236 replies to this topic

[shanlung]

Bavarian Raven, on 15 November 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

so? it was probably a mere fluke that no one was seriously injured or killed.
you launch rockets at isreal, they are going to hit you back 3 fold if not more. simple logic. they shouldnt have shot at isreal first.

Stellar, on 15 November 2012 - 03:10 AM, said:

I don't see how the amount of injuries or deaths is really relevant in this case...

If someone pulls a gun on me, shoots at me but misses, are you really going to fault me for pulling out a gun, shooting him and killing or injuring him?

But what if a group of people charged into your house and took it over claiming it is theirs because they claimed their ancestors lived in the house before and forced you and your family to live in the toilet.  And when those living in the toilet objected to that.  you then terrorised them.

And if in desperation those living in the toilet pull a gun, you then have the right to chuck phosphorus shells and cluster bombs at their kids.
And yes, while their hands are tied with not real weapons allowed to them.  Fish in a barrel have better fighting chances.

Do I fault you?

What for?  When you do not know what is decency in the first place.
Cheaper to shoot and kill then make real movement to peace?
Will you then aim those rockets and high tech weapons at me then?

[The New Richard Nixon]

Israel bombs ambulance station

[ExpandMyMind]

MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

Three Israeli civilians were killed last week when one of those rockets landed in their apartment. The world didn't go apeshit.



Then enlighten me o wise one. If a rocket-shaped projectile with a high explosive tip aimed at a civilian area isn't intended to kill civilians, then what is it for? Showing off?




Three people were killed last week. Do you actually bother keeping abreast of events or do you just like wandering in here and waving your opinions around?

1. I was referring to suicide bombings. And the World would most certainly go apeshit if Hamas set off a bomb in a cafe or something similar.
2. No doubt rockets are made to kill, much in the same way that guns are made to kill. This doesn't mean that killing is the primary reason for their use. They are used, primarily, to spread fear, not death. This is their main use. Similar to the fact that the main use of a gun, though it was created to injure or kill, is to deter violence, not to actually inflict it.
3. Yes, no **** Sherlock. 3 people killed last week, but please try to understand the text in my posts (you always had a hard time with that - it gets tiresome): "than rockets that hadn't killed anyone in 3 years". Can you spot the word that shows your mistake? "hadn't" means past tense, "Haven't" would have meant up until the present.

MichaelW, on 20 November 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

Is this the same flawed definition system that also says Gaza is occupied and that Israeli apartment blocks are legitimate military targets?





Then what does it make them then? If an individual or a group commits an act of violence or something similar which is designed purely to instill fear and terror in the conscious of a civilian populace then by definition, they are terrorists.

It's not particularly difficult to understand.

1. Gaza, and more importantly, the people of Gaza, are still occupied. This was defined at the Nuremberg Trials, by a load of smart, Western lawyers, not by me.
2. I didn't say that apartment blocks are a legitimate military target. In fact, if you'll please note, I actually described the rockets as a war crime.
3. So you would be of the view that Israel is a terrorist organisation? Applying only your own logic "If an individual or a group commits an act of violence or something similar which is designed purely to instill fear and terror in the conscious of a civilian populace then by definition, they are terrorists", then Israel must be. After all, Israel's entire policy in Gaza is exactly as you describe.

The reason Israel, or the U.S., or Russia are not 'terrorist organisations', or at least the reason they can not be defined as such, is because the term 'terrorist' does not allow for governments and armies to be classed as such.

Quote

THE CIA's DEFINITION OF TERRORISM
The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

1. It is premeditated — planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
2. It is political — not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
3. It is aimed at civilians — not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
4. It is carried out by subnational groups — not by the army of a country.

http://www.cfr.org/issue/135/

Do you see number four (mentioned in the paragraph as well)? The big boys of the World (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, Israel, etc) define terrorism in this way so that they themselves cannot be defined as such. Sort of ironic from an Israeli standpoint - as soon as Hamas were elected into government, as soon as they rose from 'subnational' level, it became impossible to throw that term around legitimately without opening themselves up to the same label.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 20 November 2012 - 11:54 AM.

[and then]

ExpandMyMind, on 20 November 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

1. I was referring to suicide bombings. And the World would most certainly go apeshit if Hamas set off a bomb in a cafe or something similar.
2. No doubt rockets are made to kill, much in the same way that guns are made to kill. This doesn't mean that killing is the primary reason for their use. They are used, primarily, to spread fear, not death. This is their main use. Similar to the fact that the main use of a gun, though it was created to injure or kill, is to deter violence, not to actually inflict it.
3. Yes, no **** Sherlock. 3 people killed last week, but please try to understand the text in my posts (you always had a hard time with that - it gets tiresome): "than rockets that hadn't killed anyone in 3 years". Can you spot the word that shows your mistake? "hadn't" means past tense, "Haven't" would have meant up until the present.



1. Gaza, and more importantly, the people of Gaza, are still occupied. This was defined at the Nuremberg Trials, by a load of smart, Western lawyers, not by me.
2. I didn't say that apartment blocks are a legitimate military target. In fact, if you'll please note, I actually described the rockets as a war crime.
3. So you would be of the view that Israel is a terrorist organisation? Applying only your own logic "If an individual or a group commits an act of violence or something similar which is designed purely to instill fear and terror in the conscious of a civilian populace then by definition, they are terrorists", then Israel must be. After all, Israel's entire policy in Gaza is exactly as you describe.

The reason Israel, or the U.S., or Russia are not 'terrorist organisations', or at least the reason they can not be defined as such, is because the term 'terrorist' does not allow for governments and armies to be classed as such.



http://www.cfr.org/issue/135/

Do you see number four (mentioned in the paragraph as well)? The big boys of the World (U.S., Russia, China, Britain, Israel, etc) define terrorism in this way so that they themselves cannot be defined as such. Sort of ironic from an Israeli standpoint - as soon as Hamas were elected into government, as soon as they rose from 'subnational' level, it became impossible to throw that term around legitimately without opening themselves up to the same label.

Which is why Israel does not want the PA pursuing Statehood unilaterally - at least that's part of the reason.  I suspect that this current action will make Abbas' task easier in that respect - especially.  If that kind of even limited legitimacy is given to the Palestinians then rumblings begin about bringing Israel before International courts for what Israel considers to be legitimate exercise of self defense.  It will add much more overall pressure to the situation there.  I just don't see how a regional conflict can be delayed much longer.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Quote

glorybebe, on 19 November 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

And that is what comes to question who the aggressor is.  By taking the land away from the Palestinians in the first place, that set this up to be a constant battle.  And the Paletinians do not have any rights over in Isreal, Isreal wants the land and no Palestinian citizens.

Israel can't give the land back to the "Palestinians" because these people have NEVER had a country of their own.  "Palestine" is a geographical entity not a political one.

Israel occupies what used to be British land - the British Mandate of Palestine, which was created by the British in 1920.  In turn, the British Mandate of Palestine once belonged to Ottoman Syria but it became British after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire in the Great War.

Israel isn't the only country that was formed out of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948.  Jordan was, too.

Also, Israel isn't the only country which was formed out of Ottoman Syria.  So, too, were Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon, parts of Turkey and Iraq, and modern Syria.

So if the Israelis have to give back their land it won't be to the mythical "Palestinians".  It would be given back to the British, as it was British land before Israel was established.  And if the Israelis give their land back to the British - which I don't want Israel to do because I like the Israelis and their country and support its right to exist - then I would also demand the Jordanians give their land back to the British due to the undeniable fact that, like Israel, Jordan also occupies territory which was once the British Mandate for Palestine.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 20 November 2012 - 02:39 PM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

TheLastLazyGun, on 20 November 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Israel can't give the land back to the "Palestinians" because these people have NEVER had a country of their own.  "Palestine" is a geographical entity not a political one.

Israel occupies what used to be British land - the British Mandate of Palestine, which was created by the British in 1920.  In turn, the British Mandate of Palestine once belonged to Ottoman Syria but it became British after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire in the Great War.

Israel isn't the only country that was formed out of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948.  Jordan was, too.

Also, Israel isn't the only country which was formed out of Ottoman Syria.  So, too, were Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon, parts of Turkey and Iraq, and modern Syria.

So if the Israelis have to give back their land it won't be to the mythical "Palestinians".  It would be given back to the British, as it was British land before Israel was established.  And if the Israelis give their land back to the British - which I don't want Israel to do because I like the Israelis and their country and support its right to exist - then I would also demand the Jordanians give their land back to the British due to the undeniable fact that, like Israel, Jordan also occupies territory which was once the British Mandate for Palestine.

Israel didnt exist either before

[shaddow134]

TheLastLazyGun, on 20 November 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Israel can't give the land back to the "Palestinians" because these people have NEVER had a country of their own.  "Palestine" is a geographical entity not a political one.

Israel occupies what used to be British land - the British Mandate of Palestine, which was created by the British in 1920.  In turn, the British Mandate of Palestine once belonged to Ottoman Syria but it became British after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire in the Great War.

Israel isn't the only country that was formed out of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948.  Jordan was, too.

Also, Israel isn't the only country which was formed out of Ottoman Syria.  So, too, were Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon, parts of Turkey and Iraq, and modern Syria.

So if the Israelis have to give back their land it won't be to the mythical "Palestinians".  It would be given back to the British, as it was British land before Israel was established.  And if the Israelis give their land back to the British - which I don't want Israel to do because I like the Israelis and their country and support its right to exist - then I would also demand the Jordanians give their land back to the British due to the undeniable fact that, like Israel, Jordan also occupies territory which was once the British Mandate for Palestine.

And your point is.......

Edited by shaddow134, 20 November 2012 - 03:28 PM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

hmm conflicting reports.

"

1621:

In the last few hours, officials in Cairo are reporting that a ceasefire deal has been struck and will be announced in the coming hours."


But just now "

1646:

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev tells CNN that a ceasefire deal has not been finalised and the "ball is still in play". "Until you're there, you're not there," he said."


http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-20405530

[Corp]

Well at least both sides have said they want a ceasefire. So good news there. They need to stop throwing rockets at each other.

[and then]

Corp, on 20 November 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

Well at least both sides have said they want a ceasefire. So good news there. They need to stop throwing rockets at each other.

In the lead up to this Hamas was launching rockets and taking responsibility for that.  But over the past few months that were saying it was various splinter groups working independently.  If the latter story is true then I doubt Hamas can control those groups. So if the shooting stops without the missiles being removed then the shooting just starts again in a few weeks and it slowly increases.  It's ridiculous.  On the other hand, since neither side will bend then eventually a regional war is going to occur.

[Rafterman]

I find it interesting that so many are minimizing the fact that Hamas has been lobbing rockets into Israel for years now and that it's somehow Israel who is at fault for fighting back.  My understanding is that Hamas has fired more rockets in to Israel over the past 3 years than Nazi Germany fired into England during the entire of the Second World War.

And it somehow matters that the rockets miss their targets or don't cause many deaths?  Say what?

So if Canada was lobbing rockets into northern Vermont and New Hampshire, the US would be fine with saying "well, they're just landing in the forest so it's really no biggie"?  Or if Mexico were firing into the Texas desert (actually a more appropriate analogy since some think of Texas as occupied land stolen from Mexico), we'd be saying "well, nobody really lives there so it's cool".

Hardly.

Glenn Beck had an interesting analogy today as well - what if I stood in the middle of Times Square with an M16 and proceeded to start firing off 3,000 rounds into random windows and just into the air.  Sure, I probably wouldn't hurt or kill too many people.  So that would be OK or would the NYPD fill me full of holes on the spot?

[Professor T]

Well, I guess it's kind of good news, but Hillary Clinton is on the way to Israel, reportedly to try and broker a ceasefire. Also Ban-Ki-Moony is in Egypt trying the same..

Also, some are reporting that Israel and Hamas have agreed to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, to begin at 22:00 GMT Tuesday, that's about 3 hours away my time.. Netanyahu has said that “if a long-term solution can be put in place through diplomatic means, then Israel would be a willing partner for such a solution,” but maintained that Israel would not tolerate rocket attacks from Gaza.

It looks like some of the media/press are actually starting to ask the right questions for a change too.. It was very good to see one reporter asking a US offical "Don't you think it's about time to stop supporting israel and start trying to broker a truce?"... My god! Give that person a medal!

[shaddow134]

and then, on 20 November 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

In the lead up to this Hamas was launching rockets and taking responsibility for that.  But over the past few months that were saying it was various splinter groups working independently.  If the latter story is true then I doubt Hamas can control those groups. So if the shooting stops without the missiles being removed then the shooting just starts again in a few weeks and it slowly increases.  It's ridiculous.  On the other hand, since neither side will bend then eventually a regional war is going to occur.

This will be the way of Things for a few years yet,the political map has changed in the region,there are a lot of bridges to build and there doesn't seem to be any commen ground.All i can say is good luck to the person who has to try and sort it out,they are going to need plenty of it.

[and then]

Professor T, on 20 November 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Well, I guess it's kind of good news, but Hillary Clinton is on the way to Israel, reportedly to try and broker a ceasefire. Also Ban-Ki-Moony is in Egypt trying the same..

Also, some are reporting that Israel and Hamas have agreed to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire, to begin at 22:00 GMT Tuesday, that's about 3 hours away my time.. Netanyahu has said that “if a long-term solution can be put in place through diplomatic means, then Israel would be a willing partner for such a solution,” but maintained that Israel would not tolerate rocket attacks from Gaza.

It looks like some of the media/press are actually starting to ask the right questions for a change too.. It was very good to see one reporter asking a US offical "Don't you think it's about time to stop supporting israel and start trying to broker a truce?"... My god! Give that person a medal!

Well Obama is the man they've been waiting for, I think.  At least he has had the stance of working to bring the Arab/Muslim element into better relationship.  I have to say, though, that it doesn't seem to be very successful.   They have taken what he offered and then looked at him and said "AND THEN?"  (sorry, couldn't resist)....   It never seems to be enough for either side.

[WHO U KIDDIN]

TheLastLazyGun, on 20 November 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Israel can't give the land back to the "Palestinians" because these people have NEVER had a country of their own.  "Palestine" is a geographical entity not a political one.

Israel occupies what used to be British land - the British Mandate of Palestine, which was created by the British in 1920.  In turn, the British Mandate of Palestine once belonged to Ottoman Syria but it became British after the British Empire defeated the Ottoman Empire in the Great War.

Israel isn't the only country that was formed out of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948.  Jordan was, too.

Also, Israel isn't the only country which was formed out of Ottoman Syria.  So, too, were Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon, parts of Turkey and Iraq, and modern Syria.

So if the Israelis have to give back their land it won't be to the mythical "Palestinians".  It would be given back to the British, as it was British land before Israel was established.  And if the Israelis give their land back to the British - which I don't want Israel to do because I like the Israelis and their country and support its right to exist - then I would also demand the Jordanians give their land back to the British due to the undeniable fact that, like Israel, Jordan also occupies territory which was once the British Mandate for Palestine.

What utter nonsense, Palestine is not "British land" it is located in the Middle East thousands of miles from the British Isles.

Yes, Palestine was once occupied by the imperial British Empire and administered by them after WW I, but to say that Palestine is British land, that like saying that India or Hong Kong is British land. Palestinians are the native and original inhabitants that have lived these ‘lands’ for over two thousand years.

It’s true that there has never been a nation-state called Palestine, but ever since the Jewish Diaspora of 70AD from Judea, the name Palestine has historically been used for the area and its people. The Palestinians (be it Muslim, Christian, or Jew) have been there since Roman times regardless of what the Zionists claim, what has not been there since then is a nation or kingdom known as Israel.