|
Yes. Political considerations. Of course. "Hey guys, after spending 20 years down here in South Lebanon we will withdraw, handing a total and complete victory to our most effective enemies in Hizbollah that will allow them and their Syrian allies to take over the entire country, creating a second front against us. But those of you who dont support them, lets be friends!"
They withdrew from Lebanon because they could not sustain the occupation of a territory whose population was wholly antagonistic to them. They withdrew from Gaza because deploying 70,000 troops to protect 7,000 settlers was just as costly and stupid.
You're wrong, and that's all there is to it. Your opinion < facts. Israel withdrew from Lebanon as a goodwill gesture during a period of intense negotiations and it withdrew from Gaza because Ariel Sharon wanted to make a point. And even if they withdrew from Gaza because using 70,000 soldiers to protect 7,000 settlers made no sense, that is hardly "being ground down." Being "ground down" would be suffering losses making their position untenable, which did not happen.
And seeing as how Israel now has to use a similar number of soldiers to guard the Gaza border / invade when the Israeli leadership deems it necessary, I guess maybe using 70,000 soldiers to protect 7,000 settlers really wasn't such a waste. Israel had a much stronger strategic position when it was still occupying Gaza.
|
On November 16 2012 03:14 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:07 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 03:01 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 02:55 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 02:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Some fact check request, not opinions. So has this escalated from the initial atack? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20346545Israel has killed more children than the Hamas rocket strikes have killed people. Good thing this isn't a numbers game then. Silly demagogic statements like this are dumb and add nothing to this discussion. Also "Woman pregnant with twins killed - location unknown" is shoddy reporting from a reputable website. There have been many fake claims before and with a lack of names and locations this seems very questionable. Yeah man, there's no reason there to questions Israel's behavior at all. You can call it demagogic but its really just a true statement. Can you really not see the equivalence between the behavior on both sides? One side attacks the other damaging infrastructure and killing civilians, then the other retaliates doing the exact same thing. Like you said, its not a numbers game, how many rockets vs artillery shells is not really relevant and that civilians have been killed on both sides is more important than how many, it just sows the seeds of more violence. Maybe they are lying about death statistics but some of them have been confirmed and "its not a numbers game" which is good because if it was the kill ratio looks kind of damning for Israel. (Look up stats yourself, I'm having trouble finding particularly precise ones, but the closest estimate I've seen is 1 Israeli to 5 Palestinians and some going closer to 1:60.) The rockets are aimed at civilian populations, whereas the Israeli attacks are aimed at militants and sadly hit civilians. As far as numbers, remember that Hamas traded 1 Israeli hostage for 1000 prisoners, so this shows their regard for human life and reminded us their mindset with where they place weapons and use human shields. I know you are more invested in this as an Israeli but come on at least try to make arguments that make sense to people who are not partisan on the issue. First of all the human shield stuff is atrocious and unfortunately used by both sides: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/gaza-civilians-endangered-military-tactics-both-sides-20090108Wtf does that second part even mean? Because they got a good deal at the exchange they regard human life as less?! That doesn't make any sense, you could argue it shows how much more worth an Israeli life is to the Israeli government than a Palestinian one (I will not do that though because it's stupid)... I mentioned it to show how Hamas value civilian life and the price they are willing to pay for their goals. Also if you look at the goldstone follow up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Goldstone.27s_retraction_of_civilian_targeting_claim There is a attempt to minimize civilian deaths although not at the cos of our own.
Uhm did you even read the article?
The other principal authors of the UN report, Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers, have rejected Goldstone's reassessment arguing that there is "no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report as nothing of substance has appeared that would in anyway change the context, findings or conclusions of that report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict"
And you have to be a bit clearer, in what way demonstrates the exchange how the Hamas values life and what price they are willing to pay for their goal? Is the price they payed the one Israeli soldier?
|
On November 16 2012 03:07 Op wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 16 2012 02:54 Op wrote:On November 16 2012 02:45 DeepElemBlues wrote:
What Israel should do is re-occupy Gaza with ~100,000 troops or so and annihilate Hamas. There is absolutely no chance for a peace agreement where Palestine becomes an independent, sovereign nation while Hamas exists.
Organizations like Hamas are no different from the Nazi Party or the military leadership of Japan during the 1930s and WWII. The only thing that stops them is the destruction of their physical ability to act. Hamas is never going to try to stop killing Jews. Unless they are physically unable to do so. Israel could fully withdraw from the West Bank tomorrow like it did from Gaza in 2005 - including all settlements - and could give East Jerusalem to the PLO and even agree to a right of return for Palestinian refugees, and Hamas would still try to kill Jews.
Not that the PLO deserves such concessions, as just like Hamas it still wishes to destroy the entire state of Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. Sorry, but your public declarations that you wish to co-exist with Israel make absolutely no sense when your maps label the entire area that is now Israel as "Palestine" and you teach your children that "Palestine" is not just the West Bank and Gaza but the entirety of Israel as well.
Regular Palestinians may want peaceful coexistence, but their leadership - whether it is Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, whatever - is still intent on the fantasy of taking over the entire country and driving all the Jews out in the process. Until this changes - until Palestinians actually acknowledge Israel's right to exist consistently, until their media is no longer a fever swamp of Der Sturmer-style anti-Semitism, until they lay down their arms, there is absolutely no reason for Israel to engage them on any level but militarily. Do you really think by going in killing Hamas members and have another humiliating occupation that the Palestinians will suddenly start to live the Israeli's ? You have to look at things from both points of views. Try to put yourselves in the shoes of a Palestinian wanting to defend what he rightfully thinks is his land (not saying their claims are better/worse than the ones from the israeli's, just that this is their point of view, and you would probably do the same if you would be in their shoes) No, I think that a decimating defeat will wake Palestinians up to the fact that despite their fanaticism, they cannot win their jihad and it is time to give it up. I view the situation in Israel / Palestine as no different from the situation facing the Allies in World War II in the sense that the enemy will not give up unless it is facing annihilation. I have no wish to look at things from the point of view of anti-Semites, which is what the majority of the Palestinian population is. Anti-Semitism is universal among the Palestinian leadership. If the average Palestinian feels he is trying to defend what is rightfully his, it is too bad for him that his efforts are being twisted by his genocidal, racist leaders. Who is the main source of medicine and food for Gaza and the West Bank? Israel. Who transfers tens of millions of dollars to the PLO annually? Israel. Who treats Palestinians in their own hospitals? Israelis. Who sent guns and trainers and advisers into the West Bank, into the hands of the PLO, post-1994 as part of the Oslo agreement, in an attempt to turn the PLO into a real governing organization that could effectively rule the West Bank? Israel. Would the Palestinians ever do any of these things for the Jews of Israel? No. We know what Palestinians do to Jews in their power: they are tortured and mutilated and murdered. As such, I care not one fig for the feelings of the Palestinians or view any of their claims as being at the moment legitimate. When they cease their genocidal jihad, then their claims to self-determination will be legitimate to me. As mentioned before in this thread the term "anti-semite" is a dangerous one. Probably anybody would be "anti" the people who occupy their land... I also think that if Palestinians would be given the choice between all the things you say Israel gives them and their land they would most likely choose the land which they claim is theirs ;-) You mentioned the 2nd world-war, the resistance in Europe continued fighting against the occupation and in the end they won. (just making the case opposite to yours, so you can see the other point of view. I am not claiming one side has more rights to the land than the other, and try to avoid taking sides)
You know, after heeding your call to put myself in the victims' shoes, on both sides, it's unthinkable the amount of suffering these people have had to go through.
It makes me, as someone far away seated comfortably in his safe home, feel illegit in my strongly worded opinions of this conflict. I doubt this situation will be resolved peacefully, but I sure hope the least damaging option will be chosen.
|
On November 16 2012 03:03 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 02:58 Maxhster wrote:
i am astounded at the amount of people that say its ok to asassinate foreign elected government officials, imagine germany would order a hit on the swiss minister of defense... the uproar that would happen, but in isreal, business as usual.. The commander of a enemy military force is pretty much the most legit target there is.
Yeah, I dont get it either. Cut the head of and the rest will fall. Its even the most 'humane'. why spend decades of killing each other if it all can end (or at least scale it down) with the death (assassination) of certain officials.
Also, are people in here forgetting its not only harmless rockets that hamas and palastines send over? What about the hundreds of suicide bombings? But its ok right? we only want to know about the hamdless stuff hamas does to the jews.
|
On November 16 2012 03:22 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:14 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 03:07 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 03:01 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 02:55 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 02:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Some fact check request, not opinions. So has this escalated from the initial atack? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20346545Israel has killed more children than the Hamas rocket strikes have killed people. Good thing this isn't a numbers game then. Silly demagogic statements like this are dumb and add nothing to this discussion. Also "Woman pregnant with twins killed - location unknown" is shoddy reporting from a reputable website. There have been many fake claims before and with a lack of names and locations this seems very questionable. Yeah man, there's no reason there to questions Israel's behavior at all. You can call it demagogic but its really just a true statement. Can you really not see the equivalence between the behavior on both sides? One side attacks the other damaging infrastructure and killing civilians, then the other retaliates doing the exact same thing. Like you said, its not a numbers game, how many rockets vs artillery shells is not really relevant and that civilians have been killed on both sides is more important than how many, it just sows the seeds of more violence. Maybe they are lying about death statistics but some of them have been confirmed and "its not a numbers game" which is good because if it was the kill ratio looks kind of damning for Israel. (Look up stats yourself, I'm having trouble finding particularly precise ones, but the closest estimate I've seen is 1 Israeli to 5 Palestinians and some going closer to 1:60.) The rockets are aimed at civilian populations, whereas the Israeli attacks are aimed at militants and sadly hit civilians. As far as numbers, remember that Hamas traded 1 Israeli hostage for 1000 prisoners, so this shows their regard for human life and reminded us their mindset with where they place weapons and use human shields. I know you are more invested in this as an Israeli but come on at least try to make arguments that make sense to people who are not partisan on the issue. First of all the human shield stuff is atrocious and unfortunately used by both sides: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/gaza-civilians-endangered-military-tactics-both-sides-20090108Wtf does that second part even mean? Because they got a good deal at the exchange they regard human life as less?! That doesn't make any sense, you could argue it shows how much more worth an Israeli life is to the Israeli government than a Palestinian one (I will not do that though because it's stupid)... I mentioned it to show how Hamas value civilian life and the price they are willing to pay for their goals. Also if you look at the goldstone follow up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Goldstone.27s_retraction_of_civilian_targeting_claim There is a attempt to minimize civilian deaths although not at the cos of our own. Uhm did you even read the article?Show nested quote +The other principal authors of the UN report, Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers, have rejected Goldstone's reassessment arguing that there is "no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report as nothing of substance has appeared that would in anyway change the context, findings or conclusions of that report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict" And you have to be a bit clearer, in what way demonstrates the exchange how the Hamas values life and what price they are willing to pay for their goal? Is the price they payed the one Israeli soldier?
Most modern wars would trade prisoner at a more or less 1:1 rate. Hamas however would only accept 1,000 people for a conscript, so there not saying "one of ours=one of theirs" but 1 of yours=1000 of us. And seeing how Hamas put munitions and weapon labs under mosques/schools/apartments and how during "Cast led" the whole leadership hid under the hospital showing both a ability to exploit our lack of will to harm civilians and a disregard for theirs.
|
On November 16 2012 02:55 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 02:43 RezJ wrote:On November 16 2012 02:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Some fact check request, not opinions. So has this escalated from the initial atack? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20346545+ Show Spoiler +Three Israelis have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza, while 15 Palestinians have been killed in two days of Israeli attacks on Gaza...
Many of the 15 Palestinians killed were members of militant groups, but civilians - including four children - were also among the dead. They included 11-month-old Omar, the son of Jihad Misharawi, a BBC Arabic picture editor Israel has killed more children than the Hamas rocket strikes have killed people. Please. Do I have to explain Iron Dome & human shield tactics again? Amount of casualties is irrelevant and misleading. A better indication of aggression would be the targeting and volume of rockets. Sorry no, the number of casualties is never irrelevant, I don't even know how a human can think that way and no, number of rockets is not a good measure of anything: One rocket with nuclear warhead targeted at whomever in any city is worse than all the 12000 rockets of Hamas and when comparing Israeli weapons to the rockets fired by Hamas the destructiveness must be taken into consideration as well. "We didn't target your kids" is not an excuse for a family in grief. Any moral that does not look at the outcome at all is an inhumane one. A good indicator for aggression would incorporate non military aggression as well (taking of land and resources, blockades). Again I don't really care who the "worse aggressor" or whatever is but the picture is so very lopsided that every Israeli should put his government under extreme scrutiny.
If you take Iron Dome into consideration, then the amount of Israeli casualties is NOT indicative of the aggression, and therefore misleading, and irrelevant. And, if you take human shield tactics into consideration, then more civilians are going to die no matter how precise Israel's targeting is, and therefore it is disproportionate to the aggression, and is ultimately misleading, and irrelevant. Did I make myself clear enough this time?
And when I referred to "volume" I was obviously only talking about the kind of warheads that they were using. One nuclear missile can do a lot more damage, duh. What I'm trying to assert is that just because less people on the Israeli side are actually getting *hit* by the rockets, doesn't mean the amount of rockets being fired is small, and that amount is more indicative of the aggression than casualties.
|
On November 16 2012 03:28 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 02:55 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 02:43 RezJ wrote:On November 16 2012 02:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Some fact check request, not opinions. So has this escalated from the initial atack? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20346545+ Show Spoiler +Three Israelis have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza, while 15 Palestinians have been killed in two days of Israeli attacks on Gaza...
Many of the 15 Palestinians killed were members of militant groups, but civilians - including four children - were also among the dead. They included 11-month-old Omar, the son of Jihad Misharawi, a BBC Arabic picture editor Israel has killed more children than the Hamas rocket strikes have killed people. Please. Do I have to explain Iron Dome & human shield tactics again? Amount of casualties is irrelevant and misleading. A better indication of aggression would be the targeting and volume of rockets. Sorry no, the number of casualties is never irrelevant, I don't even know how a human can think that way and no, number of rockets is not a good measure of anything: One rocket with nuclear warhead targeted at whomever in any city is worse than all the 12000 rockets of Hamas and when comparing Israeli weapons to the rockets fired by Hamas the destructiveness must be taken into consideration as well. "We didn't target your kids" is not an excuse for a family in grief. Any moral that does not look at the outcome at all is an inhumane one. A good indicator for aggression would incorporate non military aggression as well (taking of land and resources, blockades). Again I don't really care who the "worse aggressor" or whatever is but the picture is so very lopsided that every Israeli should put his government under extreme scrutiny. If you take Iron Dome into consideration, then the amount of Israeli casualties is NOT indicative of the aggression, and therefore misleading, and irrelevant. And, if you take human shield tactics into consideration, then more civilians are going to die no matter how precise Israel's targeting is, and therefore it is disproportionate to the aggression, and is ultimately misleading, and irrelevant. Did I make myself clear enough this time? And when I referred to "volume" I was obviously only talking about the kind of warheads that they were using. One nuclear missile can do a lot more damage, duh. What I'm trying to assert is that just because less people on the Israeli side are actually getting *hit* by the rockets, doesn't mean the amount of rockets being fired is small, and that amount is more indicative of the aggression than casualties.
Not necessarily.
If casualties is what Hamas wants, then they are going to HAVE to use more rockets because of the Dome. It has nothing to do with aggression, but achieving results....
|
On November 16 2012 03:23 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:03 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 02:58 Maxhster wrote:
i am astounded at the amount of people that say its ok to asassinate foreign elected government officials, imagine germany would order a hit on the swiss minister of defense... the uproar that would happen, but in isreal, business as usual.. The commander of a enemy military force is pretty much the most legit target there is. Yeah, I dont get it either. Cut the head of and the rest will fall. Its even the most 'humane'. why spend decades of killing each other if it all can end (or at least scale it down) with the death (assassination) of certain officials. Also, are people in here forgetting its not only harmless rockets that hamas and palastines send over? What about the hundreds of suicide bombings? But its ok right? we only want to know about the hamdless stuff hamas does to the jews.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htm
Meh, the suicide bombings have really scaled down in favor of rocket attacks, so they're just not such a hot topic anymore. (I can find 2008 on Wikipedia, says 2, but can't find past that, anyone have 2009-2011?
|
On November 16 2012 03:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:15 Sub40APM wrote:On November 16 2012 03:09 zalz wrote:On November 16 2012 03:02 Sub40APM wrote:On November 16 2012 02:45 DeepElemBlues wrote:
What Israel should do is re-occupy Gaza with ~100,000 troops or so and annihilate Hamas. The way 100,000 American troops annihilated the Taleban or the Iraqi terrorists huh? Occupations like this never work unless you go full Nazi and just start exterminating people wholesale. Which is why guerrilla warfare is usually so effective against democracies. The Iraqi terrorists (aka insurgents) were actually wiped out as the result of the surge. Afghanistan's landscape prevents a similar strategy, though the drone-program has proven to be pretty effective. The biggest problem with the Taliban is simply that they have a nation that gives them safe haven, Pakistan. No, they actually were not. They simply finished the ethnic cleansing of their respective neighborhoods and the Shiite death squads did the rest. But David Patreaus appreciates you supporting his mythology, in the coming years he will need people to believe the surge worked in hopes of preserving his legacy. The surge has failed in Afghanistan because the Taleban are supported by the Pashtuns in the South. As soon as the Americans leave, the Tajiks and Hazar are going to be driven back out of power and return to what they were doing pre-2001 and cling to power in their own territories. No, they were not wiped out, but to claim anything other than that they were significantly damaged is to either be ignorant or have a malicious disregard for the truth. The surge in Iraq worked, whether you like it or not. The central government would have collapsed and the country broken up into warlord-controlled regions if it had not. Such a situation did exist in some areas of the country before the surge, and the areas where the central government does not have control are much, much smaller now than they were then.
No, it would have not. Central governments of even incredibly leaky and incompetent states can maintain themselves in power with enough money behind them, the Communist Afghans stayed in power until 1992 for god's sake.
The surge coincided with the successful end of ethnic cleansing programs by both Sunni and Shiite extremists.Civilian deaths peaked in 2006, a full year before the surge began and declined rapidly afterwards. The Americans didnt even bother trying to re-take Basra from the Mahdi forces, and it was up to their fellow Shiites to beat them into submission in 08.
|
My best wishes to the people of palestine. Is it really that hard for two peoples to live in the same territory without the state of Israel? When governments keep making shitty decisions for the people all around the world it seems it is(I mean, the decisions are very good for some people...they sure are..)
A good read: http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20111101.htm
|
On November 16 2012 03:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Yes. Political considerations. Of course. "Hey guys, after spending 20 years down here in South Lebanon we will withdraw, handing a total and complete victory to our most effective enemies in Hizbollah that will allow them and their Syrian allies to take over the entire country, creating a second front against us. But those of you who dont support them, lets be friends!"
They withdrew from Lebanon because they could not sustain the occupation of a territory whose population was wholly antagonistic to them. They withdrew from Gaza because deploying 70,000 troops to protect 7,000 settlers was just as costly and stupid. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it. Your opinion < facts. Israel withdrew from Lebanon as a goodwill gesture during a period of intense negotiations and it withdrew from Gaza because Ariel Sharon wanted to make a point. And even if they withdrew from Gaza because using 70,000 soldiers to protect 7,000 settlers made no sense, that is hardly "being ground down." Being "ground down" would be suffering losses making their position untenable, which did not happen. And seeing as how Israel now has to use a similar number of soldiers to guard the Gaza border / invade when the Israeli leadership deems it necessary, I guess maybe using 70,000 soldiers to protect 7,000 settlers really wasn't such a waste. Israel had a much stronger strategic position when it was still occupying Gaza.
Israel transferred the control of South Lebanon and exposed its frontier to its most effective enemy because it wanted to make a "good will gesture during a period of intense negotiations"? Barak withdrew from Lebanon because he campaigned for it in the elections. It was a *domestic issue* because the occupation of South Lebanon was *deeply unpopular* because like all occupations of foreign territories by democratic states they become unpopular.
|
On November 16 2012 03:30 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:28 RezJ wrote:On November 16 2012 02:55 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 02:43 RezJ wrote:On November 16 2012 02:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Some fact check request, not opinions. So has this escalated from the initial atack? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20346545+ Show Spoiler +Three Israelis have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza, while 15 Palestinians have been killed in two days of Israeli attacks on Gaza...
Many of the 15 Palestinians killed were members of militant groups, but civilians - including four children - were also among the dead. They included 11-month-old Omar, the son of Jihad Misharawi, a BBC Arabic picture editor Israel has killed more children than the Hamas rocket strikes have killed people. Please. Do I have to explain Iron Dome & human shield tactics again? Amount of casualties is irrelevant and misleading. A better indication of aggression would be the targeting and volume of rockets. Sorry no, the number of casualties is never irrelevant, I don't even know how a human can think that way and no, number of rockets is not a good measure of anything: One rocket with nuclear warhead targeted at whomever in any city is worse than all the 12000 rockets of Hamas and when comparing Israeli weapons to the rockets fired by Hamas the destructiveness must be taken into consideration as well. "We didn't target your kids" is not an excuse for a family in grief. Any moral that does not look at the outcome at all is an inhumane one. A good indicator for aggression would incorporate non military aggression as well (taking of land and resources, blockades). Again I don't really care who the "worse aggressor" or whatever is but the picture is so very lopsided that every Israeli should put his government under extreme scrutiny. If you take Iron Dome into consideration, then the amount of Israeli casualties is NOT indicative of the aggression, and therefore misleading, and irrelevant. And, if you take human shield tactics into consideration, then more civilians are going to die no matter how precise Israel's targeting is, and therefore it is disproportionate to the aggression, and is ultimately misleading, and irrelevant. Did I make myself clear enough this time? And when I referred to "volume" I was obviously only talking about the kind of warheads that they were using. One nuclear missile can do a lot more damage, duh. What I'm trying to assert is that just because less people on the Israeli side are actually getting *hit* by the rockets, doesn't mean the amount of rockets being fired is small, and that amount is more indicative of the aggression than casualties. Not necessarily. If casualties is what Hamas wants, then they are going to HAVE to use more rockets because of the Dome. It has nothing to do with aggression, but achieving results....
Those are still rockets that the IDF has to actively work on intercepting, and citizens who are woken up in the middle of the night to run for shelter. There are consequences to every rocket being fired even when there are no casualties.
The guy above just tried to assert that since the Gazan side suffered more casualties, that automatically makes Israel the aggressor, which is just not a rational way to look at it, given the full picture.
|
No, it would have not. Central governments of even incredibly leaky and incompetent states can maintain themselves in power with enough money behind them, the Communist Afghans stayed in power until 1992 for god's sake.
The surge coincided with the successful end of ethnic cleansing programs by both Sunni and Shiite extremists.Civilian deaths peaked in 2006, a full year before the surge began and declined rapidly afterwards. The Americans didnt even bother trying to re-take Basra from the Mahdi forces, and it was up to their fellow Shiites to beat them into submission in 08.
Yes, it would have. The Iraqi government controlled only a few towns outside of Baghdad and only parts of Baghdad in 2006. It was Sunni militias switching sides and American soldiers that ended terrorist control of Anbar and Diyala provinces and the "Baghdad belt" south of the capital. Official Iraqi forces operated mostly in a support role.
And ummm, no deaths did not decline rapidly after 2006. They declined rapidly after 2007. When did the surge happen? The end of 2007 and the first three months of 2008.
The argument that real credit for the decline in violence goes to the successful end of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad ignores the fact that the whole country is not Baghdad, and that violence in Baghdad only declined after a significant military build-up in the city made it much harder for Sunnis and Shiites to travel to neighborhoods dominated by the other sect and attack them there.
I don't know where you are getting your facts from, but there was a significant amount of American forces participating in the re-taking of Basra after the British totally failed there.
Israel transferred the control of South Lebanon and exposed its frontier to its most effective enemy because it wanted to make a "good will gesture during a period of intense negotiations"? Barak withdrew from Lebanon because he campaigned for it in the elections. It was a *domestic issue* because the occupation of South Lebanon was *deeply unpopular* because like all occupations of foreign territories by democratic states they become unpopular.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Lebanon_conflict_(1982–2000)#2000:_Israeli_withdrawal
Israel considered this move as tactical withdrawal since it always regarded the Security Zone as a buffer zone to defend Israel's citizens. By ending the occupation, Barak's cabinet assumed it would improve its worldwide image. Ehud Barak has argued that "Hezbollah would have enjoyed international legitimacy in their struggle against a foreign occupier", if the Israelis had not unilaterally withdrew without a peace agreement.[31]
|
On November 16 2012 03:28 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 02:55 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 02:43 RezJ wrote:On November 16 2012 02:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Some fact check request, not opinions. So has this escalated from the initial atack? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20346545+ Show Spoiler +Three Israelis have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza, while 15 Palestinians have been killed in two days of Israeli attacks on Gaza...
Many of the 15 Palestinians killed were members of militant groups, but civilians - including four children - were also among the dead. They included 11-month-old Omar, the son of Jihad Misharawi, a BBC Arabic picture editor Israel has killed more children than the Hamas rocket strikes have killed people. Please. Do I have to explain Iron Dome & human shield tactics again? Amount of casualties is irrelevant and misleading. A better indication of aggression would be the targeting and volume of rockets. Sorry no, the number of casualties is never irrelevant, I don't even know how a human can think that way and no, number of rockets is not a good measure of anything: One rocket with nuclear warhead targeted at whomever in any city is worse than all the 12000 rockets of Hamas and when comparing Israeli weapons to the rockets fired by Hamas the destructiveness must be taken into consideration as well. "We didn't target your kids" is not an excuse for a family in grief. Any moral that does not look at the outcome at all is an inhumane one. A good indicator for aggression would incorporate non military aggression as well (taking of land and resources, blockades). Again I don't really care who the "worse aggressor" or whatever is but the picture is so very lopsided that every Israeli should put his government under extreme scrutiny. If you take Iron Dome into consideration, then the amount of Israeli casualties is NOT indicative of the aggression, and therefore misleading, and irrelevant. And, if you take human shield tactics into consideration, then more civilians are going to die no matter how precise Israel's targeting is, and therefore it is disproportionate to the aggression, and is ultimately misleading, and irrelevant. Did I make myself clear enough this time? And when I referred to "volume" I was obviously only talking about the kind of warheads that they were using. One nuclear missile can do a lot more damage, duh. What I'm trying to assert is that just because less people on the Israeli side are actually getting *hit* by the rockets, doesn't mean the amount of rockets being fired is small, and that amount is more indicative of the aggression than casualties.
And I say to you that the number of casualties is not irrelevant even with "Iron dome" and "human shield" considered. Btw do you have an assessment how many rockets are averted and how many people die due to being used as shield (an impartial source for the later since I have a hunch that the IDF would count very liberally...). In a conflict it also matters how capable you are to hurt the other side and if Israels definition of restraint is only killing 10 times as many civilians than that's not good enough for me.
And as you like to talk about aggression why don't you include the "non military aggressions" I proposed? What should Hamas do about them? Unconditional surrender and hoping that they will get some bread crumbs from Israel?
On November 16 2012 03:27 Goozen wrote:
Most modern wars would trade prisoner at a more or less 1:1 rate. Hamas however would only accept 1,000 people for a conscript, so there not saying "one of ours=one of theirs" but 1 of yours=1000 of us. And seeing how Hamas put munitions and weapon labs under mosques/schools/apartments and how during "Cast led" the whole leadership hid under the hospital showing both a ability to exploit our lack of will to harm civilians and a disregard for theirs.
Like I said they got a good deal and probably knew they could get a good deal, then why not pursue it? What does that have to do with value of life? The life of whom? The 999 that don't have to stay imprisoned because they didn't go for an 1:1 rate?
I will not defend the tactics of Hamas and you should not defend the tactics of your government...
|
On November 16 2012 03:42 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 16 2012 03:28 RezJ wrote:On November 16 2012 02:55 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 02:43 RezJ wrote:On November 16 2012 02:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Some fact check request, not opinions. So has this escalated from the initial atack? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20346545+ Show Spoiler +Three Israelis have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza, while 15 Palestinians have been killed in two days of Israeli attacks on Gaza...
Many of the 15 Palestinians killed were members of militant groups, but civilians - including four children - were also among the dead. They included 11-month-old Omar, the son of Jihad Misharawi, a BBC Arabic picture editor Israel has killed more children than the Hamas rocket strikes have killed people. Please. Do I have to explain Iron Dome & human shield tactics again? Amount of casualties is irrelevant and misleading. A better indication of aggression would be the targeting and volume of rockets. Sorry no, the number of casualties is never irrelevant, I don't even know how a human can think that way and no, number of rockets is not a good measure of anything: One rocket with nuclear warhead targeted at whomever in any city is worse than all the 12000 rockets of Hamas and when comparing Israeli weapons to the rockets fired by Hamas the destructiveness must be taken into consideration as well. "We didn't target your kids" is not an excuse for a family in grief. Any moral that does not look at the outcome at all is an inhumane one. A good indicator for aggression would incorporate non military aggression as well (taking of land and resources, blockades). Again I don't really care who the "worse aggressor" or whatever is but the picture is so very lopsided that every Israeli should put his government under extreme scrutiny. If you take Iron Dome into consideration, then the amount of Israeli casualties is NOT indicative of the aggression, and therefore misleading, and irrelevant. And, if you take human shield tactics into consideration, then more civilians are going to die no matter how precise Israel's targeting is, and therefore it is disproportionate to the aggression, and is ultimately misleading, and irrelevant. Did I make myself clear enough this time? And when I referred to "volume" I was obviously only talking about the kind of warheads that they were using. One nuclear missile can do a lot more damage, duh. What I'm trying to assert is that just because less people on the Israeli side are actually getting *hit* by the rockets, doesn't mean the amount of rockets being fired is small, and that amount is more indicative of the aggression than casualties. Not necessarily. If casualties is what Hamas wants, then they are going to HAVE to use more rockets because of the Dome. It has nothing to do with aggression, but achieving results.... Those are still rockets that the IDF has to actively work on intercepting, and citizens who are woken up in the middle of the night to run for shelter. There are consequences to every rocket being fired even when there are no casualties. The guy above just tried to assert that since the Gazan side suffered more casualties, that automatically makes Israel the aggressor, which is just not a rational way to look at it, given the full picture.
You are right in that way. Israel is not exactly the aggressor. However, the whole conflict is so much more complex than there being one aggressor and one defender, that its kind of a redundant argument.
The major problem i have with the discussions about this subject is that supporters of both sides seem determined to prove that their side has done nothing wrong, which is impossible because war in its definition (ie the acceptability of innocent civilian casualties) goes against every moral rule that any sensible person has.
|
On November 16 2012 03:34 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:23 TheRealArtemis wrote:On November 16 2012 03:03 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 02:58 Maxhster wrote:
i am astounded at the amount of people that say its ok to asassinate foreign elected government officials, imagine germany would order a hit on the swiss minister of defense... the uproar that would happen, but in isreal, business as usual.. The commander of a enemy military force is pretty much the most legit target there is. Yeah, I dont get it either. Cut the head of and the rest will fall. Its even the most 'humane'. why spend decades of killing each other if it all can end (or at least scale it down) with the death (assassination) of certain officials. Also, are people in here forgetting its not only harmless rockets that hamas and palastines send over? What about the hundreds of suicide bombings? But its ok right? we only want to know about the hamdless stuff hamas does to the jews. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmMeh, the suicide bombings have really scaled down in favor of rocket attacks, so they're just not such a hot topic anymore. (I can find 2008 on Wikipedia, says 2, but can't find past that, anyone have 2009-2011?
There have been some attempts and suicide attacks (not bombings) such as the one afew months ago where several Egyptian soldiers were killed after militants stole a APC and tried to cross the border for example. But its basically impossible to get in to Israel from gaza other then going through the crossings.
|
On November 16 2012 03:28 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 02:55 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 02:43 RezJ wrote:On November 16 2012 02:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Some fact check request, not opinions. So has this escalated from the initial atack? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20346545+ Show Spoiler +Three Israelis have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza, while 15 Palestinians have been killed in two days of Israeli attacks on Gaza...
Many of the 15 Palestinians killed were members of militant groups, but civilians - including four children - were also among the dead. They included 11-month-old Omar, the son of Jihad Misharawi, a BBC Arabic picture editor Israel has killed more children than the Hamas rocket strikes have killed people. Please. Do I have to explain Iron Dome & human shield tactics again? Amount of casualties is irrelevant and misleading. A better indication of aggression would be the targeting and volume of rockets. Sorry no, the number of casualties is never irrelevant, I don't even know how a human can think that way and no, number of rockets is not a good measure of anything: One rocket with nuclear warhead targeted at whomever in any city is worse than all the 12000 rockets of Hamas and when comparing Israeli weapons to the rockets fired by Hamas the destructiveness must be taken into consideration as well. "We didn't target your kids" is not an excuse for a family in grief. Any moral that does not look at the outcome at all is an inhumane one. A good indicator for aggression would incorporate non military aggression as well (taking of land and resources, blockades). Again I don't really care who the "worse aggressor" or whatever is but the picture is so very lopsided that every Israeli should put his government under extreme scrutiny. If you take Iron Dome into consideration, then the amount of Israeli casualties is NOT indicative of the aggression, and therefore misleading, and irrelevant. And, if you take human shield tactics into consideration, then more civilians are going to die no matter how precise Israel's targeting is, and therefore it is disproportionate to the aggression, and is ultimately misleading, and irrelevant. Did I make myself clear enough this time? And when I referred to "volume" I was obviously only talking about the kind of warheads that they were using. One nuclear missile can do a lot more damage, duh. What I'm trying to assert is that just because less people on the Israeli side are actually getting *hit* by the rockets, doesn't mean the amount of rockets being fired is small, and that amount is more indicative of the aggression than casualties.
No man, you really did not make yourself clear, something about aggression and how who actually died doesn't matter. I just don't agree with that. Who actually was killed is always going to be relevant. Good on Israel for minimizing civilian casualties against the rocket attacks. This indicator for aggression thing is what doesn't matter. Hamas fired x rockets that killed y people and Israel launched x attacks that killed y people. They attacked each other, we all know that, plenty of aggression to go around.
The truth is that since this bombing more people have died in addition to the people killed in the attack, I gave a source and you haven't tried to dispute the numbers, you're just arguing it doesn't matter because of something about aggression indicators. It does matter, it matters to the Palestinians and the Israelis, fortunately one of those groups have fewer dead than they could have, but people have died.
That's what matters and that is what will be used in propaganda to get more fighters and find more money to pay for those rockets, some of which will kill civilians. Personally I would think that whole "They killed 4 kids!" line makes for some damn good advertising, gets the young men nice and angry so they can continue to fight in this awful conflict.
@Goozen: Ah, good to know they have stayed down but sad that they continue.
|
On November 16 2012 03:27 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2012 03:22 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 03:14 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 03:07 silynxer wrote:On November 16 2012 03:01 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 02:55 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:40 Goozen wrote:On November 16 2012 02:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On November 16 2012 02:23 GoTuNk! wrote:
Some fact check request, not opinions. So has this escalated from the initial atack? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20346545Israel has killed more children than the Hamas rocket strikes have killed people. Good thing this isn't a numbers game then. Silly demagogic statements like this are dumb and add nothing to this discussion. Also "Woman pregnant with twins killed - location unknown" is shoddy reporting from a reputable website. There have been many fake claims before and with a lack of names and locations this seems very questionable. Yeah man, there's no reason there to questions Israel's behavior at all. You can call it demagogic but its really just a true statement. Can you really not see the equivalence between the behavior on both sides? One side attacks the other damaging infrastructure and killing civilians, then the other retaliates doing the exact same thing. Like you said, its not a numbers game, how many rockets vs artillery shells is not really relevant and that civilians have been killed on both sides is more important than how many, it just sows the seeds of more violence. Maybe they are lying about death statistics but some of them have been confirmed and "its not a numbers game" which is good because if it was the kill ratio looks kind of damning for Israel. (Look up stats yourself, I'm having trouble finding particularly precise ones, but the closest estimate I've seen is 1 Israeli to 5 Palestinians and some going closer to 1:60.) The rockets are aimed at civilian populations, whereas the Israeli attacks are aimed at militants and sadly hit civilians. As far as numbers, remember that Hamas traded 1 Israeli hostage for 1000 prisoners, so this shows their regard for human life and reminded us their mindset with where they place weapons and use human shields. I know you are more invested in this as an Israeli but come on at least try to make arguments that make sense to people who are not partisan on the issue. First of all the human shield stuff is atrocious and unfortunately used by both sides: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/gaza-civilians-endangered-military-tactics-both-sides-20090108Wtf does that second part even mean? Because they got a good deal at the exchange they regard human life as less?! That doesn't make any sense, you could argue it shows how much more worth an Israeli life is to the Israeli government than a Palestinian one (I will not do that though because it's stupid)... I mentioned it to show how Hamas value civilian life and the price they are willing to pay for their goals. Also if you look at the goldstone follow up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict#Goldstone.27s_retraction_of_civilian_targeting_claim There is a attempt to minimize civilian deaths although not at the cos of our own. Uhm did you even read the article?The other principal authors of the UN report, Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers, have rejected Goldstone's reassessment arguing that there is "no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report as nothing of substance has appeared that would in anyway change the context, findings or conclusions of that report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict" And you have to be a bit clearer, in what way demonstrates the exchange how the Hamas values life and what price they are willing to pay for their goal? Is the price they payed the one Israeli soldier? Most modern wars would trade prisoner at a more or less 1:1 rate. Hamas however would only accept 1,000 people for a conscript, so there not saying "one of ours=one of theirs" but 1 of yours=1000 of us. And seeing how Hamas put munitions and weapon labs under mosques/schools/apartments and how during "Cast led" the whole leadership hid under the hospital showing both a ability to exploit our lack of will to harm civilians and a disregard for theirs.
Actually, I'd beg to differ purely on the hostage point.
When a country offers a prisoner exchange with an organization/sovereign nation/what have you, they set the terms of what they want. Israel wanted Gilad Shalit. Palestine wanted 1000 palestinian prisoners in return. If both sides agree, it is not equating the two, but saying that they are satisfied by the terms of the other.
Edit: I'm not trying to dispute the argument you have, just the logic behind the 1:1000 thing.
|
Let country X have military power 10, and Y have power 100. Now, X is using 8 of its 10 power against Y, while Y is using 20 of its 100 power against X. Now depending on if you look at absolute or relative numbers, X or Y could have a more aggressive stance.
Also, any family (or government body) would prefer to kill at least 3n people of another opposing body than have n of their own people die. Such is human nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
