|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
On November 02 2011 08:26 theaxis12 wrote:
I can see how Israelis would be afraid to live with Palestinians with all of the fighting that has gone on, but it seems to me that a country formed in the aftermath of racism to the point of genocide would understand another group of people's issues with being confined to ever decreasing areas of what was their homeland. The Israel/ Palestine division is the most blatant expression of racism on the planet and Israel needs to own up to the new age of acceptance.
Israel was ironically founded by religious extremists practicing racism and terrorism, who continue a hateful and nationalistic ideology to this day. Do you expect things to change any time soon, especially when there's scares in Israeli politics over Egypt no longer having Mubarak as a US lapdog? I think things are only going to get worse.
On November 02 2011 08:30 DocM wrote:
There is quite a lot to say on this topic. I very much support Ripps in almost every position, but i do think that Israel will have to give up some of its territory at some point.
I saw a statistic that said only 30-40% of the population of Israeli territory is actually Hebrew. How is that sustainable? Because they have a significant better quality of life, statistically they will grow in population slower than their arab counterparts. Now there isn't really anything wrong with having a lot of Arabs in the country by itself, but is that really the point of the Apartheid? Furthermore, I just don't see that being sustainable.
You're being trolled. If speaking Hebrew and practicing Judaism counts under the Hebrew category, then 75% of Israeli citizens are Hebrew. In my opinion though, seeing how most of those Hebrews originally come from no Semitic culture at all (not Hebrew, Arabic, Assyrian, Maronite, etc.) but instead originally come from places like Germany, Poland, Russia, etc., I don't know how many can actually be considered legitimate Hebrews (ie. people native to the land who follow Hebrew culture and language). At the same time, their adopted culture and language is sooo different from their ancestors', so you really call them Russian, for example, so may as well categorize them as Hebrew. If only 30% of the population was Hebrew /Jewish, trust me, the Israeli government would be 99.9% non-Hebrew, not 99.9% Hebrew. Gah, where did you find that troll statistic :/.
But yes indeed, check the CIA Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html
75-76% is Jewish / Hebrew.
|
Israel's superiority is its Technology. Its also known that they used chemical bombs (The one with Phosphorus) in 2009(Or 2008 Im not sure)
Palestine used phosphorous against Israel. This is not outlawed, unlike mustard gas.
"The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law." An excerpt from a US field manual.
As for the US cutting funds, 80 million isn't that much water in the barrel. Other nations will fill the gap.
|
I think this is a good move, idk about the US cutting their funding :/
|
On November 02 2011 07:56 Ripps wrote:Wow. I can't help but feeling that Nash was right with regards to this thread. The success of particular Jews has nothing to do with American foreign policy and I think that throwing around all these accusations of a Jewish kleptocracy is treading a thin line between thick-headed naievety and outright anti-semitism. I don't think I'm being unfair or playing a trump card. Review this thread yourselves and read the rest of my post before you disagree. I'm not exactly the biggest supporter of Israeli policy with regards to Palestine, but is there nobody here that see's SOME of Israel's security concerns as legitimate? Are you really so partisan as to post an image that depicts a shrinking Palestine without regerence to the Arab aggression and UN resolutions that caused this to happen? Israel has been attacked again and again and again by united Arab coalitions who outnumber them exponentially in both numbers and finances. They've been attacked from all sides by half a dozen governments all bent on their eradication. If Israel doesn't want to create yet another Arab state whose sole foreign-policy goal is to "wipe Israel off the map", then I think they are right to do so. Read the Hamas (the ruling party of Palestine's )constitution. It's terrifying: Read it yourself on wikipedia: Hamas Charter"The Charter identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories." Everything about the charter is anti-semitic, militant, and dogmaticly Islamist. Hamas and Fatah fight each other, the IDF, the Israeli population, and even use their own people as "civilian shields". To put this into context, I'm of Irish-Catholic descent, so I'm not exactly partial to apartheid and people denying others the right to self-determination. I've been to Belfast. I've seen the "peace walls." On the other hand, as a Canadian citizen, I'd think twice about letting Quebec seperate if the Bloc Quebecois had a constitution that called for the eradication of the Canadian state and it's replacement with a militantly French theocratic government. tl;dr This issue is way more complicated than the previous posters have let on. As much as the Palestinians don't like it, there needs to be peace before there can be justice with regards to the apartheid, and there needs to be justice before there can be a two-state solution. You can't just "ratify" a state into existence through the impostition of an inept international beuraucratic behemoth. Edit: Most Canadians don't share my opinions on this matter.
Great post, kudos on actually presenting some valid facts in a civilized manner instead of just pointing fingers and pulling "facts" out of thin air.
|
On November 02 2011 07:56 Ripps wrote:Wow. I can't help but feeling that Nash was right with regards to this thread. The success of particular Jews has nothing to do with American foreign policy and I think that throwing around all these accusations of a Jewish kleptocracy is treading a thin line between thick-headed naievety and outright anti-semitism. I don't think I'm being unfair or playing a trump card. Review this thread yourselves and read the rest of my post before you disagree. I'm not exactly the biggest supporter of Israeli policy with regards to Palestine, but is there nobody here that see's SOME of Israel's security concerns as legitimate? Are you really so partisan as to post an image that depicts a shrinking Palestine without regerence to the Arab aggression and UN resolutions that caused this to happen? Israel has been attacked again and again and again by united Arab coalitions who outnumber them exponentially in both numbers and finances. They've been attacked from all sides by half a dozen governments all bent on their eradication. If Israel doesn't want to create yet another Arab state whose sole foreign-policy goal is to "wipe Israel off the map", then I think they are right to do so. Read the Hamas (the ruling party of Palestine's )constitution. It's terrifying: Read it yourself on wikipedia: Hamas Charter"The Charter identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories." Everything about the charter is anti-semitic, militant, and dogmaticly Islamist. Hamas and Fatah fight each other, the IDF, the Israeli population, and even use their own people as "civilian shields". To put this into context, I'm of Irish-Catholic descent, so I'm not exactly partial to apartheid and people denying others the right to self-determination. I've been to Belfast. I've seen the "peace walls." On the other hand, as a Canadian citizen, I'd think twice about letting Quebec seperate if the Bloc Quebecois had a constitution that called for the eradication of the Canadian state and it's replacement with a militantly French theocratic government. tl;dr This issue is way more complicated than the previous posters have let on. As much as the Palestinians don't like it, there needs to be peace before there can be justice with regards to the apartheid, and there needs to be justice before there can be a two-state solution. You can't just "ratify" a state into existence through the impostition of an inept international beuraucratic behemoth. Edit: Most Canadians don't share my opinions on this matter.
Hamas isn't the ruling party in Palestine, it's the ruling party in the Gaza strip and its succes is largely due to 1) Israeli behaviour and 2) being able to provide basic social goods to the general population. Hamas isn't just popular because of it's terrorist parts, it's popular because even before taking power in the Gaza strip, they provided services to the population that neither the Palestinian government nor the international community could provide.
Next to that, a constitution isn't the same thing as a charter and the hardline israeli settlers are just as bad. Neither Hamas nor Israeli hardliners actually want a two-state solution, seeing how their entire ideology and political relevance depends on the conflict itself, and voila, frozen conflict.
I honestly don't see what you're arguing here. Just let them rot for another 20 years? The current situation isn't benefitting anyone. A major cause of the anti-western hatred in the Arab world is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is actively used/exploited by terrorist organisations to gain popular support. 'Doing nothing' and 'waiting for the problem to fix itself' hasn't worked over the last 50 years, and with both sides becoming more entrenched a solution becomes harder every single day.
Yea, it's a complicated issue. It's also more complicated then 'all palestinians are hamas and therefore terrorists' and 'all israeli's are people that only want to protect what they have and live in peace'. There have been plently of moderate palestinians and palestinian leaders, and there are plently of crazed israeli settlers that feel that all of palestine pretty much belongs to them.
As for security concerns, how much does Israel actually have to fear from a unified Palestine with it's own sovereign territory? A solution will lessen tensions, not heighten them and they're dirt poor to begin with and no match for the Israeli military. The bigger risk for Israel is doing fuck all, continue to enrage the arab world, and then wait and see how Egypt feels about it once/if they get a democracy off the ground.
Let's not forget that the arabs/palestinians have valid grievances about the israeli's too. Breaking the arms of people throwing rocks at tanks isn't something that's acceptable, and neither were the sabra and shatila massacres.
|
On November 02 2011 08:40 sCfO20 wrote:Show nested quote +Israel's superiority is its Technology. Its also known that they used chemical bombs (The one with Phosphorus) in 2009(Or 2008 Im not sure) Palestine used phosphorous against Israel. This is not outlawed, unlike mustard gas. "The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law." An excerpt from a US field manual. As for the US cutting funds, 80 million isn't that much water in the barrel. Other nations will fill the gap.
You forgot the part about "against targets requiring their use." I don't think Palestinian civilians are targets requiring the use of white phosphorous  .
On November 02 2011 08:48 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 07:56 Ripps wrote:Wow. I can't help but feeling that Nash was right with regards to this thread. The success of particular Jews has nothing to do with American foreign policy and I think that throwing around all these accusations of a Jewish kleptocracy is treading a thin line between thick-headed naievety and outright anti-semitism. I don't think I'm being unfair or playing a trump card. Review this thread yourselves and read the rest of my post before you disagree. I'm not exactly the biggest supporter of Israeli policy with regards to Palestine, but is there nobody here that see's SOME of Israel's security concerns as legitimate? Are you really so partisan as to post an image that depicts a shrinking Palestine without regerence to the Arab aggression and UN resolutions that caused this to happen? Israel has been attacked again and again and again by united Arab coalitions who outnumber them exponentially in both numbers and finances. They've been attacked from all sides by half a dozen governments all bent on their eradication. If Israel doesn't want to create yet another Arab state whose sole foreign-policy goal is to "wipe Israel off the map", then I think they are right to do so. Read the Hamas (the ruling party of Palestine's )constitution. It's terrifying: Read it yourself on wikipedia: Hamas Charter"The Charter identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories." Everything about the charter is anti-semitic, militant, and dogmaticly Islamist. Hamas and Fatah fight each other, the IDF, the Israeli population, and even use their own people as "civilian shields". To put this into context, I'm of Irish-Catholic descent, so I'm not exactly partial to apartheid and people denying others the right to self-determination. I've been to Belfast. I've seen the "peace walls." On the other hand, as a Canadian citizen, I'd think twice about letting Quebec seperate if the Bloc Quebecois had a constitution that called for the eradication of the Canadian state and it's replacement with a militantly French theocratic government. tl;dr This issue is way more complicated than the previous posters have let on. As much as the Palestinians don't like it, there needs to be peace before there can be justice with regards to the apartheid, and there needs to be justice before there can be a two-state solution. You can't just "ratify" a state into existence through the impostition of an inept international beuraucratic behemoth. Edit: Most Canadians don't share my opinions on this matter. Hamas isn't the ruling party in Palestine, it's the ruling party in the Gaza strip and its succes is largely due to 1) Israeli behaviour and 2) being able to provide basic social goods to the general population. Hamas isn't just popular because of it's terrorist parts, it's popular because even before taking power in the Gaza strip, they provided services to the population that neither the Palestinian government nor the international community could provide. Next to that, a constitution isn't the same thing as a charter and the hardline israeli settlers are just as bad. Neither Hamas nor Israeli hardliners actually want a two-state solution, seeing how their entire ideology and political relevance depends on the conflict itself, and voila, frozen conflict. I honestly don't see what you're arguing here. Just let them rot for another 20 years? The current situation isn't benefitting anyone. A major cause of the anti-western hatred in the Arab world is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is actively used/exploited by terrorist organisations to gain popular support. 'Doing nothing' and 'waiting for the problem to fix itself' hasn't worked over the last 50 years, and with both sides becoming more entrenched a solution becomes harder every single day. Yea, it's a complicated issue. It's also more complicated then 'all palestinians are hamas and therefore terrorists' and 'all israeli's are people that only want to protect what they have and live in peace'. There have been plently of moderate palestinians and palestinian leaders, and there are plently of crazed israeli settlers that feel that all of palestine pretty much belongs to them. As for security concerns, how much does Israel actually have to fear from a unified Palestine with it's own sovereign territory? A solution will lessen tensions, not heighten them and they're dirt poor to begin with and no match for the Israeli military. The bigger risk for Israel is doing fuck all, continue to enrage the arab world, and then wait and see how Egypt feels about it once/if they get a democracy off the ground.
It seems that even now the Israeli government is very concerned about the loss of Egypt from American suzerainty. A newly independent Egypt would be a nightmare for Israel as it was before Sadat's assassination and the emplacement of Mubarak. The US has lost Iran, Egypt, and Turkey is getting pissed. At least it has the Gulf Arabs. All the hell they give a care about is who throws the most money at them.
|
They've been attacked from all sides by half a dozen governments all bent on their eradication. If Israel doesn't want to create yet another Arab state whose sole foreign-policy goal is to "wipe Israel off the map", then I think they are right to do so. Read the Hamas (the ruling party of Palestine's )constitution. It's terrifying: Read it yourself on wikipedia: Hamas Charter"The Charter identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories."
Yeah, but that was written 30 years ago during the first Intifada.
Also, the next paragraph on the wiki article says this:
"In 2010 Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal stated that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot be changed for internal reasons."[6]Hamas have moved away from their charter since they decided to go for political office.[7]They have not adopted their charter since they won the Palestinian legislative election, 2006 as part of their political program.[8] Instead they have moved to a more secular stance.[7] In 2008, the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, stated that Hamas would agree to accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, and to offer a long-term truce with Israel.[9]"
I just hope all of this represents one more step towards a peaceful resolution.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
Great decision by USA. Someone has to have the balls to stand for Israel.
|
On November 02 2011 08:48 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 08:40 sCfO20 wrote:Israel's superiority is its Technology. Its also known that they used chemical bombs (The one with Phosphorus) in 2009(Or 2008 Im not sure) Palestine used phosphorous against Israel. This is not outlawed, unlike mustard gas. "The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law." An excerpt from a US field manual. As for the US cutting funds, 80 million isn't that much water in the barrel. Other nations will fill the gap. You forgot the part about "against targets requiring their use." I don't think Palestinian civilians are targets requiring the use of white phosphorous .
Isn't that implied with all weapons?
|
On November 02 2011 09:00 DonKey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 08:48 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On November 02 2011 08:40 sCfO20 wrote:Israel's superiority is its Technology. Its also known that they used chemical bombs (The one with Phosphorus) in 2009(Or 2008 Im not sure) Palestine used phosphorous against Israel. This is not outlawed, unlike mustard gas. "The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law." An excerpt from a US field manual. As for the US cutting funds, 80 million isn't that much water in the barrel. Other nations will fill the gap. You forgot the part about "against targets requiring their use." I don't think Palestinian civilians are targets requiring the use of white phosphorous . Isn't that implied with all weapons?
Of course, but the person to whom I replied stated that using white phosphorous isn't illegal in warfare according to international conventions (doesn't it seem a bit ironic that regulations are made on how you can... idk... kill people? :'(( ). I was just pointing out that sure, you can use shit like that in war, but using it on common people isn't one of the "required targets" ;p.
On November 02 2011 09:00 Fenrax wrote:
Great decision by USA. Someone has to have the balls to stand for Israel.
Hmm, interesting opinion you have. Even more interesting to me was that your location didn't say Louisiana, USA (no offense to people over there who nice, regular people and aren't hardcore Christian fundamentalists and nationalists).
|
On November 02 2011 08:48 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 07:56 Ripps wrote:Wow. I can't help but feeling that Nash was right with regards to this thread. The success of particular Jews has nothing to do with American foreign policy and I think that throwing around all these accusations of a Jewish kleptocracy is treading a thin line between thick-headed naievety and outright anti-semitism. I don't think I'm being unfair or playing a trump card. Review this thread yourselves and read the rest of my post before you disagree. I'm not exactly the biggest supporter of Israeli policy with regards to Palestine, but is there nobody here that see's SOME of Israel's security concerns as legitimate? Are you really so partisan as to post an image that depicts a shrinking Palestine without regerence to the Arab aggression and UN resolutions that caused this to happen? Israel has been attacked again and again and again by united Arab coalitions who outnumber them exponentially in both numbers and finances. They've been attacked from all sides by half a dozen governments all bent on their eradication. If Israel doesn't want to create yet another Arab state whose sole foreign-policy goal is to "wipe Israel off the map", then I think they are right to do so. Read the Hamas (the ruling party of Palestine's )constitution. It's terrifying: Read it yourself on wikipedia: Hamas Charter"The Charter identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories." Everything about the charter is anti-semitic, militant, and dogmaticly Islamist. Hamas and Fatah fight each other, the IDF, the Israeli population, and even use their own people as "civilian shields". To put this into context, I'm of Irish-Catholic descent, so I'm not exactly partial to apartheid and people denying others the right to self-determination. I've been to Belfast. I've seen the "peace walls." On the other hand, as a Canadian citizen, I'd think twice about letting Quebec seperate if the Bloc Quebecois had a constitution that called for the eradication of the Canadian state and it's replacement with a militantly French theocratic government. tl;dr This issue is way more complicated than the previous posters have let on. As much as the Palestinians don't like it, there needs to be peace before there can be justice with regards to the apartheid, and there needs to be justice before there can be a two-state solution. You can't just "ratify" a state into existence through the impostition of an inept international beuraucratic behemoth. Edit: Most Canadians don't share my opinions on this matter. Hamas isn't the ruling party in Palestine, it's the ruling party in the Gaza strip and its succes is largely due to 1) Israeli behaviour and 2) being able to provide basic social goods to the general population. Hamas isn't just popular because of it's terrorist parts, it's popular because even before taking power in the Gaza strip, they provided services to the population that neither the Palestinian government nor the international community could provide. Next to that, a constitution isn't the same thing as a charter and the hardline israeli settlers are just as bad. Neither Hamas nor Israeli hardliners actually want a two-state solution, seeing how their entire ideology and political relevance depends on the conflict itself, and voila, frozen conflict.
For one, I'll edit my post to say "the majority party" rather than the "ruling party". That was my mistake, although I think its trivial. The source of Hamas' popularity, however, is irrelevant. They still are what they are.
It's true that a charter isn't quite a constitition. It's what the constitution WOULD ideally be if they gained their own state. Again, I think this distinction is trivial, but I'll change it for accuracy's sake.
I honestly don't see what you're arguing here. Just let them rot for another 20 years? The current situation isn't benefitting anyone. A major cause of the anti-western hatred in the Arab world is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is actively used/exploited by terrorist organisations to gain popular support. 'Doing nothing' and 'waiting for the problem to fix itself' hasn't worked over the last 50 years, and with both sides becoming more entrenched a solution becomes harder every single day.
Yea, it's a complicated issue. It's also more complicated then 'all palestinians are hamas and therefore terrorists' and 'all israeli's are people that only want to protect what they have and live in peace'. There have been plently of moderate palestinians and palestinian leaders, and there are plently of crazed israeli settlers that feel that all of palestine pretty much belongs to them.
As for security concerns, how much does Israel actually have to fear from a unified Palestine with it's own sovereign territory? A solution will lessen tensions, not heighten them and they're dirt poor to begin with and no match for the Israeli military. The bigger risk for Israel is doing fuck all, continue to enrage the arab world, and then wait and see how Egypt feels about it once/if they get a democracy off the ground.
Let's not forget that the arabs/palestinians have valid grievances about the israeli's too. Breaking the arms of people throwing rocks at tanks isn't something that's acceptable, and neither were the sabra and shatila massacres.
This point is very relevant. I was arguing that the posts prior to mine were awful. They were misleading, inflammatory, unfair, and sometimes just plain wrong. I wanted to show that the situation was a lot more complicated than that, and that Israel does have some legitimate concerns with regards to the very existence of their state. That was all my post did. The rest of the stuff you make up is a strawman ("All palestinians are Hamas and therefore terrorists") that you created in place of my actual position, which I did not yet state.
Personally, I think Israel is an oppressive, apartheid regime and that the Palestinians have a right to their own state, but only under the condition that they recognize the legitimacy of Israel's existence and agree to certain terms of disamarmament and border control. Border control probably won't be a problem, however, since Israel decided to build a giant "apartheid" wall where they want the border to be. My solution was not "do nothing". This is another strawman. I didn't offer a solution. That wasn't the point of my post. Just because Israel does unacceptable things, doesn't mean the Arabs don't have to accept their existence. I'll assert their right to exist and to deny Palestine their own state whilst Palestine takes such a hardline stance. I do not support their oppressive policies. I hope this clarifies my position.
Edit: I tried to hint at my position by saying that I wasn't exactly partial to apartheid and the denial of self-determination, but that I was still in favour of self-determination with peace. That got muddied all over by trolls and neanderthals, however.
|
You forgot the part about "against targets requiring their use." I don't think Palestinian civilians are targets requiring the use of white phosphorous .
gg wp
User was warned for this post
|
What a silly law by the US government... all it is doing tieing your own hands in future negotiations, regardless of your view on Palestine I wouldn't think many would call that sound judgment.
|
On November 02 2011 08:48 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:You forgot the part about "against targets requiring their use." I don't think Palestinian civilians are targets requiring the use of white phosphorous .
And Israeli civilians are valid targets of women and children suicide bombers? Please... both sides have committed terrible wrong doings... stop trying to project the idea that Israel is solely responsible for these kinds of actions...
|
On November 02 2011 09:14 sCfO20 wrote:Show nested quote +You forgot the part about "against targets requiring their use." I don't think Palestinian civilians are targets requiring the use of white phosphorous . gg wp
You also forgot the part of terrorist attacks against Israel civilians. Who started it? i don't know but it sure isn't going to stop.
|
On November 02 2011 01:38 ilovelings wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 01:26 B00ts wrote:On November 02 2011 01:19 ilovelings wrote:On November 02 2011 01:17 B00ts wrote:
I'd just like to point out... The fact that Israel is backed by the US is not the main reason they have won every war they have been a part of. They have the most highly trained armed forces in the world, the second "most deadliest" martial art in the world (second only to shaolin kung-fu), have mandatory military service(is this still true?.. Might not be anymore), and the terrain heavily favors defending it.
In fact that last time Israel was in a major conflict, the western powers had to figuratively beg them not to push into Egypt and Syria and take their capitols. (It actually might not have been the 'last' conflict... But one of the wars with egypt/syria. Totally wrong. Egyptian and Syrian military was a joke at that time. ANYONE could have beaten them. The last time they tried something fishy, they had to retreat after realizing they were heading to a bloodbath. Your logic astounds me good sir. Just because your enemy is terrible, does not mean you cannot be among the best trained armies in the world. Just because anyone could have beaten them, does not mean Israel does not have one of the best trained forces in the world. Ask any knowledgeable person on Israel, or military history if you do not believe me... The Israeli army, while perhaps not too large, is a beast. I used to date a girl that was on the IDF. With your logic, I should be able to state that the Argentine Airforce is top tier because we sank a shitload of british ships during the falklands. Srsly. Israel likes picking fights with the weak kids of the block. They retreated from lebanon after unacceptable losses. (around 700).
Don't forget that in many conflicts Israel's enemies such as Egypt and Syria were given some of the best military equipment around by the Soviet Union. The difference in hardware was relatively small. What made the Israelis so dominant was there ability to win the electronic war and there superb training, particularly the air force which is probably the finest in the world. I may be wrong but when I studied it I remember that an entire year of trainee Israeli pilots was failed for not being good enough.
|
Well this is disappointing.... This is not the 1940's, this is 2011. America, babysitters of the world, police of the world. Keep brown nosing the entire world, meanwhile 20% of your citizens are unemployed.
|
On November 02 2011 09:15 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 08:48 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:You forgot the part about "against targets requiring their use." I don't think Palestinian civilians are targets requiring the use of white phosphorous . And Israeli civilians are valid targets of women and children suicide bombers? Please... both sides have committed terrible wrong doings... stop trying to project the idea that Israel is solely responsible for these kinds of actions...
Of course not. But we were talking about white phosphorous, not about explosives  . You're attacking a hallucination / strawman, mate . I'm over here *waves*
Don't forget that in many conflicts Israel's enemies such as Egypt and Syria were given some of the best military equipment around by the Soviet Union. The difference in hardware was relatively small. What made the Israelis so dominant was there ability to win the electronic war and there superb training, particularly the air force which is probably the finest in the world. I may be wrong but when I studied it I remember that an entire year of trainee Israeli pilots was failed for not being good enough.
Okay, don't take me for being a dick, but you are very, very, very wrong on two accounts but I cannot believe you in the slightest since so many people say that sort of thing. Please don't feel bad. Please do not. Apparently during the Cold War, even some American military commanders were this ignorant so I read years ago, not specifically about Egypt and Syria, but about Soviet weapons and Soviet exports in general.
First account: You see, the Soviets / Russians don't sell their weapons. They sell horribly shitty watered-down export variants, known commonly to the Russians as "monkey models". This doesn't just include vehicles, but munitions as well for both vehicles and infantry-fired weapons. Even larger firearms ffs (like man-fired rocket/missile launchers)... While the US sells exactly what they use in their own military or a very slightly modified version with a couple minor things downgraded, the Soviets / Russians sell something that is not in the least comparable to the versions used in the Soviet / Russian military. Meaning what the Egyptians and Syrians got was a piece of shit. A Russian T-72M (export variant of the T-72A) iirc doesn't even have composite armor, which is huge for tanks, and which the Soviets have been employing since the early-mid 60s.
Second account: The Soviets usually didn't even sell export variants of newer weapons. Even into the 1980s, T-55s and T-62s were an excessively common sale. Only in recent years has Russia been selling export variants of their latest tank, the T-90, or rather, an export variant of the first production of the tank, the stock T-90A, which has been massively upgraded since then (to the T-90MS variant iirc).
|
On November 02 2011 09:21 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 09:15 SupLilSon wrote:On November 02 2011 08:48 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:You forgot the part about "against targets requiring their use." I don't think Palestinian civilians are targets requiring the use of white phosphorous . And Israeli civilians are valid targets of women and children suicide bombers? Please... both sides have committed terrible wrong doings... stop trying to project the idea that Israel is solely responsible for these kinds of actions... Of course not. But we were talking about white phosphorous, not about explosives . You're attacking a hallucination / strawman, mate . I'm over here *waves*
No one was talking about white phosphorous until you brought it up solely to discredit Israel. I fail to see how this is a strawman. :D
|
On November 02 2011 00:54 HackBenjamin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:47 konadora wrote:On November 02 2011 00:46 SirMilford wrote:On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote:
uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis? It would be from their relation with Israel almost certainly. sorry i'm not really into politics, but what was the relation between the US, israel and palestine? genuinely curious. The super abridged version? Israel and Palestine don't like eachother. Israel used to be small, Palestine used to be big. Now it's the opposite. Check out this picture ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pEfVJ93Cwa8/TDjQIyH5mGI/AAAAAAAAGmk/EA9TbmokMRE/s1600/israel-palestine-map.jpg) Make sense?
That's exactly how it happened Israel simply had help from the Allies and/or British and kicked the Palestinians out Literally
The Israelis actually believe that they are the Chosen ones and the land belongs to them.
But in Reality they exterminated/kicked out/ forced people to migrate out of their home-land where they had been living for 100's of years or more.
Palestine is what the land Used to be called until Israelis came in claiming it their chosen land and kicked the Palestinians out.
Essentially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
