On November 17 2012 04:04 nucleo wrote: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" id say alot of ppl fit into that :D
How many people did the leaflet kill? Or perhaps wounded? paper cuts you know..
he already admitted that he cannot be convinced he is wrong on this. don't bother...
Of course I can't, army are not meant to be ethical, only Israelis can think this with all the shit they eat from IDF every day. It's especially more true when the frontier between civilians and non civilians is as fuzzy as it is today, and when modern warfare consist of lauching targetted missile miles away and watching the result on your computer.
not saying IDF is the pinnacle of ethics (not at all) but calling homes on the phone and dropping leaflets to warn about incoming attacks on specific areas doesn't fit with your "they are here to kill" theory.
On November 17 2012 04:13 nucleo wrote: not saying IDF is the pinnacle of ethics (far from it) but calling homes on the phone and dropping leaflets to warn about incoming attacks on specific areas doesn't fit with your "they are here to kill" theory.
It's a perversion and they only do that to prevent any political backfire. The IDF is formed out of the Haganah who has a shaddy history to say the least. They are only building their communication around ethics with this type of "action" to defend themselves from the international community that can't believe Israel is still bombing Gaza in 2012. But it's not specific to the IDF actually, I just don't understand how people (especially young people who should ask more from their officials) can stay beside an army that is a tool for their state to assure their dominance over others.
On November 17 2012 04:13 nucleo wrote: not saying IDF is the pinnacle of ethics (not at all) but calling homes on the phone and dropping leaflets to warn about incoming attacks on specific areas doesn't fit with your "they are here to kill" theory.
neither does it confute the theory. It depends on their other actions
On November 17 2012 04:13 nucleo wrote: not saying IDF is the pinnacle of ethics (far from it) but calling homes on the phone and dropping leaflets to warn about incoming attacks on specific areas doesn't fit with your "they are here to kill" theory.
It's a perversion and they only do that to prevent any political backfire. The IDF is formed out of the Haganah who has a shaddy history to say the least. They are only building their communication around ethics with this type of "action" to defend themselves from the international community that can't believe Israel is still bombing Gaza in 2012. But it's not specific to the IDF actually, I just don't understand how people (especially young people who should ask more from their officials) can stay beside an army that is a tool for their state to assure their dominance over others.
I was going to refute specific parts of this, but it's nearly entirely wrong.
However for starters, Israelis stand behind the IDF because every citizen serves in it, and is on active reserve after their discharge. The IDF is their army, why do Americans stand behind the Marines?
I would argue, as I'm sure would most if not all Israelis (and many other observers) that the IDF is a tool for the protection of the Israeli citizens.
On November 17 2012 04:17 WhiteDog wrote: an army that is a tool for their state to assure their dominance over others.
And that is where you are wrong. It is a tool who's sole purpose is to make sure I do not get killed by the zounds of people out there in the world who trying very hard to kill me right now.
well not all serve, and not all are in the reserve and even among those who are, not all support. it's a law, for able citizens that do not fall under exempt circumstances to serve a mandatory service. but yeah, you're right in general
*some examples are: Arabs don't serve, Druze and such can choose to opt out. physically and mentally incapable also dont serve obviously, so some people fake medical conditions of mental health to get out of it.
On November 17 2012 04:13 nucleo wrote: not saying IDF is the pinnacle of ethics (far from it) but calling homes on the phone and dropping leaflets to warn about incoming attacks on specific areas doesn't fit with your "they are here to kill" theory.
It's a perversion and they only do that to prevent any political backfire. The IDF is formed out of the Haganah who has a shaddy history to say the least. They are only building their communication around ethics with this type of "action" to defend themselves from the international community that can't believe Israel is still bombing Gaza in 2012. But it's not specific to the IDF actually, I just don't understand how people (especially young people who should ask more from their officials) can stay beside an army that is a tool for their state to assure their dominance over others.
I was going to refute specific parts of this, but it's nearly entirely wrong.
However for starters, Israelis stand behind the IDF because every citizen serves in it, and is on active reserve after their discharge. The IDF is their army, why do Americans stand behind the Marines?
I would argue, as I'm sure would most if not all Israelis (and many other observers) that the IDF is a tool for the protection of the Israeli citizens.
Americans stand behind the Marines when the war starts, because you got to defend yourself and nationalism is important: it doesn't mean that people think their army are actually going to do good, they know blood will be shed, but they think it's a necessity. Any country would do that. After 10 years in Viet Nam or 8 years in Iraq however, people started to questionning their army and their government. After 40 years of constant war against a weak opponent (palestinians), civilians dying everywhere, I rarely see any Israelis questionning their army, the reasons behind the invasions or the way Israel is handling the palestinian problem.
On November 17 2012 04:13 nucleo wrote: not saying IDF is the pinnacle of ethics (far from it) but calling homes on the phone and dropping leaflets to warn about incoming attacks on specific areas doesn't fit with your "they are here to kill" theory.
It's a perversion and they only do that to prevent any political backfire. The IDF is formed out of the Haganah who has a shaddy history to say the least. They are only building their communication around ethics with this type of "action" to defend themselves from the international community that can't believe Israel is still bombing Gaza in 2012. But it's not specific to the IDF actually, I just don't understand how people (especially young people who should ask more from their officials) can stay beside an army that is a tool for their state to assure their dominance over others.
I was going to refute specific parts of this, but it's nearly entirely wrong.
However for starters, Israelis stand behind the IDF because every citizen serves in it, and is on active reserve after their discharge. The IDF is their army, why do Americans stand behind the Marines?
I would argue, as I'm sure would most if not all Israelis (and many other observers) that the IDF is a tool for the protection of the Israeli citizens.
Americans stand behind the Marines when the war starts, because you got to defend yourself and nationalism is important: it doesn't mean that people think their army are actually going to do good, they know blood will be shed, but they think it's a necessity. Any country would do that. After 10 years in Viet Nam or 8 years in Iraq however, people started to questionning their army and their government. After 40 years of constant war against a weak opponent (palestinians), civilians dying everywhere, I rarely see any Israelis questionning their army, the reasons behind the invasions or the way Israel is handling the palestinian problem.
You do realize that Israel has fought more than one "opponent" over the last 40 years......
Why is anyone still acknowledging WhiteDog's crap still? Every thread with the word "Israel" in it and this guy repeats the same crap. Seriously. Look at his post history. I stand with RezJ and Noam. Get help dude.
On November 17 2012 01:24 Noam wrote: The question is white_horse: Are you more afraid of a trained military using precision munitions only against military targets, or a group who purposefully targets civilians and their definition of victory is your death.
This is going to be repeated ad nauseum until people just assume it's that simple, I assume?
Last time this happened, 2009: The conflict resulted in between 1,166 and 1,417 Palestinian and 13 Israeli deaths (4 from friendly fire). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War
This is disgustingly disproportionate. Israel justifies this by a simple "They started it". Hamas is a problem, but it is a problem that Israel must take some credit for. Israel has been relentless. There are no substantial humanitarian efforts, no efforts to make a real cultural change towards peace. Any desire for peace from Israel is very, very tongue-in-cheek. They push their land borders as far as they can, and expect a "thank you" in return.
Palestinians are a large group of people living on a walled-in sliver of land. No one outside the Muslim community cares for them. No one supports them. They live under the shadow of Israel's military. There is an anti-Israel, antisemitic sentiment that, frankly, Israel seems content to foster.
But we're supposed to cheer that Israel "defends" itself by invading this small sliver of land with its vastly superior military?
It's so tiresome. I guess I hope Israel gets it over with and just obliterates the populace quickly, because they're giving this cluttered, secluded populace no reason for hope. They're happy to foster more hate, more death. If it weren't for PR, I think Palestine would be done for, obliterated. It's so sad what the WZO has become, and so sad that the Western world is content to see this small, secluded, cluttered settlement of Gaza be slowly squeezed to death.
If Israel would've just shown more restrain over the years, what would've happened? Would Hamas defeat Israel with its rockets? Would the conditions of mainland Israel come close to the deplorable conditions of this "strip" known as Gaza? No. It's a fucking joke. It's like our post 9/11 invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan -- it's completely disproportionate. 3,000 American deaths somehow justifies the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians "over there". And the media is largely accomplice to this, happy to repeat the excuses and talking points.
Reading so many posts i almost lost hope on humanity. Thank you sir.
This whole conflict is a situation of a catch 22 and it will never end. And it is screwed up from the very beginning, when Israel was formed. Of course after the horrors of WW2 the jews needed a state of their own where they can leave in freedom. The only problem was that the territory that was given to them was already inhabited. That's why this plan was unacceptable right from the start by the muslim side. So both sides have a reasonable point, but the problem is that this question cannot be solved by a compromise, a 50-50% status quo solution is not possible due to the simple fact that the territory they are arguing about is too small for two independent and sovereign state. This is a winner takes it all situation and it appears that the israelis won.
So what can the loosers do? They have no state, no economy, no power, no rights, no freedom. They can wait and try to find a peaceful solution and maintain endless peace talks with the stronger side, but it is obvious that they will never reach a peace agreement that is acceptable for both sides. Why? For the reasons above and because the loosers of a war will never ever be able to reach a fair peace treaty with the winners of the same war because the winners simply have no interest to lower their demands. They have all the economic and military power, it would be simply unreasonable for them to act differently.
So what other options are there for the loosers? Can they fight? But how? They have no regular army to fight a regular war with. And this is what I don't understand about the majority of people and the mainstream media when they just attack and blame terrorism. There is no denying that terrorism and the death of innocent civilians is horrible. However the mainstream western media is biased when they try to position Israel as the "good guys" in this conflict. There are no good guys here. What are they expecting from the palestinians? To go for a straight fight with kalashnikovs against tanks, helicopters and aircraft? That would be simply suicide. They fight with what they have and the only way that has a little chance of succes: assimetric warfare. The rules of guerilla warfare: 1. the guerillas cannot win straight ahead, the only way to win a guerilla war is to wear down the enemy until when they cannot take it anymore; 2. the guerillas can only lose the war if they engage in a major battle, otherwise they cannot be truly defeated as long as they can carry on the fight. It is quite simple, just think about Vietnam. The USA didn't lose that war in a traditional way, they were never defeated in the battlefields. They lost the war back at home, as the people couldn't handle the stress and losses of a neverending war anymore.
Not that I agree with terrorism or support killing innocent civilians. But there is no other way for the palestinians to fight , this just comes of necessity because guerilla warfare is the only efficient way of battleing with an overpowered enemy. Simple as that. It is unrealistic and useless to blame the palestinians for fighting with the only means they have and expect them not to choose the only method that gives them the slightest hope of success. Also note that when Israel fights back, doesn't spare the lifes of innocent palestinians lives either. For every israeli that dies they kill at least five times as many palestinians, let them be terrorists or civilians. I know this is not a nice way to look at it, but it's just the way it is.
On November 17 2012 04:55 yosisoy wrote: Why is anyone still acknowledging WhiteDog's crap still? Every thread with the word "Israel" in it and this guy repeats the same crap. Seriously. Look at his post history. I stand with RezJ and Noam. Get help dude.
On November 17 2012 04:13 nucleo wrote: not saying IDF is the pinnacle of ethics (far from it) but calling homes on the phone and dropping leaflets to warn about incoming attacks on specific areas doesn't fit with your "they are here to kill" theory.
It's a perversion and they only do that to prevent any political backfire. The IDF is formed out of the Haganah who has a shaddy history to say the least. They are only building their communication around ethics with this type of "action" to defend themselves from the international community that can't believe Israel is still bombing Gaza in 2012. But it's not specific to the IDF actually, I just don't understand how people (especially young people who should ask more from their officials) can stay beside an army that is a tool for their state to assure their dominance over others.
I was going to refute specific parts of this, but it's nearly entirely wrong.
However for starters, Israelis stand behind the IDF because every citizen serves in it, and is on active reserve after their discharge. The IDF is their army, why do Americans stand behind the Marines?
I would argue, as I'm sure would most if not all Israelis (and many other observers) that the IDF is a tool for the protection of the Israeli citizens.
I don't understand why his criticism of the IDF (valid or otherwise) is being perceived as attacking Israel itself (and by some people it's thought of as attacking Judaism itself judging by the bigot comments). I can criticize the American military over their handling of POWs and that doesn't make me a bigot or attacking America; it merely means I'm attacking the methods an army used to handle a given situation.
I mean, it's kind of scary that people can't dissociate the citizens or the nation from their military; that's not a good omen in my opinion.
On November 17 2012 04:13 nucleo wrote: not saying IDF is the pinnacle of ethics (far from it) but calling homes on the phone and dropping leaflets to warn about incoming attacks on specific areas doesn't fit with your "they are here to kill" theory.
It's a perversion and they only do that to prevent any political backfire. The IDF is formed out of the Haganah who has a shaddy history to say the least. They are only building their communication around ethics with this type of "action" to defend themselves from the international community that can't believe Israel is still bombing Gaza in 2012. But it's not specific to the IDF actually, I just don't understand how people (especially young people who should ask more from their officials) can stay beside an army that is a tool for their state to assure their dominance over others.
I was going to refute specific parts of this, but it's nearly entirely wrong.
However for starters, Israelis stand behind the IDF because every citizen serves in it, and is on active reserve after their discharge. The IDF is their army, why do Americans stand behind the Marines?
I would argue, as I'm sure would most if not all Israelis (and many other observers) that the IDF is a tool for the protection of the Israeli citizens.
I don't understand why his criticism of the IDF (valid or otherwise) is being perceived as attacking Israel itself (and by some people it's thought of as attacking Judaism itself judging by the bigot comments). I can criticize the American military over their handling of POWs and that doesn't make me a bigot or attacking America; it merely means I'm attacking the methods an army used to handle a given situation.
I mean, it's kind of scary that people can't dissociate the citizens or the nation from their military; that's not a good omen in my opinion.
I agree with you in general, only the fact that Israel requires military service of all its citizens does affect the "distance" between the populace and the military. To be frank, I don't know much about the public approval of the IDF within Israel, but I would think this very pertinent when it comes to addressing concerns of military/civic divide.
On November 17 2012 04:17 WhiteDog wrote: an army that is a tool for their state to assure their dominance over others.
And that is where you are wrong. It is a tool who's sole purpose is to make sure I do not get killed by the zounds of people out there in the world who trying very hard to kill me right now.
And that is where you are wrong too. Demonizing an entire population and then reversing cause and effect. But yeah poor you, some men are trying ''very hard to kill you''. Sometimes I wonder what kind of media they feed you down there
I don't follow any media nowadays, I can hear those words directly from Hamas or Iran's leaders.
I guess I am hearing their words after they have been translated, so perhaps all the people who speak Arab and English in the world are lying to me and the original words are not them saying I should die?
I guess its supposed to be funny but it gave me chills
This is an assumption, but the video seems to assume that Palestine is unique because it has always been a violent place...I mean, looking back, it was pretty recent that Europe started to calm down a bit after 2 world wars, and a bunch of smaller wars to kill some time.
EPT
