|
On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them.
|
On August 06 2014 06:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 06:21 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 05:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, both sides suck and resort to violence every time even a minor conflict comes up. Three murders of teenagers, for reasons beyond our understanding, lead to a full escalation of an armed conflict. Either side could de-escalate the situation by not resorting to the worst possible outcome, but they don't. Previous conflicts have been started by even more minor stuff, including a car crash that was likely a freak accident, but escalated into a major conflict.
There is no higher standard. There is just wrong and wrong. Hamas doesn't get any more of a pass than Israel in this one. There are parties on both sides just waiting to fight and that is all they want. Were the slaves in America freed because they 'de-escalated the situation'? Did the Jews escape from Egypt by 'de-escalating the situation'? Was the Holocaust ended by passive resistance? Did the Ukrainians survive the Holodomor through inaction? Should the Palestinians just give up and hope they have as lucrative a future as the native americans? Your argument makes no sense because for some reason you are assuming that if the Palestinians sit down and let Israel do whatever they want with them that Israel will mysteriously decide to treat muslims like equals at the expense of its own interests. I choose to believe there are other routes beyond violence in response to violence. If you think fighting back is their only option, there is very little I can do to dissuade you of that belief. With that being the case, I'm going to bow out of this one, as people seem pretty committed to their point of view and we are just going in circles.
Fighting back and the ensuing destruction unleashed by Israel is the only tactic that has succeeded in improving awareness of the state of Palestinian daily life. Ask yourself this question honestly: did you know about and have a vested interest in the conflict before you heard about a major Israeli offensive? I certainly didn't. I definitely didn't know a fraction of what I know now concerning the history between the two parties and exactly how one sided it was.
You can believe whatever you want, and you can also be entirely wrong. Israel knows that any type of two state or one state solution will result in people on both sides killing each other. It's unavoidable unless one party leaves because of their history of transgressions against each other magnified by the racist national rhetoric that supports it all. Hence Israel will never agree to a peace that gives the Palestinians any reasonable measure of liberty or autonomy. Israel is unwilling to shed the blood necessary to re-integrate while they can get away with putting the vast majority of casualties on the Palestinian side.
|
On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them.
So democratic thinking. I wonder why people don't like it when you spread it to them in the Middle East.
|
On August 06 2014 06:52 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 06:21 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 05:57 Plansix wrote:
Yes, both sides suck and resort to violence every time even a minor conflict comes up. Three murders of teenagers, for reasons beyond our understanding, lead to a full escalation of an armed conflict. Either side could de-escalate the situation by not resorting to the worst possible outcome, but they don't. Previous conflicts have been started by even more minor stuff, including a car crash that was likely a freak accident, but escalated into a major conflict.
There is no higher standard. There is just wrong and wrong. Hamas doesn't get any more of a pass than Israel in this one. There are parties on both sides just waiting to fight and that is all they want. Were the slaves in America freed because they 'de-escalated the situation'? Did the Jews escape from Egypt by 'de-escalating the situation'? Was the Holocaust ended by passive resistance? Did the Ukrainians survive the Holodomor through inaction? Should the Palestinians just give up and hope they have as lucrative a future as the native americans? Your argument makes no sense because for some reason you are assuming that if the Palestinians sit down and let Israel do whatever they want with them that Israel will mysteriously decide to treat muslims like equals at the expense of its own interests. The slaves were freed as in, they didnt free themselves. The Jews said, fuck this place let's go somewhere else. That's the contrary to what Hamas does. Thr Holocaust was ended by a superior alliance of opponents. Not by some freedom fighters trying to take on one of the world's most high tech armies. Not certain about the details of Holodomor. I only know that as some hunger periode or something like that. Actually the only somewhat matching example is the one with the massively inferior native Americans taking on the White Man. And that didnt go so well for them, did it? History has told us that if you want to win by force, you must be the greater force. Palestine isn't. They cannot win that way. Apart from the violence having to stop, for their own good they must go another way.
First of all the discussion was about what happens if Palestinians just give up.
Second of all the Palestinians aren't trying to defeat the IDF by killing ~8 people a year. They're baiting Israel into its traditional show of force which brings far greater scrutiny to the conflict.
|
As horrible as the deaths on both sides are, what's even more horrible is that the disgusting living conditions of Gazans AND Palestinians in the West Bank are only ever brought up in times of violence.
In times of peace, nobody. cares. at all.
|
random bombs, suicide bombers and whatnot as hamas and other organizations are the only option when you're opposing great forces like USA or Israel. so the options are 1) take it in the ass or 2) fight back. and when fighting back, there's really no option than terror attacks. fatah seems to have no problem taking it up the ass as israel continues to expand its boarders. but when palestine decides to say "no more abuse, i fight back!"(by voting) then all of a sudden they're labeled as terrorists and "justifies" israel's actions on killing civilians, herding palestanians. negotiations dont work, it hasnt done a single thing ever. when there was a chance, obama threw that shit out the window. netanyahu thinks obama is a joke. it wont end until israel gobbles everything up.
its a fucked up situation, i can only take the sides of palestinian people as they're the victim by their own "protectors" and israel whose only goal is expanding its land and remain the sole major power in the middle east.
i think palestine should give and up move to jordan or some other nation, maybe UN can make some arrangements for them to move. its a slow death or start new somewhere else if possible.
|
Norway28701 Posts
On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them.
Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view.
|
On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view.
Seriously. Also there are 4.5 million people living in Gaza and the West Bank.
|
On August 06 2014 03:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 03:32 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 06 2014 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:37 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 02:17 DinoMight wrote:On August 05 2014 19:04 Big J wrote:On August 05 2014 06:44 DinoMight wrote:
I have to disagree with this Ghandi theory that if Palestinians put down their weapons Israel will all of a sudden give them everything they want. It's simplistic and absurd. The world will not notice peaceful Palestinian protest at all.
In fact, there is no better proof of this than EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK RIGHT NOW.
What do we hear about? Hamas. Fighting, bombing, civilian deaths. But when the people of the West Bank sit quietly and do as they're told what happens? Nothing.
When was the last time you heard about the West Bank push for full legal rights / an independent state?
The problem is that Israel has learned to play both sides of the conflict:
When there is violence, they use it as an excuse to stall demands and improve living conditions, therefore exacerbating hate towards them.
When there is peace, no mainstream news outlet covers the region, and Israel is free to continue oppressing the Plaestinians as it sees fit. They do nothing for so long that someone eventually gets killed or a rocket is fired and then they go on an offensive.
This happens every 2-3 years for a month or so. You are deliberately mixing up civil protest and "doing nothing". Ghandi didn't do nothing. And noone in the West gives a fuck about the West Bank on its own. Either the whole country abandons violence, or their words aren't worth anything. And if you think it's unfair that the whole country "is held hostage by Terrorists", then said nation should do something about those Terrorists, instead of giving them offical powers. What do you suggest that the millions of people living peacefully in the West Bank do about a few thousand armed Hamas terrorists in Gaza? Keep in mind that the 42.9% of Gazans who voted for Hamas did not elect the Qassam brigade into power. Most Gazans oppose Hamas. The fact that Israel won't act on the settlements in the West Bank until Hamas stops shooting rockets in Gaza is just an indication that they're using any possible excuse to stall the reform process. I generally ask people to stop trying to hit me before I will talk with them. Its only polite. wat Are you suggesting a collective culpability for palestinians I.E. Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should bear responsibility for the actions of Hamas in the West Bank? Because collective guilt is a really dumb argument to make. It can be used to justify rocket attacks on Israel, which I don't think you're in favor of. Absolutely yes. As long as the Palestinians are independently governed, they are responsible for getting their house in order. If they can't do it, then they probably shouldn't be independent. You realise the two areas are geographically cut off from each other? Officials are not allowed to travel from one to the other, they are not even allowed to print the same newspapers etc. The question asked wasn't whether Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should be responsible for the actions of Hamas in Gaza. It was, actually. I was saying that Palestinians in the West Bank have been peaceful for a while and nothing has been done about the settlements there under the pretext that Israel is "busy" dealing with Hamas. No, go read the question that I put in bold. And it wasn't your statement that I highlighted. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that Israel shouldn't bother negotiating with the Palestinians for peace if the Palestinians cannot control Hamas. In that way, the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas.
But why? If the West Bank and Israel made a permanent deal, and a new state emerged in the West Bank called Palestine, do you really think Hamas would be able to position itself as the voice of the Palestinian people for long? If Israel wanted to empower moderates, they very easily could.
On August 06 2014 07:00 WhiteDog wrote:
Algeria won their independance despite being completly dominated by the french army. But i guess that, in all our flaws, we french were brave enough to understand and give freedom to those who deserved it, and to see how wrong our actions were.
350,000 to a million or so dead later. I mean, good on you for growing from that, but in the moment it wasn't going well. (Obvioulsy not to call out France in particular; just to point out that occupation causes occupiers to do bad things, no matter the country. See our shared history in Vietnam.)
On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view.
In case you missed it, he was advocating ethnic cleansing earlier. There's little moral reasoning possible with people who deny basic morality and talk in terms of "might makes right".
|
On August 06 2014 07:32 jinorazi wrote:
random bombs, suicide bombers and whatnot as hamas and other organizations are the only option when you're opposing great forces like USA or Israel. so the options are 1) take it in the ass or 2) fight back. and when fighting back, there's really no option than terror attacks. fatah seems to have no problem taking it up the ass as israel continues to expand its boarders. but when palestine decides to say "no more abuse, i fight back!"(by voting) then all of a sudden they're labeled as terrorists and "justifies" israel's actions on killing civilians, herding palestanians. negotiations dont work, it hasnt done a single thing ever. when there was a chance, obama threw that shit out the window. netanyahu thinks obama is a joke. it wont end until israel gobbles everything up.
its a fucked up situation, i can only take the sides of palestinian people as they're the victim by their own "protectors" and israel whose only goal is expanding its land and remain the sole major power in the middle east.
i think palestine should give and up move to jordan or some other nation, maybe UN can make some arrangements for them to move. its a slow death or start new somewhere else if possible.
I think we are going to see a change for the Palestinians. They became a partial member of UN in 2012 - under furious protests from Israel and USA - and that will make them able to sue Israel for human rights transgressions. That alone is pretty huge since the 2 mile zone for sure is inside Palestinian territorial sea and the embargo will be subject to scrutiny etc. I think it will push Israel further to the extreme right in the short term, which is bad news for Palestine, but as soon as Israel starts to get legal spanking internationally, the foreign opinions will change and Israel will be forced to get closer to international standards. Don't get me wrong: The prison-like fences with metal detectors etc. will likely continue to be there, but the settlement policy will get Israel in trouble in the West Bank and the extreme violence happening in Jerusalem towards minorities (leftists, muslims and other minorities) will get further attention.
It also confers several restrictions on the Palestinian authorities, of course, including stopping the rocket attacks and several other unwanted behaviour towards Israel, so we are going to see how Palestine will play that new playing field they have been given.
|
On August 06 2014 08:19 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:32 jinorazi wrote:
random bombs, suicide bombers and whatnot as hamas and other organizations are the only option when you're opposing great forces like USA or Israel. so the options are 1) take it in the ass or 2) fight back. and when fighting back, there's really no option than terror attacks. fatah seems to have no problem taking it up the ass as israel continues to expand its boarders. but when palestine decides to say "no more abuse, i fight back!"(by voting) then all of a sudden they're labeled as terrorists and "justifies" israel's actions on killing civilians, herding palestanians. negotiations dont work, it hasnt done a single thing ever. when there was a chance, obama threw that shit out the window. netanyahu thinks obama is a joke. it wont end until israel gobbles everything up.
its a fucked up situation, i can only take the sides of palestinian people as they're the victim by their own "protectors" and israel whose only goal is expanding its land and remain the sole major power in the middle east.
i think palestine should give and up move to jordan or some other nation, maybe UN can make some arrangements for them to move. its a slow death or start new somewhere else if possible. I think we are going to see a change for the Palestinians. They became a partial member of UN in 2012 - under furious protests from Israel and USA - and that will make them able to sue Israel for human rights transgressions. That alone is pretty huge since the 2 mile zone for sure is inside Palestinian territorial sea and the embargo will be subject to scrutiny etc. I think it will push Israel further to the extreme right in the short term, which is bad news for Palestine, but as soon as Israel starts to get legal spanking internationally, the foreign opinions will change and Israel will be forced to get closer to international standards. Don't get me wrong: The prison-like fences with metal detectors etc. will likely continue to be there, but the settlement policy will get Israel in trouble in the West Bank and the extreme violence happening in Jerusalem towards minorities (leftists, muslims and other minorities) will get further attention. It also confers several restrictions on the Palestinian authorities, of course, including stopping the rocket attacks and several other unwanted behaviour towards Israel, so we are going to see how Palestine will play that new playing field they have been given.
I think you missed the part where the United States blocks any UN action against Palestine.
|
On August 06 2014 08:22 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 08:19 radiatoren wrote:On August 06 2014 07:32 jinorazi wrote:
random bombs, suicide bombers and whatnot as hamas and other organizations are the only option when you're opposing great forces like USA or Israel. so the options are 1) take it in the ass or 2) fight back. and when fighting back, there's really no option than terror attacks. fatah seems to have no problem taking it up the ass as israel continues to expand its boarders. but when palestine decides to say "no more abuse, i fight back!"(by voting) then all of a sudden they're labeled as terrorists and "justifies" israel's actions on killing civilians, herding palestanians. negotiations dont work, it hasnt done a single thing ever. when there was a chance, obama threw that shit out the window. netanyahu thinks obama is a joke. it wont end until israel gobbles everything up.
its a fucked up situation, i can only take the sides of palestinian people as they're the victim by their own "protectors" and israel whose only goal is expanding its land and remain the sole major power in the middle east.
i think palestine should give and up move to jordan or some other nation, maybe UN can make some arrangements for them to move. its a slow death or start new somewhere else if possible. I think we are going to see a change for the Palestinians. They became a partial member of UN in 2012 - under furious protests from Israel and USA - and that will make them able to sue Israel for human rights transgressions. That alone is pretty huge since the 2 mile zone for sure is inside Palestinian territorial sea and the embargo will be subject to scrutiny etc. I think it will push Israel further to the extreme right in the short term, which is bad news for Palestine, but as soon as Israel starts to get legal spanking internationally, the foreign opinions will change and Israel will be forced to get closer to international standards. Don't get me wrong: The prison-like fences with metal detectors etc. will likely continue to be there, but the settlement policy will get Israel in trouble in the West Bank and the extreme violence happening in Jerusalem towards minorities (leftists, muslims and other minorities) will get further attention. It also confers several restrictions on the Palestinian authorities, of course, including stopping the rocket attacks and several other unwanted behaviour towards Israel, so we are going to see how Palestine will play that new playing field they have been given. I think you missed the part where the United States blocks any UN action against Palestine.
They cannot block the court in regards to UN charter treaties. Of course Israel can ignore the judgement but again, the effect of UN is to give them an international forum for changing foreign opinion. When US vetos it is drawing attention.
|
On August 06 2014 07:57 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 03:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 03:32 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 03:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 06 2014 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2014 02:37 Jormundr wrote:On August 06 2014 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2014 02:17 DinoMight wrote:On August 05 2014 19:04 Big J wrote:
[quote]
You are deliberately mixing up civil protest and "doing nothing". Ghandi didn't do nothing.
And noone in the West gives a fuck about the West Bank on its own. Either the whole country abandons violence, or their words aren't worth anything. And if you think it's unfair that the whole country "is held hostage by Terrorists", then said nation should do something about those Terrorists, instead of giving them offical powers. What do you suggest that the millions of people living peacefully in the West Bank do about a few thousand armed Hamas terrorists in Gaza? Keep in mind that the 42.9% of Gazans who voted for Hamas did not elect the Qassam brigade into power. Most Gazans oppose Hamas. The fact that Israel won't act on the settlements in the West Bank until Hamas stops shooting rockets in Gaza is just an indication that they're using any possible excuse to stall the reform process. I generally ask people to stop trying to hit me before I will talk with them. Its only polite. wat Are you suggesting a collective culpability for palestinians I.E. Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should bear responsibility for the actions of Hamas in the West Bank? Because collective guilt is a really dumb argument to make. It can be used to justify rocket attacks on Israel, which I don't think you're in favor of. Absolutely yes. As long as the Palestinians are independently governed, they are responsible for getting their house in order. If they can't do it, then they probably shouldn't be independent. You realise the two areas are geographically cut off from each other? Officials are not allowed to travel from one to the other, they are not even allowed to print the same newspapers etc. The question asked wasn't whether Palestinian civilians in the West Bank should be responsible for the actions of Hamas in Gaza. It was, actually. I was saying that Palestinians in the West Bank have been peaceful for a while and nothing has been done about the settlements there under the pretext that Israel is "busy" dealing with Hamas. No, go read the question that I put in bold. And it wasn't your statement that I highlighted. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that Israel shouldn't bother negotiating with the Palestinians for peace if the Palestinians cannot control Hamas. In that way, the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas. But why? If the West Bank and Israel made a permanent deal, and a new state emerged in the West Bank called Palestine, do you really think Hamas would be able to position itself as the voice of the Palestinian people for long? If Israel wanted to empower moderates, they very easily could. Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:00 WhiteDog wrote:
Algeria won their independance despite being completly dominated by the french army. But i guess that, in all our flaws, we french were brave enough to understand and give freedom to those who deserved it, and to see how wrong our actions were. 350,000 to a million or so dead later. I mean, good on you for growing from that, but in the moment it wasn't going well. (Obvioulsy not to call out France in particular; just to point out that occupation causes occupiers to do bad things, no matter the country. See our shared history in Vietnam.) Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. In case you missed it, he was advocating ethnic cleansing earlier. There's little moral reasoning possible with people who deny basic morality and talk in terms of "might makes right".
350 000 to a million and a half, putting aside the rape and the torture : we did aweful things, worst than Israel. But we accepted that we were wrong and gave them their freedom - after 8 years of an absurd and criminal war.
About Vietnam yes and no, De Gaulle told the US not to go to war in Viet Nam.
According to Haaretz, what happened in Rafah the 1 of August - bombings from Israeli that ended up most likely killing Hadar Goldin, the "abducted"/"captured" israeli soldier - is nothing but the "Hannibal protocol".
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.608715
Here is a quick description of the Hannibal protocol (previously used according to Haaretz) :
In the summer of 1986, three senior officers met at Northern Command headquarters and drew up one of the most controversial operational orders in the history of the Israel Defense Forces. The three were the head of Northern Command at the time, Major General Yossi Peled, the command's operations officer, Colonel Gabi Ashkenazi (now the deputy chief of staff) and the command's intelligence officer, Colonel Yaakov Amidror, whose last post in the army before retiring was head of the National Defense College. The order they formulated had to do with the rules for opening fire in cases in which soldiers were being abducted: "During an abduction, the major mission is to rescue our soldiers from the abductors even at the price of harming or wounding our soldiers. Light-arms fire is to be used in order to bring the abductors to the ground or to stop them. If the vehicle or the abductors do not stop, single-shot (sniper) fire should be aimed at them, deliberately, in order to hit the abductors, even if this means hitting our soldiers. In any event, everything will be done to stop the vehicle and not allow it to escape."
The IDF computer gave the order a random, though particularly exotic, code name: "Hannibal." Field commanders apprised their soldiers about the underlying meaning of the "Hannibal procedure": From the point of view of the army, a dead soldier is better than a captive soldier who himself suffers and forces the state to release thousands of captives in order to obtain his release.
http://www.haaretz.com/the-hannibal-procedure-1.9412
|
On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view.
Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number:
.01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens
.1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats
1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender
over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender
Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though.
Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too.
|
On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too.
Do you not understand that literally advocating for the law of the jungle is to put aside everything that means anything about civilization?
|
On August 06 2014 07:57 Yoav wrote:
350,000 to a million or so dead later. I mean, good on you for growing from that, but in the moment it wasn't going well. (Obvioulsy not to call out France in particular; just to point out that occupation causes occupiers to do bad things, no matter the country. See our shared history in Vietnam.)
Vietnam isn't nearly as simple as the anti war protestors make it out to be. Aside from the generation that was brainwashed you will be hard pressed to find anti american sentiments(of course people know they're not completely innocent) amongst the Vietnamese. I believe the biggest Vietnamese communty outside of VN is the US.
Some places certainly benefitted from western influence, compare HK to the rest of China.
|
Indian TV network captures Hamas building a launch site and firing rockets from next to their hotel
Gaza: In the minutes before the ceasefire kicked in at Gaza this morning, Hamas fired a flurry of rockets towards Israel - 30 according to some counts.
Israel has argued that that these rockets are fired from civilian areas, and this is why its retaliatory strikes can result in civilian casualties.
But this morning, NDTV witnessed one such rocket silo being created under a tent right next to the hotel where our team was staying. Minutes later, we saw the rocket being fired, just before the 72-hour ceasefire came into effect.
It began with a mysterious tent with a blue canopy that bobbed up yesterday (August 4) at 6:30 am in an open patch of land next to our window. We saw three men making a multitude of journeys in and out of the tent, sometimes with wires.
An hour later, they emerged, dismantled the tent, changed their clothes and walked away.
The next morning - today - we woke to news of the 72-hour ceasefire but just before it was to take effect, the rocket next to our hotel was fired. There was a loud explosion and a whooshing sound. The cloud of smoke that rose was captured by our cameraperson.
This report is being aired on NDTV and published on ndtv.com after our team left the Gaza strip - Hamas has not taken very kindly to any reporting of its rockets being fired. But just as we reported the devastating consequences of Israel's offensive on Gaza's civilians, it is equally important to report on how Hamas places those very civilians at risk by firing rockets deep from the heart of civilian zones.
Source
|
Norway28701 Posts
On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too.
but you don't know what brings what. what do you do when you have killed 45000 civilians and hamas doesn't surrender?
that doesn't even touch upon how disturbing I find your train of thought, not only the idea that the animal kingdom represents the pinnacle of civilization, but also how lightly you consider human life. Besides that though, I at least want to see if there's some logical consistency or reasoning behind your ideas. Like, it's not like Israel can go "hey Hamas, we're going to kill 45000 Palestinians, and then you guys surrender"; maybe that number would actually create a much larger scale uprising. How would you know? (I'm asking because you advocated that Israel should just go "balls to the wall and end this" - how do you know that you accomplish the desired goals before you reach the acceptable number of casualties?)
|
Israel2209 Posts
"Hebron resident Hussam al-Qawasme admitted in his interrogation that Hamas financed the kidnapping on June 12"
The Israeli army and Security Agency's forces (Shin Bet) apprehended three weeks ago the commander of the cell that kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teens in the West Bank two months ago, it was cleared for publication on Tuesday.
Hebron resident Hussam al-Qawasme, a relative of one of the suspects in the kidnapping, admitted in his interrogation that he was in charge of Marwan al-Qawasme, 29, and Amer abu Aisha, 33, Hamas activists from Hebron and the main suspects in the kidnapping and murder of Eyal Yifrah, Gil-Ad Shaer and Naftali Frenkel on June 12.
Shin Bet
Hussam, who was captured in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Shuafat, revealed that he got the financing for the kidnapping from Hamas activists in the Gaza Strip.
Palestinian security sources told Israeli news site Walla! that Hussam tried to escape to Jordan aided by his family and using fake documentation.
The sources also said that there is a direct connection between the cell that kidnapped the three teens and Hamas leadership in Gaza and outside of the Strip.
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/39306-140805-commander-of-cell-that-kidnapped-teens-arrested
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On August 06 2014 09:06 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2014 07:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On August 06 2014 07:05 Wolfstan wrote:On August 06 2014 06:57 DinoMight wrote:On August 06 2014 06:51 Wolfstan wrote:
I honestly think Israel should go balls to the wall and end this. There is bloodshed for a short time but it ends better for us in the west. Hamas and the people that support them are currently being shown that there are consequences to actions and sometimes unfortunately they are disproportionate. The moral of the story is don't pick a fight someone who is willing to kick your ass. Yeah, kill every Palestinian. They're all Hamas right? They need to learn a lesson. What the fuck is wrong with you? Nope, pretty much stay the course with what they are doing now. Neuter Hamas, make Palestine elect someone else, take out strategic targets. Genocide of Palestinians isn't a very good idea. There is a line and it lies somewhere between 2000 civilians and all 3.3 million of them. Where does the line go? Give a number. Seriously, if you're actually going to make this argument, then say exactly how many civilian lives are acceptable from your point of view. Sure, using Dino's 4.5 million as a number: .01%(450) - retaliation in defense of its citizens .1%(4500) - military ops taking out strategic threats 1%(45000) - Hamas negotiated surrender over 1% - Hamas unconditional surrender Personally I'm comfortable with the 45k number if it brings peace for 5-20 years. Hamas is certainly free to surrender any time before that though. Scaling it back though, if a little weasel picks a fight with the alpha male, it's fair if the exchange leaves one with a black eye and the other with a broken nose, 2 broken arms and a ruptured left testicle. In that situation, I'm sure some people will whine about that disproportionate damage too.
This war brought out some pretty disgusting Team Child Killing members that are happy with murder. Sick fucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
