to make it through the inevitable market downturns.

And how do you think it's stronger hmm? From it's beginnings, the US has been all about expanding its interests at the expense of others. Blackmailing Japan with naval assets to access it's coal. Invading the Philippines to create military bases. Invasions of Mexico to annex territory. Funding despotic little friends in the Middle East to guarantee oil supplies. Arming guerrilla groups in South America to create US friendly regimes. Military adventures in SE Asia to prop up corrupt de facto dictatorships to guarantee continued territorial and resource extraction.

But ignore that if you wish.


Yeah, you're reactive and they're proactive. It means your arguments aren't worth much. Being constructive is less cowardly.

Then you haven't given a single thought to what I said at all. Disappointing.


That's a nice way to look at the world. Wow. Some bad stuff must have happened to you when you were a kid. Yeesh.

When neither side can win by fighting, they might try actually working together. So far, the rule is that you can win by destroying the other if you try hard enough.


Probably not long, but you can set up a system which prevents it. You can't have a community without crime, which is why you need a police force. That's why the U.S. Constitution is as beautiful as it is: The Seperation of Powers is something the United States has in a way that most other countries don't have. And why does it work (most of the time)? Because of checks and balances. Which is what you'd need to have that kind of a force.


All the separation of powers did was spread the corruption and abuses around. Even then, checks and balances can, and are, subverted at every opportunity. It's called collusion. Or just plain bigotry and hatred that permeates the entire population. Like declaring that constitutional guarantees need not apply to anyone you want, as long as you claim them to be some bogeyman. Or declaring that some people aren't even human, thereby it is alright to trade in them like livestock.


And as an extension of that, I inferred that YOUR solution would be less likely to work than my solution.

Your solutions operate on the basis of human good will and the ideas of the greater good being of sufficient motivation to expend significant effort towards achieving said solution greater than the clear ill will and power wielded by those with ill will.

My solution operates on the basis of fear of guaranteed destruction and total loss of those with ill will and all they cherish if they continue.

Simpler, more reliable, and less likely to become yet another disappointment.

resubmitting this as I would love someone to respond to this instead of ignoring it, or would you rather continue like the semites out there and keep going?

And what? Aside from the extreme supporters, most of us know that both sides of the conflict have bloody hands that will never be answered for.

It's why the only solution I see is the promise of total destruction from each other to each other if the conflict continues.

Or forcible eviction of all people to the opposite ends of the earth and irradiation and chemical poisoning of the entire landmass to prevent anyone returning.

Holy shit. I am now the owner of a 58 page long thread, of which I've read about 15 pages and stopped. @_@

you didn't miss much after the first 15, its mostly all the same talk.

Going with trickle down economics now are we?

And resources are finite. They don't magically appear out of thin air.

Again, I note that you compare technological development with quality of life.

Yes, resources are finite. Notice all of the stress being placed on sustainability these days. Read Fortune Magazine.

Absolutely I compare technological development with increased quality of life. It has a direct effect. Capitalism is like that. Innovation brought about by the mechanisms of capitalism (People wanting to make money, basically) which leads to a higher quality of life for everyone.

Less people starve because corporations invented ways to modify plants to produce more edible food. Corporations out to make money. And now less people are hungry than at any time in the history of the world.

And it's not just food. It's human needs. Less people go without them all over the world now more than ever.

You're completely ignoring the majority of hardcore poor who vastly outnumber the rich in all three states I notice. Slave labor is a problem in both China and India, and US-friendly portions of America tend to be run by warlords (whom the US pretends don't exist), who aren't all that shy about gunning down dissenters.

Less and less.

At least less and less where capitalism has begun. Do you know that the Chinese are complaining about the fact that people who live in cities (largely centers of fundamental capitalism in China) earn 3x more than the average farmer who lives in the rural area? (Chinese farm policy is screwed up. Chinese farmers are essentially serfs sowing government land)?

And the same for India. Less and less poor. Sure, there are still poor, but less and less. What do you think? We're just gonna fix that? You're never going to fix that. You can only lower the ceiling on the level of human suffering. You can't extinguish suffering.

And you can't name me a system that has ever worked better at diminishing levels of human suffering more than the current one.

Aha ha ha. No. They simply found other people to enslave and resources to take. Europe had too many people on too few resources, leading to a lot of infighting to control it. Expanding to the Middle East and the age of exploration brought them sufficient riches to reduce their squabbles locally.

Ummm...far as I know nobody in the West is "taking" resources anymore. We're buying them. And we're going broke buying them, and propping up regimes (Iran, Venezuela) that are hostile to us and who can only afford to be hostile to us because we're having to buy them. And the government is having to do a lot to try to fix it.

What the hell are you even talking about? Do you have any idea how much money they have in the Middle East? How many problems we have because the Arab League won't take action on problem countries in the region?

If they're slaves then we're not very good at slavery. Slaves are supposed to do what you tell them to, aren't they?

The Middle East has never done what we told them to. Not very good slaves.

And how do you think it's stronger hmm? From it's beginnings, the US has been all about expanding its interests at the expense of others. Blackmailing Japan with naval assets to access it's coal. Invading the Philippines to create military bases. Invasions of Mexico to annex territory. Funding despotic little friends in the Middle East to guarantee oil supplies. Arming guerrilla groups in South America to create US friendly regimes. Military adventures in SE Asia to prop up corrupt de facto dictatorships to guarantee continued territorial and resource extraction.

But ignore that if you wish.

Ohhhhh. I get it. You're one of those. A Noam Chomsky fan. Or Howard Zinn. Or someone like that. Someone who construes mistakes for purposeful malevolence. "Yeah, slavery existed at one time so label the whole country as evil for as long as the country is on the planet." You should go yell at Spain. They had slaves after the U.S. did. And you know who had slaves even after Spain didn't?

Africa.

I think you should go to work in government for a while and see what it's really like and stop inventing grand plots with your imagination. Believe it or not, there are problems so complex that even smart people working to the best of their ability can't fix them, and sometimes the fixes they do put in place don't work, and sometimes even make the problem worse. And sometimes you think a guy is a good guy and he turns out to be a dick.

You must REALLY despise Germans. They started 2 world wars, committed the holocaust. Bunch of brutal savages, right? Even 70 years later.

When neither side can win by fighting, they might try actually working together. So far, the rule is that you can win by destroying the other if you try hard enough.

Yes, you're right. But you don't achieve that through nuclear parity. You achieve it by cooperative and gradual nuclear disarmament, which I'm for.

All the separation of powers did was spread the corruption and abuses around. Even then, checks and balances can, and are, subverted at every opportunity. It's called collusion. Or just plain bigotry and hatred that permeates the entire population. Like declaring that constitutional guarantees need not apply to anyone you want, as long as you claim them to be some bogeyman. Or declaring that some people aren't even human, thereby it is alright to trade in them like livestock.

That's a total BS example because most of the US population hates Guantanamo Bay. The Economist...yes, I know, based in the UK...but usually very pro-American, calls Guantanamo Bay "The most unamerican place on earth". No one wants it. But even people who are against it don't have real solutions as to what to do about it. There need to be statutory changes before you can effectively shut it down, or else the U.S. would potentially have to grant asylum to them all due to statutory law. And you can't have that.

Bigotry in the U.S. landscape, eh? Have you seen the President Elect? The U.S. is better at inclusion than Europe is. Ask Turkey. Ask Britain. And besides that, you think inclusion is easy? No matter how much people may want it it's STILL not easy, and it takes a LONG time.

You're taking unfortunate things that happen in the world (despite most people's best efforts to stop them) and just generalize those things and assuming "Yes, these worst examples are how everything is. All the time."

But it's not.

You can't just magically fix major social problems (and not just bigotry...all major problems). They're complicated. You don't just have a revolution. It doesn't work that way. The world moves slow. Successful societal change moves SLOWLY, and plenty of mistakes happen along the way. And with many problems, you can only reduce the problem. Not eliminate it.

For 70 years the Soviet Union was a presence. For 70 years they were a center of fear and power. And at the end of 70 years, the Soviet Union just kind of blew away. Like a city made of ashes.

And no one really knew why it existed so long in the first place.

THAT is how social change operates. Not your way, and not on a scale fast enough to prevent your critical judgments. But that's the way it is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/30/israel-and-the-palestinians-middle-east

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/12/29/1230589957529/Palestinian-man-carries-b-001.jpg

What a tragedy. I've lost so much respect for Israel during the last few days. It's one thing to defend yourself from attacks, but this preemptive strike has hurt too many civilians. :(

What you have achieved is a place for so many to express vitriol and I suspect
you have managed to succeed so well by opening with a one sided instead of balanced opinion.
All you have achieved is fueling the fire... well done.

I started a thread called "breaking the silence in Modern Judea" and my intention was to focus on a balanced and clear view on what is happening.
It would seem few are interested in a balanced view and mores the pity take comfort in supporting the continued anger from the comfort of their safe sofa.

What it does show is that if people living in comfort can get so angry then there is no chance for these people.

I am not angry. I feel sad for these people whilst feeling either indifference or disappointment towards so many views expressed here.

resubmitting this as I would love someone to respond to this instead of ignoring it, or would you rather continue like the semites out there and keep going?

It's more supline than that. The other countries of the world are taking sides based on their own strategic interests. For example, Russia is taking Hamas side because Israel is on America's side.
The French would prefer to support Israel because Israel is an ally of the US with whome France is also allied, even though France sympathizes with the Palestinians.
This is about alliances. That is why the Israeli wars are considered to be the most likely flashpoint for the next big world war. Everyone has a strategic stake in the outcome of the middle east conflict. And everyone wants to makes sure their interests come out first and foremost.

All the separation of powers did was spread the corruption and abuses around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

:mp5:

Consider this scenario:
EU vs Israel. Unlikely but they were talking about it on the radio as a prank. Telling listeners that the EU had declared war on Israel.
For some reason, it didn't strike me as funny or something to joke about.

Radio people will try to do anything for stupid ratings.

Has anyone mentioned that Israel is using chemical weapons yet?

Has anyone mentioned that Israel is using chemical weapons yet?

Using white phosphorus shells to generate smoke effects is not "using chemical weapons".

Using white phosphorus shells to generate smoke effects is not "using chemical weapons".

It is when they shoot them at civilians - turns out WP causes chemical burns. That makes it a chemical weapon.

It isn't weapons of mass destruction
When we do it

It is when they shoot them at civilians - turns out WP causes chemical burns. That makes it a chemical weapon.

It's not a chemical burn, if you've ever seen one go off. It's little particles of stuff on fire. That's called a "thermal burn".

I've been under the rain of falling particles before - and it's not a big deal.

Now, if you were right were a shell landed.... but from the videos on TV, it looks like the shells are bursting very high in the air. Good for making smoke, and not much else.

It's been reported on CNN that Israel is using Phosphorus.

Consider this scenario:
EU vs Israel. Unlikely but they were talking about it on the radio as a prank. Telling listeners that the EU had declared war on Israel.


that needs to happen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

While the Chemical Weapons Convention does not designate WP as a chemical weapon, various unofficial groups consider it to be one.

I repeat, not a chemical weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus



I repeat, not a chemical weapon.

Its use by the US has resulted in considerable controversy (see white phosphorus use in Iraq). Initial field reports from Iraq referred to white phosphorus use against insurgents,[3] but its use was officially denied until November, 2005,[4] when the Pentagon admitted[5] to the use of white phosphorus while stating that its use for producing obscuring smoke is legal and does not violate the Chemical Weapons Convention.[6] A Pentagon spokesman has also admitted that WP "was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants", though not against civilians.[7]

I see. According to the Pentagon WP doesn't violate the CWC. Also, Deek Kimchi/Hotwife/Whispering Legs/$Troll Account says so. Wow!

I see. According to the Pentagon WP doesn't violate the CWC. Also, Deek Kimchi/Hotwife/Whispering Legs/$Troll Account says so. Wow!

Only "unofficial" organizations who are not signatories to the Convention.

None of the signatories to the CWC think that WP is a chemical weapon.

Yesterday (or two days ago) UN schools bombed by Israel. Today, the driver of a UNHCR truck (with UN insigna) killed by an israeli tank at the beginning of the 3-hours daily ceasefire accorded by Israel itself to allow humanitarian relief into Gaza.

And guess what the UN do?
Do they take actions against Israel? No.
Do they threaten Israel with sanctions unless they don't stop firing at UN staff and infrastructures? Neither.
They stop sending aid to the Gaza civilians.

What. The. Fuck.

The use of therm "official" in this case has to do solely with the CWC (and the only source for this being "official" is just the wiki article itself). And since Israel hasn't seen fit to ratify the CWC treaty, I see no reason to consider it "official."

Using white phosphorus shells to generate smoke effects is not "using chemical weapons".

White phosphorous shells can really burn you or even kill you and have a big ability to be used against civilian populations. It's at best arguable as to whether that constitutes chemical warfare, and it's not only that: It's also the cluster bombs which Israel is using. Cluster bombs that 111 nations of the world have banned and agreed to eliminate from their arsenals.

It's very likely or even definitive that Israel broke this ceasefire, too. (CNN is my only evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4 )

But look...I'm not totally non-conceding. I know what you're trying to do. Everyone hates the radical Islamic militancy that Hamas represents. Why do you think the Arab League hasn't stepped in more actively to stop this conflict? They think Hamas brought this on themselves. Mahmoud Abbas said it flat out.

But defending the use of white phosphorous doesn't help anyone. Even if I agreed that uprooting Hamas was necessary, which I may or may not, I do not accept that Israel needs to use white phosphorous and cluster bombs to uproot them, especially considering the uneven balance of military power that's present in this conflict.

White phosphorous shells can really burn you or even kill you and have a big ability to be used against civilian populations. It's at best arguable as to whether that constitutes chemical warfare, and it's not only that: It's also the cluster bombs which Israel is using. Cluster bombs that 111 nations of the world have banned and agreed to eliminate from their arsenals.

It's very likely or even definitive that Israel broke this ceasefire, too. (CNN is my only evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4 )

But look...I'm not totally non-conceding. I know what you're trying to do. Everyone hates the radical Islamic militancy that Hamas represents. Why do you think the Arab League hasn't stepped in more actively to stop this conflict? They think Hamas brought this on themselves. Mahmoud Abbas said it flat out.

But defending the use of white phosphorous doesn't help anyone. Even if I agreed that uprooting Hamas was necessary, which I may or may not, I do not accept that Israel needs to use white phosphorous and cluster bombs to uproot them, especially considering the uneven balance of military power that's present in this conflict.

If you watch the videos, the WP is bursting far above the city - nowhere near low enough to burn anyone, only enough to cause a smoke cloud that obscures the view from buildings in Gaza. It's being used to prevent anyone in the buildings from observing Israeli troop movements and to prevent accurate firing from those buildings.

Would you rather that the buildings were just blown up by ordinary 2000 lb bombs to achieve the same end result of "no observers, no snipers"?

If you watch the videos, the WP is bursting far above the city - nowhere near low enough to burn anyone, only enough to cause a smoke cloud that obscures the view from buildings in Gaza. It's being used to prevent anyone in the buildings from observing Israeli troop movements and to prevent accurate firing from those buildings.

Would you rather that the buildings were just blown up by ordinary 2000 lb bombs to achieve the same end result of "no observers, no snipers"?

Provided the white phosphorous isn't being used to burn people and there is no realistic alternative to it, I do not oppose it. The same for cluster bombs.

But on both the burning and the no alternative I doubt it. Heavily doubt it. You know how much Israel spends on its military every year? $13-14 billion.

That's a lot of money.

How come they need it? The U.S. used it in Fallujah. If it's so potentially harmful, why isn't there an alternative that can be found? The same for cluster bombs. Are these so tactically important that we can't find a different way? With all the money being spent on this garbage?

Provided the white phosphorous isn't being used to burn people and there is no realistic alternative to it, I do not oppose it. The same for cluster bombs.

But on both the burning and the no alternative I doubt it. Heavily doubt it. You know how much Israel spends on its military every year? $13-14 billion.

That's a lot of money.

If I want to keep people in a high rise from watching me or shooting at me I have several choices:

1. Fire WP at high altitude, to form a large cloud of smoke in front of the building (or around it).

2. Fire missile, tank rounds, or artillery directly at the building, blowing it to the ground.

Since there are probably innocent civilians in the building, and if they're inside they won't be hurt by the smoke and WP, which one do you think we should use?

If I want to keep people in a high rise from watching me or shooting at me I have several choices:

1. Fire WP at high altitude, to form a large cloud of smoke in front of the building (or around it).

2. Fire missile, tank rounds, or artillery directly at the building, blowing it to the ground.

Since there are probably innocent civilians in the building, and if they're inside they won't be hurt by the smoke and WP, which one do you think we should use?

I think we should use diplomacy and negotiate with Hamas, actually, so neither.

I think we should use diplomacy and negotiate with Hamas, actually, so neither.

Hamas isn't interested in negotiating. They've said so.

Israeli soldiers opened fire Thursday on a truck attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to the beleaguered Gaza Strip, killing one United Nations-contracted driver and seriously wounding another, U.N. officials said.

The shooting occurred at the Erez checkpoint, the main entrance used by relief agencies to funnel badly needed food and medical supplies into Gaza, where Israel is waging a devastating, 13-day-long military campaign against the militant Islamic group Hamas.
http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/970718.html

The UN has said it is suspending aid operations in Gaza because its staff have been hit by Israeli attacks.

The suspension would continue "until the Israeli authorities can guarantee our safety and security", the UN said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818577.stm

It's not yet confirmed that the driver was shot by Israelis.

Also, there are indications that the civilian casualty rate has increased from an estimated 20-25% to 45-50%. Hospital sources place the number of dead women and children to 308.

Would you rather that the buildings were just blown up by ordinary 2000 lb bombs to achieve the same end result of "no observers, no snipers"?
Don't they do that anyway?

Don't they do that anyway?

Not in all cases - otherwise there wouldn't be a structure in Gaza over ground level.

Hamas isn't interested in negotiating. They've said so.

And Israel didn't ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. So even if the Chemical Weapons Convention didn't say explicitly that White Phosphorous is a chemical weapon, it wouldn't matter since Israel isn't bound by the terms of that treaty to begin with.

If you watch the videos, the WP is bursting far above the city - nowhere near low enough to burn anyone, only enough to cause a smoke cloud that obscures the view from buildings in Gaza. It's being used to prevent anyone in the buildings from observing Israeli troop movements and to prevent accurate firing from those buildings.

Would you rather that the buildings were just blown up by ordinary 2000 lb bombs to achieve the same end result of "no observers, no snipers"?

Yet there are numerous cases of the weapons being a) used and b) used against against civilians -

'There is also evidence that the rounds have injured Palestinian civilians, causing severe burns. The use of white phosphorus against civilians is prohibited under international law.'

'There were indications last night that Palestinian civilians have been injured by the bombs, which burn intensely. Hassan Khalass, a doctor at al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, told The Times that he had been dealing with patients who he suspected had been burnt by white phosphorus. Muhammad Azayzeh, 28, an emergency medical technician in the city, said: “The burns are very unusual. They don't look like burns we have normally seen. They are third-level burns that we can't seem to control.”'

'“Recognising the significant incidental incendiary effect that white phosphorus creates, there is great concern that Israel is failing to take all feasible steps to avoid civilian loss of life and property by using WP in densely populated urban areas. This concern is amplified given the technique evidenced in media photographs of air-bursting WP projectiles at relatively low levels, seemingly to maximise its incendiary effect.”'


From the Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece)

Yet there are numerous cases of the weapons being a) used and b) used against against civilians -

'There is also evidence that the rounds have injured Palestinian civilians, causing severe burns. The use of white phosphorus against civilians is prohibited under international law.'

'There were indications last night that Palestinian civilians have been injured by the bombs, which burn intensely. Hassan Khalass, a doctor at al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City, told The Times that he had been dealing with patients who he suspected had been burnt by white phosphorus. Muhammad Azayzeh, 28, an emergency medical technician in the city, said: “The burns are very unusual. They don't look like burns we have normally seen. They are third-level burns that we can't seem to control.”'

'“Recognising the significant incidental incendiary effect that white phosphorus creates, there is great concern that Israel is failing to take all feasible steps to avoid civilian loss of life and property by using WP in densely populated urban areas. This concern is amplified given the technique evidenced in media photographs of air-bursting WP projectiles at relatively low levels, seemingly to maximise its incendiary effect.”'


From the Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece)

If you look at the photos and videos yourself, you can see clearly that they are not bursting at low level.

It's obvious that the Times is talking to a source who has every reason to lie, especially when you see the photos.

If you look at the photos and videos yourself, you can see clearly that they are not bursting at low level.

It's obvious that the Times is talking to a source who has every reason to lie, especially when you see the photos.

In that particular picture. It's probably hard to get close-up's of Gaza right now>

Ask Britain.

We hate black people?

Has anyone pointed out that Israel actually admitted there were nor mortars in the school they bombed?

In that particular picture. It's probably hard to get close-up's of Gaza right now>

There have been many photos of that type.

I find the whole argument rather laughable. It really doesn't matter if it's incineration by WP or getting shredded by a cluster munition, dead is dead.

I find the whole argument rather laughable. It really doesn't matter if it's incineration by WP or getting shredded by a cluster munition, dead is dead.

Yes but using WP rounds on civ's is even more illegal than normal rounds.

Has anyone mentioned that Israel is using chemical weapons yet?

They need to use more chemical weapons on the hamas.

Yes but using WP rounds on civ's is even more illegal than normal rounds.

No, it isn't, actually. WP is not a prohibited substance under any treaty or international agreement.

Hamas isn't interested in negotiating. They've said so.

Egypt's U.N. ambassador says representatives of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have agreed to meet Thursday for talks in Cairo on the Gaza crisis.

Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz says all the parties agreed to send technical delegations to discuss an Egyptian-French initiative to end the fighting in Gaza.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inA5mibvcMhlReDFDRrtH_aEPz2wD95IIT100

Or did you mean negotiating as in trying to reach a lasting agreement? If so, you're wrong. It's just that Israel won't accept their terms for entering negotiations.

Hamas isn't interested in negotiating. They've said so.

That's what they said publicly. For an organization like Hamas, which only survives because of false claims and braggadocio, I'm not surprised they would say that.

But if I recall correctly they only said that about negotiating with Israel. Not about negotiating with someone. In fact...

http://voanews.com/english/2009-01-08-voa25.cfm

Oh no. I did not just totally throw what you just said back in your face. Ohhh no. Oh wait, yes I did.

Has anyone pointed out that Israel actually admitted there were nor mortars in the school they bombed?

No. Did they?

They need to use more chemical weapons on the hamas.


No, they need to fuck off back to their own side of the border until they get their colonists back home. Then they can bomb whoever wants to play with them and we'll say little or nothing.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5inA5mibvcMhlReDFDRrtH_aEPz2wD95IIT100

Or did you mean negotiating as in trying to reach a lasting agreement? If so, you're wrong. It's just that Israel won't accept their terms for entering negotiations.

Well, Hamas DID say they wouldn't negotiate a long-term ceasefire.

But I don't blame them. That's not how to fix this. First people stop dying and then you worry about that kind of stuff. You need to walk before you can fly. Just a ceasefire will do, at first. After that you worry about the rest.

That's what they said publicly. For an organization like Hamas, which only survives because of false claims and braggadocio, I'm not surprised they would say that.

But if I recall correctly they only said that about negotiating with Israel. Not about negotiating with someone. In fact...

http://voanews.com/english/2009-01-08-voa25.cfm

Oh no. I did not just totally throw what you just said back in your face. Ohhh no. Oh wait, yes I did.

Sorry to steal your thunder :tongue:

Well, Hamas DID say they wouldn't negotiate a long-term ceasefire.

But I don't blame them. That's not how to fix this. First people stop dying and then you worry about that kind of stuff. You need to walk before you can fly.

Hamas is a split organizations. They say things, and later contradict themselves. Like how they don't want to negotiate a lasting ceasefire, but will negotiate a lasting peace treaty.

No, they need to fuck off back to their own side of the border until they get their colonists back home. Then they can bomb whoever wants to play with them and we'll say little or nothing.

I would much rather see the opposite happen.

Hamas is a split organizations. They say things, and later contradict themselves. Like how they don't want to negotiate a lasting ceasefire, but will negotiate a lasting peace treaty.

Given that, how can we believe anything they say?

Given that, how can we believe anything they say?

You can believe what they say once they have all been destroyed.

Given that, how can we believe anything they say?

How can you believe anything anyone says? You can't. Not really.

It's a series of carrots and sticks.

No. Did they?

Yeah. I saw it on BBC 24 last night. They admitted that there were no mortar rounds being fired from the school.

You can believe what they say once they have all been destroyed.

I'd be happy with unconditional abject surrender.

I'd be happy with unconditional abject surrender.

But you know that will never happen.

How can you believe anything anyone says? You can't. Not really.

It's a series of carrots and sticks.

No, I disagree. If the government of France makes a claim, we should invesigate, perhaps, but we can proceed from an assumption of accuracy. Ditto most other countries' governments - if only because they know the international media will investigate, and will remember.

But this would show that HAMAS cannot be trusted even that far. They would have to prove their accuracy, not another prove their falsehood.

But you know that will never happen.

If most of the males are dead, it might.

No, I disagree. If the government of France makes a claim, we should invesigate, perhaps, but we can proceed from an assumption of accuracy. Ditto most other countries' governments - if only because they know the international media will investigate, and will remember.

But this would show that HAMAS cannot be trusted even that far. They would have to prove their accuracy, not another prove their falsehood.

Who trusts Hamas as it is? I don't.

Wanna see something disturbing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LaAvZp7EP4&feature=related

That's the kind of crap that makes the Arab League not do anything about this. Hamas is friggin crazy. It's hard to try to defend a bunch of violent jerkoffs. And it's hard to negotiate with them, too.

But you have to try.

If most of the males are dead, it might.

Well then israel better get on it!

Given that, how can we believe anything they say?

You can't.

And that's one of the big problems. Many think Hamas is one unified entity. It is not. Khalid Mashal may say one thing, while Ismail Haniyah say another - and who would you listen to?

However, you can trust certain individuals within the organization. (Some with power, some without.) But you nevertheless still have to be aware of the fragmented organization they represent.

If most of the males are dead, it might.

Yay call for genocide again! You took your time getting back to your old tune, DK...

Would you accept the eradication of most Israeli males too?

Yay call for genocide again! You took your time getting back to your old tune, DK...

Would you accept the eradication of most Israeli males too?

I say kill all middle eastern males, and let the women have their time. It would be interesting to see.

Yay call for genocide again! You took your time getting back to your old tune, DK...

Would you accept the eradication of most Israeli males too?

If it would solve the problem.

Here, it would be just too easy to eliminate Hamas. Might take a week.

If it would solve the problem.

Here, it would be just too easy to eliminate Hamas. Might take a week.

Launch one nuke and it would take a day.

Launch one nuke and it would take a day.

Gaza is a very small place. Even then it would take several nukes, and there's the fallout problem...

That aside, I believe the Israelis actually have a comprehensive plan to subjugate Gaza before January 20th.

After that, when Obama is sworn in, he'll probably put more pressure on them to stop, so they want to get as much done before then.

It's actually possible to achieve the subjugation before then. After that, call in Abbas with the PA to "restore order" and "reunite the Palestinians", and declare victory.

Hamas will have been neutralized.

Hamas will have been neutralized.

Sorry, but I really don't think that'll happen. They just won't stop.

Sorry, but I really don't think that'll happen. They just won't stop.

If they're dead they will stop.



..or maybe not.

http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/970718.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818577.stm

It's not yet confirmed that the driver was shot by Israelis.

Also, there are indications that the civilian casualty rate has increased from an estimated 20-25% to 45-50%. Hospital sources place the number of dead women and children to 308.

The UN says that it was Israel that hit the truck. Israel says they are 'investigating'.

"For a second straight day, Israel suspended its Gaza military operation for three hours to allow in humanitarian supplies. Shortly before the pause took effect, the U.N. said one of its aid trucks came under fire from a gunner on an Israeli tank, killing the driver.

U.N. spokesman Adnan Abu Hasna said the U.N. coordinated the delivery in northern Gaza with Israel, and the vehicle was marked with a U.N. flag and insignia. The Israeli army said it was investigating.

Hasna said the truck driver died immediately and another man in the truck died later of his wounds. A third man was also injured.

Perhaps the UN will be putting some pressure on Israel after all.

If most of the males are dead, it might.

You're advocating the execution of children now? A new low.

I would much rather see the opposite happen.

Theres Palestinian settlers colonising Israel? Do tell.

The UN says that it was Israel that hit the truck. Israel says they are 'investigating'.
Yeah, I see the updated news makes it clear.


Perhaps the UN will be putting some pressure on Israel after all.
Could be, but I doubt that will happen until the US becomes more vocal.

Oh, and the Red Cross suffers (almost) the same fate:

The International Committee of the Red Cross also suspended its activities in Gaza for a day after one of its trucks came under Israeli fire as it was escorting Palestinian health workers into southern Gaza. One of its drivers was slightly injured.
In both incidents, relief officials said that they had been in contact with Israeli forces, who had approved the movements of the vehicles.
http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/971205.html

And now the Red Cross is speaking up:

It came as Israel was subjected to unusually harsh criticism by two leading international agencies for orchestrating a level of violence in Gaza that has forced the collapse of essential services.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said civilians were dying because access to conflict zones was impossible during offensive operations.

Both bodies accused Israel of violations of international law.

The ICRC produced a graphic account of starving children stranded for days by the corpses of their parents at one bombed building in the Zeitoun refugee camp.

It said officials from its local partner, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, had tried to gain access to the area since it was shelled on Saturday. Soldiers in sniper positions overlooked the houses, which were isolated by a dirt berm.

Pierre Wettach, the ICRC regional director said, it was impossible for Israel to be unaware of the condition of the children when they were found during the lunchtime pause in fighting.

The organisation issued a protest letter saying: "The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable.

"They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up. In all, there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4176882/UN-drivers-killed-during-three-hour-Gaza-ceasefire.html

Yeah, I see updated news makes it clear.


Could be, but I doubt that will happen until the US becomes more vocal.

Oh, and the Red Cross suffers (almost) the same fate:



http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/971205.html

Israel already got in hot water in Lebanon for their indiscriminate fire, and their targetting of infrastructure and civilian targets. This kind of attention isn't going to look too good for them.

Especially when you're comparing casualties - what is it... 11 Israelis killed and 750 Gazans? It's not looking like asymmetrical war - it's looking like a massacre, and that's pretty much always bad news for the big kid in the playground.

White phosphorous shells can really burn you or even kill you and have a big ability to be used against civilian populations. It's at best arguable as to whether that constitutes chemical warfare, and it's not only that: It's also the cluster bombs which Israel is using. Cluster bombs that 111 nations of the world have banned and agreed to eliminate from their arsenals.

It's very likely or even definitive that Israel broke this ceasefire, too. (CNN is my only evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KntmpoRXFX4 )

But look...I'm not totally non-conceding. I know what you're trying to do. Everyone hates the radical Islamic militancy that Hamas represents. Why do you think the Arab League hasn't stepped in more actively to stop this conflict? They think Hamas brought this on themselves. Mahmoud Abbas said it flat out.

But defending the use of white phosphorous doesn't help anyone. Even if I agreed that uprooting Hamas was necessary, which I may or may not, I do not accept that Israel needs to use white phosphorous and cluster bombs to uproot them, especially considering the uneven balance of military power that's present in this conflict.

cluster bombs are not chemical weapons. Same with WP.

Dear o dear......


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people

Thoughts?

May I apologize to you for not giving your link to Professor Ariella Oppenheim the attention it deserves. I have been reading several of her published articles and other relevant links and the more I read about her the more I can see now what a brilliant "hot-potato" her (and others) work could form.

Of course the religious zealots will dismiss it entirely.

At least I'm man enough to return to you and say thank you for bringing this to my attention.

ta ta for now

cluster bombs are not chemical weapons. Same with WP.

White Phosphorus is getting away on a technicality.

The Chemical Weapon Convention doesn't list WP as a chemical weapon, but that doesn't mean it isn't one.

It's not listed in the CWC because it's theoretically used in a non-weapon form. WP used as a weapon would count as both an incendiary AND a chemical weapon.

The US used WP on Iraqis. Israel has used it on Lebanese and Gazan civilians. It's only a matter of time before the CWC is amended to allow for the 'popular' use of WP as a weapon

The US used WP on Iraqis. Israel has used it on Lebanese and Gazan civilians. It's only a matter of time before the CWC is amended to allow for the 'popular' use of WP as a weapon

Really? I would kinda argue the opposite.

If the amount of states that use it are few, and remain in the distinct minority, then over time WP will become like landmines or (relatively recently) cluster bombs. By custom alone it would become illegal without the need to be in a codified Convention or ratified.

But that would take several decades.

/my humble opinion.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/08/israel.gaza/index.html

Israeli forces fired on a U.N. aid convoy Thursday in Gaza, killing at least one contract worker, during a three-hour truce Israel set up to allow humanitarian aid to reach civilians, U.N. officials said.

As a result, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency halted some of its operations in Gaza. The U.N. "lost confidence" in the Israeli military's attempts to allow humanitarian aid into the Palestinian territory, the agency's director said.

Now, that's just fucked up.

Really? I would kinda argue the opposite.

If the amount of states that use it are few, and remain in the distinct minority, then over time WP will become like landmines or (relatively recently) cluster bombs. By custom alone it would become illegal without the need to be in a codified Convention or ratified.

But that would take several decades.

/my humble opinion.

The reason why I think there'll be a change, is based on why WP isn't listed as a chemical weapon. It's not the 'chemical' part that's ever been debated - it's established it can be used as an incendiary and a chemical agent - it's the 'weapon'. Arguments have been made that it is used in purely passive or non-directed non-combatative fashions... illumination, smoke, etc.

If it can be shown that there is a trend towards using it as a directed weapon, it's reason for exclusion from the CWC becomes void.

The reason why I think there'll be a change, is based on why WP isn't listed as a chemical weapon. It's not the 'chemical' part that's ever been debated - it's established it can be used as an incendiary and a chemical agent - it's the 'weapon'. Arguments have been made that it is used in purely passive or non-directed non-combatative fashions... illumination, smoke, etc.

If it can be shown that there is a trend towards using it as a directed weapon, it's reason for exclusion from the CWC becomes void.

True, true, good point.

Yes, resources are finite. Notice all of the stress being placed on sustainability these days. Read Fortune Magazine.

Which is why lobby groups are not trying to stymie development of biofuels that don't require inefficient crops, or reduce restrictions against drilling, or getting rid of environmental safety standards regarding things like mercury waste.

Oh wait. They are.


Absolutely I compare technological development with increased quality of life.


Only if you can get access to all the benefits of it. Why don't you go take a walk in the slums of a city and tell the inhabitants how they have it better than their ancestors who worked farms and at least had a sustainable life that didn't have to worry about endemic violent crime hmm?


It has a direct effect. Capitalism is like that. Innovation brought about by the mechanisms of capitalism (People wanting to make money, basically) which leads to a higher quality of life for everyone.

Bollocks. Capitalism does not guarantee the increase of quality of life for everyone, and in fact has had the reverse effect with de facto slavery being put into practice in order to produce low cost goods.


Less people starve because corporations invented ways to modify plants to produce more edible food.


Go to Haiti. Tell the people there who are forced to eat clay because foreign grain dumping practices killed their agriculture that they're not starving.

The rest of your argument only demonstrates how horribly naive you are as to how the world is, and how rarely you bother to even look at what happens internationally, much less analyze it. Not when you can spout unthinking, unrestricted, capitalism as the savior of everything.

And you've yet to show one good reason why putting both parties on equal strength, guaranteeing their complete loss if they continue the conflict, has no chance of producing peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld


I can play the link game just as well as you can. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac)
And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Iraq_controversy)

How about This? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_Indian_lobbying_scandal)

Israel is not America. And neither is Iraq. Hopefully someone who works for Congress sees this and realizes that people like me didn't join the military to change another country's traditions and religions. They say Allah, and everyone fusses and complains. For those who don't know, "Allah" is just another word for "God". Stop clothing their children like our children, stop teaching them American history, and stop giving the damn enemy weapons to help them defend themselves from other countries! Does anyone else see the ignorance in this?

May I apologize to you for not giving your link to Professor Ariella Oppenheim the attention it deserves. I have been reading several of her published articles and other relevant links and the more I read about her the more I can see now what a brilliant "hot-potato" her (and others) work could form.

Of course the religious zealots will dismiss it entirely.

At least I'm man enough to return to you and say thank you for bringing this to my attention.

ta ta for now

Maith an fear.

Maith an fear.


gurbh mhaith heat, a cailín deas *

* I have no idea what I just said

tá sé ó mhaith mar scéal (oy vay!)

Israeli forces shelled a house in the Gaza Strip which they had moved around 110 Palestinians into 24 hours earlier, the UN quotes witnesses as saying.

The shelling at Zeitoun, a south-east suburb of Gaza City, on 5 January killed some 30 people, the report said.
Israel said the allegations were being investigated.
"According to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitoun (half of whom were children) warning them to stay indoors," the OCHA report said.
"Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing approximately 30."


Allegra Pacheco, of OCHA in Jerusalem, said they were not accusing the Israelis of a deliberate act, but said the incident needed to be investigated.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819492.stm

Note: This is the UN quoting the witnesses, so the veracity of this has yet I imagine to be fully established.

gurbh mhaith heat, a cailín deas *!)




"Go raibh mhaith leat". You've said 'thank you, you nice girl', I believe. Considering I'm a 39 year old tattooed ex-builder, with the hairy arse and distended belly that marks the manhood of my people, I'll take it as a compliment. You made a better stab of it than I would have via hebrew.

* I have no idea what I just said*!)

"Go raibh mhaith leat". You've said 'thank you, you nice girl', I believe. Considering I'm a 39 year old tattooed ex-builder, with the hairy arse and distended belly that marks the manhood of my people, I'll take it as a compliment. You made a better stab of it than I would have via hebrew.[/QUOTE]

LOL!

I here there's a little girl inside in the most hardened Hamas radical.

I here there's a little girl inside in the most hardened Hamas radical.

..hopefully in a good way.

* i have no idea what i just said*!)

"go raibh mhaith leat". You've said 'thank you, you nice girl', i believe. Considering i'm a 39 year old tattooed ex-builder, with the hairy arse and distended belly that marks the manhood of my people, i'll take it as a compliment. You made a better stab of it than i would have via hebrew.

... :d

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7819492.stm

Note: This is the UN quoting the witnesses, so the veracity of this has yet I imagine to be fully established.

Well you can either quote the Gazans or the Israeli military. It's a job of weighing who is the most likely to lie the most, and it is a definite that the Israeli military is going to lie through their teeth.

Well you can either quote the Gazans or the Israeli military. It's a job of weighing who is the most likely to lie the most, and it is a definite that the Israeli military is going to lie through their teeth.

As will the Gazans (or, at least, HAMAS, who has the media's ear at the moment).

One of the things that is seriously bothering me is that every time a "civilian target" gets hit, people automatically assume it was a deliberate strike by the Israelis. Not that it might not be, of course, but bombs DO go off target and missiles do miss.

One of the things that is seriously bothering me is that every time a "civilian target" gets hit, people automatically assume it was a deliberate strike by the Israelis. Not that it might not be, of course, but bombs DO go off target and missiles do miss.

...you haven't picked up yet that this is exactly what some of us have a problem with?

Israel uses these weapons in a densly populated area with what sometimes seem as complete disregard for this fact. And it doesn't really make the situation any better.



BTW: More than 3,100 injured, including an estimated 1,080 children according to AP.

And the UN has agreed on a resolution, with 14 votes for and the US abstaining.

And the UN has agreed on a resolution, with 14 votes for and the US abstaining.

At least we didn't veto it. What more do you want?

...you haven't picked up yet that this is exactly what some of us have a problem with?

Israel uses these weapons in a densly populated area with what sometimes seem as complete disregard for this fact. And it doesn't really make the situation any better.



BTW: More than 3,100 injured, including an estimated 1,080 children according to AP.

And the UN has agreed on a resolution, with 14 votes for and the US abstaining.


Well, weapons happen to kill people. That's what weapons do.

What did you expect the Israelis to do in response to 3000 Hamas rockets and 2500 Hamas mortar shells, ignore it?

Well, weapons happen to kill people. That's what weapons do.

What did you expect the Israelis to do in response to 3000 Hamas rockets and 2500 Hamas mortar shells, ignore it?

I for one would like isreal to stop pretending it is somehow morally better.

The United Nations is claiming Israeli military officers have admitted there was no Palestinian gunfire emanating from inside an UNRWA school in Gaza which was shelled by an IDF tank.

"In briefings senior [Israel Defense Forces] officers conducted for foreign diplomats, they admitted the shelling to which IDF forces in Jabalya were responding did not originate from the school," Gunness said. "The IDF admitted in that briefing that the attack on the UN site was unintentional."

He noted that all the footage released by the IDF of militants firing from inside the school was from 2007 and not from the incident itself.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054009.html

I for one would like isreal to stop pretending it is somehow morally better.

I think it's a matter of degree.

At least we didn't veto it. What more do you want?

A milkshake.

Well, weapons happen to kill people. That's what weapons do.

What did you expect the Israelis to do in response to 3000 Hamas rockets and 2500 Hamas mortar shells, ignore it?

What did you expect the Palestinians to do in response to continued occupation, blocades, military incursions and extrajudicial "targeted" killings?

I expect them - both sides - to try to find a non-violent diplomatic solution and/or respond only with reasonable force. And welcome to the thread, since you've missed me saying that time and time again.

What did you expect the Palestinians to do in response to continued occupation, blocades, military incursions and extrajudicial "targeted" killings?

I expect them - both sides - to try to find a non-violent diplomatic solution and/or respond only with reasonable force. And welcome to the thread, since you've missed me saying that time and time again.

Ah, in a thread with 975 posts, you expect me to read the whole thread...

The PA seems to have come much closer to a non-violent solution on the West Bank. Perhaps Hamas should take a page from that lesson.

Perhaps Hamas should take a page from that lesson.

Like that's ever gonna happen.

The PA seems to have come much closer to a non-violent solution on the West Bank.
Well, it would only be a "solution" if Israel for its part would remove the asshole settlers who keep the violence alive. Unfortunately, the outcome from removing the settlers from Gaza makes it politically difficult to do the same on a larger scale.

Ah, in a thread with 975 posts, you expect me to read the whole thread...
You're right, I shouldn't even expect that you read my responses to your comments on my posts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14373984&postcount=845). That would be silly :rolleyes:

The PA seems to have come much closer to a non-violent solution on the West Bank. Perhaps Hamas should take a page from that lesson.
At the cost of the support of the people, and without making any visible progress in the negotiations? Unlikely, but it would be nice if they did.

Well, it would only be a "solution" if Israel for its part would remove the asshole settlers who keep the violence alive. Unfortunately, the outcome from removing the settlers from Gaza makes it politically difficult to do the same on a larger scale.
They could remove the settlers first, but leave a military presence for a transitional period while coordinating with the PA to maintain order and security - as they should have done in Gaza.

They could remove the settlers first, but leave a military presence for a transitional period while coordinating with the PA to maintain order and security - as they should have done in Gaza.

They pulled the settlers out of Gaza, and then left. Why would you want Israel to hang around? Hamas had plenty of gunmen to "keep security".

My hypothesis is that when Hamas took over in Gaza, the Palestinians faced a choice - go with the more diplomatic but corrupt PA and live in the West Bank, or stay in Gaza and fight to the death led by Hamas.

Now the ones who sided with Hamas are getting crapped on - well, if you took the side of "death to Israel, and here's the rocket to prove it", you shouldn't be too upset when the Israelis fire back.

Really, it doesn't look too bad in the West Bank by comparison. And now, when Hamas gets their final battle, the dust will settle, and the PA will be invited back in to take it back over.

Which is why lobby groups are not trying to stymie development of biofuels that don't require inefficient crops, or reduce restrictions against drilling, or getting rid of environmental safety standards regarding things like mercury waste.

Oh wait. They are.

Oh, I'm sure they are, but that doesn't mean it's not still an improvement. If most places in the world have outlawed child labor or the death penalty, but then 3 countries still have it, is that the same as all of the world having it?

You don't see a difference between the energy policy that once was, which was to produce as much as possible and use as much as possible, vs. the energy policy now, which is at least trending toward cleaner fuels despite abuses? You think those 2 situations are equivalent?

Only if you can get access to all the benefits of it. Why don't you go take a walk in the slums of a city and tell the inhabitants how they have it better than their ancestors who worked farms and at least had a sustainable life that didn't have to worry about endemic violent crime hmm?

So wait a second...Now the people who live in urban centers have ancestors who worked in rural areas? Why don't we compare apples to apples and compare the life of someone in the inner city now to the life of someone in the inner city a hundred years ago?

Or the life of a rural farmworker now as opposed to a hundred years ago?

If we do it that way I have LOTS of ways life is better.

Bollocks. Capitalism does not guarantee the increase of quality of life for everyone, and in fact has had the reverse effect with de facto slavery being put into practice in order to produce low cost goods.

Yeah, because the workers don't own the means of production, right?

uh-huh.

I think Russians who lived in the Soviet Union would disagree with you. In fact, I know they do.

Go to Haiti. Tell the people there who are forced to eat clay because foreign grain dumping practices killed their agriculture that they're not starving.

Look up the numbers of how often famine occurred prior to capitalism vs. how often it occurs post-capitalism.

The rest of your argument only demonstrates how horribly naive you are as to how the world is, and how rarely you bother to even look at what happens internationally, much less analyze it. Not when you can spout unthinking, unrestricted, capitalism as the savior of everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attack

I can play the link game just as well as you can. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac)
And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Iraq_controversy)

How about This? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_Indian_lobbying_scandal)

The Halliburton scandal and the Jack Abramoff problem? Are you joking?

Abramoff went to jail, in case you didn't realize. Good luck having any system at all where corruption doesn't happen. If the perpetrators are punished then what more do you want? Revolution, I assume.

And as far as Halliburton goes, give me a break. Have you seen the President's popularity rating lately? Did you not notice what happened in the elections in 2008? People don't like Presidents who just try to help out their friends. That's why Republicans have lost power in a major way this election cycle.

You're gonna use THAT to show widespread degradation and flaw with the system? Please. I could point to a lot more than that and you'd still be wrong.

You're trying to apply examples of a bad president and say that they are endemic, and representative of a bad system. And you're wrong.

Now the ones who sided with Hamas are getting crapped on - well, if you took the side of "death to Israel, and here's the rocket to prove it", you shouldn't be too upset when the Israelis fire back.

Are the allowed to move to the West Bank?

Are the allowed to move to the West Bank?

For a brief time they were. Those that didn't leave Gaza fast enough ended up being killed by Hamas supporters.

There are videos of Palestinians who didn't support Hamas being flung from the roofs of tall buildings.

I think it's a matter of degree.

Like the fact that - even though Hamas fires these occassional bursts, Israel kills way more of them, just in denser concentrations? That kind of degree?

They pulled the settlers out of Gaza, and then left. Why would you want Israel to hang around?
To ensure an orderly transfer of power, preventing any power-vacuum that could cause groups such as Hamas to grow stronger, as well as protecting the population from any criminal or subversive elements that exist. In short, ensuring that the neighbours had order and didn't become an anarchic failed state run by a terrorist organization.

Hamas had plenty of gunmen to "keep security".
Not the kind of security Israel wanted or Gaza needed.

My hypothesis is that when Hamas took over in Gaza, the Palestinians faced a choice - go with the more diplomatic but corrupt PA and live in the West Bank, or stay in Gaza and fight to the death led by Hamas.

Now the ones who sided with Hamas are getting crapped on - well, if you took the side of "death to Israel, and here's the rocket to prove it", you shouldn't be too upset when the Israelis fire back.

Really, it doesn't look too bad in the West Bank by comparison. And now, when Hamas gets their final battle, the dust will settle, and the PA will be invited back in to take it back over.
Israel still hasn't done anything with the settlements, and Abbas grows weaker politically every day, despite some recent desperate attempts. I don't think Fatah have the power or the necessary backing to simply take over at the present.

Like the fact that - even though Hamas fires these occassional bursts, Israel kills way more of them, just in denser concentrations? That kind of degree?

Do you seriously contend that HAMAS is more moral due to being more incompetent?

Like the fact that - even though Hamas fires these occassional bursts, Israel kills way more of them, just in denser concentrations? That kind of degree?

No, in the idea that one side doesn't care at all where the rockets land, even if it happens to be on their own people (which Hamas has done), and the other side tends to fire more accurately, on the higher level policy of shooting primarily at distinguishable targets (not that lower level people seem to follow this as correctly as they could).

Really, if Israel had the same targeting policy as Hamas, already every structure in Gaza would have been turned into a smoking crater.

Do you seriously contend that HAMAS is more moral due to being more incompetent?

I don't think I made any contention about 'morality', at all.

I pointed out that - while Hamas utilises a less disciplined, more opportunistic approach (which is fairly typical of asymmetrical warfare), Israel actually kills more people, when it comes down to it... and in a shorter period of time.

You can argue that Hamas fires blind - but the amount of collateral damage that Israel inflicts means that Israel is effectively doing the same.

No, in the idea that one side doesn't care at all where the rockets land, even if it happens to be on their own people (which Hamas has done), and the other side tends to fire more accurately, on the higher level policy of shooting primarily at distinguishable targets (not that lower level people seem to follow this as correctly as they could).

A claim that makes you look ignorant, considering the history of the last few days.

I don't think I made any contention about 'morality', at all.

I pointed out that - while Hamas utilises a less disciplined, more opportunistic approach (which is fairly typical of asymmetrical warfare), Israel actually kills more people, when it comes down to it... and in a shorter period of time.

You can argue that Hamas fires blind - but the amount of collateral damage that Israel inflicts means that Israel is effectively doing the same.

Hence the onus on the development in the US of devices such as the Small Diameter Bomb (about 1/8th the size of a normal air dropped munition), and blast-enhanced warheads that produce zero shrapnel, and even better devices such as the Airborne Tactical Laser (which would be able to pick individuals right out of a crowd).

A claim that makes you look ignorant, considering the history of the last few days.

If you examine the casualty claims of both sides, instead of just Hamas (and the UN "observers" are by no means impartial), I doubt that more than 30% of the casualties and deaths sustained so far are civilians.

Oh, and that Norwegian doctor who is running the Gaza hospital is a shill for Hamas. If the UN is getting casualty numbers from him, they're all false.

This reminds me of Jenin, where Palestinians claimed a massacre - afterwards, there was an independent investigation that found the Palestinians to have made wildly exaggerated and false claims of deaths and casualties.

If you examine the casualty claims of both sides, instead of just Hamas (and the UN "observers" are by no means impartial)


The UN aren't impartial? ANd your evidence would be...


...I doubt that more than 30% of the casualties and deaths sustained so far are civilians.


Oh, well, if we have your doubts, how could we ever want for verifiable evidence, eh?

Those 4 kids - you're arguing that one of them was not a civilian... which one?


Oh, and that Norwegian doctor who is running the Gaza hospital is a shill for Hamas.


Because you said so, right?


If the UN is getting casualty numbers from him, they're all false.

This reminds me of Jenin, where Palestinians claimed a massacre - afterwards, there was an independent investigation that found the Palestinians to have made wildly exaggerated and false claims of deaths and casualties.

Reminds you of that, does it? How irrelevent.

The news of the past few days has shown Israel to be hitting some rather unorthodox targets.

If you argue they're not firing indiscriminately, that means they consider the Red Cross, and UN aid convoys, to be valid targets.

If you want to argue that those incidents are stupid mistakes... then they're not discriminating.

Hence the onus on the development in the US of devices such as the Small Diameter Bomb (about 1/8th the size of a normal air dropped munition), and blast-enhanced warheads that produce zero shrapnel, and even better devices such as the Airborne Tactical Laser (which would be able to pick individuals right out of a crowd).

More irrelevenwombling.

We're not talking about what weapons the US wants to have.

We're talking about what Israel is doing with the weapons it DOES have.

Because you said so, right?


No, because the good doctor is a shill for terrorists. He said it himself.

Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor in Gaza, is all over the mainstream media, claiming that Israel is indiscriminately and purposely murdering civilians. He’s given interviews to the BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, the Independent, Sky News, and the New York Times, among others.

And in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terror attacks, this supposedly impartial Norwegian doctor (actually a radical Marxist member of Norway’s Red party) expressed support for the hijackers.

In an interview with the Norwegian daily, Dagbladet, shortly after the attacks, Gilbert stated:

“The attack on New York was not surprising, after the policy that has led the West in recent decades. I am upset over the terrorist attack, but am equally upset over the suffering which the United States has created.

It is in this context that the 5000 dead people must be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, then there is also a moral right to attack the United States with the weapons they had to create. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis.”

When asked by Dagbladet if he supported the terrorist attack on the U.S., he replied:

“Terror is a bad weapon, but the answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.”

No, because the good doctor is a shill for terrorists. He said it himself.

Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor in Gaza, is all over the mainstream media, claiming that Israel is indiscriminately and purposely murdering civilians.


Which they are.


He’s given interviews to the BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, the Independent, Sky News, and the New York Times, among others.

And in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terror attacks, this supposedly impartial Norwegian doctor (actually a radical Marxist member of Norway’s Red party)


Being a marxist doesn't mean you're not impartial...


...expressed support for the hijackers.

In an interview with the Norwegian daily, Dagbladet, shortly after the attacks, Gilbert stated:

“The attack on New York was not surprising, after the policy that has led the West in recent decades. I am upset over the terrorist attack, but am equally upset over the suffering which the United States has created.

It is in this context that the 5000 dead people must be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, then there is also a moral right to attack the United States with the weapons they had to create. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis.”

When asked by Dagbladet if he supported the terrorist attack on the U.S., he replied:

“Terror is a bad weapon, but the answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned.”

He makes a reasonable argument - attacking civilians is wrong, but if 'one side' does it, why expect the 'other side' to act differently.

None of which means that he would lie about the number of casualties. What you are doing is a logical fallacy.

Which they are.

He's the source of most of the reports on casualties in Gaza.

He's been caught staging photos of him "working to resuscitate" a dead child with some Hamas members.

It's been pointed out that he wasn't really doing anything except posing.

The other sources of reports are UNRWA employees - all of which are Palestinians.

So I don't believe their numbers. They'll be exaggerated lies, just as those were in Jenin. Complete and utter fabrications.

The PA seems to have come much closer to a non-violent solution on the West Bank. .

Yes, Abbas pockets the money while the settlements go up around him.

In an interview with the Norwegian daily, Dagbladet, shortly after the attacks, Gilbert stated

Funny he mentions Iraq "just after" 2001, when the invasion that caused all the hastle didn't come till 2003.

The source of most of that shite seems to be right wing blobsters too....

I smell shite.

Yes, Abbas pockets the money while the settlements go up around him.

Funny he mentions Iraq "just after" 2001, when the invasion that caused all the hastle didn't come till 2003.

The source of most of that shite seems to be right wing blobsters too....

I smell shite.

Then he must be a right wing person who staged his own photos in Gaza.

He's the source of most of the reports on casualties in Gaza.

He's been caught staging photos of him "working to resuscitate" a dead child with some Hamas members.

It's been pointed out that he wasn't really doing anything except posing.

The other sources of reports are UNRWA employees - all of which are Palestinians.

So I don't believe their numbers. They'll be exaggerated lies, just as those were in Jenin. Complete and utter fabrications.

In the face of your overwhelming evidence I'll be forced to recons...... wait... you didn't provide any, did you? My bad.

Who WOULD you accept numbers from?

The other sources of reports are UNRWA employees - all of which are Palestinians.

So I don't believe their numbers. They'll be exaggerated lies, just as those were in Jenin. Complete and utter fabrications.

'Do not believe ze Jude und zer lies'. Disgusting, really.