Forums > Social Discussion > Israel back at war (a rant)

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...151617181920
FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:[rant]Now for many years I have opposed Israel for their politics in Palestine, Gaza and so on... These days it seems to be mainstream, especially since Israel is back at war with the nations around them, threatening the "rest of the world".



I certainly have a natural opposition towards people, who were suffering the holocaust and seem to put this fate on other, innocent people - it seems as if they have not learned from their own history.



But nope - not this time. I am sick and tired of news and stories about extremists and insurgents, kidnapping and killing other innocent people.



For quite some time, the Israeli govt has done efforts to come to peace with the troublemakers (yes, heck they are troublemakers themselves and yes "collateral damage" done by the Israeli military to innocent people in Lebanon and Gaza is hard to accept...) it just doesn't stop...



And now, I only have to imagine that it would have been the sister of my ex-girfriend to be one of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers - it would disturb me just as much as imagining that my arab cousin lives in Beirut...



I know that war (as violence) is never the way and retaliation is as wrong as attacking, but please tell me: If you're making efforts to live your life in peace and you find out that all compromises you make are answered with neglect (yes, the majority of arabs DO actually WANT PEACE finally and do NOT support the hizbullah - I acknowledge this fact) - bottom line is that there are some blinded people who never learn - how can this be ended? It's a merry go round...



It's not ironic that I am sitting in a hebrew internet cafe in Bangkok - it's almost hilarious! There are millions of young and old jews across the globe who would just LOVE to finally see peace in the middle east and I am sick and tired of reckless politicians who condemn a nation just because of their faith, they actually DO have a democracy and prosper AND that their small number of soldiers (with high tech) is able to keep the entire arab nations around them in check (and do not tell me that those nations would not have the funds to arm up with as much high tech)...



I am SICK of it! I want it to END, I want the killing to STOP NOW!!!!! Why does it seem further away than ever? Why is war the way?



Disclaimer: and pls note that I am not falling into the mainstream thinking that muslims are generally to be held responsible for extremism - it's individuals and their political interest, it's NEVER collective.[/rant]



sorry guys


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted:just ignoring my post then mike? frown



 Written by: NYC

I also don't see how hitting people that are acting as human shields for terrorists is 'targeting' them.





Because you have to point something at them, then fire it. That is called 'targeting'.



The responsible thing to do in that situation is to not fire at them, or use an alternative measure to get the human shields out of the way.



Tear gas and other crowd control measures might be a good start, but thats really getting into specifics that aren't necessary here.



NYC, Mike, are you saying that the Isreali military is right to be firing on civilians?


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:when people are talking about targeting they are not talking about the pointing of a weapon physically on the battlefield-i hope you are just being hard headed and realize that it is strategically deciding that certain groups should suffer casualties
personally, there probably situations that allow for the firing on civilians, the human shield thing should just be tear gas or a water hose-maybe not over there


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: simian


NYC, Mike, are you saying that the Isreali military is right to be firing on civilians?



I'm saying exactly whatever it is that you believe. Even if it disagrees with itself like it usually does.

wink


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted:Fair enough, a no from NYC.

Mike?


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Stout
Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada
Member Since: 12th May 2004
Total posts: 1872
Posted:The days of war being thought of as being an armed uniformed force meeting another armed uniformed force on an isolated battlefield are long since over. They ended with WW1.

The "war" that Israel is fighting could be likened to a high stakes game of whack-a-mole, considering we have an armed uniformed force fighting an enemy that simply disappears into the civilian population when it's their turn to take fire.

Dirty tactics IMO, and I place the responsibility for civilian deaths squarely on the shoulders of Hamas and Hezbolla, seeing as how it's THEIR tactics that are causing us to have this discussion in the first place.

Ideally we'd have no innocent civilians involved at all, but this is a far from ideal world, and to sit safely behind a computer screen and state opinions based on ideology is folly, IMO. Sure, it's easy, but given the complexities involved in this conflict, it's a rather simplistic approach.

BansheeCat,,,,cultural exchanges and education are grand ideas, however they're better suited to times after the current conflict(s) are resolved. Right now, we have hate as a strong motivation on one side and I have serious doubts as to whether education can reduce hate in the real world.

Education doesn't seem to be doing as well as we'd like it in the war against belief. frown


Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: NYC


 Written by: onewheeldave


To me, attacking innocent civilians is wrong and, the fact that Isreals civilians have been atacked does not, IMO, in this scenario, justify then doing the same back.

Last night on TV was a report on the recent incident where several hundred palestinians encircled, and climbed on a house that Israeli military had targeted for bombing.





This seems to pretty well contradict the fact that Israel is TARGETING innocent civilians.

If a house is targeted and innocent civilians run onto it I don't see how that's targeting innocent civilians. I also don't see how hitting people that are acting as human shields for terrorists is 'targeting' them.

A human shield makes a decision to be a human shield to avoid being killed/family killed/etc... Once that decision is made they must face the consequences and I've always maintained that fault goes to those who are making them choose, not those who pull the trigger.





The bit you've quoted covers two fairly seperate points.

In saying that, IMO, Israel should cease to target innocent civilians, i'm referring to the many instances of them kiling bystanders when taking out people they believe to be terrorists.

The second part, about the targetted house successfully defended by hundreds of civilians, I mentioned purely because I personally found it an awe-inspiring sight.

As for the contradiction you mention, I disagree- part of the reason it was such an inspiring sight is that, to many watching, going on Israels past record and its publicly stated beliefs on collateral civilian damage, there was a real expectation that they may go ahead and bomb it anyway.

It seemed significant because-

1. the courage and conviction of those Palestinians, who must have felt they were going to certain death

2. it indicates a limit to how much civilian life Israel is willing to take and, in doing so, gives hope that they are going to re-assess their policy on civilian losses.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning



 Written by: onewheeldave



*Israel should continue to defend itself, when that defence does not include targetting innocent civilians









Now... Good plan. How do you propose Israel defend itself without hitting innocent civilians?









By only (or by prioritisng)hitting targets where civiliian losses are a risk, not a certainty.



 Written by: Doc Lightning



Incidentally, Israel has NEVER targeted innocent civilians. They've hit them plenty to be sure, but never targeted them.





'Target' is contentious- many would argue that, in instances where an attack on a terror suspect is pretty certain to take out civilian bystanders, that 'target' is an appropriate term.



I do acknowledge however, that it's not an ideal term to use; I'm personally not happy to use 'collateral damage' due to the way it's been used by the military to play down the reality of civilian deaths.



Maybe between us we can thrash out a suitable term? feel free to suggest some.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

BansheeCat
veteran
Location: lost
Member Since: 29th Jul 2005
Total posts: 1247
Posted:Stout, you have a valid point, it is certainly easier to educate during peaceful stable times.

However, since the creation of Isreal and the separation of Palestine etc. there does not seem to be much of that to work with ? So perhaps it is imperative to begin, regardless of optimal timing or optimal results. To work with what they have to work with, rather than an ideal. So far, some of the socio/cultural and economic programs in place have been fascinating and at least partially successful, albeit on very small scale.

Whether they could be on a grand scale, don't know. I am sure it would take a multifaceted , flexible approach , and a lot of time and reinforcement. One of the exchange programs I saw a documentary on worked remarkably to break down barriers between Arabs and Isrealis.By the end of the year long exchange and education program, they had people full of hate and violence learning and practicing tolerance, effective communication, even making friends and meeting each others families... The changes happenned slowly.There was a lot of resistance to work through.

However, the follow up was five years later? ( can't recall exactly) , and it was sad and disturbing to see how many had slid back into old habits( particularly after obligatory military service) But some courageous individuals still persisted in their new understandings and friendships, and were taking steps within their communitities to foster understanding and connection between the two groups. So it was a start...

I certainly am not suggesting that socio/economic and or cultural education approaches are the only method of dealing with the problem, or that they should be used alone. But along with other measures, it can help make posative change.I don't have the answers about what and how and details, I was hoping other people had some examples that they were aware of, so I could learn more about this sort of thing.

Cultures and societies do change, I could cite many examples of that-- but it would be considered off topic and probably bore you to death winkI find it interesting that so many people do not believe that they do. Even religion has, and does, on an ongoing basis.

sorry if this is not the most coherent, gotta fly! Work to do...
hug


"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: simian


NYC, Mike, are you saying that the Isreali military is right to be firing on civilians?



If those civilians are shooting, then yes.

And if those civilians are willingly acting as human shields for those who are shooting, then...yes.

These actions make them combatants.

And if those civilians are bringing their children into the war and holding their children up as human shields while they shoot, then they are responsible for the deaths of their own children. If you hurl your child in front of an oncoming train, the train driver is not responsible for your child's death. If you bring your child into a war zone to be a human shield, the opposing side is not responsible for the child's death. You're supposed to get civilians OUT of a war zone, which is what Israel does.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: onewheeldave


By only (or by prioritisng)hitting targets where civiliian losses are a risk, not a certainty.




And how do you propose they do that, Dave?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning


 Written by: onewheeldave


By only (or by prioritisng)hitting targets where civiliian losses are a risk, not a certainty.




And how do you propose they do that, Dave?



By assessing whether, for a proposed target, innocent civilians will die- if the risk is low, then go ahead, if it's high or almost certain, then don' t attack the target.

For example-

 Written by: Doc


And if those civilians are bringing their children into the war and holding their children up as human shields while they shoot, then they are responsible for the deaths of their own children. If you hurl your child in front of an oncoming train, the train driver is not responsible for your child's death. If you bring your child into a war zone to be a human shield, the opposing side is not responsible for the child's death.




The children are innocent, therefore the attack should not take place.

Yes, the parents are out-of-order, yes, they could be said to be to blame for their childrens deaths.

But let's leave aside 'blame' as it is an emotionally laden term which, in heated discussions, will often simply confuse the issue and lead to argument rather than useful discussion.

Let's use 'causal factors' instead.

So, in the example above, the parents using their children is one causal factor in the childrens death- equally necessary though, is the causal factor of the Israeli military firing on them- if they don't fire, the children don't die.

In that situation, israel is targetting innocent children and it is responsible for their deaths.

Of course, the parents are responsible too, but, whether it's because they are firmly believing that it is the right thing to do, due possibly to their grief at what they see as Israels previous oppression and slaughter of their families, or, whether it's cos they're just plain evil, the fact remains that they are sacrificing their children and that, it this scenario, whether those children die is Israels choice.

Killing innocent children is wrong, therefore, in that example, Israel should not attack.

This, for you Doc, is not satisfactory as you see those children as legitimate targets and put the blame only on the parents- fair enough; but, I would also point out that this is exactly the scenario whereby the surviving extended family of those lost innocents, are going to join the droves of willing terrorist/suicide bombers who, fueled by grief and hate at the sheer injustice of the slaughter, will willingly give their own lives to take those of Israeli civilians/children.

In fact, every one of your justifcations can, and are, being used by exactly those Palestinians who are ready to take the lives of Israeli and American lives, not, in their eyes, as murder, but as revenge and defence.

The reasoning used to justify the Israeli contention that the civilians they kill are not 'innocent' and that, in some circumstances, the killing of children is valid; is the same reasoning used by those millions of Muslims throughout the world who cheered at the destruction of the Twin Towers and the murder of the American civilians within.

Twisted as that rational seemed to most of us in the West, to those who cheered, there were no innocent Americans in that attack, because, in their eyes, america made possible the creation of the state of Israel and was therefore responsible for every member of their extended family who have been killed by Israel.

I'm not defending the rationality of the terrorists here, simply pointing out that it is the same rationality being used by the defenders of Israels choice to see the killing of children and innocent civilians as justified.

Whether that rationality is used by terrorists, or by Israelis, I believe it is wrong.

Certainly, i feel that if a rationality used to justify one sides policies (Israels), is pretty much exactly the same rationality used by the opposing side to justify their atrocities, we need to realise that something is very wrong in that rationality- in this case, sticking with that rationality is absolutely guaranteed to keep this cycle of extreme violence going for ever.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Anticipating your question-

having established what Israel shouldn't do (kill children/innocent civilians), what should it do?

My answer- it's not particularly relevant in comparison to ceasing killing children.

As previously stated, Israel is going to be attacked for the forseeable future- nothing can change that.

The best it can do is continue with justifiable defences (in which children/innocents don't die in unnaceptable numbers).

The attacks will continue, but at least the cycle of Israel unjustly killing innocents, leading to hatred, leading to killing of Israeli civilians, leading to Israeli attacks in which innocent children die...etc, etc..ad infinatum.. will be broken.

Enabling, in the distant future, the possibility of peace which will not occur if the cycle continues.

Why should it be Israel and not its enemies who break the cycle- because its enemies never will.

It has to be israel.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted:So as long as terrorists have innocent kids duct taped to them they should have free reign?



And if the terrorists are using kids to protect them while they kill larger numbers of children then what? Let them kill the kids because we don't want to hurt the kids?


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: NYC


So as long as terrorists have innocent kids duct taped to them they should have free reign?

And if the terrorists are using kids to protect them while they kill larger numbers of children then what? Let them kill the kids because we don't want to hurt the kids?



I think I've explained my views on this as well as i can in my previous posts.

It's easy to construct bizarre examples about terrorists duct taping Palestinian babies and a bomb to themselves, then running into a group of Israeli babies which is one baby bigger than the number of babies duct taped to the terrorist etc.

Anyone seriously interested in my views on this issue, or seriosly interested in debating them with me, can examine my previous posts where I've stated them in some detail, tried to anticipate reaslistic critisisms and then addressed them.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: onewheeldave


The children are innocent, therefore the attack should not take place.

Yes, the parents are out-of-order, yes, they could be said to be to blame for their childrens deaths.



Dave, I didn't read your post because you went on some philosophical rant about blame and such. You aren't answering my question; you're evading it.

You have terrorists in a building filled with civilians (whether there willingly or not) who are firing mortars and rockets at Israeli towns.

What should Israel do?

And do *NOT* answer with what Israel *SHOULDN'T* do. Answer what they SHOULD do. As in what course of action should they take?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted: Written by: Mike

You have terrorists in a building filled with civilians (whether there willingly or not) who are firing mortars and rockets at Israeli towns.



What should Israel do?



And do *NOT* answer with what Israel *SHOULDN'T* do. Answer what they SHOULD do. As in what course of action should they take?





Well I'm not sure i should bother reposting this, as Mikes made it clear he isn't bothering to read responses anyway shrug but



 Written by: simian

well, i'm not a military strategist, but it'd seem to me that the highly publicised Isreali offensives that cause so many casualties are generally due to deployment of explosive munitions in so-called "surgical strikes".



This is due to a fairly simple choice made in regards to the relative values of life of: israeli military personnel vs palestinian civilian



Modern warfare seems to be leaning toward placing more value on the lives of military personnel, and therefore reducing the relative value of life of a non-combatant. Meaning a reduction in actual "surgical strikes" of the type carried out by highly trained troops putting their lives at risk (google the history of the UK's Special Air Forces for some examples), and an increase on blowing stuff up from a distance.



The question is, how much does one side risk the lives of it's military personnel in order to maintain the safety of the other sides non-combatants?





ie, taking out targets close up with highly trained troops in lightning raids would eliminate targets



Although the situations obviously have differences, i'm talking about operations along the lines of the covert SAS raids in the 1970s infiltrating Eire to capture IRA Commanders (with no "collateral damage").



Choosing to launch explosive munitions at the houses from a distance would have been extremely counter productive to the larger peace process, and would have caused greater casualties in both the short and long term. And also have less chance of actually hitting the intended target.



 Written by: NYC

So as long as terrorists have innocent kids duct taped to them they should have free reign?





No, it just means you have to get close enough to shoot them somewhere that a kid isn't. Anything else is simply barbaric, and i'm genuinely shocked that you could hold these opinions.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Yell fire!
member
Location: London
Member Since: 16th May 2003
Total posts: 151
Posted:Good posts onewheeldave. Some people can choose not to understand what you're saying but that doesn't mean that nobody does.

As for what Israel *should* do, how about withdrawing to its 1967 borders in return for formal recognition by all Arab states as a starting point. As Dave said, nothing Israel does will suddenly end all attacks, but it will go a very long way in ensuring peace in the long run. Way too many innocent Palestinians have been massacred for the attacks to suddenly stop. Sadly for a long time to come there will be many individuals who want revenge for the deaths of their family members.

In the long run the Palestinians will only stop blowing themselves up when there is hope for a better future, even if it is only for the next generation. They are very unlikely to stop blowing themselves up just so Israelis can have a better future. It just doesn't work that way.


Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning talking about killing civilians

If those civilians are shooting, then yes.

And if those civilians are willingly acting as human shields for those who are shooting, then...yes.

These actions make them combatants.


The Geneva Convention agrees with you on the first point, not the second. People who stand in front of people you want to kill are not combatants.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: simian


ie, taking out targets close up with highly trained troops in lightning raids would eliminate targets

Although the situations obviously have differences, i'm talking about operations along the lines of the covert SAS raids in the 1970s infiltrating Eire to capture IRA Commanders (with no "collateral damage").



Of course, the IRA never held up kids in front of them as shields...

You raise a good point, Simian (one which I seemed unable to find earlier, so thanks for re-posting it). The problem is that even these so-called "surgical strikes" have killed children. So even those aren't collateral-free.

But when the mortars are coming from miles behind enemy lines, you have an issue with getting the IDF troops in there.

 Written by: Simian


 Written by: NYC

So as long as terrorists have innocent kids duct taped to them they should have free reign?



No, it just means you have to get close enough to shoot them somewhere that a kid isn't. Anything else is simply barbaric, and i'm genuinely shocked that you could hold these opinions.



Again, I think the terrorists have the responsibility to the children, not the IDF. IDF has a responsibility not to aim at them. The terrorists have the responsibility to not use them as living shields.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: Yell fire!


Good posts onewheeldave. Some people can choose not to understand what you're saying but that doesn't mean that nobody does.

As for what Israel *should* do, how about withdrawing to its 1967 borders in return for formal recognition by all Arab states as a starting point.



Hamas doesn't care, nor does Hezbollah. Even if they do that Hamas and Hezbollah will not stop until Israel is wiped completely off the map. They've said this repeatedly.

So when they withdraw to their 1967 borders (which they are in the process of doing, bit by bit) and the mortars keep flying, THEN what do they do? Withdraw more? More? More? More...?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: onewheeldave


It's easy to construct bizarre examples about terrorists duct taping Palestinian babies and a bomb to themselves, then running into a group of Israeli babies which is one baby bigger than the number of babies duct taped to the terrorist etc.




Bizarre examples?

There are plenty of examples of terrorists hijacking planes with babies on them. There are plenty of examples of terrorists launching rockets from school yards. There are plenty of examples of terrorists holding babies in one arm and shooting machine guns from the other.

That's what terrorists are trying to do. And they're really good at it. The entire point of terrorism isn't to do physical damage but to do psychological damage. They want public outcry when they throw a baby infront of an Israeli machine gun.

There are plenty of examples where Israelis have taken out gunmen without any innocent casualties. But they don't make the news.

I understand what you're saying Dave, and you are making a good point. I would argue that it's both the Israelis and the Moderate Muslims that have the power for change. I can't JUST point the finger at the Israelis.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning

But when the mortars are coming from miles behind enemy lines, you have an issue with getting the IDF troops in there.



That is exactly the attitude toward modern warfare that creates so much more collateral damage.

We can't risk our soldiers in a mission behind enemy lines. Lets use some 'precision' explosives and kill some enemy civilians instead.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Yell fire!
member
Location: London
Member Since: 16th May 2003
Total posts: 151
Posted:This may be of interest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6168752.stm


Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted: Written by: NYC

I can't JUST point the finger at the Israelis.



This seems a common refrain.

Has anyone who's taken part in this discussion put forward the view that palestinians are blameless?


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: simian


 Written by: NYC

I can't JUST point the finger at the Israelis.



This seems a common refrain.

Has anyone who's taken part in this discussion put forward the view that palestinians are blameless?



Thank you smile


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning



Dave, I didn't read your post because you went on some philosophical rant about blame and such. You aren't answering my question; you're evading it.

You have terrorists in a building filled with civilians (whether there willingly or not) who are firing mortars and rockets at Israeli towns.

What should Israel do?




If I try to answer your question and you don't read that answer because you've pre-judged it as a 'philosophical rant' (which it wasn't); then there's not much more i can do, is there smile

I have, in this thread, on multiple occasions, made suggestions as to what Isreal should (IMO), do.

==================

In the specific example you give above, israel is in a no-win win situaton- it can:

1. Do nothing, in which case an Israeli town gets repeatedly mortered and Israeli women and children die.

2. It can attempt an alterntative military solution, which, as you say, may not work

3. It can bomb the building, ending the attack, but also killing Palestinian women and children; saving that particular Israeli town at that particular time, but also affecting the respect with which the rest of the world views Israel and giving the extended family of those innocent civilians incentive to joint the terror/hatred campaign.

a no-win situation.

Option 3 gives a temporary solution- in the future another Israeli town will be targeted in the same way, or a suicide bomber will achieve their revenge- it's like pushing down bumps in a carpet, ultimately they just get shifted around.

Option 2, may, or may not work.

Option 1, leaves Israelis dying. As I've pointed out above, and as we all know, the unfortunate fact is that Israelis are going to continue dying whatever anybody does, or does not, do.

They're in a war and, in wars, civilians die.

What i'm suggesting is that, by cutting back on attacks on civilian innocents, in the long-term, less Israelis will die.

If you still see that as me being evasive and not saying what Israel should do, then fair enough- if you're taking that view then i have to say that, IMO, there's no possible answer I can give that will satisfy you.

As both you and I know, in the short term, israel is f*cked, ther will be no peace for Israel in the short term.

Nothing Israel can do will cut down on attacks in the short-term- there's a huge mass of seething hatred out there, that is going to take a very long time to work it's way out.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Earlier in this thread i posted one idea for what Israel could do, it was deemed impractical.

Nevertheless, I say again, if Israelis want peace for their families, the only real option is to relocate to an area of the world that does not hate them more than life itself.

There is bigoted, unrational, prejudicial hatred.

But, increasingly, as more and more, initially reasonable and peaceful muslims, have seen their innocent, non-involved relatives blown apart as a side-effect of Israels 'targetted' attacks on civilians- then there is a more understandable form of hatred that is constanly being built up.

Why do israelis accept that it is OK to kill children and civilians?- because they've either lost family themselves, or could well do so.

Can you not understand that Palestinians who have lost their relatives will react in much the same way- the injustice of watching your child being blown apart, your child being simply 'collateral damage' is a thing which twists your mind well beyond the place where it can see that bomb as justified.

The effect is worse on palestinians/muslims because they live in a culture where repression and brain-washing propaganda is instilled from birth onwards.

It is worse also because, the numbers of Palestinian innocents who have been killed, far exceeds that of Israelis.

Israel is far better at war than the opposition, better equipped, better trained and better supported by the West.

Thus Israel is fighting a war against hatred. Hatred at that level cannot be fought effectivily- certainly not by actions which bring no real benefit and simply create even more hatred.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

NYC
NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Member Since: 26th Aug 2001
Total posts: 9232
Posted: Written by: onewheeldave


 Written by: simian


 Written by: NYC

I can't JUST point the finger at the Israelis.



This seems a common refrain.

Has anyone who's taken part in this discussion put forward the view that palestinians are blameless?



Thank you smile



No, in fact Dave has quite clearly put responsibility on both the terrorists and the Israelis. And then he said that the terrorists were unnegotiatable and so therefore "It has to be israel."

I disagree with that. I think "It has to be the israelis and the moderate muslilms."

I can't just point my finger at the Israelis and say it's their responsibility to fix the problem.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Good point.

Of course moderate Muslims who are as open to reason as Israelis have a part to play in this.

Just for clarification though though, what does 'moderate muslim' mean in this context, as it may not necessarily be the same as the common usage in the West, where it seems to refer to those muslims living in the west who oppose fundamentalist/exreme interpretations of Islam.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

simian
simian

110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Member Since: 11th Oct 2002
Total posts: 3149
Posted:You've already stated the problems Israel is facing as a state fighting terrorists.

That position also puts a far greater onus on them to resolve the issue.

and since moderate western atheists\buddhists seem to be pointing the finger at Israel's current approach, it will be tricky to win over moderate muslims without Israel changing first.


"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Delete

Page: 1...151617181920