Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/9/09 03:15 AM, Togukawa wrote: I don't see how you can interpret what I said that way.

Israel has already played its hand and is trying to stop Hamas. Any negotiations that entail simultaneous concessions on both sides will be a victory for Hamas. It may agree to stop the rocket attacks, but in return the Israelis would probably lift the blockade, which is partly what Hamas used to justify the rocket attacks in the first place. Hamas is the armed aggressor in this conflict and so must be punished in some way for a truce to be acceptable to Israel. I think the proposed plan of a peacekeeping force that would prevent Hamas rearmament and weapon smuggling is acceptable, and if it proves effective after several months then the Israelis could end the blockade.

At 1/9/09 03:15 AM, Togukawa wrote: Put yourself in the place of generic Palestinian A. Imagine your entire family was among the civilian deaths in the UN school, and your house and everything you have is destroyed. What do you think is your most likely train of thought..."Fucking Israel is opressing us again, bombing the shit out of us, they are evil and just want to cause us grief! Man I am so gonna strike back and shoot some rockets at them!"

It does pose an intractable problem but you have to ask if this consequence is worth destroying Hamas' attack capability. I don't doubt that the person you describe could become a militant, but I would imagine that while other Palestinians would be sympathetic to his cause, they wouldn't take up arms themselves. After all, they still have their families and fighting as guerillas against Israel has lots of risk.
However, this doesn't have to become a downward spiral of provocation. There will come a time when Palestinian pride and outrage (or that of any people) will not be enough to overcome the fatigue of prolonged suffering. If the blockade is working as effectively as aid agencies claim, then the Israeli campaign can only have made daily life worse for the average Palestinian. If this goes on long enough, the passion that sustains jihadists like the guy you mention will fade, people will realize the hopelessness of continued aggression, and not support militant groups like Hamas in the future.

That is why it is so important that Israel must be the clear winner and Hamas the clear loser. If there is even the slightest consequence that Hamas can claim victory from, not only will its aggressive policies be seen as legitimate, but the entire notion that angry, militant martyrs can defeat major powers so long as the population holds strong will be reinforced. Only more violence can come from that.

Swing and a miss...

It's pointless, Zoorule. We have said the same things time and time again about Hamas' aggression and placement of fighters and rocket sites, and I have yet to read a response that doesn't try to rationalize violence against Israel or addresses the issue of defense and provocation. Apparently, the Israelis can only act to stop rocket fire against their country if doing so results in no more than an equivalent number of casualties. 10 is far less than 700 or so; screw the justifications. Israel must stop attacking immediately; screw the fact that a terrorist organization would rightly declare victory.

I laid out a challenge in the other thread to Sarai and she completely ignored it, presumably so she could respond to dimwits like snipc because its easier and less potentially threatening to her ego. Maybe the posters here have larger gonads, so I'll list it again:

Do you believe Israel's attacks so far are reasonably consistent with a strategy of limiting civilian casualties (yet still destroying the target, of course)?

Do you believe Hamas purposely places Palestinians in the line of fire so it can use their deaths as propaganda?

Given Hamas' status as a terrorist organization, its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist, and its violent rout of the more moderate Fatah group from Gaza in 2007, is it unreasonable that Israel take even non-violent action, in this case a blockade, to weaken its bordering enemy? What would you have suggested Israel do to this openly hostile power?

At 1/8/09 06:00 PM, sora-key wrote: dozens? dozens? last time i checked it was 4, i don't applaud the strikes against israel, but you have to understand why hamas fired the rockets. The palestinian death toll is reaching 700 don't compare 4 to 700

Forgive me, it was not several months but over the past 4 years during which a few dozen Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets and mortars. Over the past 8 years Hamas has launched 3000 rockets and 2500 mortar strikes.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obs tacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+
2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and +Terrorism+sinc.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,4738 68,00.html

At 1/8/09 10:04 AM, Togukawa wrote: Do you think that when Israel attacks a school killing 40 civilians, or whenever Hamas uses human shields, that the Palestinians will realize how evil Hamas was and blame them for the deaths?

So you think it's perfectly okay for Hamas to get away with attacking Israel and then hiding behind civilians? You think it's perfectly acceptable to give in to the massive ignorance that you say would lead people to blame Israel for all the suffering?
Hamas is an organization of malevolent scumbags. It has to pay for what it has done. The fact that it employs civilian shields adds only more reason for it to be destroyed at all costs, not less.

You, before my post:

At 1/7/09 08:30 PM, bcdemon wrote: Darn tootin. It's clear the Israelis are targeting civilians, considering they had the GPS coordinates of the UN school, they knew there were piles of people there seeking refuge. Everything is clear as a bell.

You, after my post:

At 1/8/09 11:22 AM, bcdemon wrote: All we do know for fact is, the IDF bombed a UN school which was used to house Palestinians seeking shelter from the hostilities. We will have to wait for more concrete information.

Seriously? You can't admit that I may have persuaded you at all? I'm trying to be honest and open, here. I'll even say that, judging from the "little Iman" article, it's hard to argue that the guy's actions were perfectly legitimate. It still doesn't suggest an unofficial policy of brutality. Neither do the other links you posted conclusively show that the Israelis could have known that the militants were not in the school. I'd like to know where and how far away the street is, and where the Israelis were when they took fire.

At 1/8/09 03:23 PM, rami-keyblade wrote: Oh ya Israel gave Gaza to the palestinians from the kindness of their hearts. Force them out of their homes, their country, their way of life, then from the kindness of Israel's heart give them Gaza... thats a good way to look at it.

That was over 50 years ago. If the Palestinians can't accept a generous show of good faith, then that's their problem.

At 1/8/09 04:43 PM, Ledgey wrote: UN are stopping all aid now because of Israeli misfire.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_
east/7818577.stm
Israel are digging a deeper hole for themselves.

What did you expect? The UN is full of pussies. They whine and complain about the plight of Palestinians, yet one or two of its people are killed in accidents and they pull out. At the same time, they expect Israel to suffer from Hamas rocket attacks, which have killed dozens over the past several months, not do anything to stop it, and give Hamas a propaganda victory in the meantime. They, and the rest of the protesting world, prolong the existence of Hamas by painting those who would stamp them out as the bad guys. It's absolutely sickening how easily these people give in to what is basically extortion and hostage-taking.

At 1/7/09 09:05 PM, rami-keyblade wrote:

This is not a time for proof but credibility. Proof comes later, after the dust has settled.

i hope that's not true, giving Israel a green light to attack without proof like that frightens me.

Maybe you should write a letter to Israel and Hamas telling them to stop everything so you can fly to Gaza and figure everything out yourself.

At 1/7/09 08:30 PM, bcdemon wrote: Do you have proof? The UN (John Ging UNRWA) says there was no Hamas members present. Although some Jabalya residents (speaking on the condition of anonymity) saying that some militants were firing mortars from the area, but I have yet to read that those reports have been confirmed.

This is not a time for proof but credibility. Proof comes later, after the dust has settled. The only "proof" is what you can see on video, and even that can be suspect. We know that Israel has done many things consistent with a concern for civilian casualties, we know that Hamas installations and soldiers hide among civilians, and I find it hard to believe that the UN could know for certain who was inside or nearby one of its schools in the middle of a warzone at any particular time. More than likely the UN has no idea whatsoever, and its PR guys are turning "no one reported any" to "no militants were ever there."

But the IDF did not explain how it was able to identify them among the many casualties. Troops did not visit the school after the attack, nor did the IDF have access to a casualty list from Gaza's hospitals.

It could be that they were tracked or followed to the school. Or they were tipped off. These methods are better left publicly unknown for obvious reasons.

Proof?

Israel has no motive to blatantly attack civilians hiding in a school for no reason. The attack would be impossible to hide from the world media, and barbarism for the sake of it only weakens Israel's moral superiority, making a favorable international resolution/ceasefire agreement less likely. Besides, it makes no sense that the Israelis would take such pains to use precision weaponry and avoid civilian casualties, even calling Palestinians on the phone personally warning them to leave, only to abandon such caution at a whim.

X The Israeli intelligence are saying 2 senior Hamas officers were hit, and many more Hamas militants.

Of course they are. They are notorious for covering up war crimes. Like little Imam, the IDF tried to say it was no big deal, until an audio tape of the incident was released. Then they laid huge charges on the perpetrator, only to have the judge acquit the soldier of any wrong doing.

What the hell is Little Imam? I searched the web, even including "war crime" in the query, yet I only get footage of some 5 year old with a turban.

At 1/6/09 07:00 PM, zoolrule wrote: Holy shit, have you even read my messages? All 3 of lasts of them? Or you just keep on focusing on yourself?

I have to agree with zoolrule on the general trend in this thread. Yes, there have been a bunch of pro-Israel posters whose comments have only served to distract the rest of us. The IRA issue should never have been brought up since your (or anyone else's) views of the IRA are totally irrelevant.

You seem to dwell on two things, Sarai, the violence against civilians and the suffering caused by the blockade. I think we can address these if you just directly answer a few questions:
Do you believe Israel's attacks so far are reasonably consistent with a strategy of limiting civilian casualties (yet still destroying the target, of course)?
Do you believe Hamas purposely places Palestinians in the line of fire so it can use their deaths as propaganda?
Given Hamas' status as a terrorist organization, its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist, and its violent rout of the moderate Fatah group from Gaza in 2007, is it unreasonable that Israel take even non-violent action, in this case a blockade, to weaken its bordering enemy? What would you have suggested Israel do to this openly hostile power?

If you answer these, then there can be meaningful discussion again in this thread.

At 1/4/09 04:41 PM, Sarai wrote:

As noted in the opening posts and others throughout this thread, the major failures have been attributed to Isreal, not least the:

i) Continued settlement building / expanstion in occupied territories (in violation of International Law)

The most recent information I can find discusses the building of 20 homes. Boo friggin hoo.

ii) Establishement of the Ghettos through concrete walls, barriers and checkpoints that has turned Gaza (and the West Bank) into the New Berlin.

Checkpoints and barriers that discourage suicide bombers and kidnappers from entering Israeli territory. A completely retaliatory measure.

At 1/4/09 04:41 PM, Sarai wrote: iii) Continued violations of basic Geneva Convention principles such as 'Collective Punishment' (i.e halting fuel supplies, preventing enough medical aid getting through, restricting the movements of ambulances and so forth.

I'm pretty sure halting fuel supplies to a hostile region is not against the Geneva Convention. The Palestinians do not need gasoline to literally survive. They also restrict medical aid and ambulances because (surprise surprise) Palestinian terrorists have used them to transport weapons and fighters. Do you dispute this?

At 1/4/09 04:41 PM, Sarai wrote: iv) I could go on... (economic blockades, no control over sea / air / shelling of residential areas...)

So you do dispute that Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties? Why don't you come out and say that Hamas should be encouraged to mine/tunnel/build rocket sites near civilian homes because it would be wrong for Israel to attack them?

Let it be clear that Hamas has also failed to live up to many obligations, (however as noted Hamas did not campaign on an anti-Israel platform and in the elections although sadly not recognising Israel also toned down mentions of 'destruction' Some people argue that Israel was 'provoked', well both sides have equal ability to claim that (see above i - iv).

Some morons argue as much because they have no concept of instigation and retaliation. To them, causes and justifications are entirely irrelevant because whoever employs the most force is always the bad guy.

Still waiting for you to directly answer some of the questions in my posts. You sure as hell aren't done yet.

At 1/4/09 04:16 AM, Sarai wrote: "Human Shields", God where did you learn this from, yes I'm sure this has happened in a few situations. But the actual FACT of the matter is people LIVE there, lots of people LIVE there. They are not human shields. A human shield is someone who is FORCED into the line of fire. Somewhat like what Saddam Hussein did in the first Gulf War when he put people on Bridges with guns pointed at them so that they could not escape and America could not bomb.

So, again I ask you, Hamas has no choice but to store weapons in mosques and hospitals? It has no choice but to install rocket sites in residential areas? That seems to be what you're implying, but I don't see how you could possibly know that.

At 1/4/09 04:16 AM, Sarai wrote: "Properganda War; Trusting what we See"

Read it, the point is moot. Even if the story about oxygen cylinders is to be believed, it's hard to paint this as typical of most Israeli strikes. Really, how many people have a whole slew of oxygen tanks and load them onto pickup trucks? Given the fact that they look like rockets and the regional affinity for using pickups as "technicals", this would simply seem to be an unfortunate mistake, if you believe it. In time, I'm sure someone will be able to derive measurements of the tanks/rockets from the images, maybe look at the blast pattern, and be able to determine what those tubes were.

At 1/4/09 04:16 AM, Sarai wrote: In addition with the Israeli army refusing to comply with their own Surpreme Court ruling to let in foreign journalists, it's clear to see they don't want the world seeing the atrocities being committed by their forces. I'm *so* sure that Tank Shells and Artillery are *really* accurate... Lets all shoot shells into Residential areas!

Do you honestly believe that Israel would gain more international support by letting in these journalists (which are only allowed, by the court ruling, in small numbers when international aid arrives)? Most of Europe and the Middle East hates Israel anyway. I see no reason why Israel should shoot itself in the foot by allowing foreign propagandists to do their work. In any case, the Israeli actions so far speak for themselves. Only a 4th or 5th of all Palestinian fatalities have been civilian, and the Palestinians themselves have confirmed that the IDF often calls people 15 minutes before a strike so they can evacuate.
BTW, there's only one report so far of civilian casualties being caused by a tank shell, which undoubtedly resulted when someone started shooting at the IDF out of the house, and as far as I know all the offshore artillery has been directed at lightly-populated areas or at combat routes in order to destroy tunnels and mines in the areas.

At 1/2/09 09:31 PM, SolInvictus wrote: ...the rest is based of terrible relations between both sides (since neither wanted to work with the other), propaganda and more delightful (forceful)land dealings.

You make it sound as if each side were equally guilty. An easy way to superficially approach long-standing conflicts, but totally inadequate for meaningful discussion. There is a clear aggressor in this conflict, a clear instigator of the violence occuring now. The foundation of Israel was 50-60 years ago, the occupation of Gaza and the rest was 30-40 years ago. Since then the cycles of violence has almost exclusively been ignited by the Palestinians. Living as second-class citizens might be a plausible excuse, but let's not forget that Israel uprooted its own settlers out of Gaza a few years ago. Let's also not forget that the Palestinians in Gaza didn't vote for a party that promised to preserve their newly acquired gains but pledged violence to try to take even more.

The simple fact that the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was followed by the popular election of a terrorist group with aggressive aims makes it difficult to argue that the Palestinians are the victims here, or that whatever happened in the past few years provides a greater justification for violence than what has happened over the past few decades.

At 1/2/09 09:31 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i am well aware of that. this is an atypical conflict, but just because Palestinian leaders use civilian shields to protect themselves doesn't mean that those civilians have forfeited their right to life. i am certain that you know full well that those civilians killed only feed Palestinian hate toward Israel.

But Israel cannot very well let Hamas continue its attacks because it fears civilian casualties. Either Hamas' entire military capability must be destroyed permanently, or Hamas must lose support among Palestinians. Acheiving the first is near impossible and inevitably involves civilian casualties, and the only way of achieving the second is to make the Palestinians suffer economically or physically. Neither option is attractive, but what would you have Israel do?

At 1/2/09 02:21 AM, Alphabit wrote: I understand Israel's goal in all this, but I don't think they took appropriate action; They just pulled an Iraq 2.0... Their goal was to get rid of Hamas but instead of sending intelligence to assassinate key members, they deploy their entire war engine and blast the hell out of the whole area and causing lots of innocent casualties.

You seem to be assuming that the Israelis could take out Hamas leadership easily if only they tried "harder." And it's not true that they are lazy. Over the last several years I can recall a few instances where Israel successfully took out a senior Hamas member in retaliation for a suicide bombing or rocket attack. It's just very difficult to know where one specific man is at any one time when he is trying to be hidden. The desire to avoid civilian casualties makes it even harder, as the cost of being wrong is greater.

At 1/2/09 02:26 AM, JJANON167 wrote: Heard of the occupations of Gaza and the West Bank? Yeah, its been going on for fourty years. It doesn't matter where they aim their missiles, its still in densely populated areas, and hundreds more people are being killed by Egypt and Israel's military blockade...

I'm not trying to defend snipc, but you seem to be making the same general argument as Sarai. I've been thinking that one potential source of disagreement is that I have been acting on different basic assumptions. You see, I see Israel's actions as legitimate retribution because they are all aiming towards the same goal, an end to the attacks on Israel, and they do this with the least degree of collateral damage reasonably possible.
This is true both of the airstrikes and the blockade. The airstrikes are literally precise because the damage is limited to the target. However, airstrikes can only destroy the rockets that are discovered, and even if all were found, Hamas would still be in power and find new ways to attack Israel.
The blockade seeks to end the threat by undermining Hamas. The blockade makes it clear to the Palestininans that Hamas is incapable of providing for its citizens, and that the policies of Hamas (namely unconditional hostility towards Israel) do not lead to prosperity and advancement. Eventually, the lack of public support should bring about a more peaceful government.

With this in mind, the numbers of casualties themselves are irrelevant. Rockets from Gaza could cause no deaths at all, Israeli airstrikes could kill 10 or 1000. So long as the Israeli airstrikes are conducted with the greatest possible care for civilian casualties relative to still destroying the target, the moral responsibility falls on Hamas, because ultimately it is Israeli self-defense against aggression.

At 1/2/09 02:26 AM, JJANON167 wrote: You seem to completely ignore the territorial evictions sixty years ago, the land theft in the late sixties, all of the human rights abuses and war crimes/violations of the fourth geneva convention in occupied Palestinian territories...

If by "territorial eviction" you mean the seizing of some lands for the foundation of Israel, it is moot. Every country today contains land that it seized from others, and the only real claim on land and territory that matters is the power to take it by force. Plus, I think almost all nations in the world recognize Israel as a state, which is pretty much an endorsement of the country's legitimacy.
The same applies to the occupied territories, but there is moral legitimacy as well since Israel was waging a war of self-defense (immediate preemption--not like Iraq war preemption) and has no responsbility to return territory to an aggressive power.
You also mention human rights abuses. If you can find any instances of war crimes, etc. that were not retaliatory in nature, not officially disavowed by the Israeli government, or not brought about by the enemy resorting to it first (ie smuggling weapons in ambulances, hostile forces posing as medical/neutral personnel) I will entertain the idea. Otherwise, I'm going to need more than simple assurances from the impotent UN or the whining Amnesty International that it is the case.

At 1/1/09 07:49 AM, Sarai wrote: What residential areas? If you read my OP, you would have noted I already mentioned this. Because Israel has put in place economic blockades for many years there is no efficient way to structure the residential infrastructure of the land. Everyone builds what they can, where they can because that's all they can do...the Government has little control there over all the different factions and forces.

So you're telling me that Hamas has no choice but to do this, and
this?
I'll say it again: maybe if Hamas dropped the destruction of Israel from its official policy and stopped abducting Israeli soldiers, Israel might drop the blockade.

At 1/1/09 07:49 AM, Sarai wrote: 'Pro-Israeli' posters here continue to propergate a myth that somehow it's okay to blow up civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza, the West Bank and in Lebanon in the past. To Israel, everything is a valid target which requires high powered weaponary that kills hundreds (or in Lebanon) a thousand civilians.

Bullshit. You know as well as I that Israel does not deliberately target civilians. The only reason they target infrastructure is because Hamas and Hezbollah use hospitals and mosques as ammo dumps and weapon installations, and use airports to transport Iranian weapons.

As I also mentioned (and you ignored) in my OP, Israel has a right not to have rockets sent at it, people should live in peace. However as usual, I condemn the disproportionate and illegal Israeli attacks. At most 10% of Israel's population is in range of home made rockets that are blunt weapons at best. 100% of Palestinian's are in range and Israel (again ignored from my OP) expects them to stop these attacks while it blockades their very fundemental freedoms.

It all comes out here, doesn't it? You believe Israel has no right to put a stop to rocket attacks because those precision strikes kill more Palestinians than rockets do Israelis. You see the entire conflict through a single distorted frame: Israel kills more Palestinians than the Palestinians kill Israelis, and the Palestinians are poor. Therefore, Israel is the bad guy. Nevermind that the Palestinian government provoked this conflict themselves. Nevermind that Hamas purposely uses civilians as shields while trying to kill innocent Israelis. You would sit by and have them win. You would succumb to terrorism and extortion. You would demand that Israel allow a hostile regime to prosper through lifting the blockade, even though Hamas would make no concessions.

Israel is an occupying power performing illegal attrocities against Civilian Population because it doesn't have the guts to realise that you can't just oppress people forever. Israel's constant land grabs, bombings, illegal settlement contstruction and targeted killing that also kills women and children by the score (Shooting missiles into cars driving through markets) is horrible. They have no courage for a difficult and negotiated solution and instead are terroising civilians themselves.

All bullshit. You're sitting on your high-horse, trying to squeeze hugely complicated world events into your simplistic moral code of "all killing is wrong", while whining about how some non-existent legality should force nations to act completely against their interests just so it can suit you. Meanwhile, like in any political attack ad, you deliberately ignore critical information that goes against you. An Israeli strike killed 8 civilians, but don't mention that the Hamas rocket site in their neighborhood was the main target. An Israeli chopper attack killed 4 civilians, including women and children, when it attacked a vehicle, but the fact it contained a senior commander of Hamas and the other deaths were his family is irrelevant.

Since Israel seems to persue i) and since you guys like to bring up WW2 examples, I'll bring up what the Nazi's did to the French Resistance...To the West and to some of the French they were 'Freedom Fighters'.

The French resistance did not infiltrate Germany and suicide German civilians.

...If everyone realises that was wrong, it always surprises me to see support for a i) Wipe everyone out attitude by the Pro-Israeli posters. It would seem that they can justify away thousands of civlian deaths in pursuit of a goal, which to me... is just like the worst history of Communism (Stalin / Mao) or worse...

Except for the fact that the Palestinians are essentially asking for it. Israel stays its hand for decades, limiting itself to simple retaliatory strikes that to nothing to prevent future attacks, while the Palestinians demand more concessions and hail the suicide bombers as martyrs rather than extremist renegades. The election of Hamas was the last straw. Hamas is a one-issue party if there ever was one, and unlike in most elections in the West, we can look at the Palestinian one and reasonably say that Hamas won because the people supported their militancy against Israel, not because there were any secondary platform positions that resonated with voters. The Palestinian civilians must be given every chance to repent, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

And since Israel provokes Hamas as well as the other way round (read about that next time you quote bias facts), both sides are guilty of not being honest about their intentions, capabilities or purpose.

There is nothing more provoking than an outright declaration of war, and that is what Hamas did. Israel has done nothing that wasn't retaliatory in nature. Find a counterexample if you can.

...Creating economic freedom is a proven track record all around the world of reducing terror, reducing instability and promoting peace. It's a pity that Israel is backwards and blows up anything that could produce economic benifit.

As opposed to the Palestinians, who blow up anyone who is Israeli. Again, nothing Israel has done has not been unprovoked.

At 12/31/08 08:04 PM, Sarai wrote:

At 12/31/08 08:02 PM, adrshepard wrote: Israel must inflict enough suffering to destroy the will of the Palestinian people, to make them beg unconditionally for peace. They must be broken and recast as a democratic, non-militaristic society.

God Save the World with idiots like you around.

You resurrect this old thread and yet you can't spare a few minutes to make an actual reply to someone who disagrees with you?

Have you ever considered why there was no insurgency in Germany or Japan after WWII? It wasn't because the people there made a rational decision about what further violence could hope to achieve. It wasn't because they knew that guerilla tactics could never stop a full fledged occupation. It was because the population suffered immensely. Germany had a few hundred thousand "soldiers" in the final months of WWII, and even though they were young kids and old men, they had enough equipment to put up a good fight. But instead they almost all surrendered. Why? They were exhausted. No cause was worth fighting for; they had seen everything around them destroyed, millions of people were killed, for the past year or so, it was all they could do to simply survive.

In Japan, it was similar, except the population very well could have fought on until the end. But their society was turned upside down. Their invulnerable army was defeated, the imperial ruler surrendered to uncouth barbarians, and then only to find out that all the reports of American atrocities, all the predictions of pillage and rape were completely untrue. Look at their culture now. They went from being a xenophobic, militaristic caste society to one comprised of pacifist industrialists whose economy depends hugely on exports. And anime? A 95% conviction rate? Exceedingly low crime coupled with popularized pedophilia? Where did all this crazy shit come from? It's all because of the US, and now Japan is one of our greatest allies.

But with modern US conflicts it is different. Foreigners expect that we will try to protect civilians. They delude themselves into believing it is a natural right rather than a demonstration of our virtue. As a result, it doesn't matter if a small percentage of civilians die, people will rise up out of nationalist pride and economic opportunism. Hamas counts on this. They provoke Israel with rockets and abductions, construct government and military buildings in populated residential areas, then hide in bunkers and condemn the Israelis as murdering savages because a few civilians were near an ammo dump when a LGB hit it.

Explain to me how sentiment like yours does not play exactly into the hands of terrorist groups like Hamas?

At 12/31/08 06:58 PM, Sarai wrote: Each time Israel invades they cause massive infrastructure and civilian damage and death and do not that much against Hamas or other terrorists who exist there but instead radicalise a new generation of 'fighters', who may become terrorists.

It's ironic that you care so much about the civilian casualties when it should be crystal clear that Hamas, the elected leadership of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, does not. Hamas had a choice when it took power. It could have tempered its position on the destruction of Israel, it could have pledged to cease the rocket attacks and soldier abductions, it could have at least indicated it would try to exist peacefully with Israel.
But it didn't. Hamas chose violence. The withdrawal of the Israelis from Gaza a few years ago was not enough. The imposition of a crippling blockade that caused hundreds of thousands of their presumed countrymen to suffer was not enough to overcome the hatred and stubborness of Hamas.
Hamas does not care about its people.

At 12/31/08 06:58 PM, Sarai wrote: ..."Peace Wall" that is ruled illegal by International Courts...Checkpoints that put a stranglehold on economic and personal freedom within the Strip... Israel must... work with the Palestinian Authorities to implement better, more humanitarian security controls that work with the people to prevent terrorists from doing their work.

Israel does not answer to the International Criminal Court, and such a Court has no business dictating global law to nations unless it has the ability to enforce it. Pray to God that it never does; that would be the real imperialism.
History has shown that nothing is too important to the Palestinians for their suicide bombers not to exploit it. The burden of stopping Palestinian terrorists lies with the Palestinians themselves. They failed, and Israel has every right take whatever means to defend entry into its lands.
There can be no negotiation with a party whose very existence is dedicated to your destruction.

At 12/31/08 06:58 PM, Sarai wrote: By destroying bridges, roads, powerplants, Universities and the like and by restricting basic humanitarian help such as medicines, fuel oil and so forth, Israel only itself commits atrocities that I was led to believed died out in "free countries".

To call these acts atrocities is to insult the victims of every genocide and enslavement ever committed. These victims were helpless and could do nothing to protect themselves. The only thing the Palestinians must do is accept a peaceful coexistence with their neighbor, and their self-inflicted suffering will stop. Yet they continue to embrace violence...

At 12/31/08 06:58 PM, Sarai wrote: ...But they must be engaged and guided to peace and one way of doing this must be to stop bombing civilians, smart weapons and bombs and missiles are not precise enough to use in Civilian areas, especially poor ones with illdefined regional and infrastructure bounds.

Again, if Hamas was concerned about civilian casualties it would not hide arms inside hospitals and mosques, it would not build rocket sites in residential neighborhoods, it would evacuate areas around municipal and government buildings.

There is no peaceful solution. Israel has bent over backwards in the pursuit of peace: it has withdrawn from land it won through force of arms, evicting its own people for the sake of foreigners; it has engaged in talks and cease-fires for years, limited its retaliation to expensive and less reliable precision strikes. There are only two options:
The Palestinians must spontaneously wrest all power and influence from the violent, extremist elements of its people.
Israel must inflict enough suffering to destroy the will of the Palestinian people, to make them beg unconditionally for peace. They must be broken and recast as a democratic, non-militaristic society.

At 12/31/08 05:53 PM, Nylo wrote: Devoted service to the agenda of only Israel or Palestine is death wish for the world to burn.

No, not really. The destruction of the Palestinian people would lead to no long term consequences because the Arab states lack the capability to do anything about it. Israel will nuke any country that invades, and any organized reprisal on US forces or interests in the region would be handily defeated (the US public would support a defensive war). Neither would these countries attempt to end oil exports since they depend on the revenue for their economies. Plus, we would probably confiscate the billions of dollars in US treasury bonds that oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia possess.

The jihadist movement possess no real power. It only exists because the West is too weak to cause civilians to suffer even if it means quashing unconditional hatred and militancy.

At 12/30/08 12:59 AM, Tancrisism wrote: You think that all of the nations that joined in the attack on Iraq did it because of a legitimate fear of Iraq's power? It seems more likely that some of the nations who only put a few soldiers in did it more out of respect/fear for the US than anything else.

I'd say their aid was mostly a gesture of approval or support for the action, as well as a means to encourage good relations. Possibly the will to appear cooperative and friendly in regards to other dealings (like sending a thank you note after a job interview) was involved, but that would depend on the country. Also, firms from those countries might be more likely to get postwar development contracts, but I only put that out there because I remember companies from France and Germany were passed over.

At 12/30/08 12:59 AM, Tancrisism wrote: But you acknowledge that this is still so much more than we had about Iraq, right? We knew they had an unfriendly dictator who years prior had treated the Kurds cruelly with his brother. We had economic sanctions on them, and they knew that if they did any misbehavior at all they would receive a very strong attack, stronger than the one in the 90's.

The list I made pales in comparison to a WMD program and official connections to an established anti-American terrorist group (as opposed to one that targets Israel exclusively). The WMD program, by the way, basically takes armed conflict off the table, should it be developed enough. Those weapons would certainly be used to protect a regime, and the results would not be pretty, even if they could only be targeted against US soldiers. The American public decried US involvement in Mogadishu because of 20 dead soldiers, what do you think hundreds of wretching, suffering, or dying servicemen after a chemical or biological attack would do to US efforts?

At 12/30/08 12:59 AM, Tancrisism wrote: ... you automatically assumed he mentioned it because of being brainwashed by such a pundit and specifically and only about the fact that the attackers in 9/11 were Saudi (as is Osama bin Laden). You seem very defensive about it (enough to say to shut up about it), why?

I know it was in one of Moore's books because a person I knew and respected was reading it. I don't know what he advocated based on that, but the implication is obvious and ties in so well with Bush hatred. I am not aware that the Saudi aspects were ever considered in the major media so I'm assuming that it would take a "pundit" like Moore to keep the issue alive in a niche audience. The rest was because I'm grumpy.

Very simple motivations, really. 9/11 shifted the traditional perspective on what was considered a threat, and part of that entailed treating existing threats more aggressively and being proactive in preventing new ones. Saddam had many things going against him; a history of uncooperation regarding the cease-fire conditions, ranging from feet-dragging to outright refusals involving weapons inspections; a history of connections and support for various terrorist groups, including ties with Al-Queda, and generally being domestically despised.

If the US wanted to replace a Middle-Eastern regime with one more favorable to its goals, Iraq was the best choice. Did Iraq's WMD program and support for terrorism pose an immediate threat? Probably not. Would it given time? The US and the 30-some other nations thought so, and the chance to set up a long-term ally provided an additional incentive.

At 12/29/08 08:30 PM, Tancrisism wrote: I don't buy too much into the tale that Bush did it because of a personal vendetta started by his father, but if someone actually has something to back that claim up it might be interesting.

There will never be anything to back it up until Bush comes out and says so. That sort of thing would not be in any official document or memo, and the time for a witness to say as much and have any credibility is passed.

At 12/29/08 09:23 PM, marchohare wrote: That's what was used to sell it, but if it had been the primary motive they'd have had to whack Saudi Arabia. At least that would have made some sense.

It's been about 7 and a half years since 9/11, 7 or so since Moore and other losers pointed out that the hijackers were Saudi, and yet people still repeat it like some sacred end-all code phrase without adding anything to the argument. Yes, the hijackers were Saudi, we all understand! We're just waiting for you to mention the other 95% of the argument of why the US should have made war with Saudi Arabia.
And before you start, let us say that we know the country has an anti-American/Semitic education system, we know the leaders are more or less dictators, we know there are probably some royal cousins who donate money to suspect Islamic charities, we know all of it. It isn't enough. So just put up or shut up about 9/11 and the Saudis, already.

At 12/28/08 04:01 PM, Tancrisism wrote: The main problem is that this airstrike and further activities in the region is exactly what Hamas wanted by firing the rockets into Israel.

This classic terrorist strategy works well only until a point. Inevitably kill civilians in airstrikes and people become outraged and proudly support Hamas and terrorism. But only so long as they are spared any real suffering.
Look at the "Sunni Revolution" in Iraq. Sunni extremist groups and clerics supported Al-Queda and others in the beginning because they believed doing so would improve their situation (more political influence, weakening of Shiite factions). After a few years and hundreds of suicide bombings later, it became clear that not only did the Americans not back down and offer support, but the Shiites actually became stronger, with stronger numbers in government and with militias supported by Iran and in some cases the US. It didn't matter how many errant US bombs fell or how many Sunnis were slaughtered by militia death squads. In the end, the Sunnis chose to cooperate.

Hamas is a grassroots organization with popular support, and its military capabilities aren't built upon factories and technology but people and cheap weapons. The average Palestinian is not going to appreciate the fact that Israel spends lots of money on precision weaponry, he will only be angry at what he will always view as injustice and aggression. The only way to defeat Hamas is to make the Palestinians suffer so greatly that they themselves will abandon Hamas and the pride that inspires them to fight. Life itself will become the most important thing to them; rhetoric about the Holy Land, martrydom, and roadblocks will be forgotten.

At 12/15/08 10:28 PM, Alphabit wrote: This proves that Iraq has become a democracy... This shoe been thrown is at him is perhaps George Bush's biggest accomplishment - it proves that he has in fact given this nation freedom of speech - people are no longer scared to express their views.

Too bad the "Arab world" is so oblivious to it, though. This guy has become a hero in the Middle East. It's stupefying to read the supporting comments from people interviewed in Syria, Egypt, parts of Iraq. I've always believed that there are an equivalent number of ignorant morons everywhere you go, regardless of the country, but this stuff makes me wonder...

At 12/15/08 03:26 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Immigration is no other thing than the expansion of free trade; instead of goods being exchanged, labor is. The answer to both question is the same: Could the US live without the rest of the world? Could the US live without immigration?Probably, but it would be much poorer if it did. However, as the US has not used the advantages of free labor markets fully, the loss wouldn't be so big. The US is losing economic efficiency NOW because of its restricted market.

Not quite; illegal immigrants thrive because of the tightening unskilled labor market in the US and because of their lower wage preferences. The percentage of educated Americans keeps growing, and they don't want to do shit jobs for meager pay. At the same time, illegal immigrants are not accustomed to anywhere near the amount of income an unskilled worker makes in the United States, so they do not hesitate to work for peanuts.
In theory, this works out well for the US, since there would be lower prices on labor-intensive goods. Unfortunately, there is a huge adverse selection problem when it comes to government services. Low-income families (i.e. illegal immigrants) living in high density neighborhoods will need the most government services (hospitals, police stations, welfare and medicare, state children's health insurance funds) yet are the least able to provide for them. That leaves everyone else with more taxes to pay and/or degradation of common goods due to the rapid population increase. I personally find it hard to believe that the money US citizens save on fruit or housekeeping services will outweigh the infrastructure demands.

One solution would be to literally make them second-class citizens and deprive them of most government services by mandating that they live in designated communities. If they don't like it they can return to their native countries.

At 12/12/08 08:39 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed :"nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

I don't know about anyone else, but this is some pretty heavy shit to me.

I can't believe that this isn't already a standing agreement. If someone nukes Israel, I can't imagine any US response other than a nuclear strike. It's inconceiveable that we would stop at anything less.

That Obama would announce this agreement is basically a white flag to the Iranians, because it shows he is willing to consider a situation where Iran would have nuclear weapons. He can't very well make this pledge and claim that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. It's a "game-changer," as he put it, a clear loss of relative American power in the region, and Obama can flail about impotently with his disciplined, tough diplomacy as long as he wants for what it will acheive.

At 12/11/08 12:13 AM, marchohare wrote: Why do I think that? Because the PNAC called for a "New Pearl Harbor" many months in advance of 9/11. Because a plane made it into one of the most tightly-wrapped control zones in the country and struck the Pentagon! Because we then turned around and attacked the wrong country.

I fail to see how the PNAC comment makes any difference. The sentiment is understandable given the group's goals. Are you implying that PNAC knew about 9/11 beforehand? How did it find out? Who told the group? How was secrecy maintained over the course of several months?

Regarding the Pentagon, the 9/11 commission report (pgs 9-10) states that the Secret Service was warned by Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that a likely hijacked plane was heading towards the Washington Area, possibly towards the White House. This was at 9:34 with flight 77 positioned about 35 miles away from the Pentagon. The plane then turned to hit the Pentagon and did so at 9:37. I can't imagine there was anything that could have been done to prevent the attack in such an incredibly short period of time. What is it that you think happened?

At 12/11/08 12:13 AM, marchohare wrote: No grand conspiracy. No technobabble about Building 7 or the melting point of structural steel or the temperature of burning jet fuel. No tinfoil hat stuff. Just plain old garden-variety common sense, which obviously flies out the window for a lot of folks when they're staring right at the bald-faced fact that their own government has betrayed them.

The most convincing and long-lasting falsehoods are those that seem to be obvious or common sense. Rotting meat spontaneously produces maggots. Animals always inherit 50% of the traits from each parent. God only makes bad things happen to bad people, and God will intervene to save the just and innocent. I'm sorry, but your "common sense" just isn't enough to settle the issue.

At 12/11/08 12:13 AM, marchohare wrote: In short, there's no point in debating you because you and I don't even live in the same universe.

You're ending this now? After all your talk about being enlightened, about how everyone else is a sheep and out of touch with reality, you balk at meeting my simple questions head on? I don't understand. Are you afraid to match wits with someone more than half your age (if your profile is correct)? Please, let's continue this discussion.

At 12/10/08 09:30 PM, marchohare wrote: One civilian death. I'm only applying the same standard we would apply if the shoe was on the other foot.

By that standard, then, all conceiveable military action would fall under the category of terrorism since it is literally impossible to avoid civilian casualties in any significant campaign. Is this what you believe?

At 12/10/08 09:30 PM, marchohare wrote: Now that's the funniest thing I've read this week... maybe this month: you advocate bombing civilians over faulty (or outright faked) intelligence--citizens of a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack we were ostensibly retaliating against--and you have the unmitigated gall to claim that my thinking lacks subtlety.

You haven't answered my question. Given the evidence of WMD production, possession, and support of terrorism, do you think military action was reasonable?

You have a screw loose, Adrshepard. You are a certifiable Neo-Con whackjob.

You have a choice to make. You can either continue with these juvenile remarks or follow through with this debate. You were very vocal in your opinions about America, war, and in your assertions of how bright you are compared to many other people. You were asking for a challenge and I have made it. Let's see where it goes.

At 12/10/08 06:33 PM, marchohare wrote: You don't launch an attack like Shock and Awe on a city like Baghdad and then go, "Oops! Gee, we went and did a silly thing! Those 6,616 civilian deaths were just 'unintended collateral civilian casualties.' "

I see. So at what point do you differentiate between collateral damage and deliberate negligence? In other words, would 1,000 civilian deaths be acceptable to you? 500? When the Iraqis place AA sites on top of residential buildings and military barracks in populated communities, what should the US have done?

At 12/10/08 06:33 PM, marchohare wrote: Helloooo in there... (knocks on Adrshepard's skull). THERE WERE NO WMD's! IRAQ HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH 9/11. STOP REPEATING BUSH ADMINISTRATION TALKING POINTS THAT WERE ALREADY DISCREDITED SEVERAL YEARS AGO!

Your thinking lacks subtlety. Just because we discovered there were no WMDs after the invasion does not mean it was unreasonable to believe they existed before 2003. The intelligence, as it was presented at the highest levels of US authority, showed Iraq was attempting to restart its nuclear program, producing chemical weapons, and aiding terrorist networks in the region. So I ask you again, does this information not merit military action?

At 12/10/08 05:55 PM, marchohare wrote: No. I'm defining terrorism by the bombing of innocent civilians, and for the record, I'd include Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden as well. Terrorism is a fine old tradition in these here United States.

So you are including the intentional bombing of civilians in the same category as unintended collateral civilian casualties?

At 12/10/08 05:01 PM, adrshepard wrote:

It should never have happened in the first place. Iraq did not attack us.

So the covert development of WMDs and support for terrorism does not merit military action to stop it?

I forgot to paste this in the previous post.

At 12/10/08 02:02 PM, Elfer wrote: You're right, everyone who uses drugs in a recreational manner has a problem. While we're at it, why don't we stop food addicts from wasting their time with things like cooking, by outlawing all food other than a bland nutrient mush? Why not stop travel addicts from wasting their time and money by outlawing non-business travel?

Forgive me if I don't equate two longtime desires of humanity (to eat a variety of tasty food and to explore one's surroundings) to fifty years of a bunch of people smoking or sniffing whatever to make themselves feel good.

If you want a real answer, food and cooking has a story and consequences behind it, describing how a people lived and ate each day, and of the nutrional results of their diet. Exploring new foods and cooking techniques also leads to information about health and remedies that don't fit exactly within the strict scientific study of the FDA. The benefits of exploring new places are obvious. But when you get high, you gain and learn nothing. It's a pointless exercise of wasted time.

At 12/10/08 02:45 PM, marchohare wrote: In any event, since you're so appalled by the deaths of innocent people, how do you feel about the approximately 6,616 civilian deaths (due) to the actions of US-led forces during the "invasion phase," including the Shock and Awe bombing campaign on Baghdad? Those were innocent people in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks, by the way.

So you are defining terrorism by violence alone? How about you take some proactive steps to enlightening us, since we have no idea what we are talking about.

How should the invasion have been carried out, according to you? Let's get to the bottom of either how you think government should function or how you define terrorism, since that's where my previous question will undoubtedly lead.

At 12/9/08 11:06 PM, RWT wrote: You're so right! It's not like you learned in the second grade not to play dirty just because your opponent does...

So you are claiming that the tactics of the US and of terrorists are exactly the same?

At 12/9/08 11:06 PM, RWT wrote: Saddam Hussein slaughtered Kurds using American Weapons. The Afghanis have American Weapons. U.S. foreign policy in the region involved giving guns to people who don't care for the soviets.

Saddam Hussein slaughtered Kurds using weaponized nerve gas, the original non-weaponized form coming from the US years earlier in order to prevent a complete takeover by radical Islam from Iran. The Afghanis basically recieved some money, bombmaking training, and stinger missles to hamper the Soviet invasion and occupation. I fail to see why you brought this up.

Osama Bin Ladin was the son of a lesser wife of a rich Saudi magnate. He became dissillusioned with his country when he realized that all of the wealth in his country was owned by Oil Barons. The people were still impoverished, but the occasional rich oil shiek was a capitalist millionare. And who are the oil baron's best friends? American capitalists; the owners of refineries, car companies, investors. All Americans.
That's the story. Bin Ladin is a radical terrorist, yes, but he is doing this for his people, to free them from American interests.

So, in order to stop the Saudi government's oppression of its people, he figured the most rational and effective solution was not to go after the Saudis, but to target civilians from the most powerful country in the world so that all 300 million of them would stop importing their most vital resource from their third biggest oil import partner. That way, the Saudi Arabian government would lose about 15-20% of its export market and so come crashing down, giving rise to a prosperous and faithful Islamic republic.
Yeah, that's TOTALLY the way it is. That delusional hatred or religious fanaticism would have any bearing at all is simply too implausible.

Why don't you explain to me how 9/11 was intended to help the Saudi Arabian people?