236 replies to this topic

[Corp]

It plays to Israel's best interest to ignore rocket attacks unless they become really bad. Their missile shield appears to be working quite well and helped to keep civilian casulties down and they get a PR boost by staying peaceful while Palestinian factions violate the creasefire. Of course I'm sure in two or three years they'll be at each other's thoats again.

Edited by Corp, 22 November 2012 - 09:00 PM.

[and then]

Corp, on 22 November 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

It plays to Israel's best interest to ignore rocket attacks unless they become really bad. Their missile shield appears to be working quite well and helped to keep civilian casulties down and they get a PR boost by staying peaceful while Palestinian factions violate the creasefire. Of course I'm sure in two or three years they'll be at each other's thoats again.

Corp can you imagine sending your kids off to school or out to play and never knowing when the siren will sound that gives them 30 seconds to find cover from a weapon that could maim or kill them?  Is it only "really bad" when as many Israelis die as Palestinians?  Most Westerners I know get pissy when they have a rainy day that keeps them from doing exactly what they had planned once in a while.  For Israelis this is an ongoing part of their lives EVERY DAY.  That sounds pretty bad to me.

[acidhead]

[acidhead]

WTH... check this guy out...

[and then]

acidhead, on 23 November 2012 - 04:42 AM, said:

Is your point that the Pakistanis DO?  Hardly.  The drones, as distasteful as they may be, have reduced the need for a much wider and more intrusive footprint of forces in Pakistan proper.  It's well known that the Afghan war is being directed and resupplied through the ISI and other elements in Pakistan.  The drones barely level the playing field.  Truth is that they may be instrumental in keeping the schizophrenic "government" of Pakistan from threatening the West with nukes.  By killing and harrying the Taliban and Islamist factions vying for control of Pakistan, they are helping whatever group within the Pak government that is trying to hold the country together - it's too bad they can't be used on ISI leaders.

[and then]

acidhead, on 23 November 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

WTH... check this guy out...

This guy would be funny if his rhetoric weren't so disgusting.  He sounds a bit like a crazy weatherman or something.  Primitive rockets?  This is as funny as "minor shelling" ... there is just no such thing when it's being done to you.  "massa's" boy?  Did he really call Obama massa's boy?  Hell, even I wouldn't say something like that about him.  The sad irony is that such rhetoric keeps this fire burning and eventually it will consume the region and more.

[TheLastLazyGun]

Professor T, on 17 November 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Again.. show some respect..
and at least do a bit more research into the political history of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas,  Fatah, The modern state of Israel and the cause and effect conflicts that have shaped the politics in the region before calling people "stupid"..

Hamas (an arm of the muslim brotherhood) wants a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which includs a Palestinian state based on the pre 1967 borders... Bah... (and here I go allowing this to be derailed).... tread lightly...

If Israel was to go back to pre-1967 borders then the West Bank would belong to Jordan rather than being some sort of independent state.  Jordan ruled the West Bank since Jordan, like Israel, seceded from the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948.  Prior to the First World War, however, the West Bank was part of Ottoman Syria for 400 years.

You never hear this from the supporters of the "Palestinians" though.  They would have you believe that the West Bank was some sort of independent, sovereign state before Israel took it over in 1967 and that it should go back to being a state.

But they are wrong.  The TRUTH of the matter is that even if Israel did go back to its pre-1967 borders then the West Bank still wouldn't be free.  It'd surely be ruled by Jordan instead, the country which ruled it before Israel took it.

Of course, the Jordanians treated the people of the West Bank - especially Jews and Christians - in a brutal and barbaric manner, something we hear very little about today.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 23 November 2012 - 03:43 PM.

[Corp]

and then, on 23 November 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Corp can you imagine sending your kids off to school or out to play and never knowing when the siren will sound that gives them 30 seconds to find cover from a weapon that could maim or kill them?  Is it only "really bad" when as many Israelis die as Palestinians?  Most Westerners I know get pissy when they have a rainy day that keeps them from doing exactly what they had planned once in a while.  For Israelis this is an ongoing part of their lives EVERY DAY.  That sounds pretty bad to me.

Some missiles landing in an empty field should not result in massive air strikes on a heavy urban area. That's what I mean when I say Israel should ignore the attacks unless they becomes bad. Given the hugely political nature of the situation they would be smart to only act when civilians are in very clear danger, otherwise they just look like villains. Maybe if the Israeli government stopped being massive *******s to the Palestinians they might regain the moral high ground.

[Sakari]

Corp, on 23 November 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Some missiles landing in an empty field should not result in massive air strikes on a heavy urban area. That's what I mean when I say Israel should ignore the attacks unless they becomes bad. Given the hugely political nature of the situation they would be smart to only act when civilians are in very clear danger, otherwise they just look like villains. Maybe if the Israeli government stopped being massive *******s to the Palestinians they might regain the moral high ground.

So, if your next door neighbor was shooting at your home, with your family in it, but was a horrible shot and only hit your back yard lawn you would ignore it?

[WHO U KIDDIN]

TheLastLazyGun, on 23 November 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

If Israel was to go back to pre-1967 borders then the West Bank would belong to Jordan rather than being some sort of independent state.  Jordan ruled the West Bank since Jordan, like Israel, seceded from the British Mandate for Palestine in 1948.  Prior to the First World War, however, the West Bank was part of Ottoman Syria for 400 years.

You never hear this from the supporters of the "Palestinians" though.  They would have you believe that the West Bank was some sort of independent, sovereign state before Israel took it over in 1967 and that it should go back to being a state.

But they are wrong.  The TRUTH of the matter is that even if Israel did go back to its pre-1967 borders then the West Bank still wouldn't be free.  It'd surely be ruled by Jordan instead, the country which ruled it before Israel took it.

Of course, the Jordanians treated the people of the West Bank - especially Jews and Christians - in a brutal and barbaric manner, something we hear very little about today.

Well here's something we hear very little about today concerning how Israeli Zionists view Christians:

Edited by WHO U KIDDIN, 24 November 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

A alot of people don't know that Christians during the crusades abused the Jews in Europe and in the holy land because they were not Christian

[Stellar]

Sakari, on 24 November 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

So, if your next door neighbor was shooting at your home, with your family in it, but was a horrible shot and only hit your back yard lawn you would ignore it?

That is essentially the same example I was going to use. That justifies shooting the neighbor thats firing at you, but it doesnt justify killing the rest of his family, and thats unfortunately how its seen. I believe its seen that way because people here are too far removed from the situation and have a naive understanding of what a modern military is and is not capable of. That is further compounded by the notion that people expect Hamas and other splinter cells to fire cheap rockets into Israel, as they see them as not having any sophisticated weapons and hence having no other options. When they look at Israel, a modern and sophisticated military force, they believe that they have the capability of responding without causing any collateral damage, and so any civilian collateral damage must mean that the Israeli military is being intentionally brutal.

[and then]

Stellar, on 24 November 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

That is essentially the same example I was going to use. That justifies shooting the neighbor thats firing at you, but it doesnt justify killing the rest of his family, and thats unfortunately how its seen. I believe its seen that way because people here are too far removed from the situation and have a naive understanding of what a modern military is and is not capable of. That is further compounded by the notion that people expect Hamas and other splinter cells to fire cheap rockets into Israel, as they see them as not having any sophisticated weapons and hence having no other options. When they look at Israel, a modern and sophisticated military force, they believe that they have the capability of responding without causing any collateral damage, and so any civilian collateral damage must mean that the Israeli military is being intentionally brutal.

I think this sums it up perfectly.  It really gets down to choosing sides and that usually means deciding which propaganda or "news" one listens to.  It is undeniable that the IDF goes overboard at times.  It is equally undeniable that Hamas, Hizballah and the Palestinians in general have made it abundantly clear that no solution other than the removal of the Jews from Palestine is acceptable.  My guess is that if a technology was developed that allowed the IDF to selectively kill individuals without EVER killing bystanders the rhetoric would change little.  My guess is that AFTER the whole world is negatively, personally impacted by a regional war due to this conflict, the world's government(s) will finally "get serious" and spend the time and treasure to demand a solution. You can read how it comes out in a book of fairy tales called the Holy Bible.  

[Sakari]

Stellar, on 24 November 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

That is essentially the same example I was going to use. That justifies shooting the neighbor thats firing at you, but it doesnt justify killing the rest of his family, and thats unfortunately how its seen. I believe its seen that way because people here are too far removed from the situation and have a naive understanding of what a modern military is and is not capable of. That is further compounded by the notion that people expect Hamas and other splinter cells to fire cheap rockets into Israel, as they see them as not having any sophisticated weapons and hence having no other options. When they look at Israel, a modern and sophisticated military force, they believe that they have the capability of responding without causing any collateral damage, and so any civilian collateral damage must mean that the Israeli military is being intentionally brutal.

There is no such thing as a bomb, missile, bullet, knife, grenade, etc. that can distinguish a " bad person " from a " good civilian ".....Unfortunatley, that is what happens when people do this, it is called " collateral damage ".

I may have mis understood you, if not, I hope people do not think " sophisticated " countries have the ability to drop a bomb, or send a missile, and it only kills bad guys.....

[acidhead]

and then, on 24 November 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

I think this sums it up perfectly.  It really gets down to choosing sides and that usually means deciding which propaganda or "news" one listens to.  It is undeniable that the IDF goes overboard at times.  It is equally undeniable that Hamas, Hizballah and the Palestinians in general have made it abundantly clear that no solution other than the removal of the Jews from Palestine is acceptable.  My guess is that if a technology was developed that allowed the IDF to selectively kill individuals without EVER killing bystanders the rhetoric would change little.  My guess is that AFTER the whole world is negatively, personally impacted by a regional war due to this conflict, the world's government(s) will finally "get serious" and spend the time and treasure to demand a solution. You can read how it comes out in a book of fairy tales called the Holy Bible.  

Yes we can... it's terrorable.