Plus please stop saying "the jews", or "the jewish gouvernement", the american lobbies have a lot of interest in izrael ( in exchange for a diplomatic and strategic protection) Plus Izrael is a base camp for any army trying to invade middle east. Which explains the 1994 law in the US.
But the jewishs have nothing to do with that, and for fuck sake, could we please stop with the ridiculous assomption that all banks/insurrance are owned by jewish ?
Incorrect. The jewish media controls the West.
Which is confusing, because four weeks ago, I was being told that the liberal media controls the United States. And I was also told that the Jews are rich And I was also told that the liberals want to take money away from the wealthy
So does this mean the jewish media seeks to take away its own wealth? CONSPIRACY JEWS, Y U NO MAKE SENSE
Weird how little zionist conspiracy theories can seem so contradictory.
ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Maybe the western media is pro israel because the west is... Pro israel? Did I just solve a conspiracy theory?
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
This is terrorism:
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Casualties are on both sides, but they are massively higher on one side. If its not the Israeli military killing the civilians in Gaza ("Military kills civilian = war crime"), who is? Maybe we would have a fare shot at assessing the Israeli war crimes if the US didn't stop every attempt from the international community to step in.
The IDF is absolutely guilty of war crimes. That doesn't mean Hamas aren't terrorists.
Both are then only that the Israelis are way more dangerous and effective. And they should know better being a civilized modern nation.
Sigh. No, both are not. Hamas, as a paramilitary group that targets civilians are terrorists while the IDF, when they kill civilians, are committing war crimes.
Sure, semantics.
Not at all. Firstly, you can identify the attacker if he is military. He wears a uniform, declares himself an active participant in the war and has accountability to a state. If you are attacked by a military individual then he is doing so as an agent of the state, in effect you are being attacked by the state. The degree to which that matters depends upon the degree to which the state can be held accountable (and Israel's judiciary is the most independent and open in the region). When a Palestinian fires a rocket towards an Israeli town while not wearing uniform and then returns to his day job there is no accountability. The people he kills have been killed by an individual terrorist rather than by a state. There is nothing that can be targeted nor any aims stated. The terrorist has not consented to be an active participant in the war, he still claims the protections due to civilians while murdering them. The difference between military and paramilitary is night and day.
But yet there is no real accountability in Israel. Any attempt from the international community to uphold the law is being shut down by the US. The uniform is pointless. They are just sanctioned thugs. Not giving Palestine the status of a state helps tremendously: it legitimizes the crimes of Israel. It was the same for the French in Algeria: seeing Algeria as a part of France made it into a conflict (not a war) which allowed them to use torture legally, for example.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
I like your ignorant style Kwark, you must be a teacher.
Maybe you should look up subsistence, and realize it implies nothing of the sort. These people are getting what they need, not some incredible surplus that produces a healthy population.
Plus please stop saying "the jews", or "the jewish gouvernement", the american lobbies have a lot of interest in izrael ( in exchange for a diplomatic and strategic protection) Plus Izrael is a base camp for any army trying to invade middle east. Which explains the 1994 law in the US.
But the jewishs have nothing to do with that, and for fuck sake, could we please stop with the ridiculous assomption that all banks/insurrance are owned by jewish ?
Incorrect. The jewish media controls the West.
Which is confusing, because four weeks ago, I was being told that the liberal media controls the United States. And I was also told that the Jews are rich And I was also told that the liberals want to take money away from the wealthy
So does this mean the jewish media seeks to take away its own wealth? CONSPIRACY JEWS, Y U NO MAKE SENSE
Weird how little zionist conspiracy theories can seem so contradictory.
ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Maybe the western media is pro israel because the west is... Pro israel? Did I just solve a conspiracy theory?
The question is why west is pro israel.
And
Izrael is a base camp for any army trying to invade middle east. Which explains the 1994 law in the US.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote: that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine?
Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion.
On December 01 2012 07:41 KwarK wrote: [quote] Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
I like your ignorant style Kwark, you must be a teacher.
Maybe you should look up subsistence, and realize it implies nothing of the sort. These people are getting what they need, not some incredible surplus that produces a healthy population.
If you give people the bare minimum they need to survive then the population does not explode for both biological and social reasons. Fertility decreases under harsh conditions and people choose not to undergo the expenses of increased family size. Children are a luxury and the Palestinians have been having more of them than pretty much any group on earth. Their recent population growth is astounding. This is not a people being wiped out.
It is a shame that instead of seeking to change what can be changed and do what can be done, the United Nations insists on reaching out to war criminals as a symbolic gesture. And symbolic it is; symbolic of the farce that is the United Nations. Instead of focusing on what really matters, what really can make a difference in the world, they seek to support terrorism and endless war. Think about it: who stands to gain from prolonged war? A nation with internal stability, modern technology, and a strong economy, or a fringe group of dictators and terrorists? The United Nations is a meaningless chasing after the wind; nothing more, nothing less.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
I like your ignorant style Kwark, you must be a teacher.
Maybe you should look up subsistence, and realize it implies nothing of the sort. These people are getting what they need, not some incredible surplus that produces a healthy population.
If you give people the bare minimum they need to survive then the population does not explode for both biological and social reasons. Fertility decreases under harsh conditions and people choose not to undergo the expenses of increased family size. Children are a luxury and the Palestinians have been having more of them than pretty much any group on earth. Their recent population growth is astounding. This is not a people being wiped out.
Populations are growing in similar rates in India and Bangladesh (two of the poorest countries in the world). I think you sound disturbingly cold when you address the situation of the Palestinians in general.
Just posting in here to tell Kwark that the silent majority supports his views on terrorism. Honestly, I'm wanting to rip my hair out just reading this stuff. It must be even more frustrating to actually be participating in those conversations.
Kwark's position is a well accepted standard in international relations. The key distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters is the intentional targeting of civilians rather than government, military, and infrastructure.
On December 01 2012 07:41 KwarK wrote: [quote] Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote: that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine?
Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion.
Citizens of Palestine aren't allowed to farm or fish in Israel? Shocker
Show me where North Koreans are farming in South Korea.
There are these things called nations and they have these things called borders. Now, at each border one nation ends and others begin. Good so far? Ok, so as it turns out, within these borders nations can do whatever they want, which generally means not allowing other nations to operate within their own borders.
Ok now you have a basic understanding of the nation state. Glad I could help.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
I like your ignorant style Kwark, you must be a teacher.
Maybe you should look up subsistence, and realize it implies nothing of the sort. These people are getting what they need, not some incredible surplus that produces a healthy population.
If you give people the bare minimum they need to survive then the population does not explode for both biological and social reasons. Fertility decreases under harsh conditions and people choose not to undergo the expenses of increased family size. Children are a luxury and the Palestinians have been having more of them than pretty much any group on earth. Their recent population growth is astounding. This is not a people being wiped out.
using birth rate to judge development is nonsense. rural poor often are given to want of children because they think it will help with farm work and so on, even though it's a developmental trap.
more than 50% of palestine is age 25 or under, of those, more than 70% are unemployed. it's a big refugee camp, some parts nicer some parts worse.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
I like your ignorant style Kwark, you must be a teacher.
Maybe you should look up subsistence, and realize it implies nothing of the sort. These people are getting what they need, not some incredible surplus that produces a healthy population.
If you give people the bare minimum they need to survive then the population does not explode for both biological and social reasons. Fertility decreases under harsh conditions and people choose not to undergo the expenses of increased family size. Children are a luxury and the Palestinians have been having more of them than pretty much any group on earth. Their recent population growth is astounding. This is not a people being wiped out.
Nepal is a country that was, maybe still is, that relies on subsistence farming. It enjoys a population growth of 1.7% and that is after intensive move by the government to promote contraceptives and family planning.
Children are a luxury if you plan to raise them with Western/developed-world amenities.
On December 01 2012 07:59 KwarK wrote: [quote] They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
I like your ignorant style Kwark, you must be a teacher.
Maybe you should look up subsistence, and realize it implies nothing of the sort. These people are getting what they need, not some incredible surplus that produces a healthy population.
If you give people the bare minimum they need to survive then the population does not explode for both biological and social reasons. Fertility decreases under harsh conditions and people choose not to undergo the expenses of increased family size. Children are a luxury and the Palestinians have been having more of them than pretty much any group on earth. Their recent population growth is astounding. This is not a people being wiped out.
Populations are growing in similar rates in India and Bangladesh (two of the poorest countries in the world). I think you sound disturbingly cold when you address the situation of the Palestinians in general.
It gets frustrating to hear this rhetoric about the Israeli extermination of the Palestinians as their numbers continue to grow at ever increasing rates and the demands of their growing population are met primarily at the expense of Israel.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
I like your ignorant style Kwark, you must be a teacher.
Maybe you should look up subsistence, and realize it implies nothing of the sort. These people are getting what they need, not some incredible surplus that produces a healthy population.
If you give people the bare minimum they need to survive then the population does not explode for both biological and social reasons. Fertility decreases under harsh conditions and people choose not to undergo the expenses of increased family size. Children are a luxury and the Palestinians have been having more of them than pretty much any group on earth. Their recent population growth is astounding. This is not a people being wiped out.
Children are a luxury? India and China must be well off.
A healthy western estimate is that a pregnant woman needs something like 250-300 additional calories a day. Let's be realistic and say that it is 150-200 for someone with a low Body Mass Index (like someone who is on subsistence level would have.) That is like a husband forgoing a piece of bread to give his pregnant wife. Hardly earth shattering. And if there isn't a social incentive I don't know what else could be. A larger population means a louder voice in the world. I'm sure many Palestinians also think a growing population means more potential freedom fighters.
You're right though, it's not a people being wiped out. It's a people being humiliated and degraded. Why? That's something I wish you could answer.
On December 01 2012 09:27 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Just posting in here to tell Kwark that the silent majority supports his views on terrorism. Honestly, I'm wanting to rip my hair out just reading this stuff. It must be even more frustrating to actually be participating in those conversations.
Actually, it's mildly entertaining, with occasional spots of depression and misanthropy.
On December 01 2012 07:59 KwarK wrote: [quote] They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Still not getting it, eh? They have absolutely no chance of winning a war, everyone knows that. They have no chance of winning through diplomacy since the US and its puppets have no interest in anything other than Israeli interests.
Essentially we have a state, Palestine, that has no physical or peaceful recourse. It is a state that, if things continue as they are, will simply vanish into the pages of history.
They do what they do because they are fighting in the only way they still can, and I'll be damned before I can condemn a nation fighting tyranny with the only means available to it.
Firstly, war was only one of the four things I described, military against military and that was just a clarification for people like yourself. Secondly, you realise that the number of Palestinians is increasing exponentially and has been ever since Israel took their land, right? That this is the type of genocide in which the population being targeted is given massive amounts of humanitarian aid and undergoes explosive population growth, ie not genocide. They're not vanishing. Thirdly, only means available to it? I outlined two options for paramilitary groups and said the one that attacks the civilians is terrorism, where are you getting this "only means" thing from. Blowing up buses is not, and never has been, the only means. It doesn't even qualify as means at all because it does nothing but strengthens Israeli resolve.
Your "clarification" is meaningless to me, make up some new "clarifications" I can ignore.
Did I just read massive amounts of humanitarian aid? What am I reading? These people are being sustained on a subsistence level.
Sorry, what were the other means available to it? Targeting Israeli bases with their home made rockets? Hell, even with some of the good rockets they get from Iran they still couldn't even dent the Israeli army.
Their only hope for peace is from outside help. No one in the West right now would even know what Palastine is without these "terrorist" attacks. Could it be a cry for help?
Do you know what subsistence means? I'm pretty sure you don't. Imagine you have two million people and you give them subsistence level food for two million people. Do you know what happens to the baby born that makes it two million and one? He starves. Twenty years ago there were two million Palestinians. Now there are four million Palestinians. Clearly they are getting a surplus of food.
I like your ignorant style Kwark, you must be a teacher.
Maybe you should look up subsistence, and realize it implies nothing of the sort. These people are getting what they need, not some incredible surplus that produces a healthy population.
If you give people the bare minimum they need to survive then the population does not explode for both biological and social reasons. Fertility decreases under harsh conditions and people choose not to undergo the expenses of increased family size. Children are a luxury and the Palestinians have been having more of them than pretty much any group on earth. Their recent population growth is astounding. This is not a people being wiped out.
Children are a luxury? India and China must be well off.
A healthy western estimate is that a pregnant woman needs something like 250-300 additional calories a day. Let's be realistic and say that it is 150-200 for someone with a low Body Mass Index (like someone who is on subsistence level would have.) That is like a husband forgoing a piece of bread to give his pregnant wife. Hardly earth shattering. And if there isn't a social incentive I don't know what else could be. A larger population means a louder voice in the world. I'm sure many Palestinians also think a growing population means more potential freedom fighters.
You're right though, it's not a people being wiped out. It's a people being humiliated and degraded. Why? That's something I wish you could answer.
"Honey it's fine, just keep the baby in your cooch for like, two more years or something so it only uses 150-200 calories a day." (If you don't understand, I'm saying that mentioning the calorie requirements for no more than ~4% of the average life span is not relevant to a discussion of agricultural supply and demand [and this is assuming that people in Palestine only live to be 25])
Second, how are they being humiliated and degraded? Is Israel saying that they should be driven into the sea? That would quite degrading, I confess.
the silent majority also believes that terrorism is just a problem of crazy sand people. it's pretty dumb.
when you have an agricultural society in the middle of pretty shitty land, it's not a huge surprise that the economy is pretty shitty. palestinians were in the same situation as english poor peasants after enclosure, with the difference of not being able to freely take up employment in cities.
blaming international aid for population growth is a line that is just brazenly crass. the alternative is starvation, is that preferable?
On December 01 2012 09:27 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Just posting in here to tell Kwark that the silent majority supports his views on terrorism. Honestly, I'm wanting to rip my hair out just reading this stuff. It must be even more frustrating to actually be participating in those conversations.
Actually, it's mildly entertaining, with occasional spots of depression and misanthropy.
Hear me, I am the self-appointed silent majority. Seriously...
EPT
