On November 19 2012 05:29 Vivax wrote: So, assuming Israel finishes the job and inglobates Palestine after some sort of capitulation (expressed by an underground group -the hamas- lol) : Where you gonna put all those palestinians? Think you can all just coexist peacefully as if nothing happened? It isn't a coincidence that lots of wars ended up with genocide attempts or some sort of super oppressive regime. The US army can withdraw from the middle east after beating the governing powers, you can't just withdraw from the zone in front of your own home.
Either both accept things as they are or one finishes the job fast, anything else just doesn't solve a thing. Yeah, the situation sucks for both parties, but at least Israel has defense systems against rockets.
Israel is not gonna "accept" that they're going to be hit by rockets. They are also not willing to commit genocide, so...
The Isrealis ARE committing genocide. Dude, what planet are you on?
Sorry I'm using the word in context to what the Arabs would do. I.E. KILL EVERYONE. While the Israeli kill what they need to for their national security. My mistake that your extremism changed the definition of the word for me.
Sigh... do you people know what genocide means? What the Arabs want to do to Israelis, that's genocide.
I never said its genocide, I was responding to your "While the Israeli kill what they need to for their national security."
And your point? there's more to national security that destroying rocket sites. I never said the Israelis are saints, I'm not claiming they are not some high and mighty good guys fighting against the evil forces arrayed against them. I'm saying they're not the aggressors and have a right to do what they deem necessary for their people's safety. If that means 5 dead Palestinians to save one of their own, so be it. Every country in the world would make that trade if it's within their power.
Still waiting for your examples.... so many Israelis made those claims, can't be very hard to find a few right?
My point is.. that you said that i claimed this was genocide, I did not say that. So my point is to stop putting words in my mouth.
I'm at work atm and can't go trawling throught this thread, I do remember reading atleast 2 comments of this nature.
On November 19 2012 06:00 calderon wrote: So you're saying Jewish people have claim to the land in Israel/Palestine because they have a weak historical claim from 2 millenia ago?
Jewish people have a claim to the land of Israel because it's in their soul. It just is. They are home. If you can't understand this, you can never understand what is going on. The problem is people seem to believe that claims are exclusionary. They are not. Several peoples can call a place home and live in harmony. In Israel there is an astounding amount of peoples, and 99.9% live in harmony. White, Black, Brown and Yellow Jews, Druze, Circassians, Bedouins, Armenians, Maronites, Samaritans, Copts, Black Hebrews (something different from the Ethyopian Jews), Assyrians, Bahais even a group of Vietnamese call this place home (wikipedia link). Even a huge percent of the Israeli Arabs declare that they are proud to be Israelis and wave Israeli flags. Everybody lives together in harmony. Israelis showed that it can be done. What about the Palestinians? And then, people like you come saying that Israelis must go back to Poland. Don't you feel a bit ridiculous? (Just imagine Yemenite Jews, Copts and Bahais together "back" in Poland - yeah, the wet dream of many ppl on forums)
You responded to a post of mine about genocide with A LINK. I misinterpreted what you meant with the LINK. When you cleared it up I responded to your actual point. Stop being so sensitive. That was not your POINT, your point was that Israelis killed people for reasons other than military purposes. A point I refuted and one you have no solid support.
I keep having this recurring vision in my head of the Israelite vs Palestinian conflict escalating to such a degree that Israel finally says "Fuck it." and launches a nuke symbolizing the destruction of the entire opposing faction. O.o
Is there any real chance of this literally coming to fruition? Personally, I highly doubt it especially considering they seem to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible when carrying out attacks.
On November 19 2012 07:35 Seldentar wrote: I keep having this recurring vision in my head of the Israelite vs Palestinian conflict escalating to such a degree that Israel finally says "Fuck it." and launches a nuke symbolizing the destruction of the entire opposing faction. O.o
Is there any real chance of this literally coming to fruition? Personally, I highly doubt it especially considering they seem to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible when carrying out attacks.
Aside from the myriad other reasons it is silly, the areas under sole Palestinian control are so small that it would be kind of a waste to use nukes anyway and assuredly kill a bunch of Israelis too.
On November 19 2012 07:35 Seldentar wrote: I keep having this recurring vision in my head of the Israelite vs Palestinian conflict escalating to such a degree that Israel finally says "Fuck it." and launches a nuke symbolizing the destruction of the entire opposing faction. O.o
Is there any real chance of this literally coming to fruition? Personally, I highly doubt it especially considering they seem to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible when carrying out attacks.
No, this isn't a game. People don't just get annoyed and lose it.
On November 19 2012 07:35 Seldentar wrote: I keep having this recurring vision in my head of the Israelite vs Palestinian conflict escalating to such a degree that Israel finally says "Fuck it." and launches a nuke symbolizing the destruction of the entire opposing faction. O.o
Is there any real chance of this literally coming to fruition? Personally, I highly doubt it especially considering they seem to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible when carrying out attacks.
They can't nuke the Palestinians because they'd be nuking themselves. It makes absolutely zero sense.
On November 19 2012 07:35 Seldentar wrote: I keep having this recurring vision in my head of the Israelite vs Palestinian conflict escalating to such a degree that Israel finally says "Fuck it." and launches a nuke symbolizing the destruction of the entire opposing faction. O.o
Is there any real chance of this literally coming to fruition? Personally, I highly doubt it especially considering they seem to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible when carrying out attacks.
No chance whatsoever. Israel didn't even used nukes in the Yom Kipur war, when the top generals were sure they lost the war, and could have dropped the nuke on the Egyptian army while it was in the Sinai desert, with no collateral damage.
On November 19 2012 07:35 Seldentar wrote: I keep having this recurring vision in my head of the Israelite vs Palestinian conflict escalating to such a degree that Israel finally says "Fuck it." and launches a nuke symbolizing the destruction of the entire opposing faction. O.o
Is there any real chance of this literally coming to fruition? Personally, I highly doubt it especially considering they seem to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible when carrying out attacks.
On November 19 2012 07:40 Seldentar wrote: Three good posts above
Heh, to be frank, its a blessing both parties are intelligent enough to render nuclear attack a non option. Consider it a bit of optimism in a very pessimistic situation
Edit: The Samson Option is as relevant as the political attitudes of Golda Meir. That is, it's not.
On November 19 2012 07:04 Azarkon wrote: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a testament to the failure of the international system in the face of basic, human conflict. Again and again the world intervenes to 'stop the fighting,' and each time this ceasfire is simply a temporary condition that resolves nothing, but which paves the way for future generations to continue the fight.
In the past, a conflict of this magnitude is resolved by the total destruction of one faction. The savagery of such a defeat is what the modern world refuses to witness, 'civilized' as they believe themselves to be. Yet, the alternative they offer is a sustained bleeding, a tortured existence that has no end.
I am reminded of two soldiers, on opposite sides, waking up each day to slaughter the other, only for the loser to be resuscitated at night by a doctor driven to save lives whatever the cost. The doctor has great intentions, but the result of his actions is that neither side is able to achieve victory, and so the slaughter goes on and on.
Terrorism won't just suddenly end if they occupy Gaza and the West bank, if anything it would create even more hatred and turn more people into hard-liners who would want to join organizations like Hamas. If you are literally saying they should just go in and murder every man woman and child, then all their problems will be solved.... I probably shouldn't reply, you must know you are just, fucking, nuts. Anyway, what kind of problem solving is that? It's like deleting an entire programs worth of coding because you messed up a line somewhere along the way and you can't locate it. Except the words are people. Empathy is a good thing, maybe try it out some time.
Empathy and spinelessness are not to be confused. Empathy, in this case, comes from the realization that, without a decisive outcome, this conflict is never going to end, and that by allowing the defeated to fall back, each time, on a brokered peace we - the international community - are perpetuating the conflict and the suffering that results from said conflict.
Obviously, we all prefer an outcome that both sides are satisfied with, but in the event that no such outcome is available, and one side has to lose, then it is better that they lose sooner, rather than later. There are few things less savory than a slow, agonizing defeat. The healing is only able to begin when the conflict ends.
On November 19 2012 07:35 Seldentar wrote: I keep having this recurring vision in my head of the Israelite vs Palestinian conflict escalating to such a degree that Israel finally says "Fuck it." and launches a nuke symbolizing the destruction of the entire opposing faction. O.o
Is there any real chance of this literally coming to fruition? Personally, I highly doubt it especially considering they seem to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible when carrying out attacks.
You should read up on the history of the middle east, the creation of the state of Israel and its wars ... And also study a map of Israel and the palestinian enclaves. There is no reason to use an atomic weapon in the first place and second they would most likly bomb themselves too ... Also using any atomic weapon would give Iran just more reasons to accelaerate their nuclear program.
The problem is that the arabic leaders and their religion or lets say at least how it is conducted fails them and to not turn the people against their leaders they need the enemy, in this case all evil Israel which needs to be destroyed according to Ahmadinechad. Why is he saying this and why are other arab leaders proposing this ? Because they are idiots without the intelligence to govern their countries in a civil and human way so they need a threat and some one to blame.
Israel has no real other option to respond and they have to respond in some way ... I really dont get it how these hisbollah and other dispshits can afford millions of money on hundred of rockets and other stuff but fail to do anything worthwile for the population they claim to protect with that money.
On November 19 2012 07:35 Seldentar wrote: I keep having this recurring vision in my head of the Israelite vs Palestinian conflict escalating to such a degree that Israel finally says "Fuck it." and launches a nuke symbolizing the destruction of the entire opposing faction. O.o
Is there any real chance of this literally coming to fruition? Personally, I highly doubt it especially considering they seem to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible when carrying out attacks.
Those who claim that Isreal are trying to minimize civilian casualties to a high degree are lost. Today more then 10 civilians died including children when they conducted their bombings against Gaza. Just think how important those 10 lives are to some of the people in Gaza. Or the mother who lost her child to the Isreali bombing. This are brutal acts of destruction commited by a goverment. How can they gain such large support? I find this absurd!
On November 19 2012 07:52 Sweetfrost wrote: Those who claim that Isreal are trying to minimize civilian casualties to a high degree are lost. Today more then 10 civilians died including children when they conducted their bombings against Gaza. Just think how important those 10 lives are to some of the people in Gaza. Or the mother who lost her child to the Isreali bombing. This are brutal acts of destruction commited by a goverment. How can they gain such large support? I find this absurd!
It would seem far less absurd had you taken the time to read up on the situation. The atrocities of today are children of the conflicts of yesteryear, so if the absurdity of the present seems overwhelming, look to the past in the same way those who fight in Gaza do.
On November 19 2012 07:52 Sweetfrost wrote: Those who claim that Isreal are trying to minimize civilian casualties to a high degree are lost. Today more then 10 civilians died including children when they conducted their bombings against Gaza. Just think how important those 10 lives are to some of the people in Gaza. Or the mother who lost her child to the Isreali bombing. This are brutal acts of destruction commited by a goverment. How can they gain such large support? I find this absurd!
Israel has dropped over 1,000 bombs on different targets in gaza, one of the most crowded place on earth. This operation is taking place because of inaccurate rockets fired in order to kill and terrorize the civilian population. Yes its sad when Innocent civilians die, but i dont see any other option then taking that risk when hamas stores weapons, fires and meet in civilian areas. The bombing in which civilians died today also killed a Hamas military commander who was the target of the strike.
i dont even know why i open these threads anymore, they just turn into retarded shitstorms of people misinterpreting each other and saying stupid shit.
Good article by W.R. Mead that pretty much 100% accurately explains how I and most Americans look at the conflict.
Those who claim that Isreal are trying to minimize civilian casualties to a high degree are lost. Today more then 10 civilians died including children when they conducted their bombings against Gaza. Just think how important those 10 lives are to some of the people in Gaza. Or the mother who lost her child to the Isreali bombing. This are brutal acts of destruction commited by a goverment. How can they gain such large support? I find this absurd!
How does that prove that Israel doesn't try to minimize civilian casualties as much as they can? It's impossible to be perfect in war. Israel has carried out over 1,000 airstrikes in 5 days and about 30 civilians have died, name another military in the world that's even capable of carrying out 1,000 airstrikes in an urban area and only kill 30 civilians. Not even the US military has the combination of technological sophistication and combat doctrine to achieve that.
Regardless of that, intelligence should have known the Hamas man had surrounded himself with his family and that they weren't leaving. The airstrike should have been called off.
*sigh* All of this conflict can avoided if the isrealis would just go back to europe(it's not too late), but you're so goddamn arrogant. This is what happens when sick people like the isrealis and americans for that matter have so much power. So stuck in their "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT" mentality.
On November 19 2012 08:01 sc14s wrote: i dont even know why i open these threads anymore, they just turn into retarded shitstorms of people misinterpreting each other and saying stupid shit.
Same reason why people slow down on the highway to look at a car crash. Also the same reason why the media reports on it in the manner that it does, it doesn't want to report information, it wants to spar public reaction in a specific manner.
EPT
