Gaza Strip

[Commissar]

Your definitions don't help me out much.  See, it simply says that a freedom fighter is one who is engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.  I'd classify the Palestinians that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are they targeting a government or are they targetting civilians?

 

Freedom fighters fight the government.

 

Again, I can repeat this a few more times. Let me know when you catch on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Freedom fighters fight the government. The Palestinians are fighting the Israeli government.

 

What's your point?

[SteveThaiBinh]

...the primary arguement in this thread is that Palestine has a right to practice terrorism because of a land grab.

That's the primary argument? Is it? That's not the thread I've been reading.

If the purpose of the bombs were to kill civilians and cause massive loss of life, then they would have been dropped on Tokyo.  There were dropped on small towns that had small populations, yet held military and strategic value.

 

Steve was the one that brought up the point, and his own source said the targets were chosen because of their military value.

And if the purpose of dropping the bomb had been to hasten the end of the war, they would have dropped it out in Tokyo Bay, killing no-one.

 

I said that Hiroshima had military and strategic value, not that it was chosen as a target for that reason. Why were other Japanese cities bombed by conventional weapons while Hiroshima was left virtually untouched? Because it was needed to test the effects of the Atomic Bomb.

And yet instead of destroying Palestine, which they could with their military might, they force their own citizens out of the Gaza Strip instead.  Truly their intent is to kill any Palestinians they come across!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course that's not their intent. The Israeli Army has at time gone out of its way to protect civilians, both Israeli and Palestinians, and at other times shown a callous disregard of those same civilians. The Israeli military's intent is to create a state of Israel that is militarily secure, and that can best be achieved, they think, by weakening the Palestinians, preventing the creation of a Palestinian State, and ensuring that should such a state ever exist it will have the smallest and least coherent territory possible. They think this is the best way to achieve security. They are wrong.

[Shryke]

There is ZERO DEFENSE for murdering innocent civilians.  Let me repeat that.  There is ZERO DEFENSE for murdering innocent civilians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

nagasaki? hiroshima?

 

looks like you've changed your mind about this as the thread has progressed....

[alanschu]

If the purpose of the bombs were to kill civilians and cause massive loss of life, then they would have been dropped on Tokyo. There were dropped on small towns that had small populations, yet held military and strategic value.

 

Which would explain why Kyoto was originally planned on being the first target. Fortunately for the citizens of Kyoto the Secretary of State admired the place because of his visit on his honeymoon.

 

If you want to take out key military targets, perhaps it should not be done with something that will kill 120,000 people, most of them civilians. They were dropped to pound the enemy into submission, and was overkill for the military strategic value.

 

Furthermore, Tokyo was already under heavy bombardment. 16 square miles of the city was already destroyed, and over 100,000 people killed in the firebombings that occurred. In fact, they cancelled the precision bombing missions on military installations because the weather was too unpredictable, and opted for low altitude carpet bombing with incendiary ammunition. No need to drop a nuke on Tokyo when it's already being pelted with virtually no loss of planes (22 aircraft lost in almost 1,600 sorties against Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe.

 

But as long as the intent to hit military targets is there, then I guess it's OK to eradicate over 100,000 lives instantly. I guess it's true that when the numbers are that high, it's not murder...just a statistic.

 

And yet instead of destroying Palestine, which they could with their military might, they force their own citizens out of the Gaza Strip instead. Truly their intent is to kill any Palestinians they come across!

 

Wow, slippery slope there. It might not be the outright intent of the Israeli government to eradicate Palestinians, and I never said it was. Is it the outright intent of the majority of Palestinians to eradicate the Israelis? You have the impression that the Israelis are above the intentional slaughter of innocents. But they've lost family and friends too. If given the opportunity, how can you possibly rule out the chance that some of them might want some revenge in the heat of the moment?

 

I've seen both CNN and BBC broadcast plenty of anti-Israeli news. His source only told one side of the story, and there are conflicting reports. Without a reputable news agency, the facts are in doubt.

 

I wasn't talking about my story or anything when I mentioned that. Of course CNN and BBC will have anti-Israeli news. They have to in order to maintain their credibility. Doesn't mean they have all the facts however. They just regurgitate the "intelligence indicated that there were insurgents in the area" crap that the PR people for Israel tell them.

 

 

I asked "How is this in any way cool or justifiable?"

 

You justified the Israeli displacement of Palestinians, stating that it should be a buffer zone like the Soviet Union had.

[SteveThaiBinh]

People say Israel shouldn't have the Gaza Strip because of the six-day war, in which Israel was defending themself.  That's great.  So Palestine should get land that never belonged to them, because we don't want Israel to have it?

This is not about denying Gaza to the Israelis out of spite, it's about allowing the self-determination of the people who live there. Why don't we try this? Let all the settlers return to their settlements, then hold a plebiscite in the Gaza Strip in which people choose between belonging to the state of Israel or becoming an independent Palestinian State. The Palestinian State option would win by a huge margin, probably 90%+. Then the new Palestinian government would evict the settlers from the land that doesn't belong to them, and they could either make new homes in Palestine or return to Israel.

Never mind that Palestine didn't want it before...

Still awaiting the source for that. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I want to know exactly what the 'Palestine' is that made such a statement on behalf of the people of Gaza.

 

Also waiting for a list of these 'concessions' that Israel has made or been asked to make.

[Lucius]

WTC bombings could be seen as a show of force as well as the two atomic bombings, no? Which were the most cruel acts, I wonder...

 

Regarding what to call suicide bombers, well I call them terrorists, others would probably call them martyrs or freedom fighters, it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. But simply ruling out that others might think of them as freedom fighters is silly, our rules and our way of looking and defining things (the dictionary for instance) are not universal, despite how we in the West might think.

[Dark Moth]

I for one, am ambivalent about the Gaza pullout. While some may look at it as a step toward peace, do you really think that's true? Don't forget, the objective of many of the Palestinian terrorists is the complete and utter destruction of Israel off the map. If it were up to them, Israel would not be there this day. These are the same people who PURPOSELY target civilians for the mere sake of killing. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah aren't merely politically-motivated. Remember the Palestians dancing in the streets after 9/11? The parades and victory signs? Yeah. It's nice to know these people have so many sympathizers.

 

If anything, I'm worried that the Gaza pullout will only make the region another haven for terrorists. Odd, also, that there doesn't seem to be a huge uproar over this. In many ways, the evacuation is a human rights violation.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Many statements made in this thread makes me cringe but as I am a gentleman, I shall remain civilised :D

 

 

The evacuation of the sttlers from the west bank is the most significant real step towards peace in the region that has been taken in a long time. It will put an end to many of the smaller conflicts between Palestinians and Israeli settler backed my military, that has been acting as a fuel for the overall conflict.

 

 

That this would increase terrorism is just prepostrous. If anything, it will remove the recruitment bases for the extremist organisations. They rely largely on recruiting deperate and angry people who have nothing left to loose, and if these people are instead given a chance to live a proper life without violence or opression, they wont join.

 

 

There are only two ways to accomplish peace and that is by either completely eradicating the other side, or by coming to a peaceful agreement with them. You cannot end terrorism with force, unless you are prepared to do some truly monstrous acts.

[kumquatq3]

There are only two ways to accomplish peace and that is by either completely eradicating the other side, or by coming to a peaceful agreement with them. You cannot end terrorism with force, unless you are prepared to do some truly monstrous acts.

 

Like, I don't know, blow up a bunch of their young people who are dancing in night clubs? <_<

[metadigital]

Ender:

1. The Jewish people overstepped their mandate when they "occupied" what is now Israel. Sure, maybe they would have got it eventually, but at the time it was a land-grab. I don't condone the Araab response, but there are no winners here. Only degrees of loss.

 

2. You are caricituring all Palestinians. They are not all the same. There are, in point of fact, quite a significant number, although small percentage, who are Christian, for example.

 

There are extremists on both sides of the political argument. It was a right wing Jewish fundamentalist who shot Rabin and started the last round of violence.

[metadigital]

...

Which would explain why Kyoto was originally planned on being the first target.  Fortunately for the citizens of Kyoto the Secretary of State admired the place because of his visit on his honeymoon.

 

If you want to take out key military targets, perhaps it should not be done with something that will kill 120,000 people, most of them civilians.  They were dropped to pound the enemy into submission, and was overkill for the military strategic value.

 

Furthermore, Tokyo was already under heavy bombardment.  16 square miles of the city was already destroyed, and over 100,000 people killed in the firebombings that occurred.  In fact, they cancelled the precision bombing missions on military installations because the weather was too unpredictable, and opted for low altitude carpet bombing with incendiary ammunition.  No need to drop a nuke on Tokyo when it's already being pelted with virtually no loss of planes (22 aircraft lost in almost 1,600 sorties against Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe.

 

But as long as the intent to hit military targets is there, then I guess it's OK to eradicate over 100,000 lives instantly.  I guess it's true that when the numbers are that high, it's not murder...just a statistic.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are forgetting the particular scenario of WW2.

 

The US didn't just say "Oh screw it, lets just kill all the people so there's noone left to fight!", they were dealing with a real issue or propaganda. The Japanese government was telling the population that they were winning, that they needed a few more people to keep the war effort going, and that no-one should ever surrender, lest they be treated worse than they could possibly imagine (torture, etc). Remember Iwo Jima ?

 

There was a real and significant loss of allied life to weigh against the dispicable lack of respect for (Allied and Japanese) human life by the Japanese Emperor.

 

You would have a better argument against the bombings of German cities in 1945 ...

[metadigital]

...

The reason for the pull-out is that people like Bush (of which people like Mkreku think I'm a fanboi, which I'm not) totally misunderstand the situation.  People think that if we attempt to appease the Palestinians, that violence will stop.  There has been violence in the area targeting Jews long before the state was created, or before Israel got the Gaza Strip.  The violence isn't about the Gaza Strip.

...

Either you stand by the decision to create the state, or you don't.  Either you say Israel has a right to live there and defend their homes, or you don't.  If that's the case, then the world should step in, and crack down on terrorism.  We should probably create two seperate states with a nice wall between the two.

 

But there are those who have vocally said their goal is to see all Jews dead.  Removing Jews from the Gaza Strip won't combat religious fanaticism or dire hatred.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Leaving the Gaza strip is an act of faith in the peace process. There are likely to be some evil people who try to turn it to their advantage, but the gesture must be made. (If only to facilitate a justifiable virtuous anger.)

 

2. There will be two seperate states with a wall between them. One day, the wall may come down.

 

3. There are just as many vocal Jewish hardliners wanting all Palestinians dead.

 

Here's a thought: I seaw an interview with some Jewish residents of Israel who thoguth that they should give the country back. They quoted scripture to support their argument, that the homeland was more a precursor to armageddon than a Good Thing.

 

What are the values of religion? Faith, Hope and Charity ?

[alanschu]

You are forgetting the particular scenario of WW2.

 

The US didn't just say "Oh screw it, lets just kill all the people so there's noone left to fight!", they were dealing with a real issue or propaganda. The Japanese government was telling the population that they were winning, that they needed a few more people to keep the war effort going, and that no-one should ever surrender, lest they be treated worse than they could possibly imagine (torture, etc). Remember Iwo Jima ?

 

There was a real and significant loss of allied life to weigh against the dispicable lack of respect for (Allied and Japanese) human life by the Japanese Emperor.

 

You would have a better argument against the bombings of German cities in 1945 ...

 

I know all that.

 

I do think that the nuclear bombs ultimately did save lives. The Japanese were very much "fight to the death." Although I wonder how much resolve they would have had if the island itself was just blockaded, with key areas being destroyed by conventional means. The dropping of the bomb was still murder on a grand scale, as was the firebombings of Tokyo, in an attempt to pound the enemy into submission.

 

The rationalization of the deaths of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was that it would save lives....although I would bet the only lives they were considering saving were the Allied ones at the time.

 

In the end, it was still the Emperor who broke a deadlock in the government about continuing the war.

[kumquatq3]

The rationalization of the deaths of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was that it would save lives....although I would bet the only lives they were considering saving were the Allied ones at the time.

 

Of course they were more concerned about Allied lives!

 

It was a war! LOL! They damn well should have been.

 

And remember who attacked who first.

 

That being said, while I agree with the first bomb (mostly), I have reservations about dropping the second.

[metadigital]

...

In the end, it was still the Emperor who broke a deadlock in the government about continuing the war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it was his idea for the war in the first place ...

[metadigital]

...

Last I checked, they were the victims of genocide who had their homes removed and no longer had any place to live.  Where would you stick them?  What would you do with them?

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would have thought that the best solution was not to isolate the Jewish peoples in a hermetically sealed country, but to help re-intergrate them back into all the world's communities.

 

 

After all, I don't want to be sent off to Geekworld, just because so few people understand geek holidays and we speak a funny language ...

[Azarkon]

The slaughtering of civilians is a military strategy employed by both guerilla fighters (who we call terrorists) and nations (under the guise of necessity) to weaken the opposite side's resolve, sense of security, and ability to continue waging warfare. It is quite effective, and often results in the accomplishment of key objectives. As such, it is used.

 

There is really nothing more to it. The age of honor and mercy in war died with chivalry. Modern war is all-encompassing, in which the propaganda of righteousness and moral superiority is as much a weapon for the superpowers as it is an outdated, irrelevant principle for those who fight without the benefit of technological, military, political, and economic dominance.

 

Why does the US not target civilians? Because killing civilians does not help in the larger sense of our political and military strategy. Sure, it might save a few lives if the marines shot every Iraqi they came across, but it'd also discredit the US's entire mission in Iraq and cause an outrage at home. Hence, we play the part of the good guys.

 

But come a day when the US is itself fighting for national survival, such as in an all-encompassing war with another superpower, recall my words here and see if the US does not target civilians. That is, if you outlive the nuclear holocaust.

 

War is, in the end, indifferent to human morality. The philosophy of total war has always been to shoot first, and let the history apologists sort them out. If you don't like it, then oppose war, oppose murder, oppose violence and tyranny.

 

But don't act the hypocrite by opposing it on one side and justifying it on another.

[metadigital]

...

But come a day when the US is itself fighting for national survival, such as in an all-encompassing war with another superpower, recall my words here and see if the US does not target civilians.  That is, if you outlive the nuclear holocaust.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That sounds like a prediction ... over here, guys: I think we have another for the un-American Trials ...

[draakh_kimera]

Here's a solution:

 

*

(to a certain extent)

 

This way, no isrealies/jews to complain about settlements/situation/suicide bombings, and no palestinians/arabs to complain about existence of Isreal. Problem solved.

 

Pic by certain board member. Hope you don't mind me using it. If you do, well, tell me.

[Meshugger]

Here's a solution:

 

*

(to a certain extent)

 

This way, no isrealies/jews to complain about settlements/situation/suicide bombings, and no palestinians/arabs to complain about existence of Isreal.  Problem solved.

 

Pic by certain board member.  Hope you don't mind me using it.  If you do, well, tell me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're almost on the right track

 

If i were the supreme chansellor of the terran earth, then i would revoke the states Isreal and Palistine and declare my new land: THE HOLY STATE.

 

- The army and the police would made out of secular humanists, no one is allowed to belong to any religious mumbo-jumbo.

 

- The goverment however, would be divided between factions of the three major religions (Jews, Muslims and Christian). The constitution is however secular.

 

- The city of Jerusalem would be the capital, governed by Vin Diesel alone.

 

- No national holidays based on any religion would be allowed. For instance, tuesday and wednesday would be holidays instead of saturday on sunday.

 

 

Problem solved, who's with me?

[alanschu]

I wonder, would the world have less wars if we were completely homogeneous?

 

That is, if we were all one race, one religion and whatnot, would things be better? Or would we just fight over different stuff?

[Azarkon]

Race was invented by the European imperials. Before that, there was culture, religion, language, sex, and clan. If we were all homogeneous, personal values would still be enough to fight over. That is only if you don't already believe the commonly held idea that wars happen for economic reasons. After all, one can simply say that the source of all wars is a competition for limited resources, things like land, oil, spice, and believers.

[jaguars4ever]

  After all, one can simply say that the source of all wars is a competition for limited resources, things like land, oil, spice, and believers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nah, it's aliens. It's got to be those damn aliens - they're always responsible for everything dodgy going on in the world. As soon as they show their midget faces I'm sure we'll all unite against those anal-probing toters - Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists (okay, maybe not Buddhists), Ninjas & Jedi alike.

[Powerslave]

By the way, all the mentions on "Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11" is bullcr@p. It's been proven that this particular footage was actually filmed A DECADE BEFORE 9/11, in 1991, during the invasion of Kuwait.

 

*goes to sleep, wondering how this debate will proceed once the frequent posters come online*

[Walsingham]

Well, I wanted to read my way up to speed, but you mahunchas are writing faster than I can read. An event I have never before witnessed in any medium. Congratulations. But apologies if I miss any points as a consequence.

 

1) Removing the settlers

 

This entire business is partly a fantastic mess because everyone is wheeling out their history books and banging on about what a tough time they have had. Doing this gives both sides the feeling that they have right on their side, leading them to want a complete victory or nothing. I hate to say it but it is simply childish. Total war is the only way a solution can be arranged with that attitude.

 

If you want to see something resembling peace in that area, without ethnic cleansing, then I'm afraid things like narking off a couple thousand colonists becomes necessary. It is an important step because firstly it reduces the cost and strain on the IDF significantly, and secondly it puts the onus firmly on the PA to come up with something equally shiny.

 

So, basically I don't agree with Ender on the fact this was a bad thing.

 

2) This is giving in to terrorism

 

Hamas are making big potatos out of this, and trying desperately to take the credit. The truth is, from people I have spoken to in the IDF, that it was the regular disturbances that made up the intifada, not the terrorist attacks that made the situation unbearable. The IDF are not monsters, and working in the territories was appallingly bad for morale, training, and sense of purpose.

 

3) Your terrorist is my mother Theresa

 

You know my feelings on terrorism. Or should do. Laozi said "innocent people are dying any differently just because one guy had a uniform and the latest equipment of death, and another had a bomb". This would be true, except it actually does make a difference if someone is a uniformed combatant, acting under the orders of a recognised state, and within the framework of some kind of code. A pilot acting under a condition of war who kills you is in fact different from some pimply teenager doing it because they listened too much to their uncle as a child. Just like a policeman who arrests you is not guilty of kidnapping.

 

You can be all faux intellectual and say 'yeah well there's two sides', but I really don't see that there are. If a private citizen decides they are above the political authority and go out and kill people to get their way, er... wrong in my book. More importantly this certainly qualifies as a crime, that the state can hardly be blamed for trying to counter.

 

4) Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden, oh my!

 

All three bombings were intended to achieve the same things. To shorten the war and thereby shorten the total numbers of dead. Dresden didn't work. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did.

 

I do not know how to describe the mix of feelings I have on these issues. However, it is my experience that people who condemn the bombings unreservedly have rarely borne the weight of such decisions.