So far it's only a small contingent (BBC speaks of 12-15 vehicles with helicopter support), so I guess the real party won't start until they get more juice lined up.
But seriously, with both sides determined to take this one all the way I'm wondering how long this will last.
2009, let's get dirty already!
Quote from: IDF
"This is the second stage of our operation against Hamas infrastructure," said an Israeli defence spokeswoman on television. "It is to control the launch sites responsible for launching thousands of rockets at civilians in Israel.
"We will stay as long as we need to stay to achieve our goals.
Quote from: Khaled Meshaal (political leader of Hamas)
"If you commit the stupidity of launching a ground offensive, then a black destiny awaits you," (friday)
"You will soon find out that Gaza is the wrath of God."
"This battle was imposed on us and we are confident we will achieve victory because we have made our preparations.
"Our position is clear. We will not give in. Our resolve cannot be broken"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4093083/Israel-invades-Gaza-in-attempt-to-destroy-Hamas.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200913194452527102.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/middle_east/7809959.stm
I was watching the live gaze feed on CNN and it looked like they used the white phosphorus weapon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxfPCPA2d60
looked exactly as seen here.
YAY FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
soon (maybe) we will see pictures coming out of gaza of burned corpses with their clothes fully intact... cause this shit burns the fuck out of organic material.. meh... you'll burn to a crisp while your nice clothes and shit will be relatively untouched compared to you...
Hej Wade, you're gonna love this place:
Confederate Yankee -
Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/)
Quote
Ending Gaza
Let's put this bluntly: the Gaza Strip is a failed non-state run by terrorists pledged to genocide and dreaming of a second Holocaust. It has no discernible reason to exist other than to hate; no notable exports greater than the crude rockets and mortars targeting Israeli civilians for merely daring to exist.
Lets end it. It was a mistake. It's time to close Gaza.
Empty the 1.4 million Gazans living in squalor into the surrounding Arab nations who helped make it a modern Hell. Send them to Egypt. Syria. Jordan. Lebanon. Let these nations deal with the extremism they've midwifed by absorbing the bastard Arabs of the Middle East into their own societies.
Granted, such a repatriation will be welcomed by neither the Arabs of Gaza nor the nations who have to host the violent illiteracy and religious extremism they helped create.
But it is the only viable long-term solution for peace.
And an idea long overdue.
to be completely honest here. I was genuinely sad when I heard that they are on the ground invading GAZA as we speak. I couldn't help but think of the terror all of those men women and children are going through right now. It saddened me.
Quote from: planeswalker on January 03, 2009, 09:03:17 PM
Hej Wade, you're gonna love this place:
Confederate Yankee - Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state (http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/)
Quote
Empty the 1.4 million Gazans living in squalor into the surrounding Arab nations who helped make it a modern Hell. Send them to Egypt. Syria. Jordan. Lebanon. Let these nations deal with the extremism they've midwifed by absorbing the bastard Arabs of the Middle East into their own societies.
Granted, such a repatriation will be welcomed by neither the Arabs of Gaza nor the nations who have to host the violent illiteracy and religious extremism they helped create.
Heh, reads like a sick joke. A suggestion of a "solution" that is not only impractical, but guaranteed to foment even more hatred and resentment! Just what the Middle East needs.
Quote from: topo on January 03, 2009, 09:27:15 PM
to be completely honest here. I was genuinely sad when I heard that they are on the ground invading GAZA as we speak. I couldn't help but think of the terror all of those men women and children are going through right now. It saddened me.
sad? before or after you :fap: 'ed to the phosphorous burning people video? or maybe just trying to seem like less of a freak-show?
Quote from: Fomenter on January 03, 2009, 09:45:33 PM
Quote from: topo on January 03, 2009, 09:27:15 PM
to be completely honest here. I was genuinely sad when I heard that they are on the ground invading GAZA as we speak. I couldn't help but think of the terror all of those men women and children are going through right now. It saddened me.
sad? before or after you :fap: 'ed to the phosphorous burning people video? or maybe just trying to seem like less of a freak-show?
I was sad the moment I heard that its actually happening. I for some reason thought about teh terror those people must be going through, it saddened me. then I understood how angry those people rightfully should be...
it's all fucked.
I could easily say I want this and that to happen blah blah blah.. Point is, I am very detached from the situation and i don't realize what exacty it is that I am promoting. That being said, from time to time I realize the horror, and am not a real big fan of it.
Wait, did I miss the part about Wade wanting a war to happen?
Explain yourself, please...
Quote from: The Borderline Simpleton on January 03, 2009, 10:50:36 PM
Wait, did I miss the part about Wade wanting a war to happen?
Explain yourself, please...
wade :fap: to gore and violence, it's the only way (besides hookers) that he can get his rocks off
This proves that badger is a moron becuase I get my rocks off all the time simply by grabbing hold of my rock hard cock and then by moving my hand up and down at a medium to fast pace. This gets my rocks off constantly. Why she would think people dying and war footage makes me hard is beyond me. It's probably something roger told her to believe.
Why people would think I am lying about feeling sad is beyond me. Why they would even care enough to think I am lying is actually kind of funny. Why they would turn this thread about GAZA being invaded by Israeli troops into lies about me is actually pretty funny to.
lol @ priorities.
The sad thing is, I think some of you might actually believe the shit you say about me.
Quote from: The Borderline Simpleton on January 03, 2009, 10:50:36 PM
Wait, did I miss the part about Wade wanting a war to happen?
Explain yourself, please...
In the past I posted a bunch of videos from Afghanistan and Iraq, usually firefights etc. footage that captured the reactions of soldiers going through hell.
Quote from: topo on January 03, 2009, 11:34:16 PM
Quote from: The Borderline Simpleton on January 03, 2009, 10:50:36 PM
Wait, did I miss the part about Wade wanting a war to happen?
Explain yourself, please...
In the past I posted a bunch of videos from Afghanistan and Iraq, usually firefights etc. footage that captured the reactions of soldiers going through hell.
Because... ?
Wade you warmongerering bag of canadian wank! I did not want to read about your "rock hard cock". No one does, except maybe for yourself but you can easily fix that in a text file.
Thanks for almost ruining a perfectly good saturday evening. I'm going back to the gynecologist thread...
In thread related news; AJGAZA twitter channel reports first casuals from the ground offensive and a demolished gas terminal.
edit/addition: hilarious youtube channels pop up everywhere while the IDF's own channel is getting its clips flagged left and right by protestfags and probably some pro-hamas people too.
2009, you're so cute already!
Quote from: The Borderline Simpleton on January 03, 2009, 11:39:38 PM
Quote from: topo on January 03, 2009, 11:34:16 PM
Quote from: The Borderline Simpleton on January 03, 2009, 10:50:36 PM
Wait, did I miss the part about Wade wanting a war to happen?
Explain yourself, please...
In the past I posted a bunch of videos from Afghanistan and Iraq, usually firefights etc. footage that captured the reactions of soldiers going through hell.
Because... ?
the shit fascinates me, I wanted to share, and see what people thought. I found out that no one here wants to see that shit, and that I am into "war porn".
I personally think when the news reports 200 people are dead from a suicide bombing they should actually air the footage of those 200 torn corpses thrown about the wreckage, and air those agonizing screams of the maimed and injured.. It makes the whole war thing a little more real to those people back home worried about why britney spears shaved her head.... It might make people think twice about promoting and wanting such horror.
"in other news, 200 people were killed today." ooh wow how unfortunate.
BAM SEE FOR YOURSELF "OMFG THATS HORRIBLE"... hopefully causing people to question those who want war and the reasons behind wars... meh.
everythings fucked up. I don't think anything will change. the suffering, the greed, the want will all continue to no end.
*cares a little less.
*wants to find out more about john travoltas son.
bbl
you did it to yourself wade, the impression we get is based on the posts you have made, putting a :fap: over bombing post and a oh how tragic i feel sad post one after another just reinforces the opinion we have...
Quote from: stratfor 2008-01-03 2318GMTISRAEL, LEBANON: THE CONFLICT IN GAZA AND A POSSIBLE NORTHERN FRONT
Summary
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel is prepared should a northern front with Hezbollah open up. Barak spoke the same day Israeli ground forces entered the Gaza Strip. While neither Hezbollah nor Israel is overly eager for a rematch from their summer 2006 conflict just yet, one could emerge should a more aggressive Hezbollah faction win out in an internal debate among the Lebanese Shiite group.
Analysis
As the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched an expected ground incursion into Gaza on Jan. 3, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told the Israeli people in a live TV broadcast that Israel would have to endure a "heavy price" in this military campaign. Barak also raised the possibility of another front opening up, this one on Israel's northern frontier with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Barak said, "We hope that the northern front will remain calm, but we are prepared for any possibility."
While neither Hezbollah nor Israel is gunning for another military confrontation in Lebanon, Barak's warning has substance. Israel is already well-aware of Hezbollah's involvement in the current Gaza affair. According to a source connected to Hezbollah, about 150 Hezbollah military advisers and fighters are in Gaza City prepared to lead Hamas units against the IDF in case the Israelis attempt to storm the city. As of now, Hezbollah appears unsure whether Israel intends to go full force into Gaza City.
If Israel aims just to destroy Hamas' ability to launch rockets into southern Israel, the IDF probably will not accept the heavy casualties inherent in venturing into Gaza City, where Hezbollah-led Hamas units can unleash a major suicide bombing campaign against the invading forces. But with the IDF continuing to call up reservists numbering in the "tens of thousands," Hezbollah and Hamas cannot be sure that Israel does not intend to inflict greater destruction on Hamas by attempting to uproot the group's stronghold in Gaza City.
Israel, with the help of Egypt, is attempting to cut off Hamas' supply lines through this Gaza operation. Israel already has bombed several smuggling routes and placed a naval blockade on the Gaza coast. Meanwhile, an Egyptian security source revealed that Egyptian intelligence officers recently arrested a Hezbollah arms smuggling ring consisting of one Lebanese Shi'i and two Palestinians living in Lebanon. This was one of many Hezbollah smuggling rings that travel regularly between Sudan and Cairo and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. From Sinai, Hamas has built extensive underground tunnels into Gaza to smuggle in weapons and supplies.
According to the same source, Hezbollah purchases arms for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad from Sudan, where the arms market is thriving. The arms are then smuggled into Sinai with the help of sympathetic Egyptian security officers. Once in Sinai, Hezbollah smugglers rely heavily on the help of disgruntled Bedouins, especially the Gawarnas, who also traffic drugs. Hezbollah rewards the Bedouins with light arms, cash and Lebanese hashish, which the Bedouins sell in the Egyptian black market.
Iran allegedly pays the full cost of this arms procurement and of payoffs for the Egyptian security officers and the Bedouins. The source also says that Hamas continues to get handsome contributions from wealthy Gulf Arabs, who prefer to donate money indirectly. Some of the Gulf Arabs transfer funds to Hamas by giving their Palestinian employees money in the form of salary increases and bonuses. The Palestinian laborers then transfer the funds to Gaza, where the money ultimately finds its way to Hamas coffers.
While Hezbollah has contributed a great deal to Hamas' armor, training and supplies, there is a debate raging inside the organization over how much more or less Hezbollah should interfere in Hamas' fight in Gaza against the Israelis. One faction, which includes Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, opposes any escalation and believes Hezbollah already is doing all it can to assist Hamas. This faction believes Israel is waiting for Hezbollah to provoke a fight. This would allow the IDF to respond massively in Lebanon, giving Israel the opportunity to make up for the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah military confrontation, which gave Hezbollah a rare symbolic victory over the Jewish state. A more hawkish faction of Hezbollah, however, argues that an Israeli offensive against Hezbollah is inevitable, so it is better to open a second front against Israel now -- forcing the Jewish state into a two-front war.
This debate is still playing out, but Hezbollah has heard Barak's warning: Israel is not looking to open another front in the north while it is battling Hamas in Gaza, but will (according to Israeli security sources) target high-value Hezbollah targets in Lebanon if provoked. Though Hezbollah has been preparing long and hard for a rematch with the Israelis in southern Lebanon, it cannot be assured that it would survive a fight in which Israel is likely to throw its full force into dismantling Hezbollah's military arm. Just as important, Hezbollah cannot be assured of Syrian cooperation in another fight against Israel, especially as the Syrian regime is already pursuing complex negotiations with Israel that would involve Damascus turning on its militant proxies. Under these circumstances, Hezbollah is more likely to lay low and provide more indirect assistance to Hamas in this fight. That said, Israel is not taking any chances, and will prepare for the possibility that the more hawkish Hezbollah faction wins out.
Copyright 2009 Stratfor
bolded some key aspects for tl;dr
Quote from: Fomenter on January 04, 2009, 12:28:05 AM
you did it to yourself wade, the impression we get is based on the posts you have made, putting a :fap: over bombing post and a oh how tragic i feel sad post one after another just reinforces the opinion we have...
what.
*has never used a :fap: referring to any types of horror.
This will last exactly long enough for the current Israeli government to get re-elected.
Also, while the obvious comparison is to the 2006 campaign in south Lebanon, Gaza does not have the strategic depth that Hezbollah did, so expect it to be bloodier on both sides.
Also, wade's trolling schtick would no doubt become much more boring if people did not respond with the typical outrage they do.
The Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld, has my quote of the day:
QuoteIn other words, he who fights against the weak - and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed - and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat.
Link (http://www.defense-and-society.org/creveld/why_iraq_will_end_as_vietnam_did.htm)
Quote from: Cain on January 05, 2009, 10:13:29 AM
The Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld, has my quote of the day:
QuoteIn other words, he who fights against the weak - and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed - and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat.
Link (http://www.defense-and-society.org/creveld/why_iraq_will_end_as_vietnam_did.htm)
:mittens:
I always find it pretty disengenuous when people say that Hamas is "hiding among civilians".
1. The civilians aren't allowed to leave Gaza by orders of Israel.
2. The Gaza strip is 140 square miles. In comparison, Los Angeles is 500 square miles. Where the hell else are Hamas gonna be?
Furthermore, Hamas are
a) a terrorist organization, and
b) armed to the teeth
If they want to hide a rocket launcher in your house, what you gonna do about it? Whine to another group of armed thugs like Fatah?
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/107087778_4cfa43a72f.jpg?v=0)
And I think there is even some Israel & Gaza left on this map... nothing unites people like a brutal display of power followed by a big beach party.
Stephen Walt has a thought experiment here:
QuoteHere's a thought experiment:
Imagine that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria had won the Six Day War, leading to a massive exodus of Jews from the territory of Israel. Imagine that the victorious Arab states had eventually decided to permit the Palestinians to establish a state of their own on the territory of the former Jewish state. (That's unlikely, of course, but this is a thought experiment). Imagine that a million or so Jews had ended up as stateless refugees confined to that narrow enclave known as the Gaza Strip. Then imagine that a group of hardline Orthodox Jews took over control of that territory and organized a resistance movement. They also steadfastly refused to recognize the new Palestinian state, arguing that its creation was illegal and that their expulsion from Israel was unjust. Imagine that they obtained backing from sympathizers around the world and that they began to smuggle weapons into the territory. Then imagine that they started firing at Palestinian towns and villages and refused to stop despite continued reprisals and civilian casualties.
Here's the question: would the United States be denouncing those Jews in Gaza as "terrorists" and encouraging the Palestinian state to use overwhelming force against them?
Here's another: would the United States have even allowed such a situation to arise and persist in the first place?
Is there a linkify thinging to this?
Sorry, yes there is
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/node/10732
There is also a Neocon response at http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/node/14922
Grazie.
any bets if it will be all solved by easter or :?
:lol:
Isn't the current thinking that this is an election ploy, and pretty blatant one? It might be that when Likud and its allies are secure in their victory, the operations in Gaza will mysteriously be phased back.
Not that I am suggesting politicians would ever politicize security issues for electoral gain.
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/node/14926
Walt has a better thought experiment up.
QuoteSeveral readers took issue with my "thought experiment" asking how the United States would have reacted if the Arabs had won the Six Day War and if Israeli Jews had faced similar conditions to the Palestinians in Gaza and had responded in a similar fashion.
It's a thought experiment, folks, not history, and my aim was to challenge the moral certainties and tribal loyalties that normally dominate debates on the whole Israeli-Palestinian morass. Obviously, it's child's play to identify differences between the hypothetical that I sketched and the way history actually turned out, though I didn't see how any of the ones raised in the comments invalidated my basic point. But it is hardly far-fetched (let alone anti-Semitic) to imagine Jews engaging in acts of resistance against an oppressor. That's what I would expect any group to do, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. It is precisely what the Zionists did against the British during the Mandate period, and it was Irgun leader (and later Prime Minister) Yitzhak Shamir who wrote that "neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat."
But if you don't like that "thought experiment," here's another, offered by philosophy professor Joseph Levine at University of Massachusetts: what if Hamas was hiding out among the civilian population of Tel Aviv, and attacking Israel from within? Would the IDF be using massive force to eradicate them? Unless you think that Palestinian and Israeli civilian lives are not equal, what justifies the current policy?
Israel is hardly unique in placing a higher value on its own citizens' lives than it places on the lives of others, and we should not forget that U.S. forces have caused plenty of civilian casualties in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." But that doesn't make it right, and there are good reasons to question whether it will even be effective in this instance.
I'm liking this guy.
That's an excellent example of drawing a big fucking arrow straight at the "de-humanizing" of the "enemy".
Walt's overall political theory is a little silly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism_(international_relations)), but his judgement is essentially sound, and he's not a raving lunatic like Ledeen. Can't ask for much more, really.
Bad luck, war fans. Hezbollah ain't firing the rockets into north Israel, and I don't give a fuck what Haaretz or Marty Peretz or Daniel Pipes thinks. Neither does the IDF, who are smart enough to realize that if Hezbollah was involved, they'd be firing closer to 250 rockets, not three. Hezbollah, Lebanon and Israel are all playing it cool.
As Abu Muqawama says "Nobody's gonna hurt anybody. We're gonna be like three little Fonzies here. And what's Fonzie like? Come on, Yolanda, what's Fonzie like?"
In fact, I thought the neighboring Arab governments are actually thinking this is a GOOD thing, or good enough to do nothing to help the Palestinians? They've subdued their own citizenry from too much protesting over this, and it's been up the Arabs in Europe to hold that end up.
All because they view this as Iranian puppetry, rather than the "usual" Arab government shinanigans...
Yup. Egypt don't like Hamas because Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, who are their major internal threat. Jordan doesn't care about Hamas because up to 75% of its population has Palestinian roots and it doesn't need Hamas running around radicalizing them, and Saudi Arabia don't care much for them either, because Hamas are trained and equipped by Hezbollah, which means there is a level of influence. And if there is one country the Saudis cannot stand, its Iran.
Ironically, the guy who seems to be most concerned about some sort of peace deal is Sarkozy, who went out of his way to undermine the Czech presidency of the EU and their support for Israel.
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2009, 02:40:07 PM
Bad luck, war fans. Hezbollah ain't firing the rockets into north Israel, and I don't give a fuck what Haaretz or Marty Peretz or Daniel Pipes thinks. Neither does the IDF, who are smart enough to realize that if Hezbollah was involved, they'd be firing closer to 250 rockets, not three. Hezbollah, Lebanon and Israel are all playing it cool.
As Abu Muqawama says "Nobody's gonna hurt anybody. We're gonna be like three little Fonzies here. And what's Fonzie like? Come on, Yolanda, what's Fonzie like?"
".....Cool?"
/
:hashishim:
Also, can you provide a link to the "non-rocket-firing" promoters?
Heh, Sarkozy. He's like the anti-Putin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7817135.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/08/africa/09mideast.php (same article as in NYT)
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/34/No_New_Rockets_on_North_Israel_Reports_False_Alar.html
LAYBRULL MAYDEA!
There are rockets, but only three. Hezbollah can and would through a lot more than that.
And here's Haaretz, getting it totally wrong
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053821.html
Thanks. I've got an old friend from Dubai who really gets into this kind of stuff.
Another big leftie wankfest in town: ghar, I don't know if I want to kick them in their monkey faces or sell them buttons and other cheap merchandise from some chinese sweatshop to make a bit of cash out of all this bullshit.
As it turned out today, I am apparently an insensitive asshole who not only doesn't care about innocent people suffering, no I am also a horrible human being with serious visual problems for not being sufficiently antisemitic.
:kingmeh:
Quote from: planeswalker on January 08, 2009, 11:01:59 PM
Another big leftie wankfest in town: ghar, I don't know if I want to kick them in their monkey faces or sell them buttons and other cheap merchandise from some chinese sweatshop to make a bit of cash out of all this bullshit.
As it turned out today, I am apparently an insensitive asshole who not only doesn't care about innocent people suffering, no I am also a horrible human being with serious visual problems for not being sufficiently antisemitic.
:kingmeh:
Is this serious or I am a bad detector of sarcasm
Quote from: Obecalp on January 09, 2009, 12:12:27 AM
Quote from: planeswalker on January 08, 2009, 11:01:59 PM
Another big leftie wankfest in town: ghar, I don't know if I want to kick them in their monkey faces or sell them buttons and other cheap merchandise from some chinese sweatshop to make a bit of cash out of all this bullshit.
As it turned out today, I am apparently an insensitive asshole who not only doesn't care about innocent people suffering, no I am also a horrible human being with serious visual problems for not being sufficiently antisemitic.
:kingmeh:
Is this serious or do I am a bad detector of sarcasm
Well, you do make a weird sentence there. Maybe that detector of yours is broken?
Just this one time, I'll help you out. See that slanty part? It's probably some form of sarcasm. I had a fun day with lots of angry people in it.
Quote from: planeswalker on January 09, 2009, 01:53:06 AM
Quote from: Obecalp on January 09, 2009, 12:12:27 AM
Quote from: planeswalker on January 08, 2009, 11:01:59 PM
Another big leftie wankfest in town: ghar, I don't know if I want to kick them in their monkey faces or sell them buttons and other cheap merchandise from some chinese sweatshop to make a bit of cash out of all this bullshit.
As it turned out today, I am apparently an insensitive asshole who not only doesn't care about innocent people suffering, no I am also a horrible human being with serious visual problems for not being sufficiently antisemitic.
:kingmeh:
Is this serious or do I am a bad detector of sarcasm
Well, you do make a weird sentence there. Maybe that detector of yours is broken?
Just this one time, I'll help you out. See that slanty part? It's probably some form of sarcasm. I had a fun day with lots of angry people in it.
Wow I failed at the English language
I'll fix that
Its hard to detect sarcasm over the Internet
My apologies
This is a discordian board. I find it's easier to just assume sarcasm unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Quote from: Obecalp on January 09, 2009, 02:29:41 AM
Quote from: planeswalker on January 09, 2009, 01:53:06 AM
Quote from: Obecalp on January 09, 2009, 12:12:27 AM
Quote from: planeswalker on January 08, 2009, 11:01:59 PM
Another big leftie wankfest in town: ghar, I don't know if I want to kick them in their monkey faces or sell them buttons and other cheap merchandise from some chinese sweatshop to make a bit of cash out of all this bullshit.
As it turned out today, I am apparently an insensitive asshole who not only doesn't care about innocent people suffering, no I am also a horrible human being with serious visual problems for not being sufficiently antisemitic.
:kingmeh:
Is this serious or do I am a bad detector of sarcasm
Well, you do make a weird sentence there. Maybe that detector of yours is broken?
Just this one time, I'll help you out. See that slanty part? It's probably some form of sarcasm. I had a fun day with lots of angry people in it.
Wow I failed at the English language
I'll fix that
Its hard to detect sarcasm over the Internet
My apologies
Take it easy. It's nothing orbital mindlasers couldn't fix.
Pentagram is on the trolly there. Googles on! Detectors were yesterday...
Anyhow, let's get this back on the road: it seems like the IDF & Hamas are preparing to fight this one out inside Gaza City and the WP discussion comes back as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/09/airbust-shells-gaza-phosphorus
QuoteThe use of white phosphorus as a weapon - as opposed to its use as a smokescreen - is banned by the third convention on conventional weapons. Israel is not a signatory to the convention but its military manuals reflect restrictions on its use in that convention.
...
But Neil Gibson, technical adviser to Jane's Missiles and Rockets, described the likely unpleasant effect for people exposed to them as "irritation".
Just deploy your
smokescreens properly to clear those rooftops. After all, it's not WP being fired at people, it's just a new generation of incendiary ammunition. 2009, I love you even more.
Taking official figures we get a kpj ratio (kills per jew) of ~55 right now (770 to 14).
Can you top this? http://uploads.ungrounded.net/476000/476393_Raid_Gaza_.swf
The best thing about this so far is the hacker war between Israeli nationalists and Hamas. Hamas so far has managed to cause an upset by making IDF reservists turn up to bases when they weren't needed, and by taking down certain Israeli sites. In return, Israeli hackers have created a "patriotic" attack program for people to download...which, uh, acts as a backdoor into your PC allowing them complete control over it. Also, their IRC got hit hard by mystery attackers, while they have done little damage in return.
Oh dear, the jokes have started:
One of the inevitable consequences of any Middle Eastern conflict is the collateral damage caused by the unprovoked and disproportionate attacks which tend to be launched by Michael Walzer on his own credibility
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/01/10/there-aint-no-just-war-theres-just-war/
The construct of israel has been inherently wrong from inception. Forcing people out of their homes to create an artificial "Holy Land" and refuge for other people who have been forced out of their homes rights no wrongs.
And it's led to problems; surprise!
Quote from: Primrose on January 10, 2009, 06:33:14 PM
The construct of israel has been inherently wrong from inception. Forcing people out of their homes to create an artificial "Holy Land" and refuge for other people who have been forced out of their homes rights no wrongs.
And it's led to problems; surprise!
Agreed
On a side note what would happen if white phosphorous got into the water supply. Any effects? Would it dissolve? I don't know a whole lot about the chemistry of white phosphorous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oke8GinWDG8&feature=related white phosphorous
Quote from: Obecalp on January 10, 2009, 06:47:02 PM
I don't know a whole lot about the chemistry of white phosphorous.
It is white, and composed of phosphates.
Also, in response to proportionality, I wrote this on another forum
Prorportionality, as a concept within Just War Theory, is notoriously dodgy and hard to quanitfy, to say the least. But then again, so are all the concepts within Just War, because its the application of about 2000 years of thought to a very complex problem. However, if we use the Geneva model to discuss proportionality, I think we get a much clearer picture. As Kalshoven and Zegveld show in the above link, the commander must:
Do everything possible to make sure the target is a military one
Take all feasible steps when it comes to methods and means to minimize civilian casualities
To not undertake an attack if it may reasonably be expected to cause harm in excess of the military advantage or against the threat posed
Going by this framework, civilian casualties could be as minimized as possible, in terms of steps taken to prevent deaths, while still being excessive in terms of the importance of the target. Interestingly, these protocols bound signatory countries even if the enemy refuses to adhere to the same rules, for example by using human shields or attacking civilian targets. This is still not as quantifiable as it could be, however it does apply a certain standard which can be debated and discussed. For example, one could claim a command and communications centre is a far more valuable target than an individual member of the targeted organization. Equally, a top leader or commander within that organization is a more compelling target than a group of combatants located far away from the scenes of the fighting, and making no attempt to move towards the conflict zone (as hypotheticals).
Of course, the 'fog of war' makes this much more difficult. You are usually required to act swiftly, based on minimal or unreliable evidence, against a potentially deadly threat. Weighing the variables is going to be difficult in the extreme, in a highly stressful environment, even for experienced commanders.
Israel is, I should point out, not bound by this treaty, and neither is the USA (I believe the latter signed the treaty, but never ratified it). It is accepted by the international community at large, with over 160 signatories (with varying degrees of loyalty to the ideas expressed within), which suggests even though some countries haven't signed the treaty, it could be considered something of an international legal norm. But then we get into debates about sovereignty and the like, and I know we are struggling to stay on topic as it is.
I think, if we set aside the legal argument for the moment, there are still significant political/grand strategic advantages from adhering to a broadly accepted level of proportionality. Because of the nature of the media and the political system, this unfortunately means taking into account the views of people not in the firing line, or highly ambivalent towards the particular cause behind this conflict, but as they say, life's a bitch, then you end up in a transnational conflict situation. Well, I say that, anyway.
Claims to proportionality, for example, help legitamize the conflict itself. Especially in liberal democracies, who place heavy emphasis (rightly or wrongly) on the rule of law when it comes to their internal actions as much as their foreign policy. Suggestions that ones leaders are not concerned with proportionality suggests a lack of rule of law, of a rule of the strong which is anathema to the ethos of the aforementioned democracies. It suggests a political leadership not concerned with the rule of law, which could really undermine its claims to governance.
Furthermore, as conflict becomes less about states taking on states, with the associated nastiness of of total war, and more about taking on non-state actor engaging in asymmetrical conflict, Van Creveld's paradox comes into play. Namely that:
Quotehe who fights against the weak - and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed - and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force, however rich, however powerful, however advanced, however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat...
Interestingly, and I'm not sure if Van Creveld is aware of this, Chinese military theorists may have come up with a solution to this paradox, which informs the operational and tactical level of the conflict in more detail (which I had been ignoring up until now, because of the manifest differences involved in discussing it). In Unrestricted Warfare, the infamous PLA military theory text, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui take the idea of conflict without restrictions to its obvious conclusion, which is not the use of absolute force against ones enemy, as some have suspected, but the use of the full spectrum of methods available to end a conflict. Because warfare is inherently political (insert misquoted sentence from Clausewitz here), and politics is co-determinant with society at large, the book focuses on using a variety of methods, such as international law, NGOs, the media (and any other examples of soft power you can think of), hacking, terrorism, financial attacks and any other method designed to stop the enemy from having either the will or ability to pose a threat.
One of their main points is that the inceases in nonlethal weapons technology over recent years (and the book was written ten years ago) meant that a focus on causing nonlethal damage was not only possible, it could be desirable. Via maiming and temporarily wounding target combatants, one could reduce their military threat, keep the war in proportion and actually cost the enemy a lot more. Even quasi-states such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda have well developed welfare systems and payment for its 'employees'. By reducing their capacity for conflict while increasing their outgoing expenses, one would significantly undermine the organization. Morale, which is usually only hardened by enemy shows of force, could also take a hit. Equally, by reducing civilian casualties, one could focus on various soft power methods designed to decouple a subject population from the organization hiding among them. I could go off on another tangent here, but again, I'm going to try and stick to proportionality as much as possible.
Obviously this is not entirely feasible. The switch to non-lethal forces would take time and money, and one would still need to retain lethal forces for situations where their level of force is necessary. To be able to respond to all levels of conflict, from those directly on the political end of the politcal-conflict axis, and those on the opposite end, total war, one must have the means to respond to these various levels of threat.
Equally, the problem of using too little force is immediately obvious as well. The results will be a loss in confidence of the government by the people who elect it, and if responses are inffective (because this is often confused with proportionate, for some reason) then the security threat will persist, or worsen. At best, this results in a continuation of the status quo, in other words a continuation of the conflict, which is clearly suboptimal. In the very worst cases, this results in the collapse of the state as a viable social organization.
To a degree, I think drawing up a quantifiable guideline to what is or is not a proportionate response is a fool's errand. Its going to be a continual process of self-examination, tailored as a response to the percieved and actual threat of the moment. Since conflict isn't static in and of itself, at various times in the course of a conflict, and with various targets, certain responses will be acceptable and proportionate, and at other times they will not be. This is unfortunate, but it shouldn't stop people from attempting to pass judgement. I think, to use a non-hypothetical example, we can safely say that bombing a school, and killing 42 civilians, in order to remove the threat of two gunmen, is not proportionate. If the circumstances had been different, then perhaps it could have been. If the men were transporting a WMD, for example, it would be very hard to decry Israel's actions, as horrible as those deaths still would have been. Even if they had been operating a missile launcher, from a fortified position within the school which would have made other attacks impossible, could be considered legitimate (though I am reminded of the RAF captain who used to risk his life flying over factories during WWII, giving civilians enough time to escape). Equally, the deliberate targeting of policemen in Gaza, who are not taking part in the conflict (such as the Gaza chief of police, who was not even a Hamas member) does not serve any legitimate military function. Any civilians killed when attacking him, by virtue of his role, would not be proportionate.
We can also consider the overall strategic aim. As many, many people have pointed out, if Israel's goal is to stop the conflict, they are doing a piss-poor job of it. Do attacks which apparently do not consider the possibility of civilian casualties actually help, or hinder, Israel's aims? Most evidence suggests the latter. Urban warfare is bloody and protracted, and bombing campaigns againt civilians are notoriously ineffective in breaking the will of a target population. In which case, attacks which do not serve the overall strategic aim are also disproportionate. Furthermore, with sabre-rattling from Hezbollah and the possibility of international jihadist ("Al-Qaeda", if you will) infiltration into Gaza in a power gap left by a reduced Hamas, as well as the destabalizing impact of refugees on surrounding countries, suggest a strategy which is not "proportionate" in the sense that it does not deal with the problem at hand, while still resulting in lots of dead bodies.
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2009, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: Obecalp on January 10, 2009, 06:47:02 PM
I don't know a whole lot about the chemistry of white phosphorous.
It is white, and composed of phosphates.
I probably should've said
I don't know much about chemistry
Period
Quote from: Obecalp on January 10, 2009, 08:00:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 10, 2009, 07:22:47 PM
Quote from: Obecalp on January 10, 2009, 06:47:02 PM
I don't know a whole lot about the chemistry of white phosphorous.
It is white, and composed of phosphates.
I probably should've said
I don't know much about chemistry
Period
Basically overdosing on fertilizer.
Israel is banning an Arab party from particpating in the upcoming election over there.
The Balad party is a typical Arab nationalist/social democratic party, who has opposed the war in Gaza. As such, they tend to be popular with Israeli Arabs, who make up roughly 20% of the population. Balad are controversial because they deny the "Jewish" nature of the state of Israel, and seek to turn it into a socialist republic with no ethnic or religious identity, that respects the human rights of all of its citizens.
Balad were previously banned from the 2003 election on the grounds of supporting terrorism, but this was overturned by the Israeli Supreme Court. However, in a ruling yesterday, the Central Elections Committee by a vote of 26 to three, with one abstention, barred the party from competing in elections. It was disqualified on grounds that it does not recognize the State of Israel and calls for armed conflict against it. Zahalka argued that the decision was related to Operation Cast Lead, and said that he is not surprised by it "because the vote was taken for political motives due to the war atmosphere... The committee members sought to increase their popularity at our expense on the backdrop of the elections"
More can be found at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3654866,00.html
I say, personally, that this is incredibly stupid, to say the least. One of the things riding in Israel's favour is that it is a liberal democracy, albeit with a strange ethno-religious component. This swings the balance between the former and the latter in favour of the latter to some degree. Furthermore, this will only help alienate the Israeli Arab population, who may well feel disenfranchised. Sure, they can still vote, but not for a party which had set itself up with the aim of defending their interests. There are Arab members of Communist and Zionist parties, of course, but this is punishment for Balad opposing the current levelling of Gaza. It suggests Arabs, both inside and outside of Israel, don't really matter to the Israeli government. And that is not a message you want to be sending out during a very bloody and highly unpopular (in the rest of the world) campaign.
Here's what I don't get about the Joo Govenrment. They appear to me to be "throwing their weight around" with blatant disregard for the opinions of the rest of the world, in a fashion that we've come to expect from America, with one significant difference - America is the last remaining, nuclear-armed global superpower and teh J00s are half a dozen nobodies with no clout whatsoever.
Other than buying into zionist conspiracy theories - what exactly makes these pricks think they can get away with it, other than the fact that they actually seem to be getting away with it? Does it come down to middle eastern clusterfuck, that no one wants to fuck with cos they have no oil or is there more to it?
Israel has Teh Bomb.
Ah, of course, absolute power corrupts.... :lulz:
Because Christians don't want the "dirty Arabs" to be running all of the Christian Tourist Traps.
Thats actually a really, really good question.
I suppose it depends what crowd's are letting the Israeli government get away with it. The Israeli people, or at least a plurality of them, seem pretty sick of being under the threat of attack all the time. A significant minority are practically revelling in the bloodshed being visited upon Gaza, in a rather disgusting way.
The Israeli Parliament goes along with it because the military is big business, and keeping the economy afloat. Israel's economic base is pretty small, and relies on hi-tech and military exports to maintain its GDP. Israel recently overtook the UK as the world's largest exporter of arms and military-related hardware, which as you can imagine, is very important. The military/tech crossover gives this military-industrial complex incredible clout. And of course, it is the nature of armies everywhere that the top brass are usually authoritarian and conservative in outlook. Its a good matchup for Kadima and Likud policies.
As for the International Community Watch, its harder to say. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan want to see Hamas, as a tool of Iran, smashed into tiny pieces. I suspect even Syria, who hosts the leader of Hamas, would not cry overly at the loss of their political clout. All states are threatened from within by Sunni extremists inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood, which Hamas most certainly are.
The USA has a number of reasons. The Holocaust is a level of moral debt which plays a role in wider society, at least in galvinising a level of support which is absent, say, in cases of conflict elsewhere, especially sub-Saharan Africa. However, at the govermental level, Israel is a useful cat's paw in the Middle East. They can do things the US cannot, for various reasons, and give a flimsy level of deniability to such actions (like levelling Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80s, making the Iran-Iraq war much more of a stalemate). Mossad is infamous for its knowledge about various Middle Eastern extremists, and I suspect that the relatively large arms trade plays a role in keeping Israel sweet too.
The UK, of course, does whatever the US tells them, so that explains us. I believe China has significant arms links with Israel, possibly wanting to obtain and reverse engineer weapons that may make their way into American arsenals. Israel has a large Russian speaking community and we all know how protective the Russian state is of its own people, even when they don't have a Russian passport. On the other hand, Russia has had long links with Syria and Iran too, so that reationship is somewhat ambivalent. But in June, Russia was seriously considering massive arms purchases from Israel as well. France has long cooperated with Israel in its own War on Terror against socialist and Islamic militants operating from the Middle East and North Africa. President Sarkozy is in fact partially Jewish, I believe, though so far he has been one of the most outspoken on the need for a stop to the violence and create a lasting peace, to his credit.
I agree with Cain... During the first Intifada the Palestinians were smart and made sure there were plenty of pictures of poor kids throwing rocks at big bad Israeli troops with guns and armor. The PR spin was a beautiful piece of using the media and public opinion rather than weapons. From what I've read of that time period, their leadership was explicitly planning on using Israel's actions against them through the world media and it worked.
The problem for the Palestinians now, is that Israel is in control of the spin. Hamas keeps lobbing useless rockets into mostly uninhabited areas and Israel can play that to world public opinion. I mean if someone just keeps doing the same useless thing, over and over, one thinks they may be crazy... and in my opinion, that exactly how Hamas is allowing themselves to be perceived. If you're fighting kids with rocks, you're the bad guy and everyone wants involved... if you're killing the crazy ass motherfuckers that keep shooting rockets at your population, well that a bit more murky.
They've also, thus far held back from a full ground assault, so some people seem to rationalize that they're not using too much force... (1000 dead vs 10 dead... uhhh, yeah not too much force there).
Long story short:
Palestine is in the right
Israel is in the wrong.
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:39:20 PM
Long story short:
Palestine is in the FUBAR.
Israel is in the SNAFU.
Fixed that for ya.
Sometimes, it's just too easy.
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2009, 05:44:46 PM
Sometimes, it's just too easy.
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF STUPID PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET. I also think it kinda sucks.
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
So what would you have done about it? Dissolve the state of Israel and force the jews off the land against their will?
Fucking nazi.
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2009, 05:44:46 PM
Sometimes, it's just too easy.
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
Does your Iron Lung keep you from examining data less than 60 years old or so?
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
the Puritan settlers created america illegally, go home immoral britspag
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
So what would you have done about it? Dissolve the state of Israel and force the jews off the land against their will?
Fucking nazi.
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
Quote from: Fomenter on January 13, 2009, 05:55:31 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
the Puritan settlers created america illegally, go home immoral britspag
Agreed. The United States of America, Australia and Israel are three examples of countries which should not actually exist.
Quote from: Fomenter on January 13, 2009, 05:55:31 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
the Puritan settlers created america illegally, go home immoral britspag
He's in Australia, but same difference.
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
So what would you have done about it? Dissolve the state of Israel and force the jews off the land against their will?
Fucking nazi.
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century. Quote from: Fomenter on January 13, 2009, 05:55:31 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
the Puritan settlers created america illegally, go home immoral britspag
Agreed. The United States of America, Australia and Israel are three examples of countries which should not actually exist.
Right, but thats done... Israel is not an Occupying Force... its a fuckin Country. Maybe one that shouldn't have been created, I won't argue... but that's horse has left the line, finished the race, grew old, got put out for stud and is currently being eaten by Joey the first grader for a late afternoon Elmer's cream snack.
NOW, the issue is Israel exists and Palestine exists... and they are gonna have to learn to play nice together. Shooting rockets at your neighbor is not nice. Half-starving your neighbor and cutting them off from the rest of the world is also not nice.
Care to join us in the 21st century?
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
I didn't ask for a history lesson, retard. I'm asking what you think the solution should be.
Mass relocation of the jews, maybe? Or will you skip that and go straight to genocide?
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 13, 2009, 06:00:22 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
So what would you have done about it? Dissolve the state of Israel and force the jews off the land against their will?
Fucking nazi.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century. Quote from: Fomenter on January 13, 2009, 05:55:31 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
the Puritan settlers created america illegally, go home immoral britspag
Agreed. The United States of America, Australia and Israel are three examples of countries which should not actually exist.
Right, but thats done... Israel is not an Occupying Force... its a fuckin Country. Maybe one that shouldn't have been created, I won't argue... but that's horse has left the line, finished the race, grew old, got put out for stud and is currently being eaten by Joey the first grader for a late afternoon Elmer's cream snack.
NOW, the issue is Israel exists and Palestine exists... and they are gonna have to learn to play nice together. Shooting rockets at your neighbor is not nice. Half-starving your neighbor and cutting them off from the rest of the world is also not nice.
Care to join us in the 21st century?
THIS!
Also, worth noting, is that the whole idea of nationalities is a bunch of arbitrary gobshite at best and most of them were created by fighting and squabbling over which bit of land belonged to whom. By this token the creation of Israel was relatively painless in comparison.
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
I didn't ask for a history lesson, retard. I'm asking what you think the solution should be.
Mass relocation of the jews, maybe? Or will you skip that and go straight to genocide?
At the moment its way to late. Now most of the people who live in Israel are the descendants of those who were placed there and so to them it is their home.
I do
not believe the Israelis should be removed and I definitely do not believe in genocide. I'm not a Nazi, Sorry to disappoint.
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
I didn't ask for a history lesson, retard. I'm asking what you think the solution should be.
Mass relocation of the jews, maybe? Or will you skip that and go straight to genocide?
At the moment its way to late. Now most of the people who live in Israel are the decedents of those who were placed there and so to them it is their home.
I do not believe the Israelis should be removed and I definitely do not believe in genocide. I'm not a Nazi, Sorry to disappoint.
Not a Nazi, maybe, but it's funny that you used the word decedent.
Friends don't let friends go to war alone http://news.antiwar.com/2009/01/11/un-ceasefire-bid-weakened-by-us-abstention/ :kingmeh:
This thread is now approaching: clusterfuck. Please keep all hands inside the vehicle, and make sure your seatbelts are secured correctly,
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 13, 2009, 06:06:57 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
I didn't ask for a history lesson, retard. I'm asking what you think the solution should be.
Mass relocation of the jews, maybe? Or will you skip that and go straight to genocide?
At the moment its way to late. Now most of the people who live in Israel are the decedents of those who were placed there and so to them it is their home.
I do not believe the Israelis should be removed and I definitely do not believe in genocide. I'm not a Nazi, Sorry to disappoint.
Not a Nazi, maybe, but it's funny that you used the word decedent.
Fixed.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 13, 2009, 06:06:57 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
At the moment its way to late. Now most of the people who live in Israel are the decedents of those who were placed there and so to them it is their home.
I do not believe the Israelis should be removed and I definitely do not believe in genocide. I'm not a Nazi, Sorry to disappoint.
Not a Nazi, maybe, but it's funny that you used the word decedent.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
I didn't ask for a history lesson, retard. I'm asking what you think the solution should be.
Mass relocation of the jews, maybe? Or will you skip that and go straight to genocide?
At the moment its way to late. Now most of the people who live in Israel are the decedents of those who were placed there and so to them it is their home.
I do not believe the Israelis should be removed and I definitely do not believe in genocide. I'm not a Nazi, Sorry to disappoint.
Jesus fuck. I am asking what you
do believe should be done, not what you are against. It is a simple question.
What is it with people like you? You piss and moan about how things are but never propose any viable solutions.
Let me guess. You're in your university's Marxist study group, aren't you?
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 13, 2009, 06:06:57 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
I didn't ask for a history lesson, retard. I'm asking what you think the solution should be.
Mass relocation of the jews, maybe? Or will you skip that and go straight to genocide?
At the moment its way to late. Now most of the people who live in Israel are the decedents of those who were placed there and so to them it is their home.
I do not believe the Israelis should be removed and I definitely do not believe in genocide. I'm not a Nazi, Sorry to disappoint.
Not a Nazi, maybe, but it's funny that you used the word decedent.
Fixed.
Ahh, but your conscience has already spoken for you.
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:11:45 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
I didn't ask for a history lesson, retard. I'm asking what you think the solution should be.
Mass relocation of the jews, maybe? Or will you skip that and go straight to genocide?
At the moment its way to late. Now most of the people who live in Israel are the decedents of those who were placed there and so to them it is their home.
I do not believe the Israelis should be removed and I definitely do not believe in genocide. I'm not a Nazi, Sorry to disappoint.
Jesus fuck. I am asking what you do believe should be done, not what you are against. It is a simple question.
What is it with people like you? You piss and moan about how things are but never propose any viable solutions.
Let me guess. You're in your university's Marxist study group, aren't you?
No I'm not, I'm actually quite the capitalist.
What can be done? Right now absolutely nothing. If anything could be done it would have been done already.
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:15:56 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:11:45 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
I didn't ask for a history lesson, retard. I'm asking what you think the solution should be.
Mass relocation of the jews, maybe? Or will you skip that and go straight to genocide?
At the moment its way to late. Now most of the people who live in Israel are the decedents of those who were placed there and so to them it is their home.
I do not believe the Israelis should be removed and I definitely do not believe in genocide. I'm not a Nazi, Sorry to disappoint.
Jesus fuck. I am asking what you do believe should be done, not what you are against. It is a simple question.
What is it with people like you? You piss and moan about how things are but never propose any viable solutions.
Let me guess. You're in your university's Marxist study group, aren't you?
No I'm not, I'm actually quite the capitalist.
What can be done? Right now absolutely nothing. If anything could be done it would have been done already.
Oh right. Have you read Atlas Shrugged?
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:16:43 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:15:56 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:11:45 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
I didn't ask for a history lesson, retard. I'm asking what you think the solution should be.
Mass relocation of the jews, maybe? Or will you skip that and go straight to genocide?
At the moment its way to late. Now most of the people who live in Israel are the decedents of those who were placed there and so to them it is their home.
I do not believe the Israelis should be removed and I definitely do not believe in genocide. I'm not a Nazi, Sorry to disappoint.
Jesus fuck. I am asking what you do believe should be done, not what you are against. It is a simple question.
What is it with people like you? You piss and moan about how things are but never propose any viable solutions.
Let me guess. You're in your university's Marxist study group, aren't you?
No I'm not, I'm actually quite the capitalist.
What can be done? Right now absolutely nothing. If anything could be done it would have been done already.
Oh right. Have you read Atlas Shrugged?
I have heard of it though have never read it.
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:15:56 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:11:45 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 06:05:02 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 06:01:17 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century.
I didn't ask for a history lesson, retard. I'm asking what you think the solution should be.
Mass relocation of the jews, maybe? Or will you skip that and go straight to genocide?
At the moment its way to late. Now most of the people who live in Israel are the decedents of those who were placed there and so to them it is their home.
I do not believe the Israelis should be removed and I definitely do not believe in genocide. I'm not a Nazi, Sorry to disappoint.
Jesus fuck. I am asking what you do believe should be done, not what you are against. It is a simple question.
What is it with people like you? You piss and moan about how things are but never propose any viable solutions.
Let me guess. You're in your university's Marxist study group, aren't you?
No I'm not, I'm actually quite the capitalist.
What can be done? Right now absolutely nothing. If anything could be done it would have been done already.
:lulz:
THANKS FOR THE INSIGHT!!! WHATEVER COULD WE HAVE DONE WITHOUT THAT LOVELY SUMMATION?!
Anyway. To underscore P3nts point, Olmert has been boasting to the press today about how he bitchslapped Condi Rice, via Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/washington/13olmert.html?ref=Washington
In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.
"I said, 'Get me President Bush on the phone,' " Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, according to The Associated Press. "They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care: 'I need to talk to him now,' " Mr. Olmert continued. "He got off the podium and spoke to me."
Quote from: Cain on January 13, 2009, 07:29:22 PM
Anyway. To underscore P3nts point, Olmert has been boasting to the press today about how he bitchslapped Condi Rice, via Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/washington/13olmert.html?ref=Washington
In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.
"I said, 'Get me President Bush on the phone,' " Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, according to The Associated Press. "They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care: 'I need to talk to him now,' " Mr. Olmert continued. "He got off the podium and spoke to me."
Something urged me to illustrate this...
(http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3237/bitchslapcopyla1.jpg)
:lulz:
Oh what a surprise, Israel ended the assault 48 hours before Obama is to assume office. I am shocked, SHOCKED at this outcome.
If Hamas are smart, they'll try and extend the fighting beyond the 20th, and claim Israel broke the ceasefire. Forcing Obama's hand could have interesting and unforseen outcomes (not least since the US military recently urged dialogue with Hamas, and Obama is not entirely immune to reason), and quite frankly Hamas could do with anything that confuses and reshapes the situation. It can hardly get much worse, after all.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 13, 2009, 06:00:22 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:56:24 PM
Quote from: Malachite on January 13, 2009, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
So what would you have done about it? Dissolve the state of Israel and force the jews off the land against their will?
Fucking nazi.
Israel is an occupying force in the middle east, the real reason they were given the land was the biblical significance of it. There is no historical evidence to claim that the jews were the original inhabitants of that land.
So what has been done is forcing the Palestinians off land which has been in their families for many generations, to create a nation which today has only existed for not even a century. Quote from: Fomenter on January 13, 2009, 05:55:31 PM
Quote from: The Iron Lung on January 13, 2009, 05:49:12 PM
I don't hate Jews. I just believe that the nation of israel was created illegally. Having people leave their own land against their will to create a new nation is immoral.
the Puritan settlers created america illegally, go home immoral britspag
Agreed. The United States of America, Australia and Israel are three examples of countries which should not actually exist.
Right, but thats done... Israel is not an Occupying Force... its a fuckin Country. Maybe one that shouldn't have been created, I won't argue... but that's horse has left the line, finished the race, grew old, got put out for stud and is currently being eaten by Joey the first grader for a late afternoon Elmer's cream snack.
NOW, the issue is Israel exists and Palestine exists... and they are gonna have to learn to play nice together. Shooting rockets at your neighbor is not nice. Half-starving your neighbor and cutting them off from the rest of the world is also not nice.
Care to join us in the 21st century?
I disagree. Britain occupied India for far longer than Israel has occupied Palestine, and yet it was still recognized as an occupation.
Australia and the Americas can really only said to be different in that the native populations were conquered via genocide, and it's too late to un-conquer them. If Israel had simply committed genocide on the Arab former occupants, what they think of the occupation would be a moot point now. It seems that Israel would very much LIKE to commit genocide in order to secure its territory, but allowing that is unthinkable. Moving the population of Israel is also unthinkable. The RIGHT thing to do IMO would be to dissolve the government of Israel and give the land back to Palestine, and peacefully integrate the Jewish and Arab populations... and yet, I think we already know that a peacefully integrated population is not going to happen.
Also, you people with the "THAT WAS ANCIENT HISTORY, IT WAS LIKE 60 YEARS AGO, JOIN THE 21st CENTURY WILLYA" attitudes...
...by that "logic", all of the Nazis who were prosecuted for war crimes decades after the fact should have simply been left alone to live their lives... after all, that was like 60 years ago! Get with the times!
Jesus fuck. Sometimes you people make me sick in the lengths you will go to to insult/humiliate someone you've picked as a target. At least keep your fucking brains on you while you're doing it. You have to be cognizant of the fact that a lot of people who were forced out of their homes when they were young are still alive, and completely justified in still being angry about it, as well as passing that anger on to their kids and grandkids. You can't just ignore that because "it was a long time ago".
Are you going to call me a Nazi Jew-Hater now? How about the fact that I basically said the same thing that Iron Lung said, a few days before he did?
at one point i thought that letting israel keep the high ground the military/strategic land and giving back the rest was a solution but with missile attacks and other asymmetrical warfare this doesn't seem to be as workable a solution.. not sure what the best way out is :?
I have nothing against you Nigel, but in this case, I'll have to ask you to shut the fuck up already.
You just gave a two post reply about how offended you are to people you knew were trolling.
How can you seriously be offended by me calling someone a racist nazi communist libertarian (in that order)?
What I say while trolling has nothing to do with what I actually believe, and you should know that by now. You've been on the internet for long enough.
Basically:
(http://i39.tinypic.com/5yhw8z.gif)
Quote from: Malachite on January 18, 2009, 05:19:04 PM
I have nothing against you Nigel, but in this case, I'll have to ask you to shut the fuck up already.
You just gave a two post reply about how offended you are to people you knew were trolling.
How can you seriously be offended by me calling someone a racist nazi communist libertarian (in that order)?
What I say while trolling has nothing to do with what I actually believe, and you should know that by now. You've been on the internet for long enough.
I didn't say I was offended, fucktard, I said you were stupid.
To recap:
Quote from: Nigel on January 18, 2009, 04:56:33 PMSometimes you people make me sick in the lengths you will go to to insult/humiliate someone you've picked as a target. At least keep your fucking brains on you while you're doing it.
And quit shitting up a perfectly interesting, intelligent thread with your trolling, dickface.
Quote from: Malachite on January 18, 2009, 05:19:04 PM
I have nothing against you Nigel, but in this case, I'll have to ask you to shut the fuck up already.
Quote from: Malachite on January 18, 2009, 05:19:04 PM
I'll have to ask you to shut the fuck up already.
Quote from: Malachite on January 18, 2009, 05:19:04 PM
shut the fuck up already.
Jihad, motherfucker.
I just had to deal with my exes and I was looking for someone to take it out on. Looks like I found them. :lulz: Enjoy the rest of your week, as much as I'm SURE I'll enjoy mine.
Kay.
Nigel, the way I saw these two threads was that Cain's was a discussion of the tremendously unbalanced and ham-handedly political exchange of violence between Israel and Hamas, where the majority opinion was sympathetic to the Palestinian civilians, and the other one was a troll thread where we flipped the script on him and made accusations of anti-semitism.
Basically, we took opposite viewpoints just to fuck with the guy. Hope this helps!
Quote from: LMNO on January 20, 2009, 01:37:16 PM
Nigel, the way I saw these two threads was that Cain's was a discussion of the tremendously unbalanced and ham-handedly political exchange of violence between Israel and Hamas, where the majority opinion was sympathetic to the Palestinian civilians, and the other one was a troll thread where we flipped the script on him and made accusations of anti-semitism.
Basically, we took opposite viewpoints just to fuck with the guy. Hope this helps!
I do not care.