Recent Isareli military action in Gaza

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well I'm glad you found such unbiased sources to make your case. I guess those 6 Hamas terrorists were having a peaceful tea party by the Gaza border when they were killed?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Yuusha, if Hamas didn't want to wipe Israel off the map they wouldn't have broken the recent cease fire agreement by launching rockets and mortars at Israeli settlements. Hamas can say all the things it wants, but it is the actions it does that matters. It is its actions that makes it a terrorist organization, and its actions is how I will judge them. Not by their words.

[Volourn]

"Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam,"

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

[Aram]

@Meshugger:

I'll answer your question in a few hours. In the meantime, enjoy....

 

The problem with pro-terrorist idiots we always seem to encounter on gaming forums, like that Yrkoon guy and a few others I've seen, is they look at this useless cartoon and think that the part that's wrong is that the picture on the left should say casualties of war--which is ****ing wrong. They can either both be innocent victims or they can both be casualties of war, and I never once saw Yrkoon mourn for an Israeli bombing victim or ever admit it was anything but justified--but actions against the Palestinians always were, and even though that was usually, his opinion was already 100% worthless. As long as everyone isn't in one-hundred percent agreement that they are both innocent victims, nothing will ever get done, and the image in everyone's heads will be perpetually stuck on one or the other depending on whose dumbassed viewpoint your looking through.

[Aristes]

Yes. See, I prefer advocates like Yuusha. He is clearly biased, has no qualms about using mental gymnastics in order to confuse the issue or try to "win" the argument, uses tainted sources, and is an unabashed terrorist sympathizer.* Hey, at least we know where he stands.

 

However, I will say that there is a long history between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. It's not all one sided and there is enough blame to go around, certainly enough to go to Christianity. What happened in the past is not nearly as important as what's happening now. Most important is what we make happen in the future. Where do we want this to go?

 

I tend to take Yuusha's posts with a grain of salt, but I also like to acknowledge truths where I see them. In fact, taking out the link to Hamas' cynical use of Carter as the vehicle of their propaganda and the link to the Electronic Intifada, there's something to be learned from the history he cites. Folks act in their own interests. Jews have suffered from Christian zeal in the past. Adherance to Islam has not equated to militant radicalism throughout history. The point is to find the real answers, and those answers require a bit of soul searching from all corners. We have to be willing to concede that the history doesn't paint any of us in a particularly good light.

 

Nevertheless, regardless of what the electronic intifada might suggest, the peace offer that Arafat rejected was the best offer the Palestinians have had to date. The only other peace offer that we might consider better would be the original boundaries of 1948, but the Palestinians rejected that one as well. Look what that got them. The Arab states rejected peace thereafter in 1967 and fought Israel again only to lose more land. The best deal that the Palestinians have actually taken is the unilateral decision by Israel to pull out of some settlements and construct a security fence. ...And they fought against that.

 

Regardless of the fact that I virtually always disagree so heartily with you, Yuusha, I don't hold any that against you. I can understand looking back on your forefathers. I respect that. But there is probably no human settlement on this planet where the people are the "original inhabitants" of the land. That's not a defense or an apology. It's the truth. We need to face the future, not the past, and the current state of outright hatred does does not lead to a bright peaceful outcome.

 

*Unlike most folks here, Yuusha argues that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. I contend they are. His clever links notwithstanding, I don't see we will ever see eye to eye on the issue.

[Trenitay]

I've never understood the "My grandfather saved your grandfather So you better start respecting me" argument.

[howling1]

""Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam,"

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! "

 

Good one Volo...

Edited January 7, 2009 by howling1

[howling1]

@Meshugger:

I'll answer your question in a few hours. In the meantime, enjoy....

 

The problem with pro-terrorist idiots we always seem to encounter on gaming forums, like that Yrkoon guy and a few others I've seen, is they look at this useless cartoon and think that the part that's wrong is that the picture on the left should say casualties of war--which is ****ing wrong. They can either both be innocent victims or they can both be casualties of war, and I never once saw Yrkoon mourn for an Israeli bombing victim or ever admit it was anything but justified--but actions against the Palestinians always were, and even though that was usually, his opinion was already 100% worthless. As long as everyone isn't in one-hundred percent agreement that they are both innocent victims, nothing will ever get done, and the image in everyone's heads will be perpetually stuck on one or the other depending on whose dumbassed viewpoint your looking through.

 

I tend to agree...

 

It's been my experience that in the Mideast, there are two rules to go by :

 

1. If you screw with the Israelis, they don't get mad. they get even. In a very big way.

 

2. Nobody ( And I do mean NOBODY ) screws with the Turks, PERIOD.

 

Whats going to be really scary for the Arabs, is when the Turkish - Israeli military alliance finally comes out in the open. Not even the Iranians want to take that one on...

[Yuusha]

@Wrath of Dagon:

They could resettle them in Egypt, in better conditions than they were living in. Back in 1948, the population of Gaza was far smaller than it is currently.

The conflict needs to be seen in a broader context. The expulsion of the Palestinians was a catastrophe not only for them, but also for the neighboring countries. Which European country would accept on its soil tens of thousands of armed foreigners living in camps? What destabilizing effects did that situation have on fragile societies such as Lebanon and Jordan? It is all very well to say that the Arab countries should have integrated them, but how does Europe treat refugees who are their political allies, like the Albano-Kosovars, the Iraqi Kurds or the Afghans? They try to get rid of them as soon as possible. It goes without saying that the rich countries have the right to refuse to "take in all the world's misery", but that right is impossible to enforce in many poor countries.

 

Double Standards...

 

Well I'm glad you found such unbiased sources to make your case. I guess those 6 Hamas terrorists were having a peaceful tea party by the Gaza border when they were killed?

Um.. Actually they were ambushed by the IDF.

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

 

@Killian Kalthorn:

Yuusha, if Hamas didn't want to wipe Israel off the map they wouldn't have broken the recent cease fire agreement by launching rockets and mortars at Israeli settlements. Hamas can say all the things it wants, but it is the actions it does that matters. It is its actions that makes it a terrorist organization, and its actions is how I will judge them. Not by their words.

And how, may I ask, do you judge the Israelis? Seeing that they've wiped Palestine off the map and targeting civilians and ramming ships on international waters?

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

 

@Volourn:

"Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam,"

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

-All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860).

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

 

@Aristes:

Yes. See, I prefer advocates like Yuusha. He is clearly biased, has no qualms about using mental gymnastics in order to confuse the issue or try to "win" the argument, uses tainted sources, and is an unabashed terrorist sympathizer.* Hey, at least we know where he stands.

We're all biased I suppose, some more than others apparently.

 

Mental gymnastics? LOL. I wasn't originally planning on giving Volourn a history lesson, he basically accused the Arabs of being anti-semitic when in reality the west have done more harm to the Jews than the Arabs/Muslims.

 

Tainted sources? Care to elaborate on that? Coz it seems to me that you'd only accept sources that are convenient to your position.

 

Terrorist sympathizer... Ah yes... The oldest trick in the book. No matter, I've been called worse.

 

What happened in the past is not nearly as important as what's happening now. Most important is what we make happen in the future. Where do we want this to go?

True, and I am all for peace. But just as the popular saying goes "No Justice, no Peace," don't expect peace will come if there aren't fundamental changes in Israeli's apartheid regime.

 

 

The best deal that the Palestinians have actually taken is the unilateral decision by Israel to pull out of some settlements and construct a security fence. ...And they fought against that.

Mighty 'generous' of them, offering back to the Palestinians some scraps of their own land. Some desert here.... A corner there....... Just slap a flag on it and call it a 'state.' Not really what the Palestinians had in mind... But of course, they'd be wise to take what they can GET for now, and always bargain for more later... Because as it stands now, they have nothing. Basically, a few concentration camps under Israeli control. Sounds like living to you? It's not terrorism when you are fighting for what was stolen from you in the first place.

 

 

We need to face the future, not the past, and the current state of outright hatred does does not lead to a bright peaceful outcome.

I think what most of the world want, is a peaceful and brighter future for both sides, not just for the Israelis.

 

And that future is something that is unlikely to happen, because it is a truth of international relations that a balance of power keeps the peace, whereas an imbalance causes war, since the stronger side will always seek to impose its will by force. Until the Middle East manages to contain Israel

[Walsingham]

If I shoot at an unarmed civilian and kill him, knowing he is a civilian that is not the same as shooting at an armed opponent and missing.

[Meshugger]

I see that Yuusha has a strong sense of rightoussness with him, which can be good in some cases, but in his case, it becomes his frailty.

 

First, you paint the world as a black and white canvas, which is not the case in real life, which will affect judgement in a negative way.

 

Second, for every reaction, there is a consequence. Like the jews didn't turn overly aggressive without a causation, did they? There are disagreements on Israel being to trigger-happy at times, but at least we have to agree on the fact that the spiraling violence is a manifestation on both parts, which will imply that both sides needs to sit down and negotiate.

 

Third, no matter what "side" you're on, you have to realize that there are a couple fundemental rules of do's and do not's. Europe has a really, really bloody history. We pretty much conquered everything that we saw at a time. However mostly and foremost, we have been warring against each other almost constantly until 60 years ago. Throughout history it is a fact that the following happens between warring states; one state succumbs to the other, or there is truce with land being transfered either way. Compromises have to be taken on both sides for it to happen. You do not fight until there's nothing left to fight for, you do not seek peace through no compromise. Such things never last, that's just the way it is. Lets take some more modern examples, spanning over the latest 100 years or so:

 

- Germany lost East Prussia to Poland, 6 million germans had to leave their homes forever.

- Germany gave the Sudet region to the Czech republic, 2 million germans had to leave their homes forever.

- Poland gained prussia, but lost nearly half of its land to the Soviet Union.

- All the "balkanese" states lost their independency to the newly formed Yugoslav Communist republic. They later gained independency by all not getting what they really wanted in terms of land.

- Finland lost parts of Lapland and the Karelia region to the Soviet union, 400 000 had to leave their homes forever.

- Czeckoslovakia was splitted into two states.

 

My point is, that all of these happened to compromises, and sometimes sacrifices for the nation's independency. Again, Israel has previously shown that they are ready to go back to the 1967 borders, or close to it. What's the compromise from Hamas? Jews are allowed to live? And of course, as it has been pointed out previously, Hamas doesn't even represent the whole palestinian authority, what is the guarantee that an eventual compromise will be respected by all Palestinians?

[Gorgon]

If I shoot at an unarmed civilian and kill him, knowing he is a civilian that is not the same as shooting at an armed opponent and missing.

What about shooting knowing without a shadow of a doubt that you will kill both the guy you are aiming at, and the guy standing next to him.

[Gfted1]

Israeli chicks are smoking hot, its the eyes.

[Walsingham]

If I shoot at an unarmed civilian and kill him, knowing he is a civilian that is not the same as shooting at an armed opponent and missing.

What about shooting knowing without a shadow of a doubt that you will kill both the guy you are aiming at, and the guy standing next to him.

 

Interesting. I don't know.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You can look at the Geneva conventions. In a war, you can attack any military target, even if that's likely to cause civilian casualties. It's the enemie's responsibility to keep the military away from civilians. You're never allowed to attack purely civilian targets, although of course we know during WW2 no one actually followed that.

[Walsingham]

According to our training, British troops are required to avoid targetting a number of area types, provided they are clearly identifiable as such, inluding medical and cultural sites. You are also prohibited from deliberately targetting civilians. However, it is also an offence to abuse the protections afforded by these rules. So for example I can't pin a red cross to my helmet and go Rambo. If someone does that then they essentially cause the protection to disappear.

 

I think it's fair to assert that some of the civilian casualties are the product of error rather than design, since Israeli has lost several of its own soldiers to incorrect artillery fire.

 

However, I'd like to reiterate, that after considering this using game theory and confrontation theory there's no way a lasting peace can be concluded. I'm therefore officially uninterested in issue at anything other than broad abstract or close technical levels. You might as well stare intently at a rock.

[Killian Kalthorne]

If I shoot at an unarmed civilian and kill him, knowing he is a civilian that is not the same as shooting at an armed opponent and missing.

What about shooting knowing without a shadow of a doubt that you will kill both the guy you are aiming at, and the guy standing next to him.

Collateral damage.

[Dark_Raven]

Yes it is.

 

 

The Middle East is a thorn in the side of the civilized countries of the world. Let them kill each other and be done with it, then we will finally have peace there.

[Volourn]

I call it a horrible result of waging a war even if there is a 'justified' reason for said war. It's never a good thing when innocents die. However, last ic ehcked, Hamas is supposed to be fighting on behalf of non fighting Palestinians so why are they firing from schools to begin with? Nobody looks good in this situation. But, what should Isreal soldiers do in this situation? Not fire back and die because of it? Retreat so the Hamas soliders could attack again, later?

 

Hamas for being dinks for firing from schools. Isreal of not being more careful.

[taks]

the glass parking lot option is always there.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

so why are they firing from schools to begin with?

 

The UN officials who were there say they were certain there were no Hamas firing from the position. What likely happened is that the IDF forces took mortar fire, and guesstimated a direction. The spokesperson back in Israel then says that Hamas were firing from there, which is predictable bull****, a lot of that going on from both sides. Like Hamas media making the most of the wounded and dead children that their actions helped bring about indirectly.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Gorgon

[Volourn]

"The UN officials who were there say they were certain there were no Hamas firing from the position."

 

PALESTINIAN witnesses claim otherwise.

 

UN likes to lie, and steal.

 

Palestinians have no logical reason to lie on beahlf of the Isrealis.

 

UN officials have no real way to really know when and where Hamas was firing from.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Volourn

[Calax]

Why not take the Gundam 00 approach to resolving the middle east problem, Sat Strike all the military bases.

[Gorgon]

If I shoot at an unarmed civilian and kill him, knowing he is a civilian that is not the same as shooting at an armed opponent and missing.

What about shooting knowing without a shadow of a doubt that you will kill both the guy you are aiming at, and the guy standing next to him.

Collateral damage.

You can't escape the need to judge each situation responsibly by using a silly label like 'collateral damage'.

 

At what point does a military engagement become a war crime. 2 civilians to 1 militant killed, 10 to 1, 1000 to 1.

[Gorgon]

"The UN officials who were there say they were certain there were no Hamas firing from the position."

 

PALESTINIAN witnesses claim otherwise.

 

UN likes to lie, and steal.

 

Palestinians have no logical reason to lie on beahlf of the Isrealis.

 

UN officials have no real way to really know when and where Hamas was firing from.

Where are you getting this, is this a new development,and who is reporting it. There aren't any journalist inside Gaza except Hamas media and a smattering of 'independents'. Mostly people with video cameras looking to make a buck.