quote:

Originally posted by Krypton ...And anyone who thinks violence will bring about peace is in some serious need of psychological help.

that includes the palestinians too (and no, not just the hamas - as pointed out earlier in the thread, some of the attacks on israel have been unrelated to the hamas).

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T that includes the palestinians too (and no, not just the hamas - as pointed out earlier in the thread, some of the attacks on israel have been unrelated to the hamas).

It sure does. But when we're talking about the current situation, it's not Israel who is being occupied and blockaded.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I understand the argument, I just think it’s a moot point because such organisations will always do this, knowing that if/when retribution comes it will make israel look bad. Im not criticising their decision to engage in warfare in population centres, im criticising their decision to invade based on the low level threat they have been enduring.

That's just it -- I don't agree that it "makes Israel look bad." I don't see Israel as being responsible for those casualties; rather, it is the terrorists who have provoked the response that are to blame. Of course, if Israel's response went above and beyond what was required to eliminate the terrorist threat, they would certainly be responsible for the excess... but the problem is precisely the opposite. Israel's typical response falls well short of what is required to eliminate that threat -- and if Israel is deserving of blame, and I think that they are, it is for that failing, not for the fact that they endeavor to defend themselves in the first place!

quote:

I never said it was "punishment"; but state's have an obligation to grade the threats to their property and people and respond accordingly. At least, that's how mature states operate in regards to foreign policy or international relations. By your reasoning any state should be able to do whatever they wish as long as the force is appropriate to accomplish whatever aim they desire. Not a very wise yardstick to use world-wide I wouldn't have thought.

If that aim amounts to the elimination of an ongoing attack against the state, then absolutely!

If we accept the premise that a nation's response must be "proportional" to the damage thus far caused to persons and property as part of an ongoing attack against that nation, then a nation is utterly powerless to defend itself, so long as its enemies attacks do not pass some ill-defined threshold while they no doubt seek to maximize the collateral damage that would result if responsive action were taken.

That seems an absurd enough result to reject the premise out of hand, but a further consideration of the practical consequences of such a policy yields even greater reason to reject it. Namely, it creates a state of perpetual conflict -- one side is free to attack the other with impunity, and the other must apparently simply absorb the losses inflicted without so much as lifting a finger. It is obvious that no meaningful peace process can move forward alongside such a backdrop. And the consequence is that the palestinians continue to exist in poverty and political limbo, and Israel continues to suffer utterly needless casualties.

On the other hand, there is no real problem with a policy by which a nation may use a degree of force necessary to terminate the attacks against it -- if the force required produces damage too "disproportionate" to the damage that the attacks have been doing, then there is an easy solution. Namely, those who were attacking that nation in the first place can realize that it's a losing equation and simply stop doing so. Unlike the alternative, this is a result which actually has at least some small potential for actual long-term progress toward a lasting peace.

The choice between the two alternative approaches seems simple enough to me...

quote:

The last time I checked, the forceful removal of a people from their land is defined as genocide as far as the UN is concerned. And this is what israel has been doing gradually for the last several decades. How many UN resolutions have called for the abandonment of occupied-territory settlements? How many people have been displaced to make room for jewish-only towns? I wasn't aware there had to be "X amount of deaths per Y hours" to classify something as genocide?

The UN had best tread carefully in that case. I will not object if the English language responds to this attack in a "disproportionate" manner; indeed, I encourage it to terminate the UN's attack by whatever means necessary.

quote:

And why do you think current military activities will be any more successful in defeating the terrorists and terrorism than any of the failed operations in the past? Whilst I certainly blame hamas for their lack of commitment to politics without violence, israel's continued prescence in the occupied territories is hardly a blameless exercise. In other words, why is your emphasis purely on hamas' rather insiginifant commitment to violence, and not on israel's policy of creeping expansion?

Nowhere have I stated that I expect the current military activities to be more successful than prior operations. I will assert that it is well within Israel's operational capabilities; however, I expect them to eventually cease the operation without achieving my proposed objective -- a decision which I will be highly critical of.

The reason for my emphasis is simple: one can negotiate with Israel, but not with Hamas. Therefore, one of the two culpable activities poses a very different sort of obstacle to achieving a lasting peace, which is quite clearly in the best interest of both sides. Accordingly, it is in the interest of both sides that the obstacle be removed. It is unfortunate that the removal will be costly, but simply prolonging the situation in the vain hope that it will correct itself is hardly a prudent alternative...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Egypt's dictator Mubarak is paid off by the US (2nd highest recipient of US aide after Israel) and so they go along with whatever US-Israeli interests in the region are. If the Egyptian people had their say, Egypt wouldn't be blockading Gaza.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I could not care less how much you care for anyone.

OK, so at least you agree Israel isn't responsible for Gaza, and has the full right to close the borders with it.
That's a progress...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You want a source? Here's your source...http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/features/egypt/ You'r right, Egypt's corrupt dictator regime shares the blame for the Gaza concentration camp.

Alright.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Too bad the USA/Israel depends on dictator regimes to further their Middle East agenda.

Huh?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton You want to be left alone? HA...HA...HA...So do the Palestinians...

Fine by me. Just tell them to not fire rockets at me.

___________________
.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So because I am against the actions of a state,

If you're so against, 'the actions of a state' why aren't you against another state randomly firing thousands of rockets randomly into another?
There are others solutions other than using weapons...
Here's a radical idea, how about negotiating with your neighbors rather than using this as a platform to fulfill their ultimate goal of the destruction of Israel?
Is the dogma of Hamas' charter that thick that they can't understand how to negotiate in this modern age?
Sooner or later they're going to have to realize that Israel isn't going anywhere.
Hopefully this last smack down operation was enough for Hamas to clue in that if you poke a pitbull too long, soon or later it's going to bite.
It's just too bad Hamas has to use women and children as their shields to try and garner World support and sympathy who are the real victims of a twisted Hamas ideology.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r If you're so against, 'the actions of a state' why aren't you against another state randomly firing thousands of rockets randomly into another? There are others solutions other than using weapons... Here's a radical idea, how about negotiating with your neighbors rather than using this as a platform to fulfill their ultimate goal of the destruction of Israel? Is the dogma of Hamas' charter that thick that they can't understand how to negotiate in this modern age? Sooner or later they're going to have to realize that Israel isn't going anywhere. Hopefully this last smack down operation was enough for Hamas to clue in that if you poke a pitbull too long, soon or later it's going to bite. It's just too bad Hamas has to use women and children as their shields to try and garner World support and sympathy who are the real victims of a twisted Hamas ideology.

You are such a simple minded person.I cant believe how brainwashed you really are.This so called operations will do nothing to make Hamas unpopular amongst the Palestinian people.Israel once again eneded up achieving nothing and managed to piss off millions and millions of muslims around the world.GOOD JOB you zionist scumbags.

It is fuckin disgusting how Israel delibritly targeted women and children and called everyone in Gaza "Hamas fighters".

I cant wait to see those IDF killers face international trials and pay for their war crimes against humanity.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer This so called operations will do nothing to make Hamas unpopular amongst the Palestinian people.Israel once again eneded up achieving nothing and managed to piss off millions and millions of muslims around the world.

I don't know... if I were a regular Palestinian, I would be pretty pissed off that Hamas provoked this attack knowing that eventually Israel would go crazy, especially because Hamas deliberately places their operations in places to maxamize civillian casualties.

quote:

It is fuckin disgusting how Hamas delibritly uses women and children as shields.

fixed

quote:

I cant wait to see those IDF killers face international trials and pay for their war crimes against humanity.

pipe dream

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton So because I am against the actions of a state, that automatically means I am a racist? Sorry, but i don't sink that low, or low enough to call people racists for holding a certain point of view which isn't even related to racism.

No, but until you provide a reason to believe you don't despise Israel or Jews, I see no reason to think otherwise based on your anti-Jew rhetoric that you've been posting for some time.

quote:

The IDF finished what job? You actually think Hamas hasn't prepared for this? LOL. The Executive Force specialize in assymetrical warfare. I know you don't see turning Gaza into a militant factory of pissed off young unemployed Arabs as counter-productive, but in reality, Operation Cast Lead, will be an absolute failure and is VERY counterproductive. It will NOT bring lasting peace. And anyone who thinks violence will bring about peace is in some serious need of psychological help.

Re-read what I said. IF the IDF finishes the job and roots out Hamas, you can't say their actions were counter-productive, because they will have achieved their objective. I didn't say they have officially finished the job. So tell me, all knowing middle east expert Krypton, what will bring lasting peace then? Because in Hamas' charter, it calls for the outright destruction of Israel. You are sadly naive if you think diplomacy will bring about lasting peace with such a group... and when it doesn't, you'll act shocked just like Jimmy Carter did when Brezhnev ordered an invasion of Afghanistan after Carter met with him a year earlier and Brezhnev said otherwise.... or when Carter had North Korea agree to a nulcer weapons treaty, only to be shocked again when it was broken shorty after. All of you "diplomacy" Democrats actually believe this works, but you don't understand who you're dealing with. Those people don't think like Americans, and unfortunately it is a necessary evil to use violence. So it would seem lasting peace would require organizations such as Hamas, who call for the total destruction of Israel in their charter to be eliminated.

quote:

Yea, the cartoons are fucked up, what's your point? The hundreds of thousands of illegal Zionist settlers believe they have a right to steal internationally recognized Palestinian land. And now you'r surprised when Palestinians decide to resist? LOL...

What's my point??? That you're a silly little boy who doesn't understand how the real world works.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer It is fuckin disgusting how Israel delibritly targeted women and children and called everyone in Gaza "Hamas fighters". I cant wait to see those IDF killers face international trials and pay for their war crimes against humanity.

Don't hold your breath as the IDF is well respected by Western powers.

Oh yeah, and there are definitely some women hamas fighters

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter That's just it -- I don't agree that it "makes Israel look bad." I don't see Israel as being responsible for those casualties; rather, it is the terrorists who have provoked the response that are to blame. Of course, if Israel's response went above and beyond what was required to eliminate the terrorist threat, they would certainly be responsible for the excess... but the problem is precisely the opposite. Israel's typical response falls well short of what is required to eliminate that threat -- and if Israel is deserving of blame, and I think that they are, it is for that failing, not for the fact that they endeavor to defend themselves in the first place! If that aim amounts to the elimination of an ongoing attack against the state, then absolutely! If we accept the premise that a nation's response must be "proportional" to the damage thus far caused to persons and property as part of an ongoing attack against that nation, then a nation is utterly powerless to defend itself, so long as its enemies attacks do not pass some ill-defined threshold while they no doubt seek to maximize the collateral damage that would result if responsive action were taken. That seems an absurd enough result to reject the premise out of hand, but a further consideration of the practical consequences of such a policy yields even greater reason to reject it. Namely, it creates a state of perpetual conflict -- one side is free to attack the other with impunity, and the other must apparently simply absorb the losses inflicted without so much as lifting a finger. It is obvious that no meaningful peace process can move forward alongside such a backdrop. And the consequence is that the palestinians continue to exist in poverty and political limbo, and Israel continues to suffer utterly needless casualties. On the other hand, there is no real problem with a policy by which a nation may use a degree of force necessary to terminate the attacks against it -- if the force required produces damage too "disproportionate" to the damage that the attacks have been doing, then there is an easy solution. Namely, those who were attacking that nation in the first place can realize that it's a losing equation and simply stop doing so. Unlike the alternative, this is a result which actually has at least some small potential for actual long-term progress toward a lasting peace. The choice between the two alternative approaches seems simple enough to me... The UN had best tread carefully in that case. I will not object if the English language responds to this attack in a "disproportionate" manner; indeed, I encourage it to terminate the UN's attack by whatever means necessary. Nowhere have I stated that I expect the current military activities to be more successful than prior operations. I will assert that it is well within Israel's operational capabilities; however, I expect them to eventually cease the operation without achieving my proposed objective -- a decision which I will be highly critical of. The reason for my emphasis is simple: one can negotiate with Israel, but not with Hamas. Therefore, one of the two culpable activities poses a very different sort of obstacle to achieving a lasting peace, which is quite clearly in the best interest of both sides. Accordingly, it is in the interest of both sides that the obstacle be removed. It is unfortunate that the removal will be costly, but simply prolonging the situation in the vain hope that it will correct itself is hardly a prudent alternative...

I didn't know you were such a brainwashed racist asshole devoid of any principle or honor.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller