Political Crossfire Forums

[DMS]

Yoadm wrote: Theres a "tiny" difference between Likud and Hamas:

- Likud wants peace, but is not willing to give up land in order to attain it.

- Hamas wants an unending war until the obliteration of Israel.

One is a party that, though desiring peace, does not want to give any consessions, while the other was created for the sole purpose of war.
Get it?


Back to the original article: This was no "peacefull" protest against occupation. This was an attempted arrest by the IDF of a militant responsible for countless attacks against Israeli communities. The militant surrounded himself by civilians, and as a result, the IDF withdrew... yeah.... hurray! terror works!

One is a party of corrupt war profiteers one is a party of radical nutcases that were pretty much created by Israeli government to begin with.

[Clarino]

CountryGuy wrote: That's exactly the problem -- This guy is a militant, not some innocent.


Interesting, you claim (blindly accepting what the Israeli government tells you) that this guy is a militant. So why did they give him a chance to escape? Not much point in destroying his house but letting him live to plan more attacks against Israel is there?


The Russian wrote: I believe the true intentions are hidden beneath lies... like the fact that the homes of the militants were warned a full day ahead of the airstrike to clear, and instead of clearing they reigned in human shields in an anti-israeli rallie. And israel didnt hit the homes for those reasons.

Hmm, but if this guy was a militant, why warn him? Israel didn't give any warning to those innocents they blew up last month. Why do militants get warnings, but innocents not? Seems the wrong way round to me.


The Russian wrote: Palestinians would not have done the same. And nor do they believe in a two-state solution, they are the only absolutist power in the region, where its destruction of israel or nothing, I hope they get nothing. And this is not generalised either, considering how many voted for Hamas.


Bull. Palestinians have wanted the two state solution since the beginning. They voted for Hamas because they were still getting pounded by Israel on a daily basis, and Fatah's appeasement policy wasn't helping them. So they went to the more militant party.

The Russian wrote: I'm for whole-sale deportation into Iran / Jordan / or Syria.

You are advocating a pogrom. When it was done to the Jews it was reprehensible. But it's okay to do it to Muslims and Christians. Typical.


Nixon wrote: Thousands of years of history has shown the Jews as being the most persecuted sect of society.

Which is why Israel keeps getting away with this sh!t. If it were Muslims doing this to Jews we'd have bombed them back to the stone age by now.

Nixon wrote: It takes no guts for you people to villify them.

Really? And be accused of anti-semitism, as is anyone who opposes Israel? Takes more guts to do that than to stand idly by as Israel carries out a holocaust on the Palestinians.

Nixon wrote: To think for a moment that Israel WANTS war is moronic, in the same way the left accuses the conservatives of "wanting" war.

Only a sycopath desires war. So either Israel and the entire GOP are sycopaths, or perhaps(just perhaps) the liberals are incapable of understanding that the average free citizen(no matter the country) wants peace. It's just a matter of what actions to take to obtain it. The left believes you can obtain it by becoming human shields, the right believes that sometimes force is the last alternative to obtain peace. Could one of us be wrong? sure. But in the end, both the left and the right are acting in the name of gaining peace.

Of course average free citizens want peace. The problem is Israel refuses to believe that the average Palestinian citizen wants peace, but can't get it because Israel keeps blowing up his house.

BTW, it's spelled "psychopath". Not the easiest word to spell, but this forum does have a spell check facility, so there's really no need to get it wrong.

[MoscowMatt]

Clarino wrote: Really? And be accused of anti-semitism, as is anyone who opposes Israel? Takes more guts to do that than to stand idly by as Israel carries out a holocaust on the Palestinians.

:roll: :roll:
Why would one oppose a country which since it's creation has had to defend it's borders from repeated attacks both conventional warfare and terror. You really ought to study the history books then you might not spout so much crap!!!! Here's hoping!! :lol:

[CountryGuy]

Clarino wrote: CountryGuy wrote: That's exactly the problem -- This guy is a militant, not some innocent.


Interesting, you claim (blindly accepting what the Israeli government tells you) that this guy is a militant. So why did they give him a chance to escape? Not much point in destroying his house but letting him live to plan more attacks against Israel is there?

No, I'm not blindly accepting -- I read it on the first page of the article:

Quote: Mr Baroud is a commander in the Popular Resistance Committees militant group.

They call because they are trying to avoid civilian casualties -- They know they are not going to get the actual person, but are removing a location in which planning and operations exists.

Or would you prefer more civilian casualties?

[Ozzone]

DMS wrote: As the hawks on the other side hide behind their military.

If you don't see the problem with that statement there's nothing more I can say.

[Mr. Sunshine]

A human shield is a conscious decision to act in a military conflict in a manner defensive to an opponent. Israel missed in opportunity to kill 52 birds with one stone. 8:)

[agentkgb]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: A human shield is a conscious decision to act in a military conflict in a manner defensive to an opponent. Israel missed in opportunity to kill 52 birds with one stone. 8:)
They're not militants.

[Chymical]

All brown peoples are militants in bizarro-world

[Yoadm]

DMS wrote: Yoadm wrote: Theres a "tiny" difference between Likud and Hamas:

- Likud wants peace, but is not willing to give up land in order to attain it.

- Hamas wants an unending war until the obliteration of Israel.

One is a party that, though desiring peace, does not want to give any consessions, while the other was created for the sole purpose of war.
Get it?


Back to the original article: This was no "peacefull" protest against occupation. This was an attempted arrest by the IDF of a militant responsible for countless attacks against Israeli communities. The militant surrounded himself by civilians, and as a result, the IDF withdrew... yeah.... hurray! terror works!

One is a party of corrupt war profiteers one is a party of radical nutcases that were pretty much created by Israeli government to begin with.


You should study Israeli politics before you comment about it. Likud ministers, unlike the Republicans, have no connection to the defence industry. The Defense budget is being cut from year to year so your 10 cent theory kind of falls flat.

[DMS]

Yoadm wrote: DMS wrote: Yoadm wrote: Theres a "tiny" difference between Likud and Hamas:

- Likud wants peace, but is not willing to give up land in order to attain it.

- Hamas wants an unending war until the obliteration of Israel.

One is a party that, though desiring peace, does not want to give any consessions, while the other was created for the sole purpose of war.
Get it?


Back to the original article: This was no "peacefull" protest against occupation. This was an attempted arrest by the IDF of a militant responsible for countless attacks against Israeli communities. The militant surrounded himself by civilians, and as a result, the IDF withdrew... yeah.... hurray! terror works!

One is a party of corrupt war profiteers one is a party of radical nutcases that were pretty much created by Israeli government to begin with.


You should study Israeli politics before you comment about it. Likud ministers, unlike the Republicans, have no connection to the defence industry. The Defense budget is being cut from year to year so your 10 cent theory kind of falls flat.

I follow US politics and we are still contributing billions to your governments military every year. Of course they can cut down their own spending when another nation is paying for it. Maybe my 10 cent theory as you call it falls flat but I do not support eithers sides leadership. It is an ugly situation and too many innocents have died on both sides. The methods that both sides have been using seem ineffective and I doubt the leadership of either side desires a lasting peace.

[Yoadm]

I follow US politics and we are still contributing billions to your governments military every year.

That has nothing to do with your original post. You claimed Likud has something to gain by war. I simply think your statement is unfounded.



Of course they can cut down their own spending when another nation is paying for it.



Israeli military spending is the highest in the west, despite US assistance (which in itself is erroding every year). It puts a huge strain on the budget and prevents growth. Cutting spending from an army allready budget-starved is hardly an easy thing.

[/b]

[junglecitizen]

Nixon wrote: Thousands of years of history has shown the Jews as being the most persecuted sect of society.
It takes no guts for you people to villify them.
The vast majority of those who disagree with Israel do not vilify Jews.
Quote: To think for a moment that Israel WANTS war is moronic,
I would say the Israeli government wants war. It is unwilling to consider peace on even remotely reasonable terms. (On the other hand, neither are Hamas.)

Ordinary civilians on both sides are caught in a trap. In the real world, there are only two ways of ending this war: serious concessions by both sides, or genocide of one side or the other.* To admit support for either is totally socially unacceptable in both Israel or Palestine. To support making concessions is to invite accusations of surrender and traitorhood, but to support genocide is barbaric and extreme. So the only way forward for most is support for endless low level warfare, either in the form of regular but ineffective 'crackdowns' on Gaza, or bombings that cause enormous suffering but no practical damage.

(* the other alleged 'option', deportation, would have little or no real long term effect, since the Palestinians would simply continue attacking Israel but instead over a different border. Besides, it would be impossible unless a willing country could be found to take them.)
Quote: in the same way the left accuses the conservatives of "wanting" war.
Hardline American conservatives are one of the few political groupings in the world for whom military force is the preferred option in pretty much any situation involving foreigners.

Quote: Only a sycopath desires war. So either Israel and the entire GOP are sycopaths, or perhaps(just perhaps) the liberals are incapable of understanding that the average free citizen(no matter the country) wants peace.
I would have said 'liberals' understand that better than most. Current GOP policy appears to be the result of applying that rule only to non-Muslims.

Quote: It's just a matter of what actions to take to obtain it. The left believes you can obtain it by becoming human shields, the right believes that sometimes force is the last alternative to obtain peace. Could one of us be wrong? sure. But in the end, both the left and the right are acting in the name of gaining peace.
I wouldn't have said the left generally approve of human shields. I certainly don't. It is good to see, however, that the Palestinians may have discovered the effectiveness of peaceful resistance, after many decades of their politics being dominated by hardline militant groups that think the only answer to everything is to try to scare Israel into submission with yet another bomb.

Anything that can help to stick a spanner in the works of this endless cycle of violence has to be a good thing.

[superskippy]

They are defending an active terrorist leader of the PRC. If people want to glorify them and their "resistance" then it becomes evident exactly where their values are, at least from my perspective. If you are so desperate to make a point against Israel that you have to defend the defense of a terrorist commander, even taking into account that the point of the warning was to make sure that no innocents were hurt then it shows a true deficit of values and a simple obsession of simply opposing Israel at any juncture possible.

All this will do is force us to be more selective with warnings and that will only drive up civilian casualties. And we will be blamed and I guarentee at some point someone will argue "Well why didnt you send a warning?" or something of the like. Thats the way it always is.

[junglecitizen]

MoscowMatt wrote: Why would one oppose a country which since it's creation has had to defend it's borders from repeated attacks both conventional warfare and terror.
There is a reason why Israel has been consistently attacked.

That reason is because in 1948 it attempted to create a religious state in an area where the majority population at the time did not follow that religion, and it did it by military force. This was bound to attract opposition. The rest all follows from that, not all of it justified, but much of it pretty predictable given how it started.

I am not anti-Jewish, but what I do not understand is why an exclusively Jewish territory was necessary in the Middle East, when looking back even in Biblical times the Holy Land was populated by a great mix of people of a variety of religions.

Lebanon has proved, in the last few years, that in the right circumstances (once Syria and Israel had stopped using it as a proxy battleground) a Muslim and non-Muslim population can co-operate to run a country. Had it not been for warmongers 80 years ago, Jews and Arabs might both be living in Jerusalem without being at war.
Quote: You really ought to study the history books then you might not spout so much crap!!!! Here's hoping!! :lol:
The history you read is clearly a little biased.

Ben-Gurion's statements on what should happen to non-Jews living on the land which is now Israel are a matter of historic record, and it's hardly surprising they caused fear, panic and military mobilisation among the unfortunate people who happened to live there already.

"The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war" (David Ben Gurion, 1937).

[Mr. Sunshine]

agentkgb wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: A human shield is a conscious decision to act in a military conflict in a manner defensive to an opponent. Israel missed in opportunity to kill 52 birds with one stone. 8:)
They're not militants.

A conscious act to place your body in front of a position that has launching rockets into a civilian population of an opposing force is an act of a militant. We cannot discriminate against a willing enemy based on gender or age. It would violate their Constitutional Rights which current Democratic Leaders in Congress want to extend to them. 8:)

In Somalia, when the militant firing positions encased themselves in willing human shields; they became militants as well as KIAs. 8:)

[superskippy]

Quote: That reason is because in 1948 it attempted to create a religious state in an area where the majority population at the time did not follow that religion, and it did it by military force. This was bound to attract opposition. The rest all follows from that, not all of it justified, but much of it pretty predictable given how it started.

We didnt try to create a religous state, we created the most secular state in the Middle East. As for the notion that we simply went in and carved up a country thats absurd. By the time of partition there was interncine inter-community violence with 1 Jew for every 2 Arabs in the country and a constantly growing Jewish population. The only solution was either to completely expel or destroy one group, an insane proposal, or to partition into two countries. The Arab nations vehemently opposed this and took up their cause with arms and the nascent state of Israel repulsed them and in the aftermath gathered territory from the Palestinian state to be.

Quote: Lebanon has proved, in the last few years, that in the right circumstances (once Syria and Israel had stopped using it as a proxy battleground) a Muslim and non-Muslim population can co-operate to run a country.

You really, really do not want to try and use Lebanon as an example of religous harmony. I dont mean any offense, but it is a bad example and there are plenty of better ones. Lebanon spent decades of religous fighting and civil war, which really only came to a close a few years ago. What has really prevented it is the fact that the groups are decisivly split with Christian strongholds in the north and Hezbollah and other muslim strongholds in the south and Beirut at the moment a tentative neutral ground.

Quote: Ben-Gurion's statements on what should happen to non-Jews living on the land which is now Israel are a matter of historic record, and it's hardly surprising they caused fear, panic and military mobilisation among the unfortunate people who happened to live there already.

There remains no evidence that we had some secret mass plan to evict the Palestinian residences, and every Palestinian town inside our partition territory which was not under arms retained their land and their citizenship in Israel and formed the nucleus of our Arab population. Nor is there any evidence to support a supposed mass explusion. The vast bulk of the Arabs fled the war because it was a war a basic response, and with many having fled before we could even reach the areas it is impossible to claim we evicted them. With the early weeks of the war mainly being inter-village battles and defences in the Galilee against Syrian incursions there is little to support the claim.

[CountryGuy]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: agentkgb wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: A human shield is a conscious decision to act in a military conflict in a manner defensive to an opponent. Israel missed in opportunity to kill 52 birds with one stone. 8:)
They're not militants.

A conscious act to place your body in front of a position that has launching rockets into a civilian population of an opposing force is an act of a militant. We cannot discriminate against a willing enemy based on gender or age. It would violate their Constitutional Rights which current Democratic Leaders in Congress want to extend to them. 8:)

In Somalia, when the militant firing positions encased themselves in willing human shields; they became militants as well as KIAs. 8:)

Actually, I believe this is correct. There's a difference between making the decision to act within a conflict and being forced to do so. In this case, they were clearly acting on their own wishes.

Of course Israel would be vilified if they attacked anyway, however its only a matter of time before they do. Otherwise, next you'll see block parties surrounding the launch of rockets into Israel.

[The Comrade]

Vexillum wrote: Just a few weeks ago, Palestinians tried peaceful resistance, a bunch got shot for it. The only reason any peaceful resistance has any chance of working to any degree against the chuckie doll is because Israel depends on foreign aid to exist and they're down to one supporter - the USA - and that's not a sure thing if chuckie gets too violent, especially once Bush is out of office.

israel recieves 8 billion a year. that's chump change in israel's coffers.

and israel was existing perfectly fine long before the united states started shipping over cash.

[junglecitizen]

superskippy wrote: They are defending an active terrorist leader of the PRC.
Yes, it's a bad thing that they are using this to defend militant leaders. However, I'm hoping they take lessons from this that peaceful action can often score a greater tactical victory than bombing.

Quote: If people want to glorify them and their "resistance" then it becomes evident exactly where their values are, at least from my perspective.
Well, it 'becomes evident' that I'm not on Israel's side, yes. I don't claim to be. I regard Hamas and the Israeli hardliners as morally equivalent. They both place little real value on 'enemy civilian' life. They both want to establish theocracies where non-believers are second class citizens. They both push the idea that military solutions are the only patriotic solutions.

The only reason Israel, unlike Hamas, doesn't openly attack Arab civilians is because they aren't staring defeat and annihilation in the face, and because they cannot afford to alienate their allies. In Lebanon the Israeli hardliners gave the world a limited demonstration of what kind of things they might do if backed into a corner.

Quote: All this will do is force us to be more selective with warnings and that will only drive up civilian casualties. And we will be blamed and I guarentee at some point someone will argue "Well why didnt you send a warning?" or something of the like. Thats the way it always is.
Quite possibly that will happen. But it's not actually 'forcing' any such thing. If Israel would take the idea of negotiations seriously, rather than just continuing endless tit-for-tat warfare because it's the way of least resistance, then peace might actually follow.

[superskippy]

Quote: israel recieves 8 billion a year. that's chump change in israel's coffers.

That is a grossly high number for our grants, we received a little more than Egypt at around 1.5 billion USD with economic aid being phased out completely in the next few years. As well as military grants being reduced but the base amount afforded to us, Egypt, and Jordan by various agreements and DOD dole outs remains the same.